Yet another job for feminism to solve
Treehugger notes that women managers make greener business decisions:
Put that in the context of New Zealand and Human Rights Commission’s 2008 Census of Women’s Participation [pdf], which shows that 8.65% of directors in New Zealand’s top hundred listed companies are women. This comprises 54 female directorships held by 45 women out of the total of 624 directorships. I’m less concerned about the environment here than I am about the sheer wrongness in our culture that allows a statistic like that to emerge. Sixty of the top 100 companies on the New Zealand Stock Exchange have no women on their boards.
If all those men aren’t going to save the planet maybe it’s time they step aside. 
But while we are on the relationship between the leadership of women and the wellbeing of the environment, the same HRC report ranks state sector appointments to boards too, and finds that the Ministry of the Environment is 4th worst out of 30 state ministries, departments and agencies for appointing women to its relevant boards. 26% of its appointees are female. Which means we can only expect less environmentally friendly decisions coming out boards appointed by the Ministry of Tourism, NZQA and Veterans’ Affairs NZ.
6 of those 30 administering agencies have achieved parity of women on boards or better.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:36 am
The boards mandate is to make money for their shareholders in a legal manner, not save the planet. Being ‘green’ is part of the mix in some/most companies.
This country is run by wimmin, but their green sucess rate has been poor has it not?
All this gender BS is boring, women have the same rights as us guys so that they can get on boards of directors etc. After all, Teressa Gauting oversaw a 50% drop in the price of Telecom shares in her watch.
BTW, how is global warming going at present in a cooling world?
July 19th, 2008 at 11:11 am
The “world” is only a model in our heads. Yours is cooling (making it more pleasant for the flying pigs). Most people still trust the majority of mainstream scientists.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:58 am
jh - ‘Most people still trust the majority of mainstream scientists.’ Not the consensus now?
July 19th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
There’s a book called Seducing the Boy’s Club by Nina Disesa which talks about using our feminine skills to get ahead in a man’s word. Nurturing is one of those skills and I think our nurturing nature makes us more conscious of the environment and more proactive about taking care of it. Hopefully the rest of the world will catch on to what women have to offer.
Dagny
http://www.onnotextiles.com
bamboo and organic clothing
July 19th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
GW Denier: This country is run by wimmin
–
This country is not run by women. There are a few women in senior political positions. That does not mean the country is run by women. I would suggest the figures above demonstrate that very clearly.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
“All this gender BS is boring, women have the same rights as us guys so that they can get on boards of directors etc.”
Yes, in theory we have the same rights. But, the undeniable fact is the world is pretty FU and the other undeniable fact is that the overwhelming majority of power holders are men.
The question (perhaps playfully) posited by the OP seems to be: Is there a connection between these two undeniable facts?
Hard to know, isn’t it. The women we have in power in this country still work within that male-dominated paradigm. What if it were female-dominated?
I say it’s worth a crack.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I’ll vote for a women dominated world, my partner can do all the work hell i’ll give up my right to vote so i can spend my time fishing and playing golf.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
“BTW, how is global warming going at present in a cooling world?”
Sorry, no that is just winter
July 19th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Having the same rights in legal documents does not mean you are treated with the same level of respect and dignity as any other human being, sadly.
Theresa Gattung just happened to be in charge of Telecom when Labour put in a minister bold enough to break up some of their more monopolistic behaviour. Had she been in the position five or ten years earlier, I’m sure she would’ve continued to wring plenty of profit out of consumers with little or no alternative.
Even if that weren’t the case, how does a single woman making some mistakes in one high-profile company make a case for women not to be appointed to company boards? Surely by that logic we can point to many, many more failures perpetrated by men as an argument for the reverse.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
This argument is stupid, people should be given jobs based on how good they are. This idea that we are going to wake up one day and have corporate boards with 50% women and 50% men is stupid. I mean should we be flying around the country plucking women from the kitchens and placing them in board rooms just so we can have gender balance.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Well said, Turnip! A tleast most of it.
Your last sentence missed the point completely - there are may women working in the kitchens who know more about corporate management that some of the blokes there do.
Because, oh s**t, they are still presumed to be the primary caregivers while the man goes out and makes the bucks.
