‘Diversity’: A buzzword that sounds good but is often misused

Diversity is another one of those buzzwords du jour – and apparently the cure for all that ails. Except there are a few problems.

Firstly, diversity is often not – in practice – extended to embrace many within the community. I’m thinking here, for example, of white men, non-feminists, and those with a conservative or right-of-centre political persuasion.

In this blog post for example I examined the example of a debate organised by the Diversity Council of Australia. In that example, diversity meant assembling two debating panels that represented or supported a range of feminist perspectives.

A couple of other examples are provided in these other blog posts:

A couple of queries concerning ‘Balancing the future: The Australian Public Service gender equality strategy 2016-19’

We’ve set a target of having 10% of our senior management team female by 2017

Martin Daubney in the UK has drawn attention to this July 2013 article about part-time workers in Britain, which includes the following extract:

“For years, the term “part-time” has been synonymous with junior responsibility and low pay. And yet the pool of people who want to work in this way is incredibly diverse.”

Martin points out that only 12% of those featured on the ‘Power Part-time Top 50’ list mentioned in the article are male. Not so diverse in that regard, huh?

Elsewhere Martin provides the example of the organisation ‘CMI Women’, within whose web site we see an exhortation for gender diversity which starkly contrast with their own board membership (100% female).

Secondly, those who lobby for diversity tend to want to have it imposed by way of gender or racial quotas, selective recruitment, and the like. They do so despite the fact that such measures need not result in measurable improvements to organisational performance or community harmony, and may even be counter-productive in this regard. Indeed they are not averse to exaggerating or otherwise misrepresenting the benefits of diversity.

This aspect is discussed in these blog posts and others:

Less than 50/50 representation does not automatically imply ‘gender bias’
On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas
About what happened in Cologne

Thirdly, those who lobby for diversity fail to acknowledge, let alone analyse and debate, the negative outcomes that arise when achieving becomes the major determining factor when adopting government policy. Indeed, if we look at what is happening in some European countries now, such as greatly increased criminal activity, there is evidence of efforts being made to suppress such information.

See also:

Apple’s diversity VP apologizes for controversial statement at summit this week (14 October 2017)

A memo to Google – firing employees with conservative views is anti-diversity (11 August 2017)

Diversity Authoritarians (17 July 2017) Video

Opinion: Screen Australia’s sexist policies proof it is biased against men, by Mike O’Connor (12 May 2017)

Social Justice is winning (29 March 2017) Video

“Massive immigration and forced assimilation is called genocide when it’s done in Tibet. When it’s done in White countries it’s called “diversity.”” (Source)

College ‘Diversity Council’ Admits to Posting Fake Racist Flyers On Campus (23 March 2017)

Misguided drive for diversity is sending us headlong off a cliff (28 February 2017)

By promoting diversity over fighting ability the Army is alienating its warriors (25 February 2016)

Why Diversity Programs Fail (July-August 2016)

Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

A brief introduction to the ‘Diversity Council Australia’

“Diversity Council Australia is the only independent, not-for-profit workplace diversity advisor to business in Australia. We offer a unique knowledge bank of research, practice and expertise across diversity dimensions developed over 30 years of operation. In partnership with our members, our mission is to:

  • Lead debate on diversity in the public arena;
  • Develop and promote the latest diversity research, thinking and practice; and
  • Deliver innovative diversity practice resources and services to enable our members to drive business improvement.

DCA provides diversity advice and strategy to over 300 member organisations, many of whom are Australia’s business diversity leaders and biggest employers.”

Further information is available at DCA’s web site/Facebook page/Twitter account and ACNC register entry

The most recent annual report shows income of approx. $1.5 million, of which approx. $1.1 million was generated by annual subscriptions. Although DCA does not appear to the recipient of government grants like so many other feminist organisations, many member organisations are public sector agencies.

The staff at Diversity Council Australia comprise ten caucasians, nine of whom are female … but everyone has different hairstyles. Diversity? Tick. The DCA’s “employee benefits expense” in 2015 totaled $871,798, with “key management personnel” compensation paid or payable being $203,873.

(Just what is it with these feminist organisations who think that gender parity should only be imposed on other peoples businesses or agencies? The Workplace Gender Equality Agency is a classic example, with plenty more here.)

