Baroness Karren Brady interviews Mike Buchanan about the gender pay gap

 Karren Brady with men's rights activist Mike Buchanan

I was recently interviewed by Karren Brady for her hour-long Channel 5 TV documentary, “Why do men earn more than women?” It was broadcast last night, and judging by the adverts before and during the programme, the target audience was predominantly women.

Karen and I had a filmed discussion of about two hours. Very little of the explanations I presented her with concerning gender pay gaps made it into the final documentary – not William Collins’s analysis, not Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory, published in 2000 – four out of seven British men are work-centred, but only one out of seven British women is. I presented the evidence of a causal link between increasing gender diversity on corporate boards, and financial decline, she ignored it and instead alluded to a 2016 Credit Suisse report which she believed showed a causal link with improved profitability, but didn’t.

The documentary is here, our discussion is between 26:57 – 30:33.


Is this the first admission in the mainstream media, that increasing the proportion of women on corporate boards leads to financial decline?

Followers of this website will need no reminding of the causal link between increasing the proportion of women on corporate boards, and consequent financial DECLINE. The evidence for the link is here. I presented it to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries in 2012, the video (56:50) of the latter session is here.

Long story short? There is NO business case to appoint more women to corporate boards – and, by extension, to senior positions generally.

In the six years since those inquiries, I have tried but failed to get the mainstream media to report on the story. Attempts to engage with politicians in order to end government threats of legislated gender quotas have proved futile. The threats started with The Davies Report, an outrageous report whose author was a Labour peer. Commissioning that report was one of the first acts of David Cameron after becoming became prime minister. The report’s remit was not whether there should be more women on corporate boards, but rather how the government could use its power to make that a reality.

The threats of legislated gender quotas remain, and has moved on from FTSE100 to FTSE350 companies, the government’s goal being gender parity on FTSE350 boards in the next few years. Directors of major companies, along with the CBI and the Institute of Directors, have shown no interest in the issue. Some years ago a collective madness descended on the business community – gynocentrism.

I don’t often buy The Daily Telegraph, but did so today, and was both surprised and delighted to read a piece by Sophie Jarvis, programmes director at The Entrepreneurs Network thinktank, Women won’t appreciate a patronising BBC quota. It’s a Premium article, and you can read one such article a week if you’re a non-subscriber (registration is free). The key words:

Outside the media, where gender quotas have been tried they have backfired. Norway introduced a 40 per cent quota for female directors in 2003. Later research found that the quota led to the employment of inexperienced women who ended up making bad decisions, leading to lower profitability at the companies themselves. [J4MB emphasis]

Meet Luo Mingxiong, the Chinese investor who says female bosses are bad for business

Followers of this website will need no reminding that we’ve been explaining since 2012 that strong evidence exists – here – demonstrating a causal link between increasing gender diversity on boards, and corporate financial DECLINE. While proponents of ‘more women on boards’ continue to misrepresent correlation (between increasing gender diversity on boards, and corporate financial improvement) as causation, any 16-year-old studying Mathematics at GCSE level should be aware that correlation isn’t the same as causation, and doesn’t even imply it.

Professor Susan Vinnicombe of Cranfield University has been for many years the world’s leading academic proponent for ‘more women on boards’. In 2012 she admitted to a House of Lords inquiry that she knew of no evidence of a causal link between increasing gender diversity on boards, and improved corporate financial performance – here.

Our thanks to James for alerting us to an article about a Chinese investor based in Beijing, Luo Mingxiong. The start of the piece:

After days in the spotlight for saying female CEOs are bad for business, Luo Mingxiong, a Chinese investor in Beijing, does not regret what he said.

“If I could have had a chance to say it again, I would still list this as my investment principle,” said Luo. He was referring to his statement at a public presentation in Beijing this month that “we usually don’t invest in female chief executive officers”.

Luo, the founder of Beijing venture capital firm Jingbei Investment, sparked a public outcry in China as he listed female CEOs in his 10 no-investment principles, suggesting that in the corporate world, they are as negative an attribute as dishonesty or an inability to learn.

Embedded in the article is a link to an article by a female journalist, Enoch Yiu, and published in 2016 in the South China Morning Post. It’s titled, Female CEOs, board members improve company returns, says Credit Suisse study. She is misrepresenting correlation as causation. The 52-page-long 2016 Credit Suisse study is here. The bottom line? At no point does the report claim a causal link between increased gender diversity on boards, and improved corporate financial performance.

