Earlier this afternoon I received an email with a government press release. I’ve taken a few comments from some of the people mentioned in it.
Idiot #1
Business Secretary Sajid Javid said:
The employment rate for women has never been higher and there are now more women on FTSE boards than ever before. But we need to go further, particularly when it comes to paving the way to the executive level. Companies cannot afford to miss out on the skills and talent of the whole population if the UK is going to compete in a fast-moving global economy. This is not just about diversity for diversity’s sake, but about improving performance and productivity. [My emphasis.]
It surely doesn’t need stating again, does it, that no evidence exists of a causal link between increasing the proportion of women on boards, and financial performance improvement? The only causal link we’re aware of – from longitudinal studies – is with financial performance decline.
For the past four years Campaign for Merit in Business has been challenging the government and in particular Javid’s department – DBIS – to provide evidence for the causal link he and others keep implying. No evidence has ever been provided for the link, and Samantha Beckett, a senior civil servant in the department, recently won a ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award over the issue – here.
Idiot #2
Women and Equalities Minister Nicky Morgan said:
Having more women on FTSE boards allows companies to benefit from the enormous wealth of talent these women offer, and means these women can act as powerful role models for the next generation of girls.
We have come a long way but we must do more to make sure women everywhere are able to fulfil their potential. I want to see an end to all male boards anywhere on the FTSE 350, and much more progress at the executive layer where we know progress has been slowest to date. [My emphasis.]
Progress has been slowest to date in that area, because companies still appoint into the executive layer on the basis of merit, and one element of merit is a strong work ethic. Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000) perfectly explains why ‘progress has been slowest to date’ in this area.
Idiot #3
Sir Philip Hampton said:
I am delighted to take on Lord Davies’s great work [bullying FTSE100 companies into ‘voluntarily’ appointing more women to their boards, with the threat of legislated gender quotas] around Women on Boards and I want to now turn my attention to the FTSE 350. I will focus on improving representation in the executive layer of companies, as well as maintaining the momentum on boards. This means looking at the talent pipeline for female executives and emerging non-executive directors to ensure we create opportunities and the right conditions for women to succeed. [What would those ‘right conditions’ be, other than yet more anti-male discrimination?]
Idiot #4
Corporate Governance Minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe, said:
As a former director of several companies, I know that business needs to do more to ensure that female talent is harnessed and not wasted. Encouraging progress has been made, but we now need to focus on the talent pipeline of capable women to ensure they can see a viable way ahead into leadership positions.
This will ultimately make companies more innovative and more competitive; a leadership team made up of men and women better represents the employee and customer base giving firms an edge in the products and services they offer. [My emphasis.]
A leadership team made up of men and women with a wide spectrum of IQs would also ‘better represent the employee and customer base’, so would logically also ‘give firms an edge in the products and services they offer’, given this line of thinking. It’s outrageous, how few genuinely stupid people there are on FTSE350 boards.
William,women do underperform in STEMS as compared to men. Whether it is by choice or not is debatable, but the fact remains they perform less well than men. (There is no doubt biology is involved,, but that’s beside the point right now ). Our companies need those who perform well in those subjects- regardless of the reason why..
‘Everyone knows women underperform in STEM subjects … ‘
Women perform as well as they wish to.
Idiot Number 1:
‘Companies cannot afford to miss out on the skills and talent of the whole population … ‘
1) How like Nanny to consider those she regards as her children less competent than she to decide what is and is not in their best interests.
2) What profitable business can afford a Personnel Department (Remember those?) large enough to assess applications from ‘the whole population’ and what deregulated mail carrier has the ability to carry the applications?
3) Surely it is for those who live or die, commercially, by their decisions to decide how they might survive and prosper?
4) ‘The fast moving global economy’ is what, and is fast moving where?
Idiot Number 2:
1) ‘Having more women on FTSE boards allows companies to benefit from the enormous wealth of talent these women offer … ‘.
Eating carrots gives one the vision of night fighter pilots.
2) ‘In December 2014 Morgan was advised by Sir Andrew Dilnot, chair of the UK Statistics Authority, that she should “reconsider her comments” and possibly “take advice” about misleading information given to Parliament.‘ (1)
3) ‘Writing in The Times … Sir Anthony Seldon, headmaster of Wellington College and a key Gove ally, claimed that Morgan knew little about schools and had accepted the education portfolio despite an initial lack of interest.‘ (1)
4) ‘Between 2014 and 2015, Morgan received donations of £35,000 from hedge fund manager Jonathan Wood, £5,000 from JCB Research and £15,000 from a private donor.[31] The Guardian also highlighted donations from Paul Mercer, a Conservative activist, former councillor and constituent who runs a local radio campaign on Morgan’s behalf. Mercer is known to have worked for a “secretive corporate security firm” with a history of infiltrating and spying on political campaigners and according to The Guardian, he passed confidential legal advice to their opponents.‘ (1)
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_Morgan_%28politician%29
Idiot Number 3:
1) ‘This means looking at the talent pipeline for female executives … ‘
Who would argue that we need to look at that?
2) ‘ … and emerging non-executive directors … ‘
What does that mean? Non executive directors and directrices do not ’emerge’; they are dug out and offered the role, for a reason, often dodgy.
3) ‘ … to ensure we create opportunities and the right conditions for women to succeed.’
If women are the equal of men why can they not succeed in the same conditions as men? Why must ‘opportunities and the right conditions’ be created for them?
4) ‘I will focus on improving representation in the executive layer of companies … ‘
When has it been the function of ‘the executive layer of companies’ to represent any one individual, or group of the same, in the company?
Idiot Number 4:
1) ‘ … I know that business needs to do more to ensure that female talent is harnessed … ‘
Talent can be exploited; it cannot be ‘harnessed’. Only slaves and beasts of burden can be harnessed.
2) ‘ … we now need to focus on the talent pipeline … ‘
The ‘Talent Pipeline’? Haven’t we read that before? Must be a ‘meme’.
3) ‘ … capable women to ensure they can see a viable way ahead … ‘
Those who cannot see a viable way ahead are not capable and should give up.
4) ‘This will ultimately make companies more innovative and more competitive … ‘
Within five years or else? Sounds like Uncle Joe after breakfast.
5) ‘ … a leadership team made up of men and women better represents the employee and customer base … ‘
What if the firm makes or sells model railways, motorcycles, plumbing tools or bricklaying tools, for example? What then?
6) … giving firms an edge in the products and services they offer.‘
What if the firm makes or sells model railways, motorcycles … ?
What is outrageous is how many genuinely stupid people get themselves into power or positions of influence.
everyone knows that women are less work centered than men. Everyone knows women underperform in STEM subjects, so crucial for IT technology, advanced engineering, the very forces that are driving 21st. century economies. Those propagating more women leaders are clearly deluding themselves, as well as the greater public. Our economies can ill afford Marxist propaganda being force fed to the business world at a time when advanced engineering and design are more important than ever to succeed on the world stage. Those people propagating more female leaders are indeed idiots.