‘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:

Commissars in our universities (27 April 2019)

The ever-growing ‘diversity industry’ is overtaking higher education (25 April 2019) USA

Want viewpoint diversity on campus? Here’s how (16 April 2019)

Finally some robust research into whether ‘Diversity Training’ actually works – Unfortunately it’s not very promising (10 April 2019)

Ex-diversity officer smacked with massive fine after giving husband fellowship (15 March 2019) USA

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)

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

The Australian Government recently launched ‘Balancing the Future: Australian Public Service Gender Equality Strategy 2016–19‘.

The Strategy “sets out actions for driving high performance and boosting productivity in the Australian Public Service (APS). It is a strategy for harnessing the best talent, changing cultures, and challenging assumptions that hold us back.”

On Wednesday 11 May 2016 I sent the following email to diversity@apsc.gov.au:

“The statement below extracted from your report only provides one supporting reference, a dead hyperlink to a WGEA paper. The WGEA is notable as an organisation that employs almost no men (despite espousing the need for gender balance), and for its strong feminist bias.

“A growing body of research shows that:

  1. organisations with the most gender equality outperform those with the least,
  2. increasing the proportion of women in leadership roles is associated with better financial performance, and
  3. gender equality in teams promotes an environment where innovation can flourish.”

Are you able to provide any concrete examples of this “growing body of research” you speak of? I am not aware of any studies that show anything more than some correlation between, for example, business performance and the presence of senior female managers. Refer http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/companies-with-women-at-the-helm-perform-better-afeministsaidso/

The other factor that I would appreciate some feedback about is the practical meaning of “gender equality” in the report. It seems that the meaning used only considers the female side of the equation, that is gender equality exists at any point beyond 50% female participation.

Therefore, for example, an organisation comprising 75% female staff is portrayed as gender equal, despite the fact that from a male perspective the situation is not equal at all. Moreover it would seem that even when more than 50% staff overall are female, unless the most well-remunerated ranks of the organisation are also 50%+ female, then there is still not gender equality. This certainly does give the impression that the report itself suffers from a significant degree of gender bias.

I look forward to receiving your response at your earliest convenience. Thank you”

Now, dear readers, let’s sit back with a cup of tea and see what (if anything) they come back with.

Check back later as I’ll post any response here.

On 17 May 2016 I received the following response:

“Thank you for your email and interest in the APS Gender Equality Strategy. The link you referred to has been updated and further links added.

In relation to your other query, the Strategy seeks to address gender imbalance across the APS, at all classifications and in all agencies—no matter the direction of any current imbalance. Agencies are expected to set stretch targets for gender equality across all leadership levels and business areas in the context of their existing gender distribution. The Strategy also emphasises increased access to flexible work arrangements for all employees, regardless of gender.

I hope this information is useful to you.

Diversity Policy – Employment policy Group
Australian Public Service Commission”

A number of the additional references cited are already listed in my blog post referred to earlier, and are not considered as providing conclusive evidence that female management was the *cause* of improved organisational performance. I look forward to reviewing the additional references provided, of which I was previously unaware.

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)

(Postscript November 2018: An extra $8 million to encourage employers to report on gender equity)

A response (to Robert Brockway) from the WGEA (3 March 2019)

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

The people speak: Feminist journalist hears but won’t listen

You might be interested in taking a look at this article entitled ‘A gender-equality wish list for 2016’, and the readers comments that follow.

The article was written by feminist journalist Wendy Tuohy. I think I first introduced Wendy in this blog post. I would probably place her in the second tier of Australian feminist journalists, were they ranked according to stridency and degree of bigotry. In other words she is a self-professed feminist with narrow and stereotypical views on gender matters, but by no means barking mad. Like many feminists she enjoys cats and blocking dissenting voices.

tuohy2

 

The issues that Wendy flagged in her latest article included domestic violence, the gender pay gap, the proportion of women in management positions, the number of women on current affairs show panels, female economic empowerment, and women playing football. No surprises there.

Ah, but then Wendy got a surprise. For with but two exceptions, her readers tore her article to shreds. Quite coherently, and with facts.

Some brief extracts from Wendy’s readers:

“We have a media dominated by women’s voices focusing (as most of you do) exclusively on women’s issues. It’s simply mind blowing to hear you say women have no voice. The only time men can speak with any confidence they won’t be crucified by the media is when they speak in total support of anything concerning the welfare of women”

“Sure, you have two journos dedicated to women’s issues and none dedicated to men’s. Maybe get a third female journo talking about female issues as a step closer to equality? Maybe four or five and we are there?”

“Yes we need to do more about DV mostly adopting an honest approach, recognizing that it is not a gendered crime and producing all the stats not just part of them.

The figure of 78 women has been front and centre but broken down 28 were not DV related and 10 were killed by women so men killed 40 women and 4 children (DV related). Women killed 19 men and 10 women plus after removing clear cases of mental problems they killed 11 children.”

