Patschef


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2006 January
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2004 May
2004 April

My Links
Patschef's Blog
Masculinisme
Masculinisme

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog



In Norway, a woman's place is in the boardroom
01.20.06 (10:35 pm)   [edit]
In Norway, a woman's place is in the boardroom Firms must introduce female directors or face closure under a new law Gwladys Fouché in Oslo and Jill Treanor Monday January 9, 2006 The Guardian The 500 companies listed on Norway's stock exchange face being shut down unless they install women on their boards over the next two years in a radical initiative imposed by a government determined to help women break through the "glass ceiling". After a week in which the Equal Opportunities Commission in Britain has warned that it would take 40 years for women to break into the ranks of the FTSE 100 in the same way as men, Norwegian companies face a two-year deadline to ensure that women hold 40% of the seats of each company listed on the Oslo bourse. New companies have to comply now with the rules and the government is considering extending the law to family-owned companies as well. The requirement came into effect at the start of this year after companies were given two years to embrace the demands voluntarily following the passing of the law in 2003. State-owned companies are already obliged to comply and now have 45% female representation on their boards. The failure of companies to act - about half of the companies on the stock market are estimated to have no women on their boards - has prompted the Norwegian equality minister, Karita Bekkemellem, to take the draconian step of threatening firms with closure. "From January 1 2006, I want to put in place a system of sanctions that will allow the closure of firms," she said. "I do not want to wait another 20 or 30 years for men with enough intelligence to finally appoint women. "More than half of the people who have a business education today are women. It is wrong for companies not to use them. They should be represented." It is a cry that is familiar to organisations such as Britain's Equal Opportunities Commission, which are trying to promote the elevation of women to boardrooms in Britain. The EOC's report last week, Sex and Power, found that women make up only 11% of directors in FTSE 100 companies and painted a bleak picture for the prospects of much improvement. The British government tried to tackle the problem after a report into boardroom behaviour by the City grandee Sir Derek Higgs highlighted the "pale male" phenomenon in companies. There was an attempt to draw up a list of 100 women who might be candidates for boards, though Laura D'Andrea Tyson, an academic and former adviser to President Clinton who was charged with finding candidates, decided in the end that such a list was unnecessary. Norway's imposition of quotas seems unlikely to be embraced by Britain. The few women who have reached senior roles in British firms appear to oppose a target system. Deanna Oppenheimer, the American banker recently appointed to run Barclays' branch network, says: "In my experience, mixed teams, mixed by gender, ethnic background, by age and experience, perform better than homogeneous teams." The banking industry - traditionally a bastion of domineering male managers - is one area of British business where women are in senior roles. Ms Oppenheimer is the second American woman named to run a British branch network. Terri Dial has joined the board of Lloyds TSB to run its UK retail operation and is one of two women holding executive positions on the Lloyds board, where Helen Weir is finance director. Ms Weir wonders whether her job - a profession requiring number-crunching - makes it easier for women to achieve a senior role. However, she is a reluctant role model for women eager to progress in business, partly because of the work-life sacrifices required. "The trade-offs I make won't necessarily work for everyone else," she says, adding that 90% of her time is divided between work and her three children with the remaining 10% fought over between her husband, friends and herself. Ms Oppenheimer acts as a mentor for men and women and believes women need to be "very articulate, to form points well" and should work in environments that "value performance" if they want to get on. Like Ms Weir, Ms Oppenheimer, who has moved her two children to Britain, thinks a supportive home background is crucial. "I have two children and have a career," she says. "You need a support structure ... a husband who is involved." In Norway, women have been very successful in reaching top positions outside business. In politics, for instance, a third of the country's MPs are women and nine of the 19 cabinet ministers are women. In Britain, 20% of MPs are women and the Equal Opportunities Commission has warned that it could take another 40 elections for equality with men to be reached. The near-equality of Norwegian women in politics might explain the determination to tackle under-representation in business, where 16% of company directors are women. The law being implemented was the brainchild of the former businessman Ansgar Gabrielsen, a trade and industry minister in the former government. "The law was not about getting equality between the sexes; it was about the fact that diversity is a value in itself, that it creates wealth. From my time in the business world, I saw how board members were picked: they come from the same small circle of people. They go hunting and fishing together, they are buddies," he said. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Norwegian business community is opposed to the government's attempts to interrupt the status quo. Businesses would prefer a more flexible approach, such as organising networking events where companies can meet potential candidates. The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO) has a database of 400 women and claims that a quarter of them have been offered management or board positions. Sigrun Vaageng, of the NHO, said: "The punishment is completely disproportionate ... It is far too harsh to close a company just because it lacks one woman." She doubts whether the government will carry out its threat. "It is science fiction to think that the government is going to shut down a company that employs thousands of people over this," she said. Some companies are completely opposed to the law and are waiting to see if the government will use the sanctions, according to Marit Hoel, head of the Centre for Corporate Diversity. But Ms Bekkemellem, the equality minister, seems convinced that firms will not risk it. "Are there companies that will risk closure just because they lack one woman? They have another two years to fix the situation," she warns.
 
