Hello Falstaff, I am sorry I had little time for BabyPips later this week.
I am going to pass on all your great suggestions because I really do not
have the time - other priorities pushing my time, I am afraid.
However, the thread is here to stay and those links can be accessed
by me (and others) at a later stage…
Sorry for the short reply, please do not feel too short-changed! 
In the vein of this thread, this week the UK govt backed Hampton-Alexander Review published the top10 excuses used by FTSE 350 businesses for not appointing women to their boards.
It makes pitiful reading:
The top 10 excuses for not appointing women were:
"I don’t think women fit comfortably into the board environment"
"There aren’t that many women with the right credentials and depth of experience to sit on the board - the issues covered are extremely complex"
"Most women don’t want the hassle or pressure of sitting on a board"
"Shareholders just aren’t interested in the make-up of the board, so why should we be?“
"My other board colleagues wouldn’t want to appoint a woman on our board"
"All the ‘good’ women have already been snapped up"
"We have one woman already on the board, so we are done - it is someone else’s turn"
"There aren’t any vacancies at the moment - if there were I would think about appointing a woman"
"We need to build the pipeline from the bottom - there just aren’t enough senior women in this sector"
"I can’t just appoint a woman because I want to”
(pasted source BBC)
Now here is my own experience:
women are brilliant at multi tasking with ease - no stress, no raised voices, it gets done.
Numbers, dates, facts are remembered without the need to reference records, just ask and it’s answered.
The often used term ’ can work on own initiative ’ - women brim with initiative, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s there for the next time.
‘Conscientious’ Is another oft quoted term - yet another field where women excel, ask for fairness and will happen.
I could go on, based on my own experience in the business environment, FTSE 350 are the guys missing out.
BRAVO!!!
Thank you for posting this news item… It was also discussed on Question Time on Thursday.
Yes I saw that “Ain’t it Awful ?” from the Leftist media too.
Are you saying that there ar no women on the boards in any of the top 350 UK Companies ?
Can that possibly be true ?
By definition that means the 350 Companies who have consistently made the best Corporate decisions over many many years in all aspects of their business management.
Just give yourselves “Permission to think” for a moment !
What possible reasons could the shareholders and directors of a Company have for appointing their directors ?
Bearing in mind that these people have no common ground with any of the other 349 companies except the pursuit of maximum profits !
Ah, yes, California.
About 100 years ago, some as-yet-unexplained event, called The Great Tilt, temporarily lifted the Atlantic side of the U.S. about 1,000 miles into space, causing everything loose in this country to slide into California, where it has remained and become the culture of that state.
If you think perversion and moral degradation are being forced down your throat, you can lay the blame for that on the moral dystopia that California has become over the past 100 years…
All the cultural rot coming out of Hollywood merely reflects the cultural rot in the city and state where Hollywood is located.
And California’s state and local governments are rotten, as well.
California welcomes illegal aliens to their “sanctuary cities”, fails to prosecute those illegals for crimes (including felonies), and defies the authority of the United States government to round up and jail (or deport) those criminals.
The government of California believes that it is the Supreme Authority within its borders.
No federal government is going to tell California what it can and can’t do.
Right, Governor Jerry Moonbeam? California and Governor Moonbeam deserve each other.
California bans travel by any of its state government employees to nine other U.S. states that have laws which do not comport with the sort of social and cultural decay promoted in California. Oklahoma is the latest state to be added to California’s list of banned destinations.
Meanwhile, the few sane people remaining in California are packing up and moving to Oklahoma.
U.S. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, whose congressional district includes San Francisco, is the perfect poster-child for California – a whacked-out liberal who clearly thinks that she knows, better than anyone else, what’s best for America.
If any state deserves to be called a Nanny State, it’s California.
And now, the genius social architects of California want to dictate to corporations domiciled in that state that they shall have an Affirmative Action Female on each corporate Board.
This country has recently rid itself of our first (and God willing, our last) Affirmative Action President. But, such lessons are lost on California.
Ha! I knew us musicians (take Adam Grimes to name but another)
could offer something unique in all fields!
Nice one PMH - Written 18 months ago Heh ?
Here’s another article by the same woman ;
https://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/243268/the-most-beautiful-profession-in-investment-banking
Thanks Falstaff, yes, I read this article back then …
See, I Do do SOME reading
Sorry to you and Clint for not giving your replies the time they deserve…
I hope that someone else will join in the debate.
Hi PMH, I don’t know @Clint well enough to speak for him, but I know his posts well enough to know he is a thoughtful and intelligent man with some views of the world which seem valid, so I expect he feels as I do that we don’t really need “answers”, just a recognition that the “Feminist” issue is less simplistic than the headlines would have us believe and a realistic consideration as to whether there could possibly be some over-reaction evident ?
My own view is that the pendulum has actually swung too far now. Like, perhaps a “stock” gone parabolic !
It seems that none of us properly understand the power and threats (dangers) of Internet “Social media” - except possibly the “Social Justice Warriors” and the pressure groups they act for. The Internet is still young and our leaders are frightened of it and of the adverse publicity that a lack of “compliance” with the wishes of these “groups” returns. They (leaders) probably think that they have more impoortant “stuff” to deal with and that just pandering to pressure groups will free up time for other things.
However that does not seem to be the case.
It is more a case of “Give them an inch they’ll take a mile” - so much so now that we have a whole new class of voiceless victims - committing suicide at the rate of one every 4 hours - in UK alone.