The final numbers, men (in a DV situation) killed 44 and women killed 40. So let us be honest next year and tackle the problem in an unbiased manner.”

True to feminist form Wendy did not respond to her critics here, let alone attempt a rebuttal of the points they raised. But elsewhere, in her Twitter account, she implored a supporter to avoid reading the comments in the Herald-Sun, of which she was haughtily dismissive …

tuohy2

Yes, whatever you do fellow feminists, don’t expose yourselves to the nasty views of the unbelievers.

Hold true to your feelz, and to our precious narrative, special snowflakes!

Don’t learn, don’t understand, don’t engage or collaborate, and don’t empathise. We’ll show them.

 

But then the fear and loathing with which feminists and SJW view the dark threat that constitutes the reader’s comments section is now well-recognised. (PS: And in fact Wendy has since closed her blog because of her disdain for comments contributed by her readers)

Australian MRA Mark Dent also posted a copy of his reader’s comment on Wendy’s Facebook page. The subsequent exchange between Mark and Wendy is quite interesting, and I’ve reproduced it below in the event that it disappears from Facebook.

“Hi Mark, my brief is to focus on issues impacting women, kids and families — all of which are affected by the issues I touched on in my article titled ‘A few small changes could make a big difference’ in The Herald Sun last Sunday, and just up on my blog. Of course I care about issues impacting men: I’ve written lots about male adolescent mental health and better supporting boys in education and not ‘writing off’ teen boys (of which I have two lovely examples). But I stick to my primary brief in most of my work: issues primarily impacting women. Here is one pay gap link, reporting ABS statistics. Thanks for reading, Wendy”

(Mark replies) “Thanks for responding (as you always do) but you have proved my point. The media are not stupid. They know women devour stories about their victimhood or heroism. This is why our papers and TVs are saturated with females talking about issues which affect women.

Please point out one male journalist whose brief is to write exclusively about issues which are confronting men and placing them at a disadvantage. It seems there are many women who do just what you do so how do you then complain about a lack of female voices in the media?

Just because your brief is to focus on women’s issues does not make your statements about gender inequality any more true or acceptable.

I have presented a range of issues which impact upon men in a far more devastating way than a mythical wage gap based on gender or a purported lack of a voice (when the opposite is true). Men’s issues are about death, injury, the right to see their own children, huge disparity in sentencing for the same crime when compared to women and their total invisibility when it comes to being victims of family violence. There are weighty issues which lead to homelessness and suicide yet when was the last time any paper devoted a segment to the horrendous obstacles and injustices confronting men?”

(Wendy replies) “Mark, my former editor, Simon Pristel called me in and commissioned me to write a blog/do a round focused on women. I don’t know what his thinking was or why he chose me to do it (I was a general features writer before that for a couple of decades) but it has been going now for about 5 years so I guess it must be considered to be serving a market that perhaps we weren’t offering as much for previously.”

Mark: “Wendy-I am not attacking you for writing about women’s issues. I am questioning why this should almost always lead to anguished diatribes on all of the inequities women supposedly face and creating the very false narrative which says men are somehow privileged over women in our society.

As I have said repeatedly (and supported with facts) it is men who suffer the biggest obstacles and disadvantages as a result of their gender.

I challenged you to point out one male journalist who devotes his whole job to writing about issues concerning men and you didn’t respond. The very fact that male editors ignore men’s issues backs up my comments about politicians (male and female) devoting all of their time, energy and funding to women’s issues.

Men simply don’t matter in our world.”

Wendy: “Men matter Mark. Perhaps the ones who need attention the most don’t get it, I can only say as the daughter of a non ‘Alpha’ male and wife of same and mother of same X 2 that maybe it’s harder for the non typically macho men. That is a guess. Shoot me down if you want to.”

Mark: I don’t want to shoot you down. You seem to be a lovely person. It is just so upsetting to be fed this line of female suffering and inequality day after day in our media. You seem to accept my arguments with regard to male disadvantage but unlike female issues-there is literally no focus on these issues.

As I said-women have a voice-men have no voice in our mainstream media. You say men matter but whenever you write about family violence you focus exclusively on female victims, just as Rosie Batty does. How can this be justified?

I am passionate about the very real gender empathy gap in our society and will continue to voice my concerns whenever the opportunity arises. Here’s something I wrote about the gender empathy gap.

Thanks again for engaging in such a civilized manner.”

Wendy: “Mark, thank you for treating me civilly, unlike some men on Twitter, one of whom reacted to my column like this:”

abuse

Mark: That kind of language is totally unacceptable, Wendy. This type of abuse is often a result of deep frustration over the issues I have tried to outline in our discussion. Some men respond to the sense of injustice and helplessness (men have no voice in the public forum) with angry attacks.

I am not justifying or excusing it, but I have been abused in a most vile manner by feminists for simply presenting the arguments I have written to you. One group of feminists actually set up a website and posted pics of me and wrote lies about me being a hater of women and girls and someone who excuses DV. They said they wanted me sacked from my job as a teacher. They literally made stuff up. All because I asked why we don’t give the same attention and compassion to the suffering of males.

