Among the downsides of ‘improving’ gender diversity in the public sector is that the long-suffering taxpayer ends up paying more, and receives poorer quality services. My thanks to Alan for pointing me to an example in today’s Mail Online:
Staying in the NHS, the general practitioner service is in crisis for the same reason, as I explained in Feminism: the ugly truth:
It’s often stated (or inferred) that the reason for women’s preference (relative to men) for part-time work (or no work) over full-time work relates to their caring responsibilities for young children. This ignores the obvious point that many women don’t have children, and that such caring responsibilities relate anyway to a minority of the years in which a woman can work.
‘Improved’ gender diversity initiatives have for long been more entrenched in the public sector than in the private sector, because the taxpayer will always bear the cost. He (and she) will never have an opportunity to protest at the ballot box. These initiatives are increasingly common in the private sector, although positive discrimination remains illegal. We would be mad not to halt these initiatives in their tracks and dismantle them. The alternative is to keep feeding a parasite which will slowly, but surely, kill UK plc.