There is much comment in papers today about Tory appointments of rich men to Quangos.
Let's not beat about the bush on this; it's just sexism. And it could be dismissed as that alone.
But there is another reason for it - sexist too, I add, but explicable within the Tory framework - which is that the appointees are linked to funding in some cases, and it is men who have the money to donate. This graph explains:
This comes from the personal income statistics for 2011-12 and the income distribution is so obviously sexist that it should jump out to anyone. But to then appoint on the basis of those who have cash is just to compound that fact, but that is what seems to be happening.
The graph indicates a situation that is bad enough. To reinforce the trend is much worse. That is what this government seems to be doing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It is because you need to be wealthy to be in politics, pay is low. Therefore you need a supportive husband who will pay the bills.
It takes a certain personality type of lady to be in politics and high up. This means they need a husband who can deal with it.
There are good women coming up the ranks, we are just not at the stage yet. With Lloyds and hopefully other companies helping the women further up in the UK. Hopefully more will be coming along soon.
The pay is low? What planet is that on? Not this one
As to – we are just not at that stage yet? Dream on. That has been the mantra for decades and we make no substantive progress. It is merely “jam tomorrow” or, to paraphrase something normally applied when discussing Brazil: women are the next big thing – and they always have been
It is because women don’t go to the same public schools as the men do, their only hope is to get involved at university like Maggie Thatch did at Oxford.
I think this is the most sexist data I have ever seen “shocked face”. Clearly the income for women is lower becasue less are working full time. There is a disparity in average income of men and women but it is nothing like this scale and the factors are more complex. Why should men be the one’s doing all the work while their partners lounge around at home watching daytime TV? (would be just as ridiculous a blog) I suppose if there are less women working or working full time it is hard to have 50% or more of jobs given to women without being unfair to men. Maybe a better blog would be to look at the numbers of full time workers of each sex and compare that to the proportions of appointments to qaungos.Richard – are you an academic or a campaigner? Not sure this blog supports the idea you’re an academic.
Do I have to be one or the other?
Actually, I have no academic ties right now to any institution so the answer seems entirely clear to anyone
But even so I find your comments and style in themselves offensive for reasons that even a cursory examination of this data should make obvious
Do we really want gender parity in an unjust system. The problem with the ‘sexism’ angle is that it just apes and unjust anti-distributive system. I never understood the point of women wanting to copy the fraudulent world of thuggish men, we just end up with thuggish women like Thatcher. Bizarre levels of remuneration for unproductive/socially destructive activities won’t improve if more women are offered a slice of this rancid cake.
The facts are not backing your partisan line, I am afraid!…..see below :-
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-runs-britains-quangos/17645
The numbers of women and minorities have been falling for years, well before the coalition so this is no Tory reversal or plot.
As to appointing Tories, the numbers do not lie, Labour supporters have been over represented for years, so it is just balancing.