An appearance on the BBC TV programme ‘Daily Politics’

Yesterday I debated the topic of ‘women in the boardroom’ on the Daily Politics show. In the studio debating with me was Heather Rabbatts. The piece starts with three pieces ‘to camera’ from three women. The first two are the usual self-serving guff, but the third is insightful, as we’d expect from the journalist and broadcaster Cristina Odone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcwfWEPg3t4&feature=youtu.be

 

Advertisements

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to An appearance on the BBC TV programme ‘Daily Politics’

  1. Daniella Alpher says:

    Honestly, Mike, you know you’re my favorite misogynist but your frequent use of “longitudinal” comes across as a futile attempt to raise a smokescreen. No need to over-complicate: they’re studies. The ones you’re so preoccupied with and the ones you conveniently ignore, they all examine data over a set period of time. Adding all those syllables doesn’t make yours more credible.

    Glad to see you’ve started a YouTube channel, I thought Heather Rabbatts and Jo Coburn dealt with you extremely well. To boost viewership try to embed the videos, as opposed to just providing a link.

    Longitudinally yours, Daniella
    http://daniellaalpher.com/2012/11/21/misogenists/

    • Daniella, many thanks. If you’re familiar with the design of studies in such areas, you’ll understand perfectly well that longitudinal studies are the the only studies suggestive of causal impacts of putting more women on boards on corporate financial performance. All that non-longitudinal studies can possibly show is correlation, and correlation is no indicator of causation (as reports by McKinesy, Credit Suisse, Catalyst and others invariably point out, although that inconvenient truth is invariably omitted by proponents of increased gender diversity, when citing the reports). Basic statistics, really. And you know there are far better explanations for that correlation that any ‘female gender effect’ fantasy, including that strongly-performing companies can better afford a little social engineering, especially when it also gives companies a good PR story.

      I challenge you to provide us with the longitudinal studies demonstrating that when female representation on boards is increased, corporate financial performance improves. The ones I ‘conveniently ignore’, presumably? As you may have noticed from our posts in recent months, even the British government no longer challenges the evidence (the ‘five studies’) which shows clearly that increasing gender diversity on boards leads to declines in financial performance.

      Have a nice day.

  2. You did brilliantly in a hostile environment. Isn’t it interesting how the feminists’ sense of entitlement and grievance is so strong that it can’t be reduced by logical arguments.

    So you Mike gave logical arguments with data and they responded with irrelevancies – like “women are working longer hours”, and they “may not be work centered at certain times” and “50% of the population bla bla bla”.

    Who would a rational chairman appoint – Mike, or the woman on the left?

  3. mike what you should have said to heather at the end of the interview was men are not opposed to sharing power with women in the abstract men are opposed to radically changing the terms of our engagement with life in order to do so. I wrote a rebuttal to the end of men at

    http://ricochet.com/member-feed/Rebuttal-To-The-End-of-Men

    I am writing another article entitled
    The United States of Disparate Impact: How the AAUW And Other Civil Rights Grievance Rackets Caused The Student Loan Crisis in the US

    Here is one of the key lines:
    According to the feminist interpretation of history education has always been a free good provided to every adult male irrespective of the ability of the individual to use it and never has to be repaid. Making loans according to the feminists is more important than making good loans provided the feminists are in charge.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s