Phyllis Schlafly
01.20.06 (9:01 pm)   [edit]
Phyllis Schlafly and New Politics of Family by Stephen Baskerville Posted Jan 17, 2006 If an icon exists in the conservative world, it is Phyllis Schlafly. The Washington Times recently described her as "arguably the most important woman in American political history," and a biography by historian Donald Critchlow offers a similar assessment. Few individuals can claim to have defeated, almost single-handedly, a measure as momentous and potentially destructive as a proposed constitutional amendment like the Equal Rights Amendment. And she did it in the face of not only a massive leftist lobbying campaign but of capitulation by conservative Republican politicians. Today we are faced with an equally dangerous threat, if not a greater one. Sadly, we seem to have learned little, and Mrs. Schlafly once again stands almost alone in prophetic opposition to forces arrayed against the family, social order, freedom, and quite possibly American civilization. Once again it is a challenge to which our leaders are conspicuously failing to rise. Mrs. Schlafly has challenged a massive abuse of the Constitution that most on the right ignore: the forced, systematic destruction of families and of parents’ rights in the nation’s family courts. This involves much more than "gender bias" against fathers in custody disputes. It represents the logical culmination of what many see as the "totalitarian" tendencies of organized feminism but which few fully understand or confront. "No evidence exists that nearly half of American children were voluntarily abandoned by their own fathers," she writes. "Feminist organizations and writers have propagated the myth that women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society and that marriage is an inherently abusive institution…. Feminists made divorce a major component of women's liberation." What we are seeing here is feminism’s attack on those who literally embody the hated "patriarchy": fathers. It is a direct assault on the family at its most vulnerable point. It has already torn apart families by the millions, and unchecked it will destroy the family altogether –- much more quickly and thoroughly than pornography or television or same-sex marriage. Yet even today, Phyllis Schlafly again meets resistance –- and not only from the left. Perplexing as it may seem, some conservative politicians have been infected with poisonous feminist propaganda and mouth the vapid platitudes of the left. They have accepted the lie of the evil male and the supposed necessity for massive government action against him. It is a brilliant ploy. The stock feminist platform on abortion, employment, and affirmative action commands little support today. So feminists have switched tactics and begun posing as damsels in distress in need of rescue by chivalrous male politicians from brutal, "uncaring" and "insensitive" men. Feminists now pose as defenders of motherhood, and their weapons are children. But the aim is not to strengthen motherhood and the family but to turn them over to the care of government. "The feminists…want to thoroughly politicize the last bastion of personal life in our society: families," writes columnist Wendy McElroy. "They want to wrest motherhood from its traditional right-wing associations and make it a left/liberal issue, with 'Mothers Are Victims' writ-large on its banner." These feminists argue "for government to 'economically recognize' motherhood so that women will not be dependent upon husbands." Government replaces the father and the husband. Some conservative politicians find this difficult to resist. To avoid political risk, they posture as champions of families and "women and children" by demanding measures against "domestic violence" and "deadbeat dads," even when no scientific data indicate that these problems are anything other than creations of the government. "There is a deafening silence from conservatives who pretend to be guardians against federal takeovers of problems that are none of the federal government's business," writes Mrs. Schlafly. What these programs do in fact is destroy families and create the very problems they claim to be solving. The first and easiest step in dissolving the family is to remove the fathers. Mothers then follow, and children become the property of the state. Thus conservative politicians become the unwitting tools of feminist ideologues in their campaign to create a collectivism more total than even Marx envisioned, one approaching the human hatcheries of Brave New World. This is precisely how extremist movements move from the margins to the mainstream and eventually seize power: not by defeating their opposition head-on but by making an end run around it, by disguising themselves in the values of the mainstream, by claiming to champion traditional values that in reality they are hijacking and perverting. This is precisely what feminism is now doing. Phyllis Schlafly stands almost alone today among eminent public figures in warning against the feminist-judicial machine. She is calling for a re-evaluation of "no-fault" divorce, for the role and rights of fathers to be respected equally with those of mothers, and for shared parenting laws to discourage the use of children as weapons. "It's time to stop spending any more taxpayers' money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children." We stand at a crossroads of inestimable importance. We can listen to the prophets of Baal who tell us, as they have told us before, that government must control our lives for the collective good or because of some newly imagined danger or unfairness. Or we can listen to Phyllis Schlafly, who long ago warned of the very evils that are now unfolding before our eyes. ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ----- Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
 
