75ZT Community

based on this:

Britain's economy will ‘fail’ unless more women are promoted into boardrooms, the Prime Minister warned yesterday.

David Cameron said that business leaders had not made ‘sufficient’ progress in ensuring women get top jobs.

He will today look at controversial plans for so-called ‘golden skirt quotas’, which would force business leaders to ensure that women are fairly represented in the boardroom.

The Government has already called for firms to more than double the number of women in boardrooms by 2015, but these quotas are voluntary.

Ministers have said that a minimum of 25 per cent of a company’s executives should be female.

However, women currently make up just 15 per cent of FTSE 100 directors.

(which, incidentally, is total nonesense and in my view positive discrimination)

Can you think of any females you'd like to see take over the England manager's job?

Oh, and the fact that they may be required to run around in tight shorts should not necessarily be considered a suitable qualification

I think the England team would need Joan of Arc to stand any chance of being motivated enough to win anything, problem is they are more interested in Lady Godiva in her birthday outfit

I heard this on the Radio today, something puzzles me though, what difference does a persons sex have in comparison to the safety of the "Economy"? Seriously??

Perhaps he has taken the whole slogan of "Thats why Mums go to Iceland" a little too seriously.........................

I positively discriminate in favour of women even if Basil doesn't

The trouble with women is that they get all worked up about nothing. And then go and marry him.

Mmm, how many women MPs and how many in the Cabinet.

Sorry, it does not matter if you are male, female, hetrosexual, homosexual, celibate, grren, pink, white, black, sky blue with yellow spots, it is the abilities you have.

PaulT wrote:Mmm, how many women MPs and how many in the Cabinet.

Sorry, it does not matter if you are male, female, hetrosexual, homosexual, celibate, grren, pink, white, black, sky blue with yellow spots, it is the abilities you have.

That's right, it doesn't matter a fig about all those varied and identifiable origins/traits/preferences. But the current arguments (debate!) are going in the direction of positive discrimination i.e closed lists of 'suitable applicants' with men being barred from applying. What you might call bigotry when it suits. It seems to depend on whether you have a minority pressure group with which you can personally identify in order to gain advancement and to further your career. Where is the pressure group for short baldy men? Celts of a ginger persuasion? One handed jugglers?
You are right about ability too - but there seems to be much scope for able people who don't fit the criteria to be marginalised because of a voiciferous minority with a lowest-common-denominator mentality.

Whatever happened to merit?

Not sure women could be classed as neither a 'minority pressure group' nor 'or a vociferous minority with a lowest-common-denominator mentality'....I know, I'll ask the Mrs...........


Then again...p'raps not..

Zeb wrote:Not sure women could be classed as either a 'minority pressure group' nor or a vociferous minority with a lowest-common-denominator mentality'....I know, I'll ask the Mrs...........


Then again...p'raps not..

No, I think you may have missed it, probably due to my failure to put it clearly!

The reference was to the pressure group itself being a minority having a disproportionate influence on things because of their strident approach and wrongly assuming they represent all others. After all, women make up 51% of the population (hardly a minority!) and self-interest groups such as the Feminists assume that all women fully support their aims. They are loud and in a minority. The lcd mentality refers to the 'equality' movement generally and the apparent belief that what matters is representation by numbers rather than proven ability, achieved by means of quota management.

I personally have had two women bosses who both achieved their positions through sheer ability and hard work, but these closed lists are an abomination and can only dilute the calibre of merit. We need the best, not selection by gender alone!

Ah, you mean like the suffragettes...

Sorry, just ribbing you....as yourself, I have issues with some pressure groups and indeed the lobbying of our fine, upstanding, butter-wouldn't melt-in-their-mouths MPs, which is kind of the same thing but more openly self-interested in nature...

We do indeed need the best, unfortunately climbing the greasy pole in many / most (?) areas of life has nowt to do with being the best these days..

Zeb wrote:Not sure women could be classed as either a 'minority pressure group' nor or a vociferous minority with a lowest-common-denominator mentality'....I know, I'll ask the Mrs...........


Then again...p'raps not..

Weren't you once an English teacher? My English teacher taught me that it was either/or and neither/nor. Was I misled?

Tourerfogey wrote:

Zeb wrote:Not sure women could be classed as either a 'minority pressure group' nor 'or a vociferous minority with a lowest-common-denominator mentality'....I know, I'll ask the Mrs...........


Then again...p'raps not..

Weren't you once an English teacher? My English teacher taught me that it was either/or and neither/nor. Was I misled?

Not misled, you merely misunderstood what you have read..... Oh, ok, I wanted to avoid two 'ors' together (getting bit of a struggle managing two at once these days..) and should have proof-read it again...

Struggling using two 'ors'? Have you tried an outboard motor instead....?

... I know, I know... I'll get me coat