Background to the DCA’s Annual Diversity Debate 2016

Imagine an organisation called the ‘Alternative Diversity Council Australia‘ which organised a debate entitled ‘Is engaging women the game-changer for gender equality?‘ (It sounds a bit condescending to even pose the question, doesn’t it?) Oh, and the organisers decided not to have any feminists on either team. In case their views were a little too, you know, confronting.

Scarcely imaginable right? The organisers of such an event would be torn to shreds in both the mainstream and social media. It just wouldn’t fly.

But thanks to the arrogance and hypocrisy of contemporary feminism all one needs to do is flip genders and everything is magically ok.

And so on the 8 November 2016 Diversity Council Australia convened their Annual Diversity Debate on the topic of engaging men in gender equality.

Let’s consider the definition of ‘diversity‘, which includes:

  1. The state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness: diversity of opinion
  2. Variety; multiformity
  3. The inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, colour, religion, socio-economic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.
  4. A point of difference

And so who were the panelists, and just how diverse a group were they? The panelists were Kate Jenkins, Pip Marlow, Stephen Barrow, Clementine Ford, Benjamin Law, and Michael Flood. At first glance similar demographics … but let’s focus on belief systems with regards to gender issues.

Were there any men’s rights activists (‘MRA’) amongst them? Anti-feminists/non-feminists/egalitarians? Nope, they are all self-professed feminists (or perhaps pro-feminist/white knight in the case of Stephen Barrow). Further, at least three of the panellists are virulently anti-MRA.

benlawDoes the panel represent a diversity of perspectives on the issue of gender? Of course it doesn’t. As supporters of the same ideology the panelists represent quite the opposite – they represent a ‘uniformity’ of views.

Further, the invitation to the event sets the parameters of the debate firmly within the realm of feminist-approved topics:

“Progress has been made towards achieving gender equality in the workplace, yet significant issues still remain – such as the persistent gender pay gap, the serious under-representation of women in leadership, and the widespread prevalence of discrimination (for both women and men) when it comes to pregnancy, parental leave or a return to work.”

Now let’s consider the definition of ‘engage‘ (as in ‘engage with men’), which is to:

  1. To occupy the attention or efforts of (men)
  2. To secure for aid, employment, use, etc
  3. To attract and hold fast
  4. To attract or please
  5. To bind as by pledge, promise, contract or oath; make liable
  6. To betroth
  7. To bring troops into conflict

This sounds rather like drafting men into servitude, so perhaps ‘engage’ is not the best term to use here. And indeed, the model of engagement proposed by the ‘yes’ team was very much a one-sided affair. This came as no surprise given the participation of Kate Jenkins, whose predecessor at the Australian Human Rights Commission was Elizabeth Broderick and chief architect of the ‘Champions of Change‘ program.

This component of the feminist vision translates into recruiting men in positions of authority as tools to enhance female privilege through the use of shaming and appeals to chivalry. It does not involve any reciprocal responsibility to listen to, understand, or render assistance to men.

I’d prefer to think that engagement, in the context of the DCA debate, would entail a two-way symbiotic relationship between men and women, with each group listening to/asking questions – and then committing to help one another.

On the contrary, the typical model of feminist interaction when men dare mention issues that detrimentally affect them, is to tell them to STFU and stop being whiny man-babies.

The following posts discuss and provide examples as to how feminists typically engage with men in the real world:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
Regarding online harassment
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
“I wonder if we men would have behaved the same seeing women at a summit for men?”
White Ribbon Campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!
Regarding the notion of ‘Ironic Misandry’

Put simply, feminists could care less about helping men, excepting perhaps a few exceptions where benefits to men were collateral spin-offs from the primary goal of enhancing the relative position of women.

And let’s not forget the sponsors of the debate: NAB, Optus, Johnson & Johnson, BAE Systems and Boardroom Media. I look forward to seeing these organisations also support causes that benefit the welfare of men and boys, for example the ‘One in Three‘ organisation.

