Comments on: Britain needs more Women in its Boardrooms

By: Daniel Oxley

Daniel Oxley — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:44:30 +0000

The Labour Party falls short of the Norwegian quota of 40% when appointing women. In its leadership contest there is only a 20% quota for the fifth candidate Dianne Abbott.
It is a great pity in my view that she is trailing so badly; unlike the others she is definitely a ‘human’ with the human characteristics of humour, self-deprecation, etc.
This is so unlike the others who appear to be just mechanical clones of Tony Blair. I find it difficult to discriminate between them, except perhaps in that David Milliband indulges far more than the others in affecting the glottal stop.
An excellent interview of Diane Abbott by Polly Toynbee can be seen on the Guardian web site at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2010/jul/29/diane-abbott-labour-leadership . Her comments about Labour’s record on human rights issues were wide-ranging and included the detention of children, compulsory ID cards, ninety days detention of terror suspects and torture.

By: maryhoneyballmep

maryhoneyballmep — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:40:48 +0000

M Lakshmi
I think business would be more effective if it considered 100% of the population for posts, far too many have excluded women and there’s abundant evidence of this. using the best talent makes business more effective, keeping things “private” allows discrimination to continue.
RTS
“Discrimnatory laws will not advance the cause of equality, but hold it back”
For hundreds of years there were no “disciminatory laws” as you describe them and racism and sexism were endemic.
Since Labour has introduced laws on equal pay and against racism it is clear that equality has improved, even David Cameron acknowledges that. I’d prefer to not return to the Victorian values you suggest, they’ve failed before and I see no reason why they wouldn’t fail again.

By: RTS

RTS — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:56:08 +0000

Discriminatory laws will not advance the cause of equality, but hold it back. How can people be equal if some people are getting extra protection/consideration based on their gender?

Consider this; If a board, has to replace one of its members, in order to keep it’s 40% woman board members or face the wrath of the law. Assume the best candidate for the job is male they will be compelled, by law, to reject him based SOLELY on his gender. That is sexism pure and simple and worse, it’s state mandated sexism.

Is the glass ceiling real? Possibly but I think it’s fading. As the top positions start being handed over from the baby-boomer to Generation X so sexism in the workplace will fade. The board members will be made up of as many women who were best suited for the job and not because it allows the company to meet some conjured up government quota.

I’m curous though. Is it your opinion that there aren’t as many woman in these top jobs mainly because of discrimination?
Has the possibility occured that there really aren’t that many women competing for them? I doubt you care about the answer, but I wonder if you removed discrimination completely from the equation whether we’d get close to boards naturally being comprised 40% of woman.

By: M. Lakshmi

M. Lakshmi — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:03:24 +0000

I have no opinion as to whether there “should” be more women in boardrooms. I do, however, heartily wish that gravy-train politicians would refrain from interfering in the decisions that are properly made by private companies.

If you cannot offer something useful for business, best to stay quiet.