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

[stillstanding]

Am completely confused .... see article

I mean it's pretty nonsensical for anyone semi-conscious to say they are'nt a feminist but for HER to say it? And in the same breath as calling for quotas to get more women in boardrooms??

It's just daft. Am actually quite cross ...

Here is another really good article from the Guardian on the Womnen on boards (Wob) issue of which there is a current Govt inquiry running.

If tokenism is what it takes to get on, so be it

This part is so very very true.

"So what if there is tokenism, especially with the odds so stacked against women? The inquiry cites "opaque" recruitment processes as one of the major problems ? men giving friends positions with barely an interview, sometimes just because they are golf or squash buddies. (Astonishing!) There is even something called the old boys' network. Who knew? Except we all knew, so what's with the self-flagellation over tokenism, ladies?

Indeed, one of the most baffling Wob findings was that many women opposed mandatory quotas (wanting to be judged on their own merits etc). But is this really so surprising? Or is it just indicative that even female high achievers of this calibre have been so skilfully groomed to apologise for their gender that they are now terrified of the "T" word? Has it got to the point that they balk at the thought of long overdue changes to unjust male-centric working practices?"

I totally agree with that Lenin. It is one of the things that makes the world of paid work so unfamily friendly, and that is bad for men and women alike. If someone has you working 16 hours a day regularly, then they are understaffed and being exploitative.

Or are those things part of the problem? Constantly being available, and men being able to be, so women following suit. You need reasonable employers alongside the tech advances.

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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

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!