The outcome of the DCA’s 2016 debate

The following image says it all. Audience members left the event even more biased against men than they were when they arrived. That’s some negative outcome. A result that’s hardly likely to accelerate progress re: mutual respect and gender equality, is it? But to the DCA this was a “great night“.

dcadebate

Here are some of the tweets that emerged from the floor of the debate:

dcadebate1dcadebate2

dcadebate3dcadebate4

Was there some way in which DCA might have redeemed this otherwise farcical event? Aside from having a diverse and representative discussion panel? There was one other thing. Readers might have read elsewhere in this blog about the film The Red Pill, and the problems currently being experienced regarding finding screening venues.

Why couldn’t the Diversity Council have organised a screening of The Red Pill as either an adjunct to the debate, or as a subsequent event. What better gesture via which the Council establish credibility, in the broader (non-feminist) community, than to arrange a screening of this notable film concerning issues affecting men and boys.

If the council truly believed in diversity, in gender equality, and in engaging with men … then they should go ahead and walk the walk … engage.

But they don’t. And they won’t. And the gender debate – and the community – is all the poorer as a result.

When banks divert from banking to social engineering

Mid-way through 2015 the ANZ bank in Australia opted to join the chorus of ‘enlightened’ corporate entities banging the feminist drum at their customers expense.

The bank’s first step was to release the ANZ Women’s Report: ‘Barriers to Achieving Financial Gender Equity’. And no, in case you wondered, there is no corresponding ANZ Men’s Report. There never is. This despite the fact that, in this instance, many men also “fall behind and retire in poverty“.

“For many years people have been trying to tackle issues around gender equality by asking men and women to change. This approach will not work.

What we need to do is to look at the systems that are holding women back from achieving their full potential. And when we’re talking about systems we’re referring to structures and practices in our schools, workplaces, businesses and community that reinforce biases. These systems need to be redesigned so they are fairer for women, recognise the unique strengths and talents of both genders, and equally support the success of both genders.”

So apparently we can’t ask women to change what they’re doing, even if it directly contributes to their predicament. Nope, we have to change the “systems“.

Since then various related ‘initiatives’ have emerged such as ideologically correct videos (below), and a decision to contribute an additional $500 into the superannuation accounts of female staff based on the feminist misinterpretation of the gender paygap.

Being unhappy about witnessing this regressive move I contacted the bank, firstly via Twitter and then email, to express my concern and dissatisfaction. Our subsequent email exchange is shown below:

“Thanks for getting in touch with us to provide feedback relating to ANZ Women’s Initiative that was launched on the 29 July 2015. This kind of feedback is valuable to us because it helps us better understand what’s important to our customers. 

ANZ is committed to being a socially responsible bank, and we believe that from time to time we have a responsibility to take action on important social issues. We understand that some of our customers and employees hold different views on our decision to make additional superannuation contributions for our female employees, and we respect your right to hold this view.

Research shows that in Australia, women retire with 47% less superannuation than men – and 1 in 5 women yet to retire has no superannuation at all. This is driven by a range of complex factors.  However, on average women retire earlier and live longer than men, so the importance of having enough superannuation is even greater for women.

ANZ has weighed up all of these factors and is comfortable that the payment to female staff is a positive step that will help women to overcome the gap.

ANZ takes the issue of discrimination very seriously and in developing these new measures considered the relevant Sex Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination Laws. The payment is permitted under Australia’s anti-discrimination laws because it is a “special measure” designed to address this super gap that our research clearly demonstrates between men and women.

Our action has the full support of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner advised ANZ that, in her view, ANZ’s initiative is consistent with the objects of the Federal Sex Discrimination Act. ANZ has also been given a 10 year exemption from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Commission (because NSW is the only State where the anti-discrimination legislation does not contain a “special measures” exception).

 ANZ views this initiative as a positive step to support women and help close this gap in superannuation savings so they have greater security in retirement. While you may disagree, we do appreciate you taking the time to provide us with this feedback.”

I wrote back to the bank:

“Thank you for your prompt response. I disagree with your rationale for promoting feminist policies at the expense of your customers and shareholders. My original position on this matter remains unchanged and unresolved.

1. Whether women retire with less or nil Super is a reflection of their personal choice. Choice about what type of training they undertook, choice about what field of work in which they seek employment, choice about how much overtime they do, choice about whether they take time out during their careers.