Church investors vow to boost women in the boardroom (a tip of the hat to GWF Hegel)

The Right Rev Libby Lane, second left, was the first female bishop to be consecrated by the Church of England in 2015; there are now 12 women bishops

Times caption: The Right Rev Libby Lane, second left, was the first female bishop to be consecrated by the Church of England in 2015; there are now 12 women bishops

At the conference in July, The Rev Jules Gomes’s talk title will be, “Singing in the ruins: How feminists have destroyed the Church of England beyond repair”. Having destroyed the CofE, feminists are now progressing to force major companies to appoint female directors they don’t want, let alone need. A piece by Kaya Burgess, Religious Affairs Correspondent, in yesterday’s Times, emphases ours:

Big companies will be held to ransom over the gender divide in their boardrooms after a powerful group of church investors with £17 billion in assets vowed to vote out directors at firms with too few women at the top.

Pressure on FTSE 350 firms to improve the representation of women in top roles will come from the Church Investors Group (CIG), even though many of its members come from institutions such as the Catholic church, which does not allow women to become priests, let alone bishops or archbishops.

The group, which also counts the Church of England’s investment arm and pensions board, and the Scottish Episcopal and Methodist churches among its members, will also take a hard line on excessive pension deals for chief executives and on climate change, it has warned.

The CIG has said it will vote against the re-election of the nomination committee chairman at any company where less than a third of the board is made up of women. If less than a quarter of the board are women, the group will vote against all directors on the nomination committee.

The Church of England currently has 111 serving bishops, of whom just 12 are women, or less than 11 per cent. The Scottish Episcopal Church has only just appointed the first female bishop in its history.

The group has said it will “encourage other shareholders to hold directors to account and refuse to re-elect directors where the company is out of line with best practice”.

Stephen Beer, chief investment officer at the Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church, said the investment group had “ratcheted up its efforts” on gender diversity and said: “Our new policy will enable us to send a clear signal to companies that we expect them to consider fairness when setting executive pay levels. We encourage the wider investment community to hold directors accountable and ensure more responsible stewardship on this critical subject.”

He added, however, that different Christian denominations take different approaches to gender equality within their own institutions for theological reasons.

The investment group will also hold companies to account over executive pay and action on climate page. Members of the CIG will not support renumeration (sic) reports where chief executives receive “excessive” pensions worth more than 30 per cent of their salary, or where firms fail to reveal the pay ratio between the highest and lowest earners.

Financial and pharmaceutical companies that fail to pay the living wage will also not receive backing from the group, while the investors will also vote against the re-election of board chairmen if the company is making too little progress towards “a low carbon world”.

The Rev Canon Edward Carter, chairman of the CIG, said: “If [directors] are not doing something about fairness and about the risks facing us today, they are part of the problem and risk losing the confidence of the public and ultimately their licence to operate.”

In the comments stream, from Hilary Manser:

Shrewd move. It’s been found that companies who have more women on the board tend to do better at business. So the church will do better with the return on its investments and give an appearance of being socially conscious at the same time. This despite its own abysmal record on female equality

A response to those comments, from GWF Hegel:

@Hilary Manser There’s NO evidence that companies who have more women on the board do better at business.  Rather the opposite, in fact.  The evidence that increasing gender diversity on corporate boards leads to a decline in performance is here: [J4MB: this is a brief paper published by our allied organization Campaign for Merit in Business in 2012.]

The studies are longitudinal, so they can demonstrate causality, not correlation.

The Church of England is trying to terrorise companies into making appointments on blatant gynocentrism.  What a horrendous society we are becoming.

You can subscribe to The Times here.

August Lovenskiolds: Do men make better CEOs than women?

Another excellent piece from the august August. Our thanks to AVfM for the image above, taken from the piece. An excerpt:

15 of the 20 men still held their titles after 5 years, compared to just 10 of the 20 women.

8 of the men improved the ranking of their companies, compared to 0 of the women.

Final result: Men at plus 451 were 994 ranks higher than comparable women CEOs, who scored minus 443. This was not just a slaughter of women CEOs, this was Bambi meets Godzilla.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

August Lovenskiolds: ‘Women hate being CEOs – and they suck at it’

A tip of the hat to August Lovenskiolds for his illuminating analysis. The bottom line:

In 2012, 20 S&P 500 companies had female CEOs.

By 2017, 10 of the women were no longer CEOs.

By 2017, all the female CEO’s companies had fallen in the S&P rankings.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

White men ‘endangered species’ in top business roles as women promoted to senior positions – Tesco chairman

Our thanks to Sean for this. Extracts:

Speaking at the Retail Week Live conference on Thursday, he (John Allan, Tesco chairman) said: “If you are female and from an ethnic background and preferably both then you are in an extremely propitious period.