I know Andrew Bolt gets death threats and abuse every day. My point? Many female journalists hold up online abuse as some kind of male problem carried out by neanderthals who hate women. Men receive vile, abuse from women too. Clem Ford is a mainstream journalist who uses far worse language than that directed at you and as I said-there are no repercussions. Yet she gets a man sacked from his job for abusing her.

Perhaps if men had an opportunity to be heard in the media rather than be mocked or branded a woman hater for expressing concern for males there would be less anger and frustration in the community. You have never had to endure an almost daily assault on your gender for nigh on forty years, Wendy.

Anyway, I thank you again for engaging and allowing me an opportunity to express my views.”

A civil exchange without a trace of rancour, but you would have observed that neither here nor in her tweet does the journalist actually address the *facts* raised by readers.

Whilst Wendy Tuohy may well be a “lovely person”, both her work to date and her comments on this occasion, lend further support to the existence of a feminist mind-set characterised by:

  • a belief that the views of those speaking up for the rights of men and boys are unworthy of even the most superficial consideration
  • a belief that anyone who challenges feminist beliefs and/or champions the rights of men/boys is not only anti-feminist but also a misogynist
  • a lack of awareness of the male perspective on many, if not most, gender-related matters

How shall we ever move beyond this impasse and engage in an informed and constructive manner whilst feminists remain blissfully unaware of the male perspective, and react with visceral disgust and censorship upon encountering the views of non-feminists?

Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that in just a few year’s time western society will look back on 3rd wave feminism in a similar manner to that which we now look back on the hippie era? As something akin to a Dagwood Dog … a sliver of substance embalmed in a voluminous barf-inducing batter of self-indulgence and narcissism.

dagwood dog

Happy New Year.

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:

Mike Buchanan’s letter to the Economics Editor of The Times newspaper (10 July 2019) UK

Kids Company founder urges judge to spare her the ‘stress’ of a court case over the charity’s financial meltdown after taking £42m of public money (14 May 2019)

Janice Fiamengo‏ tells – More lies about women in leadership positions, how much BETTER they are than men: new patents go through roof, profits skyrocket! Will the nonsense never end? I have many meta-studies to prove it just ain’t so. (17 April 2019)

NSW Police arrest company director in NAB fraud scandal investigation (1 March 2019)

Sacked ABC boss Michelle Guthrie rated as ‘arrogant’ and ‘in bottom 4 per cent for integrity’ (29 November 2018)

Charity defrauder also faked cancer (14 November 2018)

Michelle Guthrie departs from role as Managing Director of the ABC (24 September 2018) “Despite offering praise for some of Ms Guthrie’s work, Mr Milne said her leadership style was a factor in the board’s decision.” And then Michelle claimed to have been “touched inappropriately” by former Chairman.

British companies need a ‘genuine culture change’ to get rid of alpha males and promote women, say ministers (13 September 2018)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Tries To Blame Sexism For People Calling Out Her Claims (11 August 2018) So if we can acknowledge that appointments are made on the basis of gender, then so too it appears that appointees can subsequently dismiss criticism on the basis of it just being sexism.

‘We took turns being her slave’: MP’s staff (21 July 2018)

Female leaders are valued over males – Evidence from almost 100 studies (21 October 2017) Reddit discussion thread and linked academic paper

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) … and the outcome in September 2018

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

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

Although forcing 50/50 representation via quotas or similar discriminatory measures does …

There is no disputing the fact that relatively few women occupy places in the upper echelons of the corporate world. Feminist ‘wisdom’ would have us believe that this is wrong, and this it is a wrong that must be righted – for example via affirmative action measures such as quotas. Feminists tell us that this wrong is indicative of an unfair workplace environment constructed by men for men, which is holding women back from assuming their rightful places at the boardroom table.

Like many others, I have a problem with this simplistic construct. There are many factors, and more significant factors, contributing to gender imbalance in the workplace other than deliberate bias on the part on males at the apex of the hierarchy. Thus questions such as the following, readily spring to mind:

  • Is it necessarily wrong that women are not represented 50/50 on boards and amongst the ranks of CEO’s? (That is, assuming feminists would even settle for 50/50)
  • Exactly what costs and benefits would be associated with achieving 50/50 representation? and who would incur these costs and receive these benefits?
  • To what extent are the low numbers of women in senior ranks simply reflective of what real women actually want (or don’t want), rather it being a situation that has been forced upon them?
  • To the extent that women are being held back in their chosen career paths, for example because of inflexible workplaces, and to what extent do the very same factors also act as constraints on the careers of men?
  • Are women who achieve positions of high standing in the corporate hierarchy more or less likely than men to help women in the lower ranks of their organisations (i.e. champion/mentor versus Queen Bee)
  • Why are concerns *never* raised about the need for diversity in relation to organisations, boards, etc that are overwhelmingly female in composition?