2. Those women who choose to get married often then have the choice to be stay at home mum’s (and be supported by their partner) or not. Most women enter marriage with less assets then their partners, or in debt. Most divorces are initiated by women, who then tend to walk away often with in excess of 50% of their partners assets, even when those assests were accumulated prior to the marriage.

3. The wage gap is a much debunked misrepresentation of the true situation in relation to income received by men and women and cannot be validly used to ‘prove’ gender discrimination. That issue is discussed in this article – http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/the-myth-of-wage-disparity/

4. Women live longer in large part because disproportionately more is spent on research into womens health and on the treatment of womens health issues, and because men are more likely employed in relatively more stressful and higher risk occupations (one reason why they are, on average, in receipt of higher incomes)

In summary for every disadvantage suffered by women there are benefits or advantages, as is the case for men. Therefore it is inappropriate and discriminatory to single out women for incentives/rewards for real or imagined discrimination faced by them, but at the same time to ignore issues that negatively impact on men.

The fact that the additional payment to women by ANZ was ratified by the former AHRC sex-discrimination commissioner is more a reflection of her partiality and gender bias rather than vindication that ANZ’s policy was truly a fair and appropriate one. That issue is discussed in this article – http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/

And the bank duly wrote back:

“Thank you for your email and further feedback which has been noted. As your concern is regarding a policy decision made by ANZ, the Customer Advocate will not become involved. It is not the role of the Customer Advocate to review or change a matter that relates to ANZ’s setting of staff benefits. If you wish to escalate your concern you may contact the Financial Ombudsman Service.”

Whereupon I said:

“Thank you for your prompt response but my concerns with ANZ’s decision to re-orientate itself in lockstep with feminism philosophy runs deeper than simply the $500 payment to female staff. In the absence of other options I will now investigate/consider the appropriateness of lodging a submission with the Financial Ombudsman Service”

It’s not just banks doing this … it’s not just about financial benefits … and the implications extend beyond staff of the relevant company

Since forever many companies have wanted to do good in their local communities, or at least be seen to do good. Until recently they were content to do things like sponsor a local football team or make a donation to a charity. Although the worthy causes were usually unrelated to the business of the company, these were small benign gestures that troubled no-one. How quickly that has changed in the space of just a few years.

Now were are seeing companies expend large amounts of money and time on causes that can be polarising and contentious. The implications of adopting (often judgmental) public positions on these issues or causes can flow through to staff, customers, shareholders and then out into the broader community.

With the superannuation issue there was a tangible benefit for staff, well, for some staff. As this trends builds, and with these other issues, there are both carrots and sticks being employed. The sticks can include shunning/shaming or even dismissal for staff who don’t embrace the company line and engage in wrong-think.

Workplace intimidation silences lawyers critical of same-sex marriage (30 August 2017)

“Solicitors have complained of being intimidated at their workplaces if they publicly criticise the endorsement of same-sex marriage by their professional association and law firms … He said it was wrong for the Law Society and the Bar Association to express any view on same-sex marriage because it was peripheral to the central concerns of both organisations.”

The market for virtue: why companies like Qantas are campaigning for marriage equality (28 August 2017)

How James Damore went from Google employee to right-wing Internet hero (12 August 2017)

See also:

Westpac under fire over same sex marriage email (5 October 2017)

“Westpac has been forced to defend an email from a staff networking group telling fellow employees to vote Yes in the same-sex marriage survey, erroneously claiming that doing so would prevent 3000 suicides a year”

What? No, Women Shouldn’t Be Paid More Super Than Men, by Corrine Barraclough (26 May 2017)

Why we’re backing women, by Lorraine Murphy, National Australia Bank (6 March 2017)

Young women can budget in the short term but struggle with long-term investments: survey (14 February 2017) A very gynocentric article, but which does support the value of addressing financial literacy/skill to enhance post-retirement financial status.

Banks preaching about gender wage gap myth, by Rita Panahi (28 October 2016)

Female tech leadership to get $1m boost (4 October 2016)

Shareholders slam CBA’s ‘diversity’ bonus (27 September 2016) Australia

It would seem that National Australia Bank has now jumped on the bandwagon (August/September 2016) See below and here. Perhaps trying to regain their feminist cachet after an earlier #fail

nab

I see that both ANZ and NAB have directors on the board of Diversity Council Australia. DCA are, amongst other things, the organisers of this feminist talk-fest planned for November 2016.

