The impact of feminising workplaces

I’ve written at length about the impact of feminising workplaces, as have others. I see that the government has just given £500 million of taxpayers’ money to Accident and Emergency departments to help them deal with their staffing ‘crisis’. But why is there a crisis in the first place? Because for 30+ years the state has been steadily driving up the proportion of medical students who are women. Today 70% of medical students are women.

Two months ago Melanie Phillips wrote of the problems arising from women doctors in the NHS:

http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/melanie-phillips-on-female-doctors/

Female doctors are far more likely than male doctors to quit the profession, work part-time whether or not they have children, and more likely to refuse to work unsocial hours and in the most stressful and demanding departments such as A&E.

It costs £250,000 to train a doctor. So what’s the Conservative-led coalition’s solution to the crisis? To increase the proportion of male medical students? Of course not. The ‘solution’ is to train more doctors, presumably 70% of them still women. Well, it’s only taxpayers’ money being flushed down the drain.

And what of the private sector? The American economist Milton Friedman wrote in Capitalism and Freedom (1962):

Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible.

These days major companies are riddled with left-leaning executives and Corporate Social Responsibility (‘CSR’) consultants demanding they honour ever more onerous social responsibilities, regardless of the impact on the bottom line. Perhaps the most egregious practise is the relentless pandering to women in the workplace, whether it’s to increase the proportion of women on corporate boards – despite the compelling evidence that the consequence will be corporate financial decline – or to accommodate women’s needs and wishes to take time out of the workplace for child-related matters. Why should companies be any more accommodating of women in this area, than they would for men who wished to take significant time out of the workplace for other reasons?

And so it is that we have a relentless torrent of nonsensical pieces like this, almost always written by female reporters, male reporters seemingly unable to report on gender-related matters:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23600465

The piece starts with:

“More than a quarter of mothers in the UK feel discriminated against at work, a survey suggests.

A third of 1,975 women questioned for legal firm Slater and Gordon said they found it impossible to climb the career ladder and 54% said their employer could do more to support working mums.

Yet 35% thought they worked harder since having children.

Employers said businesses were better than ever at managing maternity leave and reintegrating mothers.

A total of 35% of the mothers questioned by One Poll in July said their workplace was not supportive of their situation when they were pregnant and 31% felt they were not well treated by their employer while on maternity leave.

Some 27% said they had felt under pressure to return to work earlier than they wanted too.

Once back in the workplace, 29% felt they had been overlooked for a promotion because they had responsibilities as a mother.”

Only from a whining female perspective could these numbers be deemed problematical. Let’s flip the numbers to see why:

“Almost three-quarters of mothers in the UK didn’t feel discriminated against at work, a survey suggests.

Two-thirds of 1,975 women questioned for legal firm Slater and Gordon said they found it possible to climb the career ladder and 46% said their employer could do more to support working mums.

65% didn’t think they worked harder since having children.

Employers said businesses were better than ever at managing maternity leave and reintegrating mothers.

A total of 65% of the mothers questioned by One Poll in July said their workplace was supportive of their situation when they were pregnant and 69% felt they were well treated by their employer while on maternity leave.

Some 73% said they hadn’t felt under pressure to return to work earlier than they wanted too.

Once back in the workplace, 71% felt they hadn’t been overlooked for a promotion because they had responsibilities as a mother.”

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.

2 Responses to The impact of feminising workplaces

  1. herbkr says:

    As a senior marketing consultant, I know only too well that issuing a press release with the phrase “Research has shown …” is a sure fire way to get the media hacks, desperate for material in the relentless 24 hour ‘news’ culture that we now endure, to pick up your story.

    It is called “Pop Scholarship” in the trade and is becoming the method of choice for most PR companies to raise the profile of their clients but it is not ethical. What it boils down to is ‘advocacy research’: surveys taken from as many people as possible, selected without any thought that the sample may be terribly skewed, and intended to prove a point rather than seek knowledge dispassionately; it totally lacks integrity let alone robust methodology.

    Notice the use of the word “felt” scattered throughout. No honest researcher would rely on such emotive evaluations. How can you measure what someone feels? They might feel different tomorrow. Such ‘measures’ are utterly subjective and, as you rightly demonstrate, can be made to look different the other way round.

    It’s marketing, NOT research. And it’s just part of the shriek of meaningless noise coming from the PR industry (populated almost entirely by women, incidentally) who ride on the back of Feminism because it is trendy and whose adherents are easily capable of being whipped up into yet another wave of hysteria in pursuit of their cause. It is just empty, meaningless trash that adds nothing to society and people need to recognise it for what it is worth – nothing.

    • Thanks for this, all too true. And of course we should remember David Cameron’s only work experience before going into politics was PR. Which may help explain why he stays in his ‘comfort zone’ whenever possible – emotionally appealing narratives are important, while principles and rational arguments count for nothing. What a shower the current generation of professional politicians are.

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