Is it not wrong, and indicative of sexist bias, that all of the emphasis in this debate is about women achieving leadership positions, with no concern expressed in relation to the small numbers of men working in roles like nursing or teaching. And what about roles that are heavily male-dominated, but are dirty and/or dangerous, like collecting garbage, janitorial roles, mining, the military, etc. How come no mention of quotas being imposed there?

Clearly the feminist lobby and their allies in the media are advancing a very imbalanced position. Yet again and again I see articles advancing this position appearing unchallenged – articles like this one – and I know more people need to speak up about feminist hypocrisy and double standards.

This latest article is entitled ‘YWCA conference addresses gender bias in leadership‘. The main point being made is that because only a minority of business or political leadership roles are held by women, then there is clearly pervasive ‘gender bias’.

Before dissecting the article, let’s first look at the definition of the word ‘bias’:

“An inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.”

I would propose that there are many reasons why there might be more men (or more women) in a particular career, or company, or industry, and that gender bias is but one of these. I would propose that in Australia, in most cases gender bias is a relatively minor factor – or does not apply at all. I would further propose that to the extent that gender bias is a significant factor then there would be (and in fact, are) situations where men, as well as women, are disadvantaged.

The article begins with “There is a silence in our society when it comes to the continued gender biases that exist in our workplaces.”

Well if you want to hear real silence then consider the issues I raised a few moments ago:

  • the lack of men working in roles like nursing or teaching, and
  • the lack of women in roles that are poorly paid, dirty and/or dangerous, like collecting garbage, janitorial roles, mining, the military, etc.

Who is speaking up about gender bias in these situations? Certainly not the feminist lobby, an ideology that is purportedly all about equality. I’m not seeing any suggestions of quotas being applied to address these imbalances. But maybe I missed that memo.

The article goes on to state:

Perhaps most alarming is the continuing gender wage gap – women still earn 17.5 per cent less than our male counterparts for the same work, and female graduates can expect to earn $5,000 less per annum than male graduates.

These statistics are real. They demonstrate an attitude and an unconscious gender bias that form a significant barrier to women participating in the workforce.”

Firstly Francis, no, these statistics are not “real”. The kindest descriptor I would offer is ‘misleading’. See my separate posts about the wage gap and about women in the workforce, both of which identify the many contributing variables (other than sex discrimination against women) that lead to the outcomes being considered here.

Secondly, neither the number of women in leadership roles, nor any wage differential that might exist, “demonstrate” bias or a “significant barrier to women participating in the workforce“. Nor do they necessarily even indicate an inequality of opportunity for women.

Take for example, political leadership, where more than 50% of voters are women. Is the author, and others of her ideological inclination, suggesting that women are biased against other women to the extent that election outcomes are heavily influenced.

And then the article asserts that “Workplaces in Australia are not responsive to the needs of women when it comes to balancing both motherhood and their careers.”

Well Francis, don’t you think that one could also say the same thing about men and fatherhood? But then, feminists do have this habit of conveniently overlooking the fact that many of the issues they rail about also negatively impact on men. That being the case, why continue to represent these issues as ammunition in an ‘us versus them’ gender war?

“In Australia, we don’t yet know what a sustained, gender-equal playing field looks like.” but then just a few lines later “The YWCA of Canberra is a supporter of quotas, as they have proven to be successful mechanisms to create a pipeline of young women into leadership roles. Until young women feel empowered to pursue leadership opportunities and have role models to look to, we will continue to be under-represented at the decision-making tables, be they in business, politics, education, or any other sector.”

Aha, so a “level playing field” looks like a place where a group of candidates with superior qualifications and experience are potentially frozen out whilst members of another group are placed in leadership roles … by virtue of having a vagina? It looks like a place where women can only feel “empowered” when assisted by way of privileged intervention (dare I say, bias?). Not infantilising much.

No-one is standing at the head of the queue handing out leadership roles to men. The reality is that anyone who strives for a position of leadership faces significant barriers. It’s not an easy path to take. And then of course there are many men and women who have no interest in taking on a leadership role, or who are simply not prepared to make the necessary compromises in other areas of their lives.

Do some of these hurdles affect proportionately more women more than men? Sure, just as some factors affect proportionately more men than women. Do some women face a proportionately greater barrier in relation to their role as parents than men? Yes, of course. But then there are, for example, women who don’t have children or who have a stay-at-home partner. Just as there are men who are single parents, or married but with a wife who has her own career.

Some of these hurdles to achieving leadership roles are fair and unavoidable, others perhaps less so. Where a hurdle is grossly unfair then by all means address it in an appropriate and targeted manner, but reacting via introducing another unfair barrier (in this case, a gender-based quota) is certainly not my idea of a “level playing-field”.

I would also recommend looking at a web site created by Mike Buchanan called the  ‘Campaign for Merit in Business‘. One of the articles to be found there is http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

Elsewhere Mike states:
“The government continues to bully FTSE100 companies into achieving 25% female representation on their boards by 2015, through the threat of legislated gender quotas. We know from recent reports that the government is planning to threaten the FTSE350 with 50% gender quotas. Because when you’re paddling downstream in a canoe on the Niagara river, and you start to hear the roar of the waterfalls, you should paddle faster towards them, right?