CEOs say women will be promoted and men should get used to it or leave (24 August 2016)

Radical proposal to force bosses to fork out extra super for women (3 June 2016)

Angus Aitken out at Bell Potter after ANZ Michelle Jablko email (26 May 2016) with further background to this episode in this interview with Kate Jenkins

Tweet from Paul Edwards, Group GM Corporate Communications at ANZ. So now it’s forbidden to criticise women in the finance sector (misogyny!). In the words of Miranda Devine: “Where is the sexism? You know what damages women? Cheap virtue signalling PC BS like this”

The Superannuation Gender Gap (21 April 2016) Australia. Related reddit discussion thread here

Australian bank buys into the gender pay gap rubbish (9 April 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here. Note the observation about the Bank disabling comments on their Facebook page and cleansing earlier comments – as feminists are wont to do.

Australian bank ANZs new ad. Pushing the wage gap myth on children (March 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

‘Blatant sexism’: ANZ’s #equalfuture campaign cleared of discriminating against men (4 September 2015)

ANZ pays women extra super (31 August 2015) A very long-running discussion in the Whirlpool online forum

ANZ bank giving female employees an extra $500 to correct gender pay gap (August 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

ANZ Bank launches a super deal for female employees (29 July 2015)

ANZ pushes its new gender diversity measures in national campaign (29 July 2015)

This article suggests that women might be better off considering the impact of financial literacy on their retirement savings, rather than complaining about the wage gap.

We’ve set a target of having 10% of our senior management team female by 2017

Yes it’s a bold plan but we think we can do it. We’re a cool little organisation and, I tell you, we are 100% into gender equality.

Only 10% women by 2017? Feminists would be collectively choking on their breakfast cereal at this point, and reaching towards their IPads ready to unleash a storm on social media. Well, they can relax and busy themselves attending to their cats’ litter tray instead.

That’s because the statement in this particular organisation’s web site actually specifies having 10% of the senior management team *male* by 2017. I’ve seen this objective noted in their web site for quite a while now. Three years? Clearly progress has been slow. Perhaps they’re having trouble finding men whose judgement is sufficiently impaired to sign off on media releases asserting that the gender wage gap is proof-positive of an oppressive male hegemony across corporate Australia.

The organisation I’m talking about is the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA). The WGEA is an Australian Government statutory agency created by the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. The Agency is charged with promoting and improving gender equality in Australian workplaces. The relevant minister is Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, Minister for Employment, Minister for Women, etc.

We taxpayers support WGEA to the tune of $5 million each year, and in return they tell us about stuff that’s really important to feminists like the ‘gender pay gap’. They even have a separate website in which to bang that particular drum.

I could divert at this point to talk about how the gender wage gap, in the context it’s presented to us by feminists, is complete hokum that has been de-bunked more times than I’ve had hot breakfasts. Here’s a recent effort courtesy of Forbes. But never mind, at least the ‘pay gap’ gives gender studies students and feminist journos something to write about other than their own angst-ridden lives.

There are currently no men in the senior management team at WGEA. I don’t think that there ever has been. The last annual report (refer page 100) tells us that only two out of twenty-nine staff were men (see the lovely staff pic). (Postscript September 2016: According to this article, WGEA now employ five men … break out the party pies, they achieved their quota!)

I don’t understand why they only shot for 10% men though. Because if 10% is the feminist version of equality, then that certainly changes a few things. And what’s with waiting until now (2017)? Surely if members of the current management team were real feminists they would jump at the opportunity to facilitate greater diversity at WGEA by resigning to make way for new blood. And then imagine the challenge of subsequently breaking new ground in a field dominated by men, like fishing or mining for example. But then if it’s just about the money I guess I could understand …

Now back to where I started, with the genders reversed. If it was 95% men working in this particular agency, don’t you think that the feminist lobby would scream their heads off? That it wouldn’t be on, or close to, the front page of the paper? Maybe even have its own hashtag? And that the government wouldn’t find a way to immediately address the serious gender imbalance?

Don’t bother answering. I think none of us are in any doubt about the answer to that hypothetical.

