An article in Fast Company titled “Can Tech Companies Continue to Innovate with No Women At the Table?” argues that businesses are harming themselves by not having both men and women on their boards.
Many are concerned about this right now, including Norway, which has passed laws enforcing 40% female boards in companies. Supporters of gender diversity have been quoted as saying, “In my experience, mixed teams, mixed by gender, ethnic background, by age and experience, perform better than homogeneous teams,” and, “[W]hen you start using the half of the talent you have previously ignored, then everybody gains.”
According to those who are concerned (and even protesting), men and women are different, and their perspectives are unique and necessary to an institution’s successful leadership. Here’s what Fast Company has to say against those who don’t have gender diversity:
- Diversifying boards also brings different perspectives to companies’ big picture objectives, product development, and problem solving. Companies can’t continue to innovate without diverse leaders at the table.
And yet, the boards of one in 10 Fortune 500 companies include no women.
“[S]ince the data also shows that companies with more diversity at the very top achieve better financial results, it's just as important to bring diverse perspectives to the entire chain of command. It's good business from every angle”….
Facebook and other tech/social media companies’ decisions to exclude women from the boardroom is disappointing and a setback.
But what if we move from business to another institution? What if we’re talking about marriages that exclude women and the diversity they bring? Then there’s no problem? Nothing is lost? Suddenly men and women are interchangeable? Aren’t the differences in their perspectives and contributions even more relevant when it comes to the relationships within the family—the institution responsible for creating and socializing the next generation? Why is it bigotry to argue for governmental support of diversity on the basis of the differences between men and women in one case, but not the other?
You who support the creation of laws to uphold gender diversity for the sake of businesses, would it be a similar disappointment and setback for families if the laws upholding diversity in marriage were removed?
I think that's the whole point isn't it? The folks that are pushing this kind of insanity aren't actually motivated by what they claim (fairness, equality, etc...). They're motivated by their desire to force their agenda on everyone, regardless of personal belief or good sense (or Biblical truth), and oh by the way, they'll also be the ones in charge of enforcing that agenda. Funny how that works...
Posted by: b | June 19, 2012 at 08:41 AM
The thing that’s important to remember here is that most of the time, those calling for more gender diversity on boards could care less about increasing a company’s profits or creating innovation. The same can be said of those advocating same sex marriage as it relates to children. It’s not about children necessarily (we’re told as much) just as it’s not about company profits. It’s about the perception of equality. All male boardrooms are perceived as excluding others based gender. Male/female only marriages are seen as excluding others based on gender. This is the common ground.
I believe this post exposes the fallacious reasons used to advance these causes, but they’re not the real reason these causes are advanced.
Posted by: KWM | June 19, 2012 at 08:52 AM
Another good observation Amy. When the Godless secular philosophy of man (and woman) is examined for what it really is, no end of logical fallacy, double standards and hypocricy come out of the woodwork. KWM and b are correct in saying that the fallacious reasons given to advance these agendas and not the reason these agendas are being adavanced. Satans agendas are built on shifting sand, logical fallacies and psycho babble, pretty embarassing really. Their so called tolerance brooks no intolerance and their so called diversity means all races and both genders believe in their agenda.
Welcome to secular religion.
Posted by: Andrew | June 19, 2012 at 09:18 AM
How can an increase in control be also an increase in freedom?
Posted by: Billy | June 19, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Heck, why stop there? Obviously we need to mandate ethnic diversity in marriages too.
Is there any possible way you could get attached to one of the teams defending DOMA and/or Prop 8 in court? Gay folk everywhere would owe you huge.
Posted by: Boo | June 21, 2012 at 02:02 PM
I used to work for a company that was owned and operated by two women. It was sad to see how these women were being victimized by men and how their company was mismanaged by these at middle management level. What was sadder was that they bought all the lies they were being fed simply because the men were...well...good looking and were fast talking salesmen. The very worst offender was in fact a professing Christian whose church was influenced by new-age thinking. It was a church with the Armenian position on salvation, whose members actively discouraged any learning about apologetic. I can think of no other way to describe the situation than the blind leading the blind and actively refusing corneal implants to restore the vision. The only thing that the two women owners brought to business was an opportunity to be taken advantage of by men and loving it. DISGUSTINGLY PATHETIC!
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | June 21, 2012 at 04:43 PM
2 observations:
These people claim that 1 in 10 Fortune 500 companies have no women on the board of directors. So, let me get this straight. They're upset that "only" 90% of the world's most successful companies actually have women in executive positions? I'd say a 90% inclusion rate is pretty stellar...
Also, the United States Air Force is going through this type of ridiculousness right now. For those who want a good scare on the direction that our military is going, do a search for something called the "diversity initiative" or "diversity program" in the USAF. This started being emphasized as a hot topic to Air Force members about a year or so ago, just before I got out. Just another example of liberal ideology hijacking something and twisting it to their own purposes of social experimentation.
Posted by: q | June 22, 2012 at 03:53 PM