- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Tue 10th June 2014

Blatant Sexism ok for Fund Managers

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 9:34 pm

This fund was set up to invest only in companies that have more women in top positions. Imagine the outcry, and probably much bullying from government departments, if a fund was set up for the purpose of investing in companies that only had males in charge!

New index fund bets on women in charge
2:00 PM Tuesday Jun 10, 2014

Want to invest in companies that put more women at the top? A new mutual fund lets you…

12 Responses to “Blatant Sexism ok for Fund Managers”

  1. Exactly yes as usual the papers will happily run this ….. but other way……

  2. Downunder says:

    The fund manager is not proposing to invest only in companies that have more women than men on their boards, but to prefer companies that have a higher ratio of women compared to other companies, on the basis that such companies provide better returns – and there are reasons why that theory might stack up in the short term.

    That to me is a matter of perception, similar to the suggestion that a finance company may be a safer investment because it has three former justice ministers on its board. There is no guarantee.

    Some investors may be politically inclined to accept such a strategy, and in a population of 300 million perhaps you could establish a niche market company on this basis.

    But calling that sexism – I think you’ve got your long bow out today.

  3. MurrayBacon says:

    Look down the article for the photo showing David Cameron’s front bench – every single one male.
    Why did it take a man to say exactly what the new UK Women’s Minister should have said?

  4. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Downunder (#2):

    But calling that sexism – I think you’ve got your long bow out today.

    Not sure why you feel the need to make a patronizing personal comment about another poster. We guess it gives you some self-comforting delusion of being smarter than others.

    You misrepresent the situation regarding Ms Krawcheck’s fund. It doesn’t “prefer companies that have a higher ratio of women” (which implies that it might invest in companies without women) but it invests in companies on the basis of the percentage of women on their boards or in senior leadership teams. I.e. if there are no women in those positions this fund presumably will not invest in it. That is a sexist policy. The investments are made on the assumption that more female bosses will be correlated with higher profits, but it is the percentage of female bosses, not actual or predicted profits, that will determine the fund’s investments.

    The corollary is that the fund invests on the basis of how small a proportion of male executives and board members companies employ, i.e. how much the companies discriminate against males.

    Yes it’s a truism that “you could establish a niche market company on this basis” given that Ms Krawcheck has already done so. But the point here is that there would be much feminist criticism for any fund that invested on the blatant basis of how many male bosses the company employed, i.e. investing more for companies that employ fewer women. Just as there would be an outcry if some fund invested on the overt basis of the proportion of white-skinned bosses (i.e. investing more as companies use lower proportions of dark-skinned bosses).

    Sure, no big deal and perhaps funds should be able to promote what they want, as do ‘ethical funds’ that avoid arms, tobacco and alcohol companies. But it’s very relevant to the men’s movement to note the celebration, acceptance and lack of critical comment that has resulted when a woman sets up a fund to support companies on the basis of how much they discriminate against men.

  5. Downunder says:

    Ministry of Men’s Affairs (#4)

    But calling that sexism – I think you’ve got your long bow out today.

    Not sure why you feel the need to make a patronizing personal comment about another poster. We guess it gives you some self-comforting delusion of being smarter than others.

    You’d have to be a sensitive wee puppy to find that condescending, the statement merely implies that your argument is stretchcing the point.

    The corollary is that the fund invests on the basis of how small a proportion of male executives and board members companies employ, i.e. how much the companies discriminate against males.

    No it doesn’t. Its investment strategy is that when companies have women on their boards or in their senior management, it prefers those companies which have a higher ratio to those companies that have a lower ration.

    If it where to be read as companies that have a high ratio, they would then have to define that ratio which would limit their investment options, and that would be a rediculously restrictive investment strategy.

    The article uses ‘more’ in a comparitive sence; you are using it in the definitive sense to support an argument of blatant sexism.

    That’s misrepresentation.

  6. MurrayBacon says:

    Not exactly relevant, but: Glenn Inquiry was run by women. The quality of the report (when it is released?) might be taken as an indicator of how well women can do things? Hope they pass the test!

  7. Man X Norton says:

    Murray (#6): They most certainly have not passed the test. A worthless piece of propaganda that adds almost nothing to our understanding of family violence or to our ability to design effective solutions.

  8. DJ Ward says:

    Yes trotting out the flogged horse.
    It always suprises me that for only ‘God knows how many times the comment’ (by the Minister of Womens Affairs) there isn’t enough women in positions of POWER and CONTROL has been trotted out. She obviously doesn’t think that there should be more women garbage truck operators.
    Clearly her and her friends are doing a good job on thier own.
    She obviously doesn’t think that there should be more male school teachers.
    She obviously doesn’t think that there should be more male refuge workers.
    She oviouisly doesn’t think that there should be male school principles that have hire only male teacher policies, bigoted and rife in the education sector when it comes to the POWER and CONTROL that is imposed upon your children in female only employement schools.
    Thats because all males are sex offenders off course.
    But then again imagine having all the female teachers in the country paternity testing thier children to see if it was actualy one of her students. MMM
    Maybe we should have a male Minister of Womens Affairs.
    Bigotry is not fixed by force, it is the change in culture.
    IE now that 2 out of 3 tertiary students are female, is it not that the cause of this POWER and CONTROL issue pertaining to the workplace, that it has been fixed. Since the cause was society and its attitude towards womens education and falsified belief systems.
    What is the Minister of Womens Affairs opinion on the performance of the Minister of Education in regard to engaging in improving the long term outcomes for our little boys, compared to little girls.
    Truth or fiction.
    How does the minister justify exclusive teenage mother schools/services compared to what is provided for teenage fathers. All I see teenage fathers getting is Judith Collins and Tollys footpath. POWER and CONTROL? Forced on who?

  9. Downunder says:

    That was one of the dominant themes of the recent International Conference – ditch the ‘rethoric’ for ‘rethoric’.

  10. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Man X Norton, … and it shows the value of “positive discrimination”! Women can do anything, waste old fool’s money! If you want to waste money, get an old woman onto the job!

    I guess the only sensible conclusion is, judge each situation or case by the actual facts, not just ideology.

  11. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    DJ Ward (#8) The Ministry of Women’s Affairs has now been given well over $100 million (that’s more than one tenth of a billion dollars) for its ongoing shadow boxing at what are now imaginary remnants of discrimination against females. MoMA now requests a humble $5 million for its important work on male disadvantage and social misandry. This work is fast becoming crucial to the survival of NZ’s financial and social systems, and indeed to the survival of our civilization.

  12. DJ Ward says:

    I am broken
    Last night for the first time since I started this Downloading (internet/democracy) of my suffering, and my analysis of how bigotry brung me to my knees, begging God to make my suffering stop. Silence. I broke down and balled in shocked stuper. Not that I have achieved anything, or said all that I want to say on this issue. There is other hidden acts of Genocide that I have avoided like the plague, becuase they would have tainted the debate. Mans work to make mankind magnificent does not stand on one mans debate on one issue. It is a collective responsibility for all of us to be participants.
    My work on this issue has made all around me suffer for a decade, I am broken, and although they know nothing of my work, it is they that have carried the burden for it. I go home tonight to the loving arms of my partner, who stood by me during the worst of times, to the little wriggler that is my 5 month old daughter.
    I am broken
    I am at peace

    Yours sincerly Darren John Ward

Leave a Reply

Connect with Facebook

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are now likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

« »

Powered by WordPress