Vi är numera rätt vana med sexism mot män i media men fullt så vana är vi ännu inte med att universitet står och leker sexistisk fanbärare så varsågod här är McMaster University, DeGroote School Of Business.
”Women’s abilities to make fair decisions when competing interests are at stake make them better corporate leaders, researchers have found.”
Påståendet kommer från Chris Bart, professor of strategic management vad det nu skall betyda. I vilket fall som helst spelar det om några sekunder ingen roll eftersom man inte kommer undan med sådant där på internet längre. I alla fall inte om man har ett kommentarsfält. Låt oss gå igenom några av svaren som McMaster nu kan ståta med som reklam.
”I am a professor at a major state university. The title intrigued me, being so blatantly sexist and intentionally inflammatory. As an educational institution, you should be ashamed of yourself for letting such a poorly titled, researched, and written article be publicly promulgated. A cursory examination of your sources (which were not completely cited, so one must dig in order to ferret out the data on which you based your rather spurious conclusions):
Joy, L., Carter, N. M., Wagner, H. M. & Narayanan, S. (2007): The Bottom Line: Corporate Performance and Women’s Representation on Boards. New York: Catalyst Inc.
NOT a peer reviewed paper – but a corporate position piece with no fidelity of data to support the authors’ claims.
Wilson, N and A Altanlar. 2009. “Director Characteristics, Gender Balance and InsolvencyRisk: an empirical study.
NOT a peer reviewed article, and the conclusion was that empirical inquiries lead to mixed results – the opposite conclusion of this article
Fondas, N. and S. Sassalos (2000), “A Different Voice in the Boardroom: How the Presence of Women Directors Affects Board Influence”
This article was based on archival survey data from 1991, and came to the conclusion that boards who included women at the time were more open to shareholder input and had a corporate culture of openness: NOT any specific qualities of the behavior of women. Again, poor research and sourcing.
It was at this point I stopped seeking the empirical sources for you article, because you had lost all credibility. If one of my graduate students had produced this sexist pile of poorly produced pugnaciousness, I would have a long and serious discussion with them about academic standards. I suggest you may want to consider the same, being that you embarrass yourself as an academic institution by this article’s inclusion in your public discourse.”
Om inte detta vore tillräckligt så lyckades de även bli kända i England med resultatet att en viss politisk kampanj passade på att svara.
When I was sent a link to this piece, I honestly assumed it was an ‘April Fool’s Day’ joke – I don’t know if that’s unique to the UK, but basically it refers to a ridiculous story presented as a serious one on serious platforms (usually newspapers, but sometimes websites), to take in the general public. But it’s a few days too early, and it’s clear it’s not.
How to respond? Well, you cite a report (Joy et al.) from Catalyst, a militant feminist campaigning organisation, and Prof Susan Vinnicombe, so let’s dispose of those two swiftly with one blog piece.
Then there’s the longitiudoinal studies which show conclusively that increasing female representation on corporate boards leads to declines in corporate performance (not one longitudinal study in the world has show an improvement):
Feel free to contact me for more explanation of why your assertion, ‘Women make better decisions than men’ is… now, what’s the word I’m searcing for?… oh yes, that’s it… wrong.
Have a nice day.
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS
Utöver dessa två tunga svar så finns även mänger av andra kritiska svar eftersom artikeln länkades av A Voice for Men med rubriken ”McMaster University: Girlz iz mo betta”