CONSERVATIVES ANNOUNCE EVEN MORE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

Last week we discussed how the Conservatives planned to deny nine billion pounds in pensions to men, instead giving the money to women six years younger. Many may have dismissed such plans to increase the state pensions gap as an oversight and not in keeping with the party's attitudes to men, despite previous warnings such a proposal to use all women short-lists. Today, the party launches it's "equalities" manifesto which brings such debate to an end, confirming the party fully supports sex discrimination against men.

The manifesto pushes so called "positive" discrimination on long lists for directorships, requiring half the candidates to be women. Clearly there is a a lack of females on the boards of bigger companies, but you can't just magic quality professionals out of thin air by introducing quotas.

Exactly the same issue occurs in politics, but the lack of female MPs mostly reflects the lack of suitable  candidates rather than any sort of discrimination. Just as in the workplace women put in less hours and less years into politics and so don't have the experience to make it to the top. As a result, when a party such as Labour introduces all women short-lists, the candidates are of often of low quality and we just tend to see the same faces applying for seat after seat.

The Conservatives top down approach to equality in business is similarly doomed to failure and it's incredibly unfair that half the candidates considered for such key roles will not have be there on merit. Similarly, any females recruited using such methods will be stigmatised for the rest of their careers if they've benefited from such sexism and the economic consequences of reducing the quality of staff running our most important companies doesn't' bare thinking about.

To some, the above policy may not appear too offensive when viewed in isolation, but it's the broader context of the Tory proposals and their other ideas which are worrying. Particularly objectionable is the insistence that any company who's board is less than 30% female will have to describe in their annual report how they will be rectifying the situation. The Conservatives are effectively deeming predominantly male run companies to be sexist automatically, regardless of the evidence. The policy isn't just misguided either - there's a lack of balance too. If the objective is equal outcomes for both sexes the legislation should also surely cover female dominated institutions who are hostile to men and set a 30% minimum of either sex?

Ultimately the only way to create more balance in boardrooms is to change attitudes in society. Unfairness in family law and parental leave forces men to spend more time in the workplace than women, until men have the option of having a family life then they're bound to dominate in the workplace. Similarly, the way for women to gain respect and be able to compete successfully is for them to be treated as equals in all aspects of life, be it in the workplace, the home or in the justice system.

I'm sure you've often heard people complain about how little there is to choose between some of the polices and the antics of Labour and the Conservatives. Today's announcement gives such a sentiment even more credence. Lets at least be thankful the party has had the decency to admit to their position before polling day.

John Kimble

Comments

[jon david]

What would have happened in ww2 if the powers that were , at that time ,decreed that half the pilots in the "battle of britain" had to be female?, The germans would have laughed their way to victory.At the moment we have the "luxury " of peace time,god help us if we have to fight a war with the feminists in control

[Jenny]

Jon, are you suggesting women can't fly aircraft or use weapons? I agree that, with certain feminists in control, the country wouldn't stand a chance but most of us are quite capable of doing our bit.

[Andrew]

This is undemocratic. Shareholders elect their directors and that should be all that matters. If women feel unrepresented on the board, then they should buy shares and use their voting powers to make a difference (they account for 65% of the country's wealth so there's no excuse, other than excessive consumption, for them not to do so).

I certainly have no intention of being forced to vote in extra directors earning extra salaries in the companies I hold shares just to meet some government quota and I certainly don't intend to put good people out of work to meet a quota either.

The trouble is the older generation are desperate to see equality in their lifetime. Equality, for the under-40s, already exists.