Monthly Archives: November 2013

Julie Bentley, Girlguiding UK chief executive: December 2013 ‘Whiny Woman of the Month’

A number of supporters and donors emailed us this morning following the transmission of an interview on BBC Breakfast with Julie Bentley, chief executive of Girlguiding UK http://www.girlguiding.org.uk/home.aspx. One of the few things I know about her organisation is that it’s sexist, as only girls and young women can join. The other major national organisation of a comparable nature and size is the Scouts http://scouts.org.uk/what-we-do/parent-faq/ which has allowed girls and young women to join for some time. So it’s ironic that Julie Bentley has the barefaced cheek to pontificate on the issue of sexism, but she does. Such people are utterly shameless. The BBC online report on her comments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25138455

Most of the piece is laughable, but you’d have to go to some effort to beat this gem:

The report concludes that despite awareness of the difficulties they face, most girls remain positive, with 55% hoping to get to the top of their chosen profession, 70% wanting to combine a career and motherhood and 11% preferring a career over children.

So, only 11% of girls ‘prefer a career over children’ but 55% of girls are ‘hoping to get to the top of their chosen profession’. Yes, that makes perfect sense. Who’s putting such ridiculous expectations into girls’ and young women’s minds, when so few of them wish to prioritise a career over children? Toxic women like Julie Bentley, that’s who, by indoctrinating girls and young women into believing that whatever they’re unhappy with in life (their appearance, their career progression… and so much else) is directly attributable to men, often by exercising that formidable weapon against women and girls, sexism. The sexism faced by men and boys is of an altogether far more serious nature than that faced by women and girls, as anyone who’s visited The Alternative Sexism Project https://thealternativesexismproject.wordpress.com will know.

Men must do a lot more to protect girls’ and women’s fragile egos, clearly. To start with, let’s have unisex running events, where competitors’ starting positions on the track are related to their gender, level of fitness, weight, age etc. At the Olympic 100 metres final we’ll have morbidly obese chain-smoking 15-year-old single mothers with hacking coughs starting at the 90-metre point, thereby enabling them to beat Usain Bolt, and we’ll all pretend afterwards that they beat him on the basis of merit.

Women who see sexism everywhere need to grow up. We have more than enough Entitlement Princesses already, and we surely don’t need organisations such as Girlguiding training yet another generation of girls and young women to become whiny sexism spotters.

Two donors suggested that we make Julie Bentley the next ‘Whiny Woman of the Month’, and we like to keep our donors happy, so here’s her certificate:

131129 Julie Bentley’s ‘Whiny Woman of the Month’ award certificate

How to train your woman like a dog

In the modern era, would it be considered acceptable for a journalist to write an article titled, ‘How to train your woman like a dog’? Of course not. Could you imagine that if a journalist were to write such a piece anyway, a national newspaper might then publish it? Again, of course not. How, then, could the Daily Telegraph possibly justify publishing this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10377779/How-to-train-your-boyfriend-like-a-dog.html

Stuart Gulliver, Group Chief Executive, HSBC: sexist, racist, ageist

My thanks to J for pointing me to a piece (by a female journalist, needless to say) in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/08/hsbc-stuart-gulliver-women-in-banking

Stuart Gulliver, 54, Group Chief Executive of HSBC, calls his industry ‘male, pale and stale’, managing to fit sexism, racism, and ageism into just four words. The four women on his bank’s board – out of a total of 17 directors – are all non-executives. Does that alone not tell this man anything?

So, what is known about the impact of increasing women on banking boards? In our briefing paper on the impact of increasing female representation on boards http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/ we have links to the reports from five longitudinal studies. All five studies showed that increasing female representation on boards leads to corporate financial decline. One should be of particular interest to Stuart Gulliver, maybe he could read the report when he’s next on his travels. It’s a study of German banks over a period of 16 years:

Executive board composition and bank risk taking (2012) (Deutsche Bundesbank Discussion Paper, 03/2012)

Professor Allen N. Berger (University of South Carolina, Wharton Financial Institutions Center and Tilburg University), Thomas Kick (Deutsche Bundesbank), Professor Klaus Schaeck (Bangor University).

The researchers studied German banks over 1994-2010. The paper’s full Abstract:

Little is known about how socio-economic characteristics of executive teams affect corporate governance in banking. Exploiting a unique dataset, we show how age, gender, and education composition of executive teams affect risk taking of financial institutions. First, we establish that age, gender, and education jointly affect the variability of bank performance. Second, we use difference-in-difference estimations that focus exclusively on mandatory executive retirements and find that younger executive teams increase risk taking, as do board changes that result in a higher proportion of female executives [my emphasis]. In contrast, if board changes increase the representation of executives holding Ph.D. degrees, risk taking declines.

Ferrero: STOP Making SEXIST Kinder Eggs!

Another one for the ‘you couldn’t make this s*** up!’ file. This morning I received an email from ‘Change.org’ which started off promisingly:

Mike – There’s a new petition taking off on Change.org, and we think you might be interested in signing it.

Then I read the following, with mounting disbelief. A petition has been launched by a London-based ray of sunshine, Jessica Holland. She writes:

For some utterly bizarre reason, the marketing people behind the beloved children’s treat “Kinder Egg” have decided to take us back to 1955 with their new gender stereotyped campaign.

Apparently, children must choose between the pink fashion dolls choice or the blue sprinty ranges.

As a child, I adored the Kinder “Surprise” range, the whole joy being the surprise of the toy inside. Now that element seems to have been denied to our young generation, and they will only get a suitably gender stereotyped toy.

In terms of reinforcing outdated and indeed dangerous stereotypes in young children, this is an appalling step backwards! We really need to get this range off our shelves as soon as possible, and allow children the joy of a being able to play with one of the few truly gender neutral toys out there.

There is no doubt this is shocking sexism, and both dangerous and stifling to children’s development.

We need to promote equality in the next generation, not put young people into boxes which define their future opportunities and potential.

Please Kinder, stop this outrageous campaign at once and give children back their surprise.

A link to the petition is below. It will doubtless shortly meet its target of 5,000 signatures. I’m thinking of signing it myself, just so I can then leave a comment thanking Ms Holland for being the genius behind a petition which proves yet again that gender feminists are whiny and pathetic.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ferrero-stop-making-sexist-kinder-eggs