Feminism. Hypocrisy. Got it

(Postscript January 2017: Philip Davies MP recounts his experience dealing with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK)

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways

Australian taxpayer-funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)

Recruitment bias favours hiring female staff

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas

Organisations with women at the helm perform better (so they say)

I was reading through an article the other day and noted the phrase: “All the research suggests that businesses perform better if you have a critical mass of women in the senior ranks. It’s right that businesses focus on that” (Source)

I’ve seen the same or very similar comments advanced elsewhere, generally in the absence of citation of actual research. It brings to mind another much-used feminist mantra: “The overwhelming majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women”. It’s like, well it’s sounds right, it’s been stated by some well-known feminist/s, thus we should accept it and just move on.

So moving right along … I watched a segment on the morning TV show ‘Sunrise’ this morning, as it had been promoted as being about how companies that had women at the helm performed better. Allegedly proved via the results of a “new international study”. They also mentioned that the tired old issue of the gender pay gap would also be addressed.

The Sunrise Facebook page (17 August 2014) states:

“The companies that perform best financially have the greatest numbers of women in leadership roles, according to one of the most comprehensive workplace studies ever undertaken.

The study looked at 2,000 organisations in 48 countries, but is not the first to suggest that women leaders boost a company’s financial performance. The study showed that women only hold 28% of leadership positions, despite the fact that lucrative companies had a higher percentage of women leaders.

In Australia, men are paid on average 17.1% more than women to do the same job. Less than 5% of our top CEO’s are women. Why do you think this is the case?”

The discussion was between the ‘Sunrise’ hosts and two women:  Margie Warrell and Nicki Gilmour. Very early on in the segment Nicki stated “well I [haven’t seen] didn’t do the study and I’ve [only] seen it briefly“. Huh? I thought it was central to the segment?

I went hunting for details of this research, and then posted queries on Twitter (to Sunrise and Margie Warrell) and the Sunrise Facebook page seeking a URL for the study in question. Nothing, so I emailed the Sunrise production team to ask the same question on 18 August 2014. Nil response … ever … you can draw your own conclusions from that.

margie4

So I guess I have to ask … just how desperate were the ‘Sunrise’ production team to milk the gender issue that they chose to run with this story? Is it really good enough (in the media’s eyes) to just assert something without producing any tangible evidence to support it?

I am aware of some related research within the web site of Mike Buchanan, but the studies he cited found the opposite relationship to be true (i.e. bringing women into senior roles sometimes had a negative impact on company performance). See for example:

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/our-public-challenges-of-high-profile-proponents-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-boardrooms/

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/a-remarkable-statement-by-a-leading-proponent-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-the-boardroom/

I am also aware of the 2011 study undertaken by the Reibey Institute in Australia. That survey is different, however, in that it only looked at the difference in performance between companies that have no women directors versus those that have at least one. That also seems to have been the case with another study undertaken by Credit Suisse (see also actual study here).

Clearly many variables need to be identified and accounted for when attempting business comparisons such as these, other than simply ‘Performance’ versus the presence of a woman on the board. Even were this hurdle competently addressed in the above-mentioned studies, it could not be said that the presence of additional women on the board (and/or in senior management, as the case may be) would result in further incremental improvements in performance. This is an important point bearing in mind that those who raise this topic often do so in the context of talking-up the concept of gender quotas.

The Business Council of Australia 2013 report entitled ‘Increasing the Number of Women in Senior Executive Positions‘ also mentions the Catalyst Group survey in the USA, but this doesn’t appear to track relative business performance. Mike Buchanan also mentions the Catalyst Group study in one of his blog posts where he states:

“In all the reports we’ve analysed – including those from the feminist campaign group Catalyst, to which Ms Sunderland refers – it’s made crystal clear that correlation [between business performance and having women on the board] isn’t evidence of causation, and can’t even be taken to imply it.”

Additionally, a double-standard seems to apply when the CEO/politician in question fails to perform. When it’s a woman, a defence is often mounted on the basis that criticism was due to sexism. Julia Gillard and Hillary Clinton are two classic examples. In the case of men, such a claim would be extremely unusual.

I don’t have an axe to grind about whether board members or senior staff are male or female, only that the decision should be based on qualifications, skills and experience. And if they subsequently fail to perform then they should be shown the door. Again, regardless of gender.

