Men's Rights Activist Destroys Feminist Lies About Parenting, Work Ethic & More!
- Thread starter TESLAMotors
- Start date
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's not the best communicator I find. But the part on fathers was better done.
1:22 he mentions statistics, wish he had a diagram to show her. But I think he was very good with his points.
With respect to the performance of women on Boards of Directors, I think the logic chain goes like this:
1. Women's groups are upset that there are not an equal number of women appointed to Boards of Directors.
2. Corporations respond that there a not an equal number of experienced and qualified women to appoint. Corporations say that the women who are experienced and qualified for this role are already on Boards.
3. Women respond - the reason there are fewer women candidates is because women are discriminated against along the entire hierarchy of positions leading to business leadership (essentially agreeing that there are fewer qualified women to appoint).
4. Corporations fear that protests from women will cause their sales/revenue to drop.
5. Corporations appoint a number of women to their board who are not as experienced or qualified as the men who might have been appointed instead in order to avoid the potential hit to revenue.
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.
None of this is to suggest that women lack the ability to rise up through the corporate ranks and become perfectly qualified for business leadership positions. However, everyone seems to agree that fewer women than men have done this (regardless of the reasons) at this point in our society. In essence, the demand for "immediate action" by women's groups has resulted in a number of women being put in positions prematurely, with a resulting impact on business performance. I think this may become a non-issue in about 20 years, when an equal number of women have risen through the ranks in the conventional fashion, and reach the highest positions with the conventional amount of experience and qualification.
1. Women's groups are upset that there are not an equal number of women appointed to Boards of Directors.
2. Corporations respond that there a not an equal number of experienced and qualified women to appoint. Corporations say that the women who are experienced and qualified for this role are already on Boards.
3. Women respond - the reason there are fewer women candidates is because women are discriminated against along the entire hierarchy of positions leading to business leadership (essentially agreeing that there are fewer qualified women to appoint).
4. Corporations fear that protests from women will cause their sales/revenue to drop.
5. Corporations appoint a number of women to their board who are not as experienced or qualified as the men who might have been appointed instead in order to avoid the potential hit to revenue.
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.
None of this is to suggest that women lack the ability to rise up through the corporate ranks and become perfectly qualified for business leadership positions. However, everyone seems to agree that fewer women than men have done this (regardless of the reasons) at this point in our society. In essence, the demand for "immediate action" by women's groups has resulted in a number of women being put in positions prematurely, with a resulting impact on business performance. I think this may become a non-issue in about 20 years, when an equal number of women have risen through the ranks in the conventional fashion, and reach the highest positions with the conventional amount of experience and qualification.
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.
Still, it was fun to watch.
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.
I don't think the comparison to the percentage of women in corporate positions is apt, as that is a debate about qualifications, not preferences.
I've already been called a racist,...incorrectly,...lets go for sexist.
If you ran a company, or was responsible for its performance, and you had 2 people with equal qualifications, one male, one female, to fill a position.
If your decision was solely based on what was best for the company, which would you choose, and why.
Flame away,...but insults only point to your character,...I'm asking a simple question,...not making a statement.
I won't consider replying to any post unless it is constructive, and unemotional.
FAST
If you ran a company, or was responsible for its performance, and you had 2 people with equal qualifications, one male, one female, to fill a position.
If your decision was solely based on what was best for the company, which would you choose, and why.
Flame away,...but insults only point to your character,...I'm asking a simple question,...not making a statement.
I won't consider replying to any post unless it is constructive, and unemotional.
FAST
Ah,...but you see,...getting rid of unions,...IS constructive,...!!!
But ya,...I do rant a bit about unions,...but for good reason.
FAST
