Check BBC iPlayer if you want to listen to this.
So we have that ol'
genius Mike Buchanan spouting his anti-feminist nonsense again in his
unique, shambolic manner . In opposition, Ruby Mcgregor-Smith and
Caroline Criado-Perez talking more sensibly about how we need more
women in leadership roles in the workplace. Mike Buchanan likes to
state lots of statistics about how women are less represented in
business, then jumps to the conclusion that this is the way things
should be, regardless of how it may happen through systems of
privilege, or the fact that injustice and harm may be caused. No,
Mike. That just explains that we are in this position. It says
nothing about what we should do about it.
He often completely
defeats his own argument. One example is when he quoted “5
longitudinal studies” which apparently showed that substituting
women into positions on the corporate boards of private companies led
to a decline in corporate performance. Right, OK. He then goes on to
say that this is because the women are less experienced in
“corporate affairs”. So, that wasn't really a fair
“substitution” then was it – not like for like. It's like
changing a 5 for a 3 in my example below then wondering why you might
be better off with the 5. Try again Mike.
He trots out the old
canard that women need to prove that they can truly succeed in the
corporate boardroom. But you can't get evidence of something without
opportunity to generate that evidence in a real-world situation. The
opportunities are extremely difficult to get in male-dominated
professions. Hence the need for quotas / gender balancing (although I
admit from a practical perspective, these are not always handled in
the best way).
So I hope you'll not
vote for Mike's party Justice for Men and Boys which is based in
Bedfordshire. Almost ANY other candidate would be preferable in my
eyes.
And as for the argument
“women can achieve anything in this day and age if they put their
mind to it”. Firstly, doesn't it almost scream “so why do we need
feminism” as a second line? Secondly, what a truism that former
quote is . So what? They same is the case for many other types of
people, some of whom are underprivileged: men, ethnic minorities, gay
people. That only shows that the position has improved slightly from
the base value, not that it's where it needs to be. Thirdly,
it says nothing of how easy it is for different people who can
achieve those same goals to actually achieve them – the point being
that women experience a much tougher ride to get to the same place in
a career than men, in general.
So I think that there
should be more women in leadership positions in big business, and
also the public sector. There are several strong arguments to support
this, not to mention the equality angle.
Improvement in overall
standards. Due to 80% of board members currently being men, there is
naturally going to be some kind of gradient in their ability to
perform this job. The boards will be made up of excellent (5), good
(4) and average (3) men, for example. I would argue that the best
women, those most suited for corporate roles, would be better
qualified than at least the average men, if not the good ones,
depending on their level of experience – they may even be the
equals of the “excellent” men. This is taking into account the
“experience” characteristic touted by Mike Buchanan. So including
the best women in corporate business by naturally replacing the
“average” men (replacing a 3 with a 4 or5) will surely improve
overall standards. A Skepchick article showed this really well.
Opportunities to
balance (Corporate) ethics. From what I've read on this matter, the
impression I get is that more women running the corporate world could
help more ethical business decisions be made. They may be less likely
to be slaves to profits and shareholders and more concerned about the
impact of their business decisions on other people's lives. This is
an alternate reason why the “5 longitudinal studies” he mentions
above may be flawed. I would like to point out to Mike Buchanan that
the “Corporate World” has a lot to answer for, and profits aren't
the only indicator of a company's value – those which conduct their
business in an ethical way are more likely to earn greater consumer
respect and build a stronger consumer base long-term. Take British
Petroleum (BP) for instance and their Corporate role in the huge
scandal and environmental disaster that was the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Studies showing
discrimination against women in STEM occupations: need to be aware of
and to correct this. I linked to a study in a previous post which
showed that both male and female recruiters were biased towards men
and against women taking jobs in Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics fields.
No comments:
Post a Comment