Better at what?

One of the most egregious, and ubiquitous [supplications to the diversity gods], comes from some of those who demand gender diversity in the workplace. It is entirely reasonable to be in favour of gender diversity to increase the pool of talent. The deeper the talent pool that appointments are drawn from, the better a company will perform. That ought to be the extent of gender diversity.

Instead, there is a coterie of loud men and women who go much further. Often to justify quotas and other special measures for women, they claim that women are not just equally talented to men but also better than men.

The quote above is from Janet Albrechtsen in an article titled in the newspaper, “For better or worse, sex doesn’t define skill sets” with this as the sub-heading: Modern-day feminists are wrong to claim women are superior to men”.

This is a dangerous area for any male to get involved with, but what has brought me back into it has been going to see the latest movie incarnation of The Invisible Man. A more wicked film I have seldom seen. If you want to know the story, you can go to the link. All I will tell you is that unlike the original tale, and unlike every other film made based on the concept, this one is not primarily about someone who works out how to make themselves invisible with the plot then teasing out possible implications from having such an intriguing ability. In this film, invisibility is entirely secondary to the plot, which is about a woman who leaves an abusive husband who then, because he has, for no reason discussed in the film, a device that can make him invisible, then menaces his absent wife by turning up at various moments but invisible to her and everyone else. The invisibility aspect is entirely secondary to using the concept to portray spousal abuse.

Tomorrow there will be the final of the women’s twenty-20 cricket final. Are women better at cricket than men? On Monday, there will be thousands of men driving trucks across Australia. Are any of those truck drivers female, and are these handful of women “better” at driving trucks than any of the men? Same for plumbers, same for construction workers, same for lots of things. There was also this from Janet:

Last week, the Australian ­Financial Review ran this headline: “Why women make better CEOs”. The piece regurgitated some “new research” from the Macquarie Business School by Farida Akhtar, a senior lecturer in actuarial studies and business analytics, that finds that women are not only different from men, they also are better than men. According to this research, said the AFR, women create stronger corporate cultures, they nurture employees more, they create better reward systems and offer greater flexibility. Tech companies run by female chief executives do better because women can shape innova­tion and sustainable growth strategies.

But do such companies make more money or satisfy their customers more completely? It’s an academic writing the article so that’s the kind of question that would seldom cross such a person’s mind. And as Janet writes, “a review of more than 3000 companies fails to find any evidence that women on boards or in the C-suite cause, lead to or produce better corporate performance.” But the debate is ideological so facts will not intrude on any part of the debate or convince anyone on the other side of the divide.

There is then this about politics in the US from Cosmopolitan: Stop Lying, America: You Were Never Gonna Vote for a Woman President. Well apparently not among the Democrats, and certainly not for Elizabeth Warren. But in my time I have been all in for Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin among others. But here is the author reflecting on the moment that she realised that Hillary would lose in 2016:

“It’s not just about losing,” I said … to myself. “It’s about all the little boys who will grow up thinking they get to—or have to—behave that way to be president. And all the little girls who will think they’ll never have a chance.”

In deciding who gets which jobs, it’s not a matter of chivalry, men stepping aside to allow a woman to precede them, or at least it shouldn’t be. Political leaders are chosen for their leadership abilities and the clarity of their policy direction. They are not chosen because of which sex they happen to be, or at least that should never ever be part of the equation. And if you think that it should be, you are a moron, whether you are a male or a female. You are just a complete jerk.

Pinky promise! Now there is real leadership ability if you’ll pardon me while I go roll my eyes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.