1:22 he mentions statistics, wish he had a diagram to show her. But I think he was very good with his points.He could have explained his opposition to the idea that corparations do better with more women on their boards to make it clear that he doesn't disapprove of female particapation on boards.
He's not the best communicator I find. But the part on fathers was better done.
He did address the child custody issue poorly. What I think he was trying to say is, while more men are normally more work focussed than women, and therefore more men would prefer to devote less of their time to child care than women, this is not universally so, and, further, the onset of divorce can radically change a man's priorities (make him realize what the important things in life really are). If you accept that proposition, it would be wrong for the courts to essentially "decide a man's priorities for him" by failing to recognize a default 50/50 split of custody/access, barring the request of the parties or evidence justifying some other split. What he meant by "starting point" is that the divorcing couple, if they agree and realize that the 50/50 split is what neither of them want, would undoubtedly change the default (and perhaps change the default of other matters customarily split 50/50) to come to an arrangement that matches each of their priorities. As it is, the courts want to split everything financial down the middle while not coming even close to recognizing shared custody/access as the norm.He did pretty good but she got him on the hypocrisy of saying men want to work more than women but then saying men should have 50% child custody "as a starting point." If that's the case, then women should hold 50% of corporate positions "as a starting point." She could have argued that women are better qualified to raise children then men and turn his own arguments against him.
Still, it was fun to watch.
John Tory is on the board of Rogers and I think a few others. I rest my case.Unless one accepts the proposition that the quality of Board appointments has no meaningful impact on corporate profits, you would have to expect that appointing less qualified people to Boards should result in lower profitability.
That eliminates all your posts about unions then! LOL!I won't consider replying to any post unless it is constructive, and unemotional.
Ah,...but you see,...getting rid of unions,...IS constructive,...!!!That eliminates all your posts about unions then! LOL!