What I do object to is the media, or others in a position to influence or educate, presenting as reality some belief or another that has yet to be substantiated via fact-based analysis. That, and having the credibility bar set at widely differing levels depending on the extent to which the particular view being espoused falls within current-day parameters of political correctness.

In closing, I remain unaware of any suitably rigorous studies that make a sufficiently strong case that more women in a business = stronger performance. Should a reader know of some then please advise accordingly.

See also:

High-ranked women less generous than men when sharing a reward with their collaborators (10 October 2017)

Christine Nixon’s cries of sexism deflect from her shortcomings (27 July 2017)

Manchester International Festival: Putting women in control of the world (5 July 2017) No reader’s comment permitted, but some discussion on Twitter with a very similar article running in The Guardian.

Diane Abbott – the woman Corbyn trusts to protect Britain from terrorists – embarrasses herself in new car crash interview (6 June 2017) UK

Though Outnumbered, Female CEOs Earn More Than Male Chiefs (31 May 2017)

More on Eman Sharobeem’s rorting (17 May 2017)

Community health boss ‘rorted’ holiday, jewellery, gym (1 May 2017) Australia

“A contender for the NSW Australian of the Year awards rorted more than half a million dollars in public funds while she was in charge of two publicly funded community health organisations, a corruption inquiry has been told.”

Women hate being CEOs – and they suck at it (8 April 2017) with a follow-up article entitled ‘Do men make better CEO’s than women?’ here.

The blokey culture of finance means we’re missing out on a mountain of ability (18 January 2017) Australia needs a female Treasurer because some qualified women feel hard done by (as do some men), because a woman would do the job better, and well … because.

Arlene Foster describes calls for resignation as ‘misogynistic’ (4 January 2017) Northern Ireland

Argentina ex-leader Cristina Fernandez charged in corruption case (27 December 2016)

#Girlboss author Sophia Amoruso speaks about Nasty Gal’s bankruptcy and her resignation (11 November 2016)

Hillary only thanks women and girls in her concession speech. Then she wonders why so many men don’t vote for her. Feminists & SJWs seem unable to learn anything (10 November 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

‘I deeply apologise to the nation’: South Korean president Park Geun-hye (4 November 2016) and then
South Korea’s ousted President ‘sorry,’ leaves mansion (12 March 2017)

Watch incompetent “Chief Human Capital CEO” Emerson from DHS incapable of answering specific questions (30 October 2016)

Female trade minister walks out of trade talks crying. Male opposition MP says we should send an adult. Outrage and sexism (29 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

Ex-Yahoo employee sues Marisa Mayer claiming she led an illegal purge of male employees (8 October 2016)

More women on Qld boards could deliver $87 million: Deloitte report (5 October 2016) Research available here, together with details of the Queensland Government’s ‘Women on Boards’ program (Currently under review)

Want to boost your share price? Hire more women (27 September 2016) I have yet to locate and review the second Credit Suisse study mentioned in this article, so won’t comment further at this juncture.

Feminists seek funding for start-up business but fail to impress potential investors (19 September 2016) Video

Do women prefer female bosses? (18 September 2016)

UK female MP shadow foreign secretary claims “sexism” because she was asked a basic question she did not know the answer to (12 September 2016) Reddit discussion thread with linked article

Disgraced CEO’s heartless response to suicide (9 September 2016)

Women in startups the new disruptors (1 September 2016) Ill-disciplined feminist bandwagon-jumping from a journal that should know better.

CEOs say women will be promoted and men should get used to it or leave (24 August 2016)

What your shopping habits say about you (4 August 2016) Australia. Women spend more and worry less so that makes them “better financial managers“. Say what? OK so this is about household rather than corporate spending, but it nevertheless promotes a sexist gendered view in relation to potential business acumen. Research summary can be found here

Is There A Double Standard When Female CEOs In Tech Stumble? (3 August 2016) Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Saatchi boss Kevin Roberts disciplined over gender comments (31 July 2016) UK. Thou shalt not question the feminist narrative. See related Reddit discussion thread here and related video here. Kevin subsequently resigned his post.