Good luck with trying to find evidence of a causal link between GDITB (Gender diversity in the boardroom) and enhanced financial performance – the oft-cited ‘business case’. I’ve challenged the government, dozens of organisations pressing for this ‘direction of travel’, and hundreds of individual proponents across the developed world – many of them employed in lucrative jobs allied to this insane ‘direction of travel’ – to provide evidence for a causal link.

None has ever done so. The best they can do is misrepresent a number of studies and reports, all of which make it perfectly that there’s no evidence of causal links, nor can causal links even be implied from the statistics. The following are just a few of the prominent / influential proponents of GDITB who’ve failed to meet our public challenges. They include Vince Cable MP. who leads the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills:

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

PS: Readers who might be interested in more of a ‘big picture’ perspective on this issue might like to look at these papers dealing with affirmative action, and the concept of ‘gynocentrism‘.

Other related papers that may be of interest include:

Why Some Women Aren’t Excited About Leadership Positions (17 May 2017)

Jordan Peterson – why few women are in positions of power (3 March 2017) Video

Maybe It’s Time To Redefine What It Means For Women To ‘Have It All’ (21 December 2016)

Richard Marx slams ‘chaotic’ event on flight (21 December 2016) Maybe Korean Air should enforce 50/50 rule for their flight attendants, but of course quotas only ever seem to get applied in relation to under-representation by women.

We need to rethink recruitment for men in primary schools (17 October 2016) Australia. Hold onto your hat! Is this the first ever article in The Conversation providing a positive perspective in relation to supporting men/boys?

Social Work’s Gender Problem (15 September 2016) USA

More men need to be recruited to female-dominated industries, by Libby Lyons, WGEA (14 August 2016)

The Flawed Arguments About Female Discrimination in the Film Industry (3 August 2016)

Melbourne University advertises female-only jobs in bid to remedy gender imbalance in maths (18 May 2016) Related Reddit discussion thread here, and critical response from Janet Bloomfield below:

Positive discrimination will have exactly the opposite effect you hope for, Melbourne University. Smarten up (18 May 2016)

Do women really want equality? by Nikita Coulombe (12 May 2016) USA

Do They Stay or Do They Go? The Switching Decisions of Individuals Who Enter Gender Atypical College Majors (May 2016)

“Men who enter a female-dominated major are significantly more likely to switch majors than their male peers in other majors. By contrast, women in male-dominated fields are not more likely to switch fields compared to their female peers in other fields.”

Study Shows Gender Inequality Not Responsible for Girls Not Choosing STEM Field (26 April 2016) USA

Where are all the women? Senior APS ranks maintain male majority (11 April 2016) Not content that “The vast majority of rank-and-file public servants are women”, the author presumably wants to see the same imbalance reflected in the most senior (and well-remunerated) level of the public service.

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: Men (March 2016) USA statistics showing decline in male employment 1950-2016

In the Name of Diversity, You Must Conform! (21 March 2016)

Novak Djokovic questions equal prize money in tennis (21 March 2016) Men also play more sets than women. Plus different climate standards apply to men, who must continue playing in higher temperatures.

Laura Perrins: Feminists have lowered the status of women (14 March 2016) UK

I’m so bored of women having to be on board (11 March 2016) Australia

The Great Diversity Scam (10 March 2016)

Nearly 300 women apply for MFB firefighter jobs (4 March 2016) Australia

The two articles that follow highlight the ‘one-way street’ nature of feminist demands and expectations in relation to diversity and representation. Mostly men = a big problem … mostly women = sound of crickets chirping

Juliet Bourke on the secret of harnessing diverse teams and More women on boards helps to narrow gender pay gap (2 March 2016)

Tasmania’s top public servant targets gender parity (17 February 2016) With 70% of the state’s public service being female, will Greg Johannes also be writing to heads of agencies with >50% female staff to ask them to recruit more male staff? Gee, I really, really doubt it.

Now that women potentially face the draft – it appears everyone is against women in combat roles (17 December 2015) USA and related reddit discussion thread

The ten deadliest jobs in America. Oh look, it’s all men (7 December 2015) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

Gender equality vital to securing our digital future (1 December 2015)

Why this year has been all about women speaking out on gender equality (27 November 2015)

FF candidate to challenge gender quota law (7 November 2015) Ireland

Men will have to lose jobs to make way for gender equality: Transfield’s Diane Smith-Gander (13 October 2015)

Gallup: Majority of Women with Kids ‘Prefer Homemaking Role’ (8 October 2015)

US women fall behind in jobs market (11 October 2015) and related reddit discussion thread here

100 Years Before Women Reach Equality in Top Jobs, Study Claims (2 October 2015) See the reader’s comments – most are heartily sick of the feminist perspective on this subject

Don’t panic: A male midwife’s guide for dads-to-be (23 September 2015)

Compared to Men, Women View Professional Advancement as Equally Attainable, but Less Desirable (12 August 2015)

Women-in-tech events are anti-male, say men’s rights activists (12 August 2015)

The problem with merit-based appointments? They’re not free from gender bias either (30 July 2015) Amongst other omissions this paper conveniently ignores the fact that men aren’t always the beneficiaries of bias, nor women always the victims.

