Sigh – how many times, how many times before they wake up?
The following is an opinion. It’s not urging anyone not to employ someone, nor does it cover the protected gender as a whole – there have been many posts praising women in general and I can name a dozen women straight away who could run something, for example my boss at work.
I have always referred to major organizations where the woman is parachuted in. And why women? Because it is women who are largely parachuted in according to the PC agenda, not men. If it was men being parachuted in, then I’d be attacking that too.
So, with those caveats, my opinion, based on data which I have always presented in support of this view, is:
If you parachute a woman into a top job, this is the sort of thing you will inevitably get.
There are specific reasons – she is hidebound by her gender narrative for a start and having to prove herself, she does not have a lifetime in the game, she has modern management tickbox training, she thinks like a woman [which is fine in many situations but not in this one] and makes touchy-feely decisions and at the other end – the witchhunt, she confuses administering something with managing a future. Usually she is so into her own position and the status of it that she will ignore her line managers in order to make her own mark and impress everyone.
Sullivan, Warren, Farhat, Napolitano, our Meg, the Yahoo one – the list goes on and on. It’s not sexism, it’s the Empress’s new clothes.
And here’s another one – if you parachute a woman into the top job, this is also what happens:
I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on this, least of all women and including many men who think, in a gallant sort of way, that they need to defend women on this but unfortunately, the facts do not bear out this gallantry. I can be just as gallant towards the ladies as you in RL and even on the blog, none of which alters the fact that if you parachute a woman into a top job, sooner or later, things go wrong.
And then we get to this:
Firms will have to report on how many women they employ and how much they earn compared to men.
There are three things desperately wrong with this:
1. To have to use coercion to achieve something is ultimately self-defeating for the organization thus coerced;
2. There was a good reason for the disparity in the first place.
3. Even were you to reject those points and accept quotas as a good way to go, the very women poised to flood in to fill those quotas are precisely the ones who should not be given places – they are the polktically active troublemakers, with a capital T, who should not be allowed anywhere near an organization which hopes to succeed. Only an idiot would employ a Flint or Harman or Fiorina or Chipmunk or Cherie Blair.
And to repeat, part of it is the parachuted female take on things and the witchhuntery if she doesn’t get her way but far more cogent and indisputable is that firms employ those they feel will return the best value to the firm. That is, firms themselves are not hidebound by ideology because their revenue, their profit, depends on the best people in place.
Now, if that happens to be female in certain industries, great – the work I’m in has females as the experts and we males are the learners. We are not parachuted into high positions, we shut up and learn the business. It’s only the whingy-whiny feminazis who carry on and on and on about it all.
If the Australian govt follows the UK line and insists on quotas of parachuted females, then it will end up the same way as the UK – down and out and all tied up in PC law, with a nasty, divisive and corrosive atmosphere of poison. Just look at the PC backed allegedly corrupt [she says she's entirely innocent] Julia Gillard. What a dead loss that woman is.
As for productivity – you can kiss that goodbye.
I can quote you chapter and verse about our railway company which has done this – employed only females at Head Office and the complaints number around 20 a day from one station alone.
To counter it, they plaster a two foot by three foot notice right beside the ticket window, telling everyone how efficient they were in the last month, despite all the cancellations and angst and somehow, it always comes out to 90% plus efficiency. They truly think this actually means something other than the waste of money they could have spent on infrastructure and service.
It just goes on and on, doesn’t it?
Talking Point Thu 22 Nov, AT 15:24 Dorries’s claim she would use reality show to raise political issues is rubbished by commentators
Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/#ixzz2D30d3Bjc
Avon and Somerset down the drain – power goes to her head:
And anyone ever heard of Cressida Dick?
There is something rotten in the state of
Denmark UK, US, Canada, Australia.
Filed under: Politics & economics