Um, bit of a bugger if your career gets a setback because you want to have kids, eh? But usually happens only if you are a woman.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Toad i was meaning that when the womens lib movement started we couldn’t just have plucked the women from the home and instantly acheived 50/50 in the boardroom it will take time. I know women get screwed by the kids thing.
btw if you ever want to see anti-femmists come to nyc it is full of women looking for sugar dads to take care of them, my partner is put to work just like me and nothing disgusts me more than these women who have a man take care of them and no they don’t take care of the children as they have a nanny to do that for them.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Firstly, meritocracy, i dont care if they are male or female, infact i dont even care if males become extinct, we are, geneticly atleast, the weaker sex.
Secondly, an extremly non-pc thing to say for which i will probally be blasted for sexism despite me clearly stating that i do not approve of such practices; from an economic standpoint a woman who has not gone through menapause or had her ability to procreate otherwise removed holds less economic value in terms of high paying and high power jobs than a male of equal ability and output. This, although it sounds sexist, is a perfictly rational decision as women carry a greater risk of getting pregnant (amazing huh?) and as such requiring time away from their high paying job and time in which they are unable to operate at full capacity, ultimatly meaning there is a chance that for about six months, plus the time afterwards if the woman chooses to care for the child, there has to be a replacement highered and trained, and that costs big money. So really its simple economics, if two investments make equal returns under normal conditions but one carries greater risk then it is logical to choose the one with less risk. as such women are disadvantaged not just because the companies are dominated by men, but because their very anatomies turn economics against them.
and now for the accusations of sexism.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
The trouble with this kind of ’simple economics’ is that it changes nothing about the way we look at the world or the work that needs to be done in it. People do not exist for business - it should be the other way around: work and money and so on are the means that society developed to make life better for people.
The kind of trajectory that business has been on for the last couple of hundred years, beginning in europe and affecting the whole globe now means that business has come to take on a life of its own, with human beings and whole societies being subordinate to corporations.
Perhaps the thread is the beginning of a discussion of the ways in which that can be reversed, or at least to make business less exploitative. I won’t hold my breath!
July 20th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Sapient - While I won’t weigh in and call you sexist, I question the validity of determining what is good and what is right based on some rational economic utility argument. Humans are not rational creatures. Never were, never will be. Thus the first pillar of your economic theory is a falsehood. Secondly, such models presume that not only are all economic actors rational, but that they enjoy perfect information, another patent falsehood. Therefore, any logic based on so-called rational economic logic is as likely to be false as as it is likely to be true - in other words - useless. Sure, women are at more risk of career disruption due to pregnancy than men. So bloody what? It’s not like men are not at risk from disruptions from other causes. And what is the staying power of a typical (male) CEO or senior manager anyway? 3-5 years? I can’t see any downside to more women in executive positions. Only an upside which I ‘playfully’ hinted at in the post.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Frog
If we can’t acknowledge the fact that boys and girls are different, how the hell are these discussions ever going to lead to anything constructive?.
The whole Idea you have suggested is women bring a different aproch to management, because, wait for it, THEY ARE DIFFERENT.
I am firmly of the opinion that more women in these positions can only be good for society, HOWEVER they have to be the right women.
Simply desiring a position to stick it to the men in some feminist rage is a pathetic motivation.
By women working to their strengths instead of their “rights” they have a much better chance of attaining true equality.
The simple fact is, some positions may suit one gender over the other, it is pointless to base equality on gender ratio’s.
The other factor is sometimes women do chose children over career and thus there will tend to be a gender imbalance towards men.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Janine,
Agreed; Society and the Economy are nothing more than a series of interactions between individuals, these interactions exist primarily because their existance benifits those who take place in those interactions.
The thing is that business DOES work for individuals, and that is why such simple economics apply, remmember a company (even if considered a body in its own right) is nothing more than a series of interactions between individuals, a company is mearly a set of agreements for one group of individuals to pay another group of individuals for their services. Why should an individual, looking to make a profit, take more risk than is needed to produce a given return?
In a company in which the individuals that work are separate to the individuals that manage and profit from the company; the managers and owners will always act to maximise their profit by cutting expenses and risk. Another reason I support Co-ops, the individuals will still act to their best perceived advantage but the advantages from actions will be significantly different. It is notable that this form also has the benifit of lasting as without CEO’s that need to justify their existance to shareholders, the members can go for longterm profit instead of short term profit to make them look good at a cost to long term gain.
Frog,
the arguements you lay assume that I am using a free-market ideology and hit at columns i do not use for support. although it is true that i am utilitarian and judge all by its utility, that utility is not from an economic basis, rather a social one.