The case for quotas in politics: the absence of women isn’t merit-based (30 July 2015) Argues the case for the introduction/expansion of gender quotas

New study into lack of women in Tech: It’s NOT the men’s fault. It’s just simple mathematics, apparently (27 July 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

14 Facts the Tanking ‘Women in Tech’ Movement Doesn’t Want You to Know (19 July 2015)

More Men Than Women Watch Women’s Soccer, While Women Prefer Male Sports (9 July 2015)

Women stop trying to get to the top after just TWO years because they are turned off by having to sacrifice it all (28 May 2015)

The Myth about Women in Science (13 April 2015)

Sexist Canadian “Feminists” Call Others Sexist (8 April 2015)

Women guaranteed at least 50% of jobs on Victorian government boards (28 March 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

Gender quotas key to curbing pay inequality: Queensland Minister for Women Shannon Fentiman (9 March 2015) Here is some related discussion in the ABC’s Facebook page

More US women not in paid employment now than ever before (6 March 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

We need women on boards for many reasons: ethics isn’t one (20 February 2015)

Gender Quotas in Hiring Drive Away Both Women and Men (16 October 2014)

Want to pretend you’re a feminist but do nothing? Talk about women on boards (13 February 2015)

Ginsburg: Will Be Enough Women on SCOTUS When They’re All Women (5 February 2015)

Where are the female tradies? (28 January 2015) A feminist perspective on the issue

Quotas on the nose: that’s the view from male Australian CEOs (7 January 2015)

The problem with “We need more women in -“ (20 December 2014)

Former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit slams Government for helping women ‘leave their children at home and go out to work’ (27 November 2014)

“Lord Tebbit asked her: ‘Do you not think it is strange that when these gender gap questions come up there is always a call for more women ambassadors, or generals or air marshals or something? ‘There is never a call for more women to be plumbers or electricians or jobs like that.'”

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

Interstellar patriarchy: Protecting women everywhere from shirts! (13 November 2014)

This discussion thread in an Australian web site called ‘The Conversation‘ concerns a suggestion that men are being preferentially treated due to their alleged greater self-confidence. Both myself and others contributed comments that questioned the feminist perspective being put forward, and our posts were later removed.  The moderators also closed the thread to further comments. As is usually the case, there was absolutely nothing offensive or threatening about the material removed. Ideological censorship pure and simple.

Feminist myths and magic medicine by Catherine Hakim

Where feminism went wrong by Janet Bloomfield

How feminist propaganda is destroying men’s lives (2 January 2015)

When the best person for the job has nothing to do with gender (20 October 2014) Australia

How to get more women into STEM fields: One college’s approach (August 2014 reddit discussion thread)

Why are there so many women in public relations? (8 August 2014)

Verizon’s ‘Inspire her Mind’ ad and the facts they didn’t tell you (21 July 2014)

British Labour Party enforces women-only candidate short-lists (4 July 2014)

The real reason there are not more female scientists (Youtube video)

Get women on the board (3 June 2014)

Percentage of bachelor’s degrees conferred on women, by major (Discussion thread on reddit)

Workplace inequality: When one side has an escape hatch (16 June 2014)

http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/sheryl-sandberg-lean-in-author-hopes-to-spur-movement.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/why-so-few-women-reach-the-executive-rank/

http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/12/women-ceo-why-so-few/

http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/03/bystanders-to-the-sandberg-mayer-mommy-wars.html

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/28/women-in-tech-stop-blaming-me/

http://www.smh.com.au/business/some-men-fear-competing-with-women-20131025-2w5i8.html#ixzz2iuvoQgpS

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/03/hierarchical-differences/

Why women are leaving the workforce in record numbers‘ (17 April 2013)

http://www.ceda.com.au/media/310731/cedawiljune%202013final.pdf (A fairly comprehensive coverage of the topic albeit purely from the perspective of a feminist idealogue)

Women in STEM sole focus of gender imbalance debate‘ (24 April 2014)

Businessmen love to talk women in leadership, until you mention the Q word (15 April 2014) Feminist journo talking up gender quotas

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201310/where-are-all-the-women

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/01/26/stay-at-home-moms-you-dont-owe-the-world-an-explanation/

Standing tough: Maureen Joanne Sabia on achieving success (4 June 2014)

What can men do? (25 April 2014) An article written by a White Knight about the gender imbalance in the IT (coding) sector, that also has some interesting readers comments.

