Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
"Panel sees male dominance behind banking crisis"
Submitted by arindamp on Wed, 2010-04-07 07:14
Article here. Of course, if things go wrong it is because of men. If things go right it is because of women. More hypocritical feminist doctrine. Excerpt:
'There is a view that the banking crisis that sent Western economies tumbling two years ago may not have happened at all, or would have been less severe, if there had been more women at the top in the banking sector — the argument being that women are more cautious and risk averse and, therefore, more likely than men to challenge the sort of practices that caused the crisis.
Until now, this theory had been pushed mostly by women campaigners while men tended to snigger. But now even men seem to agree. A male-dominated parliamentary committee (13 men and one woman — an ironic comment on Westminster's own attitude to gender diversity) has blamed a macho culture and “potentially dangerous group think” for the collapse of several leading British banks arguing that boards need more women to prevent reckless decision-making.
In a report, highlighting the acute dearth of women at the top in Britain's financial sector, the Treasury Select Committee says that the prevailing male-driven high-risk mindset is not conducive to good “corporate governance”.
“Diversity at the top is one way to challenge potentially dangerous ‘group think',” it says citing some eye-popping statistics to underline deep-seated sexism in the City, London's famous global financial hub.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
It's possible that this is true
It is, honestly, potentially correct that had there been more women at the top the banks wouldn't have collapsed.
However, the flip side of that coin is that were there more women at the top, the banking sector never would have advanced and the economies never would have expanded in the first place. If their theory is that "women are more risk adverse" then we must also remove the positives (growth) that came from the risk as well as the negative event (the collapse).
Of course, considering that their brains are damaged by PCism (men and women are the same... but if women were in charge it would have been different!) they'll never be able to recognize the 2nd paragraph.
Couldn't the lack of risk
Couldn't the lack of risk taking lead them to defer certain tasks that must be done to someone else because of fear of consequences it will have on them. I never hear anyone say that responsibility itself is a risk to oneself.
If we are going to stereotype couldn't I say that women will try to pawn off the dangerous but obligatory tasks to others or ignore them all together. Or I could say that women would try to defer fault to something or someone else for fear of how it will look on them.
Well..
Couldn't the lack of risk taking lead them to defer certain tasks that must be done to someone else because of fear of consequences it will have on them.
That is the average woman in a nutshell (not even feminized or western, but women as a whole).
And when I say dangerous I
And when I say dangerous I mean it in the context of the business world.
manonthestreet I seek
manonthestreet
I seek liberty, so arguing about who should be 'at the top' is for me a diversion. What I want is freedom not a change in gender of my masters. Also I am totally sexist and only see women in sexual terms.