I just saw a BBC report stating that only 13% of women are in top jobs and only 15% are on business boards and ONLY 1 in 5 government officials are women; and this is being spun as some sort of systemic discrepancy: how? There aren't as many women in high positions in business and politics: so what? What does this prove other than that they're simply not there? The statistics only attest to two credible factors:1)the women numbered were interested; and 2)they got the job. You can't quantify whether their position was merited or not. You certainly can't make blanket assertions that there were just hordes of women, all qualified, all vying for the same positions that all got cock blocked by the sausage brigade. No. You can't make those kind of mindless lunges in logic.
What is with this obsession that men and women need to be equal in business and government? Half and half on business boards. half and half in parliament and congress. It's not practical or rational: even if you get half and half...it's not gonnuh necessarily stop injustice or systemic bias? In fact it's kind of sexist to assume it's going to change much of anything at all! Changing the gender doesn't necessarily change the mind frame of the politician. Look at Sarah Palin, a.k.a. Miss 'Drill, baby, Drill!'. Condoleezza Rice being a woman and the Head of National Security didn't stop the patriot act from happening: do you see what I'm getting at here? Let's apply this to the U.K. with two words: Margaret Thatcher. Case in point.
Regarding Fiona's random statistic supported by "studies" rather than an actual listed source (you know, like a journalist would do.) about women getting more degrees than men, I have to beg the question: wwwhat degrees are the men and women going for? what're the rates of men to women attending college? Because last I checked, according to Dr. Warren Farrell's lecture in Toronto, 46% of college going students are male in the U.S. alone: so no shit the women are going to average more degrees come graduation. That's just common sense: even accounting for negligence on a case by case basis the odds are still in women's corner.
Concerning Currie's statement of 'We don't need a quota we just need more [women]", that is a brainless conception in its barefaced contradiction. One is a federalized mandate the other is a socio-political mania. The only one that makes one more attractive is plausible deniability, because there's not a specific number attached to it; but when you go into a job interview intent to discriminate based on gender, be it in the positive or negative, or are, in fact, establishing a quota. It's just one based on personal criteria that you don't have to hold yourself accountable to. It's privately maintained in your head; where you can safely waive away any accusations against it. Where personal scrutiny, most of all, can be quietly stifled and dismissed.
Circling back to the hypo-feminist chitterings of Fiona Cowood, regarding, again, "studies" that board rooms favor people like themselves when recruiting...well, again, no shit: you're going to have similar interests in goals. It makes it less turbulent to communicate initiatives and propose economic stratagem. Just because these boards have a penchant for likeminded people is not indicative of a preference based on genitals. She's being sexist, assuming these majoritively male boards are basing their hiring partly on gender; and giving no data that suggests or proves it.
And her last statement-- oh, that's the one that made me want to pay good money for a women to do a drive by punch in the face--the statement that "we've given men a chance to change things. They haven't done it." Yes, because if we just gave women the keys to the zoo everything would run clock smooth: who thinks like this, really? That the pratfalls of human history can be placed squarely at the feet of men? How do patently dumbass ideas like that register to the frontal lobe who goes 'yeah, that's viable.', formulates into words--which are then forwarded to the conscience for scrutiny; who says 'uh, yup, that's fair and balanced.' and then tumble irrevocably out of someone's mouth: and then these people act as though their shock is justified then the human populace face palms in unison. What if we changed the word "men" to Jews...wwwould anybody be okay with what she said? I think a couple of Iranian dignitaries would be cool with it but the rest of humanity would probably be upset.
I am aware this video was titled 'Radical Feminist Claptrap From The BBC' but I honestly went into it skeptical of the all cap title. Frankly I just wanted to see if there was any justification for that kind of script: apparently there is; but regardless I didn't go seeking the link to witch hunt, but rather to see the validity of the accusing party. I have had feminist professors: I have seen feminist make valid points despite the inherent bias of the patriarchy narrative. I am, personally and foremostly, a journalist for my own benefit; and I do try to be thorough and fair.
*Speaking as one of the penis riddled members of the human race, I can explain very simply one of the many reasons men are opting out of school, especially in the lower grades. You see, men cannot produce children: ergo, we are not considered as valuable as women reproductively; and thus in society, traditionally and still, between a woman and a man, the man is expected to be expendable. We are very insecure in our identity as a sex in consequence; so we reinforce traditions and norms that affirm our value, usually through competition with each other: for this reason, there is nothing inherently masculine about competing with women. So when schools become extraneously or over feminized, removing all or demonizing the traits of men, suddenly school has no uniquely male value. Education no longer becomes a means of determining male identity: so, in consequence, we dismiss or become increasingly disinterested.
I keep hearing about the superiority of the female brain in the fields of rhetorical expertise: that's because women evolved that way; because it was more genetically preferable for a woman to be able to communicated what she wanted. A woman who could do that and do it more effectively was more likely to be attended. This is also the reason why women are more sociable; because it benefited them to popularize their thoughts and feelings.