Among the most lamentable decisions made by David Cameron – ‘Dave the Feminist’ – in the context of gender politics was his appointment of a Labour peer, Lord Davies of Abersoch, to report on ‘gender balance in the boardroom’. Hmm, a Labour peer… how was that likely to end up, Dave?
In 2010 the first of my three books on modern feminism was published, David and Goliatha: David Cameron – heir to Harman? It was later withdrawn from sale as its content, and more, was contained in the second book, The Glass Ceiling Delusion. In the books I include the text of a letter written to Lord Davies in August 2010, seeking an audio interview on the topic of gender balance in the boardroom. He never replied to my letter, but I wasn’t surprised. Also included in my books were the texts of my letters to Trevor Phillips, the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Ceri Goddard, Chief Executive of The Fawcett Society. Neither of them replied either. These people don’t like their views and initiatives challenged. They like to operate in the shadows.
Lord Davies’s report ‘Women on Boards’ was published in February 2011, and today I downloaded it from the website of the 30 percent club, the pressure group founded by Helena Morrissey http://www.30percentclub.org.uk. An earlier post on this blog reveals The Anti-Feminism League’s awards of ‘Toadies’ to the 33 ‘captains of industry’ who are members of the 30 percent club. On the club’s website there’s a link to the Davies report:
The content of the Davies report will come as no surprise to those of you familiar with the feminist fantasies, lies, delusions and myths surrounding the topic of ‘gender balance in the boardroom’. It’s a predictably depressing read but occasionally there’s some light relief. The report’s Executive Summary includes the following gem:
‘… gender-diverse boards have a positive impact on performance.2 It is clear that boards make better decisions where a range of voices, drawing on different life experiences, can be heard. That mix of voices must include women.’
The superscripts in the report – such as 2 in the extract above – refer to cited sources. So what’s the source for the confident assertion that ‘gender-diverse boards have a positive impact on performance’? As readers of this blog know very well, no evidence for this common assertion exists. Below the Executive Summary we find:
This isn’t a typing error on my part. There is no text following the superscript. What might we conclude from this? Possibly that this band of geniuses agreed their position on the subject of gender diversity and corporate performance, then searched for evidence to substantiate it and… oh, bugger… couldn’t find any? Then they didn’t even have the intelligence to remove the evidence of their lack of evidence? Priceless.
‘Where are you going with this, Mike?’ I hear you cry. A fellow anti-feminist today told me he thinks Lord Davies should be awarded a ‘Toady’ for his craven submission to militant feminists, so evident in his report (and in his earlier statements). I agree. Here it is:
I invite you to leave recommendations on this post for other male collaborators with militant feminism, worthy of being awarded Toadies. Thank you.