By Kathy Gyngell: OMG! I do not normally utter these words – believe me I am uttering them in some distress. I am truly appalled that Saatchi and Saatchi chairman Kevin Roberts has been pressured into resigning following his gender ‘faux pas'.
Who cares you might ask about a well off, successful man hitting retirement a few years early?
I do and so should you. He should not have resigned. He should have faced down his boss, the oppressive Publicis Group that owns S&S, who deemed his comment that ‘the gender diversity debate in advertising is over’ to be unacceptable.
Unacceptable maybe to the feminists who now seem to control public discourse but not to anyone concerned about freedom of speech or thought oppression.
So shame on Kate Stanners, global chief creative officer at Saatchi and Saatchi, who yesterday on the Today programme said that Mr Roberts's comments had upset a "huge" number of employees. Tough, Justin Webb, should have replied, and how stupid these women are to be upset, if they are, they don’t deserve to be directors. He did not and Roberts stood condemned for speaking the truth.
“Women do want the top jobs”, Stanners asserted incorrectly. Sorry, most don’t. She is wrong and the man she was trying to shame is right. His ‘error’ was to admit he spent no time on such gender issues at his agencies at all and why should he when 65 per cent of Saatchi’s staff is female?
The Twitterati went into overdrive at his heresy. Roberts was universally branded a sexist. What greater crime could there be?
Didn’t he know that he should have been parroting feminist boardroom gender parity obsessions? Hadn’t he learnt that you never let the truth get in the way of a good story? He hadn’t; he stepped out of line and said it how it is: that woman have different ambitions; that gender disparity simply reflects women’s choices. He couldn’t go unpunished for this.
Now he’s been forced not just to recant but to resign his job.
It’s a pity he did not have the benefit of Dr Catherine Hakim’s research to hand, that Laura mentioned in her blog. Armed with this and the Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet, Choosing to be Different, he could bring a court case for constructive dismissal. Here is hard evidence that women’s aspirations and their reasons for working are different to most men’s (bearing out his own experience) especially after they have had children.
Here is evidence that contradicts the feminist mantra that men and women must be homogenous and interchangeable and that:
“… the choices women make are based on a different set of priorities from those of their male counterparts. (That) Women today have no difficulty in regarding themselves as equal with men, but they do not consider themselves the same. (That) In particular, on becoming mothers, only a small percentage of women remain centred on their careers. (That) The majority choose a more home-centred pattern of work, either by reducing their working hours, transferring to part-time work or leaving the job market entirely. (That) Large numbers of mothers who remain in work due to financial pressure continue to express a clear preference for more time at home.’
This, he could cite, is ‘preference theory’, and proof that women’s lifestyle preferences determine the pattern of their lives, and that even with the benefit of equal opportunities, they continue to make choices that are different from those made by men.
Exactly, what every other survey has shown since.
Game, set and match, Mr Roberts could have told Publicis, I will not be silenced by the Femistasi thought police and nor should you or any other self respecting company be. Go onto Twitter to see who is terrorising who and the bullying and mind control you are subjecting yourself to.
Would that he could find the courage to turn his case into a cause celebre rather than becoming the latest victim of the feminist terror, brow-beaten and cowed onto submission.
For if he does not, bearing witness to the truth will from today become even harder.
Source
Who cares you might ask about a well off, successful man hitting retirement a few years early?
I do and so should you. He should not have resigned. He should have faced down his boss, the oppressive Publicis Group that owns S&S, who deemed his comment that ‘the gender diversity debate in advertising is over’ to be unacceptable.
Unacceptable maybe to the feminists who now seem to control public discourse but not to anyone concerned about freedom of speech or thought oppression.So shame on Kate Stanners, global chief creative officer at Saatchi and Saatchi, who yesterday on the Today programme said that Mr Roberts's comments had upset a "huge" number of employees. Tough, Justin Webb, should have replied, and how stupid these women are to be upset, if they are, they don’t deserve to be directors. He did not and Roberts stood condemned for speaking the truth.
“Women do want the top jobs”, Stanners asserted incorrectly. Sorry, most don’t. She is wrong and the man she was trying to shame is right. His ‘error’ was to admit he spent no time on such gender issues at his agencies at all and why should he when 65 per cent of Saatchi’s staff is female?
The Twitterati went into overdrive at his heresy. Roberts was universally branded a sexist. What greater crime could there be?
Didn’t he know that he should have been parroting feminist boardroom gender parity obsessions? Hadn’t he learnt that you never let the truth get in the way of a good story? He hadn’t; he stepped out of line and said it how it is: that woman have different ambitions; that gender disparity simply reflects women’s choices. He couldn’t go unpunished for this.
Now he’s been forced not just to recant but to resign his job.
It’s a pity he did not have the benefit of Dr Catherine Hakim’s research to hand, that Laura mentioned in her blog. Armed with this and the Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet, Choosing to be Different, he could bring a court case for constructive dismissal. Here is hard evidence that women’s aspirations and their reasons for working are different to most men’s (bearing out his own experience) especially after they have had children.
Here is evidence that contradicts the feminist mantra that men and women must be homogenous and interchangeable and that:
“… the choices women make are based on a different set of priorities from those of their male counterparts. (That) Women today have no difficulty in regarding themselves as equal with men, but they do not consider themselves the same. (That) In particular, on becoming mothers, only a small percentage of women remain centred on their careers. (That) The majority choose a more home-centred pattern of work, either by reducing their working hours, transferring to part-time work or leaving the job market entirely. (That) Large numbers of mothers who remain in work due to financial pressure continue to express a clear preference for more time at home.’
This, he could cite, is ‘preference theory’, and proof that women’s lifestyle preferences determine the pattern of their lives, and that even with the benefit of equal opportunities, they continue to make choices that are different from those made by men.
Exactly, what every other survey has shown since.
Game, set and match, Mr Roberts could have told Publicis, I will not be silenced by the Femistasi thought police and nor should you or any other self respecting company be. Go onto Twitter to see who is terrorising who and the bullying and mind control you are subjecting yourself to.
Would that he could find the courage to turn his case into a cause celebre rather than becoming the latest victim of the feminist terror, brow-beaten and cowed onto submission.
For if he does not, bearing witness to the truth will from today become even harder.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment