Annabel Crabb doesn't "give a toss" about the reasons why women are underrepresented as CEO, just give me quotas!"

elwahrio · 2015-09-07T23:03:39+00:00

So Annabel Crabb, we’re not even pretending anymore:

For a person whose job it is to promote the interests of women, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick has spent an awful lot of time thinking about and talking to men.

So there we have it, anti-discrimination laws have never and were never intended to achieve equality, only promote the interests of women. The very definition of supremacy.

Questions about the representation of women in leadership have tended to be – in other words – questions for the under-represented themselves, rather than for the gender more dominant in decision-making roles. This is pretty weird, when you think about it. But male leadership in this country has been a club since time immemorial. Why would a club break itself up, just because the exclusion of non-members was kind of unfair? To expect that this would happen is to misunderstand how clubs work.

What speculative, unscientific bullshit. It’s only “weird” if you’re an absolute idiot. This is projection, plain and simple. SHE evaluates her decisions based on her gender, so she assumes all men do it too despite all the studies showing men have either a weak in-group bias or an out-group bias favouring women.

Why do I have such a low return rate of female employees from maternity leave, and how damaging is that to my business?

Because a very large percentage of women would rather look after kids than go to work? And maybe we should stop demonising those who make that choice free-willingly?

How much of a boob am I, as a corporate leader, if I invest in all these women and then watch them walk out the door?"

So according to Crabb, we are left with two options: either women are on average relatively poor investments, or women should be forced to all behave the same way regardless of their wishes, successfully denying them agency. Congratulations, Annabel, you are a misogynist.

Gender equity became a competition. A pissing contest, if you'll excuse the term. Among these club members, low numbers of women among the recruited or the promoted or the ranks of executive leadership stopped being a commonplace for which one needed to find a barely plausible defence against the complaints of the feminazis, and started being an embarrassment; a failure. A business failure.

Denial of equality of opportunity is not equality, it is its antithesis. She’s just successfully shown that the ‘femnazis’ hold more political power than the most powerful business people in the country. Oh, the oppression.

ANZ, led by foundation club member Mike Smith

…whose policies are literally to design a gender-wage gap to favour women… but silly me, institutionalised discrimination isn’t a problem, especially when it’s only silly men who are disadvantaged by it. http://www.women.anz.com/at-anz/we-are-bridging-the-super-gap

The Commonwealth Bank, led by Ian Narev, has lifted the proportion of senior internal promotions that are won by women to 44 per cent. The ASX introduced ambitious targets – 40 per cent of its senior positions for women and tied them to bonuses for senior executives

And what percentage of the human-hours worked each year at the company are by men vs women? Oh, it’s “misogyny” to ask that question. #giveyourmoneytowomen

Broderick has had plenty of criticism for her club: Why should men be called champions for doing what they should be doing, or for what women have been doing all along?

Overt admission of Crabb’s projection and bias. Women should and have been biasing towards women the whole time. I think most people would agree the biggest threat to meritocracy is not sexism but nepotism. And yet because of the women are wonderful effect, we assume nepotism is just another type of sexism, that women never benefit from it. But we know from women’s in group biases that they are more likely to engage in nepotistic actions. Crabb even says so much here in this quote. But we perceive it as moral when women do it and immoral when men do.

Well, I'm sure this is not especially politically correct, but I could not give a toss about what their motivations were. As someone who believes fervently that women can and do have the capacity to lead, I decreasingly care how they get the chance to do so But they’ve had the choice to do so for decades.

It is because women have MORE choices, not less, that women are under-represented in these positions. It’s a zero-sum game because there are a finite number of women and a finite number of leadership jobs. No one doubts that women can lead, but less women are making the choices that lead to being considered for these highly competitive jobs. The pool being selected from is not a 50/50 split, so why should the outcome be a 50/50 split? She even admits that she doesn’t care about understanding the issue, as long as women get their superior position in society.

Has Annabel Crabb had a lobotomy recently? Or were her articles always this bigoted and I just never realised before?

Keiichi81 · 2015-09-08T02:56:39+00:00

All of the equality of outcome with none of the effort!

Title	Annabel Crabb doesn't "give a toss" about the reasons why women are underrepresented as CEO, just give me quotas!"
Author	elwahrio
Upvotes	47
Comments	4
Date	September 7, 2015 11:00 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3k0wkp/annabel_crabb_doesnt_give_a_toss_about_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/annabel-crabb-doesnt-give-a-toss-about-the-reasons.971831 https://theredarchive.com/post/971831

Comments