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes goes from $5.9 billion to nothing (17 July 2016)

Yahoo’s False Prophet: How Marissa Mayer Failed to Turn the Company Around (24 May 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here. Subsequent article on this issue here (19 July 2016) Marissa responds to criticism by lamenting “gender charged reporting“. Like if she was a he, then criticism would evaporate? As if.

“When Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer bought Tumblr for a cool $US1 billion in 2013, she pledged ‘not to screw it up.’ (Three) years later, it’s become apparent that Yahoo has failed on that promise.”

The Intense Scrutiny on Marissa Mayer Shows Women Leaders Get Way More Flak Than Men (3 May 2016) But we’re not allowed to criticize female leaders when they fail to live up to expectations because that’s misogyny

Gender Diversity Doesn’t Boost Corporate Profits (6 April 2016)

When Passionate Advocates Meet Research on Diversity, Does the Honest Broker Stand a Chance? (9 March 2016)

What happens when you invest in companies with women at the top (8 March 2016) Australia

ASX 500 companies that employ more women make more profit, study shows (8 March 2016) “Top publicly listed companies that employ more women on their boards make more money, a new study shows, boosting the case for regulations that require big business to set policies to increase gender diversity.”

The relevant study can be found here. Firstly, the study doesn’t find that more women=more profit. The study finds that companies with one or more women on their board generally perform better than companies with no women on their board. Secondly, such a finding in no way supports a case for mandatory quotas, as this could (amongst other things) result in women being appointed with lesser skills than is the case at present.

More women on boards means more money for companies: study (8 March 2016) Australia

Cherie Blair’s healthcare business shuts to leave investors with huge losses (5 March 2016)

Why Women-Led Businesses Outperform Their Peers (18 February 2016) USA. Many studies cited but none provide compelling evidence that the actions of female CEO result in improved business performance. See also readers comments.

More females on boards means more profits for S&P/ASX 200 companies (17 February 2016) Australia

Marissa Mayer’s kingdom is crumbling around her (4 January 2016)

Meet Your Saviours & Protectors (4 November 2015) Video concerning the recent unelected appointment of women to positions of power in European countries and the EU

Meet The She-E-Os: Why Do So Many Female Tech CEOs Turn Out to Be Disappointments or Frauds? (27 October 2015)

Google boss: ‘Volkswagen scandal wouldn’t have happened if more women were in charge’ (8 October 2015) with related reddit mensrights discussion thread here

Elizabeth Broderick reveals why Australia must consider quotas to get more women in senior roles (5 September 2015)

Sex in the boardroom (6 June 2015)

Women at the top is better for business and the environment (28 April 2015)

The ‘All blokes’ versus the ‘Gender Diverse’. Guess which boards perform better? (23 April 2015) Australia

Companies with more female executives make more money (23 April 2015) ABC’s The Drum (video)

Yes, we need more women on government boards. Here’s why (31 March 2015) Some good readers comments

Daniel Andrews, board quotas and the myth of ‘insufficient women’ (31 March 2015)

Gender diversity improving at banks, but very slowly (12 March 2015) Australia

Cameron’s naive crusade for boardroom gender diversity will only hurt Britain (9 March 2015)

A Better World, Run by Women (6 March 2015)

6 reasons your business needs female leadership (19 January 2015)

Risky business: why we shouldn’t stereotype female board directors (3 December 2014)

Diversity fatigue: why business still struggles to close the gender gap (25 November 2014) Includes links to further research on the subject which I will review in due course

Gail Kelly’s Margaret Thatcher-style executive team (25 November 2014) The bank with the least number of women directly reporting to the chief executive is the only bank with a woman at the top

The Changing of the Boards: The Impact on Firm Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation (16 June 2012)

“In 2003, a new law required that 40 percent of Norwegian firms’ directors be women – at the time only nine percent of directors were women. We use the pre-quota cross-sectional variation in female board representation to instrument for exogenous changes to corporate boards following the quota. We find that the constraint imposed by the quota caused a significant drop in the stock price at the announcement of the law and a large decline in Tobin’s Q over the following years, consistent with the idea that firms choose boards to maximize value. The quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance, consistent with less capable boards.”

Experts: In most cases, accused embezzlers are women (5 March 2012)

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

Less than 50/50 representation does not automatically imply ‘gender bias’

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas

Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways