Yesterday we posted a blog piece about an interesting article in the latest edition of The Spectator, Rod Liddle: Sanna Marin and lies about female leadership. I couldn’t resist posting some comments on the issue of ‘women on boards’, including the following:

I know of no profession in which women as a class have proven themselves as competent as men as a class. Why should politics be any different? In business, we’ve know for over a decade of a causal link between increasing gender diversity on boards, and corporate financial decline (evidence on our website, numerous longitudinal studies).

Yet over all that time businesses have fallen over themselves to appoint more women to their boards on the pretext (in plain English, a LIE) that there’s a business case for doing so, and continue to do so.

There is no business case, only an ideological (feminist) case. If we wish to increase the proportion of groups of people in order to increase diversity, why stop at women? The number of Latvian FTSE100 directors with one leg is scandalously low.

Mike Buchanan

CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS

Marylyn Ford replied:

You are such a substandard individual in the thinking department, that your campaign fails from the off.

I replied:

Marylyn, thanks for your laughable attempt at shaming, the invariable last resort of women with no substantive points to make. I challenge you to refute the evidence on the website of the Campaign for Merit in Business website, namely the six major longitudinal studies demonstrating a clear causal link between increasing gender diversity on boards, and financial decline.

None of the leading proponents of ‘more women on boards’ I’ve challenged over 10+ years (e.g. Helena Morrissey, founder of the 30% Club in 2010) has been able to do so, but with your fearsome intellect I’m sure it won’t prove difficult. No rush, take your time… maybe you think financial decline is a price worth paying for more women on boards, in which case, I invite you to say as much.

She replied:

No. You can make figures mean what ever you want, as I did.

I replied:

What a pathetic response – after two days’ consideration! No, Marylyn, you can NOT make figures mean what you want, in the real world. Is it your ‘lived experience’ that 1+1 = 3?

She replied:

Statistically speaking obviously, I am beginning to think your amazing ability in the boardroom is a but (sic) overrated.

I replied:

Marylyn, I honestly didn’t think your comments could get any sillier, but you continue to surprise me.

Glancing along the comments stream, I noticed this from ‘Colonel Kurtz’:

Historically you have 27% more likely chance of war under female leadership. I rest my case femoid idiots.

Ms Ford replied (you couldn’t make this s*** up):

That means statistucally (sic), men are twice as likely to start a war , you pillock.

I replied to her:

Marylyn, you appear not to understand even basic mathematics, so perhaps not a good idea to challenge people on mathematics, and especially not a good idea to be abusive towards them? If a woman is 1.5m tall, and a man is 27% taller, he’ll be 1.905m high. Do you see how that works?

If Ms Ford deigns to reply, I’ll update this post.

—————————-

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a PayPal, credit card or debit card donation to Mike Buchanan’s company, MRA International Ltd., through the link below. Thank you.

If you’d like to support Mike Buchanan personally, you can do so via his Patreon account or through Bitcoin, his account address is 1EfWxqDAtgJDCR3tVpvVj4fXSuUu4S9WJf . Thank you.