Some kind reader sent over a scan of an article in the London Evening Standard (it is not online frustratingly) of an interview with leading fund manager Helena Morrissey and supporter of the 30% club, a group wanting to end meritocracy on British boards - that is, stopping men from being able to compete on an equal basis as women for places on company boards (see here).
There is a telling piece in the article:
"One of our members [of the 30 per cent club] said to us yesterday that they'd just instructed their first vote against a director because the board isn't diverse enough"
This means that a man was not voted against because he lacked the talent, skill, experience and ability to be on the board of whatever the company was - he was voted against solely because he was a man. The first clear example of the sexism against men stalking Britain's boardrooms.
And of course, it was not just him who was sexually discriminated against, it also meant that his (if he has them) wife, girlfriend/partner, daughter, sister and mother were as they would have all benefited from his success in being placed on the board. But this is being done in their name.
This has struck the first blow against mertiocracy in Britain's boardroom - it is proof that the effect of the 30% rule and those who advocate it is not really about equality it is about the end of meritocracy, for special treatment for women and for sexism against men.
Helena Morriseey is proud of the fact that she has nine children and so she should be, but what would be her view if one of her sons was blocked from being on a board simply because he was her son and not her daughter.
Posted by Skimmington
Thanks for raising this, it's a topic I'm really focusing on at the moment.
Proponents of 'improved' gender balance in the boardroom claim a positive link between increased female representation in the boardrom and corporate performance. It's a lie. Any apparent link is down to the best female executives being drawn to the most profitable i.e. highest paying firms (a modern echo of the historic reality that women are drawn to rich and powerful men).
There's only one study showing a causal link - a Uni of Michigan study into the impact of increasing female directors in Norway over 2004-8 - and the link was shown to be NEGATIVE.
In Dec 2010 the CBI issuds a report 'Room at the Top', asserting a positive link. Of the 14 people cited as supporting the conclusions 9 were women, and the 5 men (all chairmen of major British companies) were already on record as supporting more women on the board.
On my blog I have laid down challenges to a number of individuals on this matter include David Cameron (on record as being willing to introduce quotas if firms don't increase the number of women 'voluntarily'), John Cridland (Director General of the CBI), and Ilene Lang (President/CEO of Catalyst, an American feminist campaigning group). Not a shred of evidence has been forthcoming. We all know why.
This is nothing more nor less than an assault on the only wealth creating sector, for ideological reasons, supported by spineless and relentlessly pro-women and anti-men politicians (e.g. Cameron) for political advantage.
Mike Buchanan
http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com
Posted by: Mike Buchanan | Saturday, 25 February 2012 at 07:15
Assuming the 'board' in question was in a business rather in a public sector organisation, the move was, of course, positive discrimination and therefore illegal. I hope the individual excluded from the position sues their arses off.
Not that the small issue of illegality will stop these damnable people from operating 'below the radar' as usual.
30% is of course just a staging post to 50% and ultimately all-female boards. For a glimpse into what women will do given half a chance, I recommend Steve Moxon's 'The Woman Racket' for its coverage of women's strong preference to hire women rather than men, regardless of merit.
Mike Buchanan
http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com
Posted by: Mike Buchanan | Sunday, 26 February 2012 at 06:34