Carey Roberts
01.20.06 (9:00 pm)   [edit]
Double-standard treatment for child abusers by Carey Roberts Heather Thomas of Fairfax, VA was arrested last week in the shaking death of her 6-day-old granddaughter. On Christmas Day Valerie Kennedy held her son in a tub of scalding water as punishment, causing his death. A few days later Genevieve Silva was arrested in Oklahoma on child rape charges for luring a high school student to run away from home. Chances are you didn't read about these incidents in your local newspaper. Because when a man commits abuse, it seems the story is splashed all over the front page. But when the perpetrator is a member of the fairer sex, the story is relegated to the bottom of the Police Report on page C9. Each year the federal Administration for Children and Families surveys child protective service (CPS) agencies around the country to spot the latest trends in child abuse. And according to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, women are the most common abusers of children. In 2003, females, usually mothers, represented 58% of perpetrators of child abuse and neglect, with men composing the remaining cases. In that same year an estimated 1,500 children died of abuse or neglect. In 31% of those cases, the perpetrator was the mother acting alone, compared to 18% of fathers acting alone. Then there's the scandal of Dumpster babies. In 1998, 105 newborn infants were discovered abandoned in public places. One-third of those babies were found dead. In a civilized society that makes adoption services widely-available, that practice should have been condemned as unconscionable and wrong. But instead of prosecuting the abandoners, we accommodated to the societal imperative to provide choices to women no matter the moral consequences. So we passed laws to establish "safe havens." Under New York law, mothers can now anonymously drop off their infants up to five days old. But if she later has second thoughts, not to worry. She can come back and reclaim the child up to 15 months later. That satisfaction-guaranteed-o r-your-money-back offer might work at a Macy's handbag sale, but that's not how a moral society treats its most vulnerable members. Patricia Pearson has written a blockbuster book called, When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence. Pearson documents repeated examples of violent women who draw their Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card by claiming PMS, battered woman's syndrome, or postpartum depression. Remember Andrea Yates who admitted to drowning her five boys in a bathtub? Of course the National Organization for Women rushed to her defense, claiming that postpartum blues justified the serial murder. And two weeks ago Texas 1st Court of Appeals ruled that her conviction should be reversed. Then there's the problem of women, usually female teachers, who seduce and deflower teenage boys. Look how the media sanitizes the issue. Reporters trivialize the incident using clinical phrases such as "sexual contact," or worse envelope the story in a snickering "didn't-he-get-lucky" tone. I once knew a teenage boy who was raped by his older sister's girlfriend during a holiday visit to his parent's home. Ten years later, he was still devastated by the incident. Of course he never reported the assault, no one would have taken him seriously. When these cases go to trial, the double standard persists. As CNN's Nancy Grace plaintively asks, "Why is it when a man rapes a little girl, he goes to jail, but when a woman rapes a boy, she had a breakdown?" And shame on reporters who use limp clichés to excuse the inexcusable. Like the story about a New Orleans mom who stuffed her 3-month-old son in the clothes dryer and hit the On button. This was the feeble explanation that the Times-Picayune offered in its December 8 edition: "Murder Suspect 'Was Trying her Best.'" [www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1134027 521231650.xml] That condescending headline brings to mind the Solomonic words of columnist Kathryn Jean Lopez: "There are mental-health issues in many of these cases, obviously, but regardless, a society can and must say loud and clear: 'That's wrong. That's evil. That can never happen again.'" [www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez2005101708 30.asp] To which I say, "Amen." In radio talk shows and internet bulletin boards around the nation, Americans' ire has reached the boiling point over female child abusers who are treated with reverential deference by the media and our legal system. As long as we tolerate this gender double-standard, the problem will fester and grow. And our children will continue to be at risk. Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism. Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report. Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant. Carey Roberts ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ----- Carey Roberts is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.