We know full well that those who scream loudest are not ALWAYS right, but we see them manging to drive the world in ever more restrictive ways - restrictive that is on personal freedoms, choice and personal responsibility for our own actions.
Curtailment it would seem on our permissions to even THINK for ourselves and apply simple common sense for fear of sensure by a legislature driven by their own fear of sensure ! Certainly it seems there is an abuse of anyone who speaks out about these issues either in real life, or even on forums, which I have to say, is less prevalent on this thread than on some sites and subjects and I thank you personally PMH for that.
Pressure groups are not Always right - “Public opinion” is often wrong - note that “Retail Traders bets”, when they get to consensus of more than a few percent, are used by the Brokers as reliable Contra indicators !
I don’t know mate, but when it gets to the stage of actually killing people regularly and many of them young people at that - It HAS to be time to just stand up and say “Whoa” !
Doesn’t it ?
Why is it that in a male-dominated forum like this, the option of using a red heart shaped icon is now available?
Forex is an over the counter market where traders are getting the chances to take participate in the trading from anywhere around the world. I personally think that those women who are trying to earn some money without stepping out of home can try forex. And as there is a flexibility to trade any time a women trader can engage in trading day or night as suitable to him.
[quote=“Sakhr_Zafir, post:679, topic:63703”]
… a women trader can engage in trading day or night as suitable to him.[/quote]
OK, let’s assume this was just a slip of the tongue and not the unconscious product of a deeply embedded bias! 
[quote=“Sakhr_Zafir, post:679, topic:63703”]
I personally think that those women who are trying to earn some money without stepping out of home can try forex. [/quote]
Hmmm, this is a very different scenario from competent females being free to make their way as professionals in a corporate environment.
It brings to mind women who are, for whatever reason, either unemployed or housewives. This is easy to say but immediately raises the question of whose money they are going to be trading. I can already hear the echoes of the typical immediate post-war male attitude of:
“OK. but provided the house is clean, the kids fed, and my dinner on the table when I get home… and that you don’t lose any of it!”…
…hardly what one might call a level playing field!
I can’t help thinking that maybe one good reason why we do not see many females on forums like this is simply because they read the sob stories here, related mostly by men, about the 95% chance of losing everything, broker scams and difficulties in finding a working strategy and the need for years on demo, etc - and simply know, in their usual female intuitive manner, that there are far easier, and more reliable, and less stressful ways of building a business…
It is also rather depressing to observe so often that women should have to prove their equality by being as masculine as men and have equal opportunities in male-oriented fields.
Why must we measure female equality according to their excellence in areas such as lorry driving, firefighting, army combat forces, abilty to swear, cover themselves in tattoos and drink the men under the table. Of course, women should have equal opportunites to achieve in whatever they wish and not be hampered by the mere fact of being female. But women are different and I, for one, much prefer to see women competing and achieving as females rather than having to fit a male-shaped identity template in order to be recognised as having succeeded.
You raise a valid point there Manxx - perhaps if we look at the types of people here from an age perspective, there are some like myself who were small children in the time you speak of, but they are (I suggest) male - because children were brought up to fulfil the traditional roles. I think women from those generations are unlikely suddenly to change from being traditional “nurturers”, now grandmothers with homes and a reasonably comfortable lifestyle, to become ambitious and competitive traders, just because “some people might want them to…” Perhaps a trading environment does appeal to older males as a substitute for the “Hunter” environment of the workplace ? or as a way to improve poor pension arrangements ?
Then we have seemingly quite a few young males, many from countries where perhaps the roles of men and women are still “less equal” than some people might wish.
There are some others who are young and looking to see whether Forex is a way forward for them. Many disappear after a few weeks or months of posting.
We have seen a few women who have come and either “gone” or are sitting quietly observing, plus of course those who do stay and contribute.
Now if we accept that the “New women traders” are likely to come from the set of “Young women” as a whole and indeed from the subset "Young women who actually Want to compete " I suggest many young women actually quite like their lives with a decent husband and a child or two - all co-operating at “Being a family” and view our form of gambling as too risky for their meagre savings when they are intent on buying a house perhaps.
Now I thinik we are perhaps expecting rather too much of these young women by demandng that they enter “Forex trading” in sufficient numbers to balance the numbers of “Oldies” and those from different countries, as well as the “Young men” with whom we perhaps should be comparing them numerically.
However, as someone pointed out, we only “know” someone is female - if they tell us that for some reason. Otherwise we just assume evryone is male. There may be some who simply have not declared their gene base !
God forbid - There may even be some who don’t even Want to be “competing Feminists” - like perhaps the poor girls who were up in arms when “they” stopped allowing the pretty girls in the pits to attend the Grand Prix races and were distraught that their livelihoods have been destroyed and they cannot pay their mortgages !
It’s not just the FTSE350 guys who don’t like female CEO’s - the new IATA chairman Al Baker has an opinion just voiced in Australia at that organization’s AGM.
When asked about female leadership in Mid East airline companies he replied:
“Of course, it has to be led by a man, because it is a very challenging position.”
This time chose Fortune site for paste source - trying not to choose lefty news sites only
He later backtracked, having heard the loud groans from the assembled press conference.
An effective multi-tasker doesn’t make silly comments when under stress and then have to clarify, says more about that particular CEO.
@falstaff Great post… I am definitely in the younger men category, perhaps, although I am no longer entitled to a young persons’ railcard
