Nicola Horlick says she is not a feminist. Does Nicola Horlick know what a feminist is??

No it's usually the sub editor isn't it, not the journalist.

Yes the writer has been v clever there - has smuggled some fundamentally feminist observations, into an article with a sexist headline.

There is of course good old fashioned sexism and discrimination in the process of choosing directors for boards as well.

The having babies bit has some effect but not the whole effect - as per my two female friends I mentioned earlier. Both have had children and both have gone back to work.

I think the article is saying that women are disadantaged when they have babies because of the way society basically forces them into the childcare roles - even if they want to go back to work.

"There is plenty of evidence that British men want to be more involved in rearing their children. But our system of parental leave is so heavily skewed that both sexes have little choice but to succumb to an outdated status quo. "

"The pram in the hall is the real enemy of female promise. And until men are able to take on as much of the work ? and the pleasure ? of child-rearing, that?s the way it will remain."

But that headline - it's not sexism, it's babies - that in itself is sexist isn't it? Because it basically says that we are disadvantaged because we have babies. What kind of society sets up a marketplace that systematically disadvantages the people who produce its next generation?

HerBeX -

Good points in that Telegraph article.

"Spending thousands to train and educate women, only for them to fall out of the labour market at the peak of their expertise, is a very profligate way to run a country.

As the phrase goes. "Its the economy stupid".

Govt talks about making the economy more competitive and productive - well this is a good example of a simple way to make it happen. Make sure the most productive people get the jobs!

Damn, now I feel I have to read a Daily Telegraph article.

Completely agree with BeenBeta (falls off chair in shock )

I can't even be bothered to read the article that says it's babies not sexism that holds women back. Because it is just sexism apologism isn't it - I can predict that it will take absolutely no notice of the fact that the workplace is organised to deliberately penalise those who take time out to raise children, unlike any other group who take time out for any other reason (like going travelling or doing a master's degree or something) and it will also ignore the fact that women who don't have children are also paid less than men and are also less likely to be represented on boards than men.

FattyArbuckel - I want to put the converse arguement to those women who are on boards who say there should be no quotas because they themselves got there 'on merit'.

Are they saying that they really believe that only 12% of women (including themselves) are capable of being on a board?

I have two female friends who are in senior roles in City firms who would both make excellent board members. They have both tried hard to get board positions and both been repeatedly rejected. Just because a few women have made it on to boards does not mean we dont need quotas.

Although I ma a bloke the reason I get ticked off abut this is because I partly make my living out of investing in companies and it is absolutley clear that ignoring half the talent (women) in a firm and over promoting the other half (men) who are not as good is bad for firms and bad for the economy.

This is a serious hard nosed economic issue - not a touchy feely 'nice to have'.

Are we really saying that in 88% of cases men are better suited on merit to the top jobs in the country?

And if we are saying this is everyone OK with it, do most people really think hugely more men are more capable of positions of high office than women? Or is something seriously wrong here?

I would like quotas for women in parliament and also for public employers and large companies.

I don't think we need quotas forever but its a faster way to get where we need to be.

Anna Ford had a good take on this in the Financial Times.

?I?m now completely in favour of quotas,? said Anna Ford, the former broadcaster who sits on the boards of J Sainsbury and N Brown.

?I think women have waited long enough. We?re half the population, we?re not a disabled racial minority. We?re 52 per cent of the population and I think quotas are the only way forward now because I?ve been waiting for this for 40 years.?

Quite. Change needs to be forced on companies because the voluntary approach has not worked.

Quite, Aliceworld.

For some reason, the merit free status quo is always seen to be more fair than a merit free new system which includes the other half of the population.

So what's the solution. Sticking with the merit-free system we have now that advantages one part of the population? Or adding another merit-free system too to give a bit of balance?

quotas are a poor idea - replacing one merit-free system with another one isn't a credible way fwd.

While we are it a quota for the judiciary and the top of the civil serice might not be a bad idea either.

Agree quotas are a great idea and I wish we had 50% female MPs by quota too

Yes but this is why it requires an enlightened boss. To allow it in the first place.