Only two of 3100 women army soldiers join infantry in military frontline (4 June 2014)

By the way, men want more flexibility in the workplace too

Report cites bias against women in drug rackets

Is ‘Opting Out’ the new American dream for working women? (12 September 2012) Related reddit mensrights discussion thread here

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26828726 (Hand wringing over the fact that >90% of editors on Wikipedia are male, with some interesting comments contributed by readers)

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/04/22/neil-degrasse-tyson-has-a-point-but-larry-summers-is-still-right/?WT.mc_id=SA_sharetool_Twitter

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/women-dont-want-to-have-it-all-anymore/story-fnet085v-1226848285611

Do Any Women Work at the Dirty, Difficult and Dangerous Jobs that Men Do? Any Women At All? (7 August 2012)

http://phys.org/news/2011-11-men-honest-overconfidence-male-domination.html (as cited in http://priceonomics.com/the-babysitting-gender-gap/)

http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/where-oh-where-are-all-female-guests

Other related posts within this blog include:

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

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas

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

diversity

Recruitment bias favours hiring female staff

I came across an article some time ago that detailed the results of a study that looked for any bias shown by Human Resources (HR) personnel when recruiting new staff.

“… we’re talking about the human resource professionals who, thumbing through resumes, act as the gate-keepers to employment around the world. Are they men or women? Because sadly, oh-so-uncomfortably, it matters.”

The researchers detected a significant incidence of bias. They found that, for example, more attractive men where often selected in preference to less attractive men whilst less attractive women were chosen in preference to more attractive women. The researchers considered and disallowed the ‘dumb blonde’ stereotype (i.e. attractive women as being more likely to be stupid) as a reason for this discrimination.

“So the cause of the discrimination must lie elsewhere. Human resources departments tend to be staffed mostly by women. Indeed, in the Israeli study, 93% of those tasked with selecting whom to invite for an interview were female. The researchers’ unavoidable—and unpalatable—conclusion is that old-fashioned jealousy led the women to discriminate against pretty candidates.”

There is increasing evidence, however, that gender discrimination that may have begun as individual bias is now becoming a systemic practice as described in some of the linked references below.

See also:

Women’s legal service wins right to exclude men from advertising, recruitment, employment practices (15 May 2019) Australia. And how many instances have there been, at federal and state level, of organisations being allowed to only seek male candidates? Any? Ever?

Astrophysics position at the Australian National University that’s only open to female candidates (26 April 2019)

West Midlands Police accused of ‘discriminating against white male officers’ (15 November 2018) and see related tweet by Martin Daubney

Cern scientist: ‘Physics built by men – not by invitation’ (1 October 2018) Scientist Alessandro Strumia earns feminist and White Knight outrage because he suggested, amongst other things, that female scientists were given a distinct advantage in the recruitment process.

AFP’s call for female recruits causes major stir online (1 October 2017) This video addresses this ‘initiative’

Mark Latham: ‘White male privilege’ myth busted (11 July 2017)

“white men were 6.5 per cent less likely to be short-listed”

Blind recruitment trial to boost gender equality making things worse, study reveals (30 June 2017)

Discrimination by and diversity within HR department (5 March 2017) Reddit discussion thread

I’m a young researcher trying hard to find work, but I can’t apply for these positions because penis (16 October 2016) Australia. Reddit discussion thread and linked job advertisement from Swinburne University of Technology for five women-only positions.

“We are proud to be recognised by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency as an Employer of Choice for Gender Equality for the past 7 consecutive years.” This has to be a joke, right?

Is Silicon Valley Discriminating Against Men and Asians? (14 October 2016)

“Are lawsuits like these a good thing, or are they going to stall efforts to move towards more diversity in Silicon Valley?” (Because fighting discrimination is only OK when it’s the right kind of discrimination, huh?)

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

Australian Bureau of Statistics to discriminate against hiring men (15 September 2016)

Commission threatens hiring ‘freeze’ on men if more women don’t get top jobs (28 July 2016) Europe

People interviewing for a tech job had their genders masked. It made things worse for the women (1 July 2016) USA. The same study was also covered in Breitbart. Researchers expected anti-female bias but found the opposite. Author of this article tries to explain away the results.

Melbourne University advertises female-only jobs in bid to remedy gender imbalance in maths (18 May 2016) Related Reddit discussion thread here, and critical response from Janet Bloomfield below:

Positive discrimination will have exactly the opposite effect you hope for, Melbourne University. Smarten up (18 May 2016)

Part-time work could hurt jobseekers’ future prospects, UT study finds (3 March 2016)

“He also found that less than 5 percent of men working part time received callbacks. However, the study found no negative effect for part-time employment among women.”

Buzzfeed Canada is recruiting, but doesn’t want white males (19 February 2016)

Tasmania’s top public servant targets gender parity (17 February 2016) Given that 70% of the state’s public service is female, will Greg Johannes also be writing to head of agencies with >50% women to ask them to recruit more men? Gee, I doubt it.

