Women on boards 'must rise by 2013'

**Zuberi** · 21st-February-2011

Women on boards 'must rise by 2013'

Press Association, Sunday February 20 2011

Women on boards 'must rise by 2013' | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Companies are to be given two years in which to increase the number of women they have on their boards or they could face government quotas, it has emerged.

Former trade minister Lord Davies of Abersoch is expected to call for a fifth of FTSE 350 board members to be women by 2013, rising to a quarter by 2015, when he releases his report on the issue this week. However, it is thought he will stop short of calling for quotas to be introduced unless the voluntary measures fail, after finding a lack of support for the measure.

Instead, head-hunters and shareholders will be expected to sign up to a new code of conduct, and chairmen will be urged to be more adventurous when appointing non-executive directors, with head-hunting agencies asked to provide more diverse shortlists.

It is thought Lord Davies, was commissioned by the Government to investigate why so few women were on the boards of UK companies last year, will also call for more women to be promoted to executive committees to ensure there is a larger pool of talent from which female non-executive directors could be recruited.

Women currently account for only 12.5% of directors of FTSE 100 firms, and based on current trends it is thought that it would take 70 years before women held half of all posts at blue chip companies.

The situation is even worse in the FTSE 250, with only 7.8% of board posts filled by women, while half of firms have no female board members at all, according to Cranfield School of Management. Last year only 18 out of the 135 new non-executive directors who were appointed were women.

Other measures which are likely to be put forward include encouraging companies to publish their own targets on appointing women, and if they fail to meet them, they would have to explain why this was the case to shareholders.

Lord Davies found little support for imposing quotas on companies, with just 11% of respondents saying they thought it was a good idea. However, Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to warn that the Government will impose a quota, backed by legislation, if firms do not appoint more women.

Meanwhile, the Association of British Insurers (ABI), one of the UK's biggest shareholder groups, announced that it was going to begin reporting how many women were on FTSE boards. The group said it would make the figures part of its Institutional Voting Information Service, which should increase the pressure on chairmen to appoint more women.

Maggie Craig, acting director general of the ABI, told the Sunday Telegraph: "This will allow investors to challenge boards on diversity and after a year we will be able to report back on what we have found."

Unregistered · 21st-February-2011

I wonder why women are unwilling to do these jobs?

**Douglas** · 21st-February-2011

I consider all this publicity, public spending and government time spent on about 1000 jobs to be abhorrent while there is such huge disparity in the number of women in the army, in the mines, on oil rigs - all of which must add up to hundreds of times more jobs. I also consider it abhorrent when there is such disparity in the number of men in education, health care and social services, which is an even larger number of jobs.

**Zuberi** · 21st-February-2011

Quote from Unregistered

I wonder why women are unwilling to do these jobs?

Because the jobs are too damn stressful and the gals just don't have what it takes.

**conaill** · 21st-February-2011

I wonder how many of these companies will remain as a UK registered company,and how many will still be in business in a few years,all the political parties are into social enginering,but i do not think it is important for us as men to worry about these companies,let them look after themselves,because they care little for us as men,if they become unprofitable they will fail,most of the boards are made up of men who do not even know we exist at least as no more than disposible labour,a man should worry about being a master in his own life and his own personal domain,and be employed by himself,let us also remember that the money that you earn is your's,keep it and give as little as possible to the state.

**Ambiorix** · 21st-February-2011

Quote from Zuberi

Because the jobs are too damn stressful and the gals just don't have what it takes.

Because women's attractiveness to the other sex does not rise with money.

**miguel_gomez** · 21st-February-2011

I've met a lot of everyday women and they always say that they don't feel fulfilled with pursuing one of those "careers" that society keeps telling them to pursue. Feminism teaches women AND men to fight against their biologies. Men need to be the provider, protector, and discipliner in the family and that's how we've been programmed.

**Zuberi** · 21st-February-2011

Quote from miguel_gomez

Men need to be the provider, protector, and discipliner in the family and that's how we've been programmed.

Unfortunately, men are not androids and they have the freewill to be whatever they choose to be!

**Lady Catherine** · 21st-February-2011

Quote from miguel_gomez

Men need to be the provider, protector, and discipliner in the family and that's how we've been programmed.

Really? Have you read any of my conversations regarding gender role? Men nor women have predefined roles, only what society, culture, and others tells us. Period. Biology might influence a tendency, but that isn't always true for all cases.

Quote from Ambiorix

Because women's attractiveness to the other sex does not rise with money.

For the love of the gods, you do realize that hypergamy is defined differently than how the manosphere defines it? Female hypergamy only happens in societies that favor men, why am I the only one who actually researches these concepts? T_T Or is anthropology no longer relevant?

**miguel_gomez** · 21st-February-2011

Quote from Zuberi

Unfortunately, men are not androids and they have the freewill to be whatever they choose to be!

I meant how they are by design. Of course, we have the natural instinct to choose this kind of role, but feminists want women to work that role instead. Either way, one can play that role with himself instead of doing it with a family. For example, while I lived alone, I was my own provider and protector, fending for myself. Isn't that what we always do and why we always get along on our own instead of needing to tie a ball and chain around someone else to drag our weight with them ?

**Zuberi** · 21st-February-2011

Quote from miguel_gomez

Isn't that what we always do and why we always get along on our own instead of needing to tie a ball and chain around someone else to drag our weight with them ?

Yes, that's what we've done for thousands of years. It's not for the meek nor the stupid and it doesn't help that our governments are pushing us to go for broke. The feminists are practically killing themselves. A nation of weak single mothers and bastards are much easier to control and manipulate.

**byslexic_danana** · 21st-February-2011

Can't seem to comment on the article; shame, I quite fancied the idea of confusing a few braindead, sanctimonious Guardian readers, with a bit of common sense.....

**Zuberi** · 21st-February-2011

Quote from byslexic_danana

Can't seem to comment on the article; shame, I quite fancied the idea of confusing a few braindead, sanctimonious Guardian readers, with a bit of common sense.....

Did they block the comment section?

**haute macabre** · 21st-February-2011

What if I don't want to be on boards?

I'm not trying to be a CEO, I just want to live my life and enjoy my chosen career path.

Women, or anyone for that matter, should get on those boards because they earned it. People that get there by doing the boss, won't go far in life and will end up in the can after the next hot toy comes along.

**Zuberi** · 22nd-February-2011

Quote from haute macabre

People that get there by doing the boss, won't go far in life and will end up in the can after the next hot toy comes along.

It's funny because that happens more often than you'd think. It usually happens to the loud, narcissistic types who take pride in backstabbing to get ahead in life.