Latest Posts

Feminists are totally unconcerned when it comes to giving any considerations to anything or anyone when it comes to female elevation and increasing their privileges. We have already seen what the effects are when they forced into services and the armed forces to include females, always at a reduced standards, sufficiently reduced to make their efforts almost totally useless. The army would be the best example..

Even in those positions they still claim discrimination and do so even when they are treated as equals. It has been demonstrated that whenever women are included in the arrangement, even under force, most men will make the transition but even then they claim to being "mistreated" and request even more privileges and personal benefits and additional space..

Everyone has to make accommodation for them and not the other way around, regardless of cost or disruption..

Cypress CEO Responds to Nun's Urging a 'Politically Correct' Board Make-up

Women have already obtained positions as CEO's and board membership. One does wonder if they are in that position because the company was forced to accept them, are there because the board wants to present itself as PC or whether they are there because of hard work and effort. One will never know as most women in those type of positions would not even admit or be aware of how many special assistance programs, coercion or influence was used to install them in that position. Knowing all that, it must be embarrassing for women to be able to be accused of allowing that action..

It is no longer a question of whether or not they are capable, but how they got there to begin with..

It must be humiliating..

Former CEO Carol Bartz Sacked from Yahoo..

The other issue is that whenever a female CEO is appointed to any public company, the first thing that suffered has been the share price and that company will undergo a massive reassignment of priority. Here are some samples of what happens when this action is undertaken..

Female CEO's in charge, the girls lost billions.

Why Women Operated Businesses Fail.....

Here is one example -

Quantifying the Cost of Quotas

by W.F. PRICE on JANUARY 6, 2012
As feminism has dispensed with the notion of legal equality on favor of measures that actively enforce equality of outcome, gender quotas have become the tool of choice for dealing with perceived “inequality” in any venue that women find desirable. This is why we see a push for quotas in management, cushy government jobs, school and such, but not so much in trash collectors, taxi drivers or front-line soldiers. The push for women in combat is an example of the hypocrisy here, because rather than actively put women in combat situations or dangerous assignments where they will stand a higher chance of getting shot or blown up, what the feminists are trying to do is expand the definition of combat so that women can put “combat experience” on their military resume and be favored for higher command.
It’s gone pretty far in the US, but in Norway they’ve taken it farther and legislated that all publicly listed companies reserve 40% of board positions for females. Norwegian companies were not pleased about the move, but of those that remained public or did not flee Norway, all have complied. A study by the University of Michigan took a hard look at the figures to ascertain the effect of this new legislation, and came up with some numbers that demonstrate that the fears of companies were quite rational: the companies that were forced to stuff their boards with women performed significantly worse than they had before.
Here’s an excerpt from the intro:
In this paper, we present new evidence on the relationship between firm value and board characteristics by exploiting a natural experiment in board structure created by an unprecedented exogenous change to corporate boards. In December of 2003, the Norwegian Parliament passed a first-of-its-kind law requiring all public-limited firms to have at least 40 percent representation of women on their boards of directors by July of 2005; at the time women held only nine percent of board seats. After voluntary compliance failed, the law became compulsory January 1, 2006, with a two year transition period. Firms that did not comply by January of 2008 would be forced to dissolve. Notices to comply were given to 77 delinquent firms in January 2008, and by April all public limited firms were in compliance with the law. Figure I presents the time series of this dramatic transformation in the composition of Norwegian boards of directors. Though more women were elected to boards, the numbers of female directors serving as chairman and CEO remained steadfast at less than five percent, consistent with press reports of the unpopularity of the law among existing board members and executives (Goldsmith, 2002).
In a panel of 248 publicly listed Norwegian firms from 2001 to 2009, we find a large negative impact of the mandated board changes on firm value. First, we run an event study on the stock price reaction to the initial announcement of the quota. As discussed in detail in the paper, the announcement of the law was made in an unusual manner, which created a highly unanticipated news event. On the days around the announcement, we find that the average industry-adjusted stock return for firms with no female directors was −3.54%, compared to −0.02% for firms with at least one female director. The difference of 3.52% is economically and statistically significant. These findings are robust to controls for board size, firm size, and are significantly different than benchmark industry-adjusted returns of firms in the U.S. and other Scandinavian countries.
Second, instrumental variables estimates indicate that the quota caused a substantially large negative effect on industry-adjusted Tobin’s Q. A forced 10 percent increase of women representation on the board led to a 12.4 percent decline in Tobin’s Q from the average. Reduced-form estimates suggest that relative to 2003 benchmarks, firms with at least one female director in 2002 had industry-adjusted Q values in 2007 that were 0.26 higher than firms with no female directors in 2002; a substantial difference when compared to the average Q of 1.53. Additionally, placebo tests reveal no relationship between pre-quota female board representation and subsequent changes in firm value for U.S. firms. The results suggest that the constraint imposed by the law had a large negative effect on firm value, commensurate with the massive reorganization of corporate boards imposed by the gender quota.
To be fair, part of the problem was that the new female board members had less experience, and that will change over time. However, due to the universal nature of the legislation, by the time that happens there will be no means by which to compare the female bords to the male (unless one compares private firms to public).
But even if integrated boards are found to perform as well as overwhelmingly male boards, we ought to ask ourselves why it should be the government’s role to force these things on companies, which operate independently from government. Isn’t this a net loss of freedom and choice?
Farther on in the paper, it is revealed that rather than comply, a number of companies simply delisted or fled abroad, presumably because they couldn’t afford the decline in performance:
If the negative effects of the gender quota on firm value were as large as our evidence suggests, we would expect to see firms try to avoid the law altogether. There are at least two ways that firms could do this. First, existing firms could change their form of legal organization to private limited, rather than public limited. Second, firms could incorporate in another country. In this section, we provide evidence that both changes occurred following the introduction of the law.
Using data from Statistics Norway, Figure II presents the time series of the number of all public limited and private limited firms in Norway from 2001 to 2009. There are, of course, many more private limited firms, so we normalize the time series to 1 in 2001. We also present the time series of total employment in Norway over this time period for comparison.
The figure shows that there is a steady decline in public limited firms starting in 2003 and continuing throughout the period. By 2009, there are less than 70 percent as many public limited firms in Norway as there were in 2001. In contrast, the number of private limited firms increases beginning in 2003 and continues throughout, ending in 2009 with over 30 percent more private limited firms than existed in 2001. These changes occur at a time when employment is increasing, with the exception of 2009. This indicates that, while the economy was growing, firms were more likely to choose to organize as a private limited firm rather than a public limited firm starting in the years after the announcement of the gender quota law, which only affects public limited firms.
Readers with a knack for statistics could probably do a better job than I can identifying the most salient points in the publication, so I’d like to invite commenters with some expertise on this subject to offer their own analysis.
Feminists are often touting the “benefits” of equality of outcome, but it’s time they were confronted with some if its costs, and asked to justify them. Why should we accept less wealth and poorer performance simply because they want to leverage women in a very small, but powerful segment of society?