A man who got laid-off from Yahoo is suing the company for alleged sexual discrimination (2 February 2016)

Women out earn men in 29 fields after college. The reason seems to be gender discrimination. How can this be legal? (21 January 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

Being a good looking man could hinder your career, study finds (8 December 2015) UK

Toronto company Vestra Inet prefers ‘female candidates’ for receptionist work (23 November 2015)

University of York cancels International Men’s Day plans after students and staff protest Dr Adrian Lee’s controversial comments (17 November 2015) That preference was given to hiring women at the Uni of York

Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men (20 October 2015)

The unfairer sex? (18 April 2015) On recruitment bias in the STEM sector

Women preferred 2:1 over men for STEM faculty positions and Academics rate women job applicants higher than identical men: study (13 April 2015) “The bias toward women “was totally unexpected,” said psychologist and co-author Wendy Williams of Cornell University. We were shocked.”

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (5 March 2015)

Seven secrets of dating from the experts at OkCupid (29 September 2014) See section 6 for findings in relation to interview requests

Erotic capital: Danish women losing out (29 September 2014)

http://www.hrzone.com/feature/people/unconscious-bias-module-your-modern-management-programme/141276

http://www.hcamag.com/hr-news/hidden-biases-against-men-overweight-women-found-in-uk-test-145200.aspx

People Management Finds Widespread HR Bias against Men and Overweight Women (1 November 2012) They found that 37% of respondents revealed a negative bias against men

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/04/toronto-councillor-wonders-if-city-hall-has-policy-discriminating-against-hiring-white-men/

Can anyone suggest other sources that explore this issue? I would be particularly interested in any studies that looked at HR staff displaying discrimination against older job applicants. In my experience most HR staff are not only females, but younger females, and I think it’s quite likely that they display an equal or greater degree of bias against older job applicants (as they appear to display against men).

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas

“Affirmative Action (known as employment equity in Canada and elsewhere) refers to policies that take factors including “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group “in areas of employment, education, and business”. The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process and, in 1967, the concept was expanded to include sex.

The nature of affirmative action policies varies from region to region. Some countries, such as India, use a quota system, whereby a certain percentage of jobs or school vacancies must be set aside for members of a race, caste or other protected group. In some other regions, specific quotas do not exist; instead, members of minorities are given preference in selection processes.” (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action)

The article linked below addresses the issue of ‘affirmative action’ in considerable detail, but it’s well worth the effort to get a handle on this important issue:

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/business_computer_ethics/the%20case%20against%20affirmative%20action.htm

The author is Louis Pojman, whose background and achievements are discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pojman

That form of affirmative action that is most discussed today in the context of gender issues, is the imposition of quotas to ensure that a particular percentage of students/directors/politicians/etc are female.

Not surprisingly there are no feminist demands for quotas to be established in relation to any of the roles listed in the table below: (source)

See also:

Feminist Doublethink: Gender Quotas Are Merit; Men Disqualified By Quotas Are Mediocre (20 June 2017) Reddit discussion thread with linked article. Be sure to see readers comments.

What’s next in social engineering? Gender quotas on motherhood? by Miranda Devine (3 May 2017)

Science minister mulls forcing universities to attract more female researchers (27 April 2017)

The Increasing Significance of the Decline of Men, by Thomas B. Edsall (16 March 2017) Related Reddit discussion thread here. In a world where the goal of gender equality was genuine, the labor market for men would be a consideration in the debate about gender quotas. It’s never mentioned.

Creating gender equality means being bold for change (8 March 2017) Australian Telco giant Telstra to impose 50% gender quota

Should there be ‘bloke quotas’ in Australia to get more men into roles like teaching and nursing? (11 December 2016) Facebook discussion thread with linked article. This is the first time I have seen a feminist organisation propose quotas for men. One hopes they have finally recognised the hypocrisy of campaigning for (only) female quotas, though I suspect it’s merely a strategy to reduce resistance to female quotas.

The Deal: Women in favour of board quotas, feel held to higher standards than male peers (17 November 2016) Australia

DNC replaces two Vermont delegates — because they’re men (21 July 2016) USA. More on this issue here (with readers comments)

We need quotas on boards for women (28 March 2015) Australia. See reader’s comments

The spread of gender quotas for company boards (25 March 2014)

A gender agenda: The effectiveness of quota systems in increasing women’s meaningful participation in politics (November 2014) Pro-feminist paper arguing in favour of gender quotas (Australia)

Schumpeter: A Nordic Mystery (14 November 2014)

Campaign for Merit in Business A UK-based web site maintained by Mike Buchanan where you will numerous papers related to the use of gender quotas in business, including:

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/

Feminist mythtique in the boardroom (18 June 2014)

Women, men still unequal in sports despite Title IX attempts (USA) (4 November 2011)

Title IX: How a good law went terribly wrong (24 June 2014)

Female leaders are missing in academia (18 June 2014)

Exploring the use of quotas for women in leadership roles (10 May 2012) See also readers comments

A license to discriminate (31 August 2012) Australia. See also readers comments

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

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

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