You argue that humans are not rational beings? I would argue that humans are, by their very natures, creatures which act to maximise their perceived benifit, i have never seen any good reason to doubt this, prehaps the strongist though is altruism which with alittle investgation can easily be seen as never being ‘altruistic’. It is true that humans do by no means utilise perfict logic, but they utilise the logic they have in their grasp and the heuristics they form; in absence of perfect information they act to the best of their abilities to maximise their benifit.
“Sure, women are at more risk of career disruption due to pregnancy than men. So bloody what?” - I think Ive addressed that well enough previously really, people are out for their own benifit, would you choose a bet with 5 to 1 odds or 4 to 1 odds, both with the same prize money, if both were exactly the same except for the aforementioned details?
I dont really see any downsides or upsides from a social point of view except that less feminists will be parading about it. It is irrelivant, from a social (and non-risk assesment) point of view, if the person is male or female, the difference in managing is due to the skill set they have aquired, although it may be true that in general due to the structure of social interests and certain genetic factors that the skill distributions may vary between the sexes, but in the individual the sex itself is irrelivant.
Sapient
July 20th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
as always my grammar in the previous post should be ignored, but as a good socially minded person i blame not my own lack of effort but the state of the school system (which was never very good beforehand, apparently, anyway) due to bulk-funding under the honourable lockwood-smith.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
men and women are very very different..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/womens-brains-are-different-from-mens-%e2%80%9 3-and-heres-scientific-proof/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 21st, 2008 at 11:06 am
“my partner is put to work just like me and nothing disgusts me more than these women who have a man take care of them and no they don’t take care of the children as they have a nanny to do that for them.”
Why disgusted? Seems like a logical reaction to the conditions prevailing in the market (assuming you believe in all that free market bollocks in the first place).
July 21st, 2008 at 11:21 am
Treehugger has missed the point entirely. Women only get to be decision makers in the first place if they are 15 to 20 % better than their male counterprats - so they make more and better decisions in every area.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I watched a current affair’s report a while ago that claimed women are more likely to be offered jobs as heads of companies when the company is in a far from favourable position (i.e. heading for job cuts, loss of profits etc). The reason for this was two-fold. One, they claimed women are actually bigger risk-takers than men, and prepared to take on failing projects seeing the potential to turn them around; and two, they may be being set up as a kind of scapegoat for when the business goes belly-up, or continues to get worse. After all, “it’s not really the company’s fault, they had a woman in charge…”
July 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
>>Women only get to be decision makers in the first place if they are 15 to 20 % better than their male counterprats
Thanks for pointing this out, kaimatacroft, I think it is a very important point people often forget in their scramble for the “everyone has equal rights and equal opportunities” banner.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I think you will find that when the manager is female the male generally has to perform even better than the female does with a male manager, this whole feminazi identity encourages that.
You cannot assert that on a professional basis one sex will be better than another sex unless the job explicityl requires physical attribute of that sex, someones sex does not detirmine the skillset they will aquire, though it is true that it changes the distribution because the likleyhood of adopting certain genders is changed depending on the sex due to the process of socialization.
Sex is irrelivant for ablility, its the aquired skillset that counts. and as for the bigger risktaker factor, most likley just bull, though it could be seen as the result of having to clime up in a male dominated world; in which case its the male dominance that benifits female managers :P. I notice the arguements have changed entirly now, geez, ideologues, this forum does make me feel like posting in the same manner as phil at times.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Turnip says:
… “when the womens lib movement started we couldn’t just have plucked the women from the home and instantly acheived 50/50 in the boardroom it will take time.”
I believe that we could have done so. There were many educated and experienced women “in the home” who could have filled those positions well.” My “full time mum” (with a double degree, years of professional experience “pre-children”, and then-current experience of leadership in the community) was one such person, and I knew others of similar calibre.
In current times: when a woman is pregnant or lactating her brain is still intact. In fact, having experienced two pregnancies, followed by a couple of years lactation per child, I came to the conclusion that mothers should be in positions of responsibility and decision making in our society.
There would certainly be less wars if pregnant or lactating women were in charge!
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 am
Perhaps it’s just that environmentally conscious companies are more likely to be socially conscious too, such that you’ve got cause and effect the wrong way around. Or that the women who are sufficiently superior so as to get appointed to a board of directors are more attracted to serving on environmentally conscious boards than their typically less able male counterparts.
Obviously still worth looking out for companies with more women on the boards regardless. One might go so far as to point at the National Party or NZ First.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:47 am
large corporations are mainly run by women from supervisor up to department head, from what i have observed.
directors on the other hand only meet for a couple of hours a month to rubber-stamp everything don’t they?