“For a thousand years men have got most of these jobs, the pendulum has swung very significantly the other way now and will do for the foreseeable future I think.

“If you are a white male – tough – you are an endangered species and you are going to have to work twice as hard.”

These days I’m embarrassed to admit I spent my 30-year career as a business executive, such is the idiocy and complicity of the senior executives in FTSE350 companies and elsewhere who’ve enthusiastically embraced feminist demands for more women on boards.

Regular followers of this blog will surely need no reminding of the evidence (five longitudinal studies) compiled in 2012 by Campaign for Merit in Business demonstrating a clear causal link between increasing female representation on boards, and corporate financial decline. That evidence has never been challenged by proponents of ‘more women on boards’.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Aviva plc: ‘Promote women or else’

Since 2012 this blog has been pointing to the strong evidence of a causal link between increasing female representation on corporate boards, and financial decline.

The private sector continues to accede to demands for more women on boards, and the government is known to be seeking gender parity on FTSE350 boards, threatening gender quota legislation if necessary – a tactic hailing back to the 2011 Davies Report, which resulted in the proportion of women on FTSE100 boards doubling from 12.5% in 2011, to 25% by 2015. Virtually all the female directors appointed over those four years shared something in common with the existing women on FTSE100 boards, being appointed as non-executive directors.

Much of the drive for more women on boards comes from manipulative ideologically-driven sexist women in senior positions. A case in point. Aviva plc is a British multinational insurance company headquartered in London. It has around 33 million customers across 16 countries.

Aviva has 13 people on its board, including three women, all of whom are non-executive directors. Shockingly, both the chairman and the senior non-executive director are grey-haired white men.

It gets worse. All the board members are white. If a board with few female directors (or none) is evidence of the ‘glass ceiling’ (i.e. anti-female sexism) – as proponents for ‘more women on boards’ claim, or imply – then (by the same logic) an all-white board must be evidence of racism. The company should be ashamed of itself. Customers and shareholders should desert it in droves.

From yesterday’s Sunday Times, a short piece by Aimee Donnellan titled, “Aviva: ‘Promote women or else'”:

Aviva has threatened to terminate contracts with suppliers that fail to promote women to senior roles.

Sarah Morris, human resources boss at the insurer, has issued the warning to more than a dozen subcontractors – thought to include recruitment firms, catering suppliers and specialist providers of insurance services.

In a letter, she stated that the company’s suppliers were “critically placed to drive the change that is needed in future talent pipelines” and that “publicly backing” women’s initiatives would give them a “competitive edge”.

The warning was aimed at suppliers that had failed to sign up to gender equality initiatives such as the 30% Club campaign and the Women in Finance charter drawn up by Virgin Money boss Jayne-Anne Gadhia.

Morris told The Sunday Times that Aviva had had some positive responses to the letter, [hopefully some responses told her to stick her letter where the sun doesn’t shine] which was sent two months ago, but the insurer would be “willing to consider ending our ongoing relationship if our partner firms don’t share our values on this”.

Morris is on the steering committee of the 30% Club, which wants FTSE companies to ensure one third of directors are women.

Her warning was sent with the blessing of Aviva chief executive Mark Wilson. The insurer was the first British company to pledge women would comprise 30% of its executive committee by 2020.

Sarah Morris, the Chief People Officer – personnel manager – sits on the (all-white) Group executive committee. The associated web page also has the manipulative harridan’s photograph:

Mark Wilson, the blithering idiot at the head of the company, is pictured here:

Mark Wilson

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Monique Svazlian Tallon (Monique Tallon) is a blithering idiot

One of the supporters to whom I owe the most is Jeff, who has been relentlessly encouraging since before the launch of Campaign for Merit in Business in early 2012, almost five years ago, a year before the launch of J4MB.

Jeff is a terrific source of leads to articles, and recently sent me a link to a short opinion piece by Monique Svazlian Tallon, titled, “Four Reasons Why We’re Still Talking About Diversity on Boards”. Jeff writes:

I have not read anything more infantile and ridiculous about gender diversity on boards than this diatribe, Mike. The sense of entitlement from this woman is overwhelming……I do hope you have the time to respond to her.

An extract from the piece should help you grasp what a blithering idiot the woman is:

The business case for having more women on boards is clear. It has been shown that when there are two or more women on a board of directors, the organisation performs better on it’s ROI by 66%. If any other investment opportunity presented this kind of potential gain, businesses would have jumped. But they haven’t. Some say it’s due to a lack of understanding of the business imperative, others point to a pipeline issue or a lack of mentoring.

The daft woman clearly believes that the appointment of two women to a corporate board will increase ROI by 66%. She evidently considers this a causal link – ‘If any other investment opportunity…’ – rather than correlation, the latter not providing any justification for increasing female representation on boards. The causal link is more likely the opposite to the one she assumes – more financially successful companies can better afford to indulge in social engineering initiatives e.g. increasing the proportion of female directors on their boards.

The evidence from major longitudinal studies could not be clearer. Increasing female representation on corporate boards leads to corporate financial decline.

More idiocy:

… male performance is over-estimated compared to that of women. Because women are held to stricter and higher standards, the odds of them progressing are lower.


When men and women perform an act, men are given credit more often while women are judged more harshly.


There is a general belief that women cannot be both good mothers and good performers, therefore women with children are less likely to be hired and promoted.


Women have the unique challenge of having to choose between being seen as competent or being liked, walking a tightrope between being too nice or being assertive, which often puts them in a double bind.

Monique Svazlian Tallon is an American, she unfortunately moved to Europe in 2009 after forming Highest Path. She  is just one of countless ideologically-driven parasites (many of them are men) making a living out of developing and executing gender / diversity / blah blah blah initiatives in major companies. Her company’s strapline reads, ‘Developing 21st Century Leaders”. It should, more accurately, read, ‘Developing 21st Century Leaders With Vaginas’.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Blithering idiots at 100+ organizations in the financial services sector are colluding with blithering idiots at HM Treasury to harm the financial services sector

A few weeks ago I sent a written submission to the DBIS inquiry into corporate governance, in relation to gender diversity on corporate boards. Followers of this blog and that of the associated Campaign for Merit in Business will need no reminding of the evidence of a causal link between increasing female representation on boards, and corporate financial decline.

That evidence has never been refuted by anyone to whom we’ve presented it, whether in government, business, academia, journalism, or elsewhere. Equally, nobody has ever provided us with evidence of  a causal link between increasing female representation on boards, and corporate financial improvement (the alleged ‘business case’ for this ideologically-driven initiative).

Not having been invited by the DBIS inquiry to give oral evidence, during which I would have shown the government’s policy (since 2011) to be damaging to companies – bullying them into appointing more women onto their boards, with the threat of legislated gender quotas if they don’t do so ‘voluntarily’ – as I did at a previous DBIS inquiry, in November 2012, video here (56:50).

I wrote to Richard Fuller, who sits on the committee, asking to be given the opportunity. He didn’t respond. I wasn’t surprised. When I last met him, I explained that evidence (from longitudinal studies) showed a causal link between increasing female representation on corporate boards, and corporate financial decline. He stated (whilst glancing nervously at a young female apparatchik, who was taking notes) that the assertion was ‘impossible’. It took some time to persuade him to accept the hard copies of the evidence, which I’d brought with me. I assume he threw it in the bin after my departure.

My thanks to the indefatigable Jeff for emailing me the following today:

HM Treasury Women in Finance Charter: a pledge for gender balance across financial services

Women in Finance Charter list of signatories (100+ signatories)

Quotes from Women in Finance Charter signatories (59 signatories)

A typical statement from one of the 59 organisations:

Lynne Atkin, HR Director, Barclays UK and Barclaycard, said:

Barclays is proud to support the launch of the Women in Finance Charter, and will continue to play a leading role in supporting greater progress for senior women in our industry.

Every part of our business is contributing to this agenda, we’ve supported the Davies commission and set out own targets for senior female representation at Managing Director. (sic)

A turgid report by three women:

HM Treasury Women in Finance Charter – Leading the Way

The start of the report’s Introduction:

What this report is about

Gender balance in UK financial services has leapt up the agenda since the government asked Jayne-Anne Gadha, Chief Executive of Virgin Money, to lead a review of women in senior management, and launched the HM Treasury Women in Finance Charter in March 2016.

On the front page the Charter is described as being run ‘in collaboration with HM Treasury’ and is ‘supported by Virgin Money’.

I no longer feel inclined to devote any more time and energy to this battle, in which I’ve been engaged for almost five years, when there are so many other more worthwhile battles to be fought. Senior business people (mostly men) have over recent years proved themselves mind-numbingly stupid in accepting the arguments for increasing the proportion of women in their companies’ senior levels, and I see no evidence of that stupidity lessening. Indeed, their public pronouncements become ever more absurd with each passing year.

At some point these blithering idiots will be faced with the stark truth that they’ve made a big mistake, but it will be difficult and costly to return to the principle of promoting people solely on merit. They’ll need to sack or demote the women who were promoted on ideological grounds, and give their jobs to the men who were better qualified.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.