Astounding rubbish. All we need now is Ludwig getting an anti-population angle in here. America is $14T in debt because they spent more than they earned and borrowed heavily off China and the interest is compounding.

I think the writer is having a go at the diversity industry, which as an industry is well meaning waste of time but probably better than having a non-diversity industry which is what we had from Federation until the 1970s.

I feel some heavy Iron John posts coming from the disaffected male divorce lobby. More power to your inner warrior or inner worrier.

Cheryl,

...make that 16.3 trillion in debt.

http://usdebtclock.org

I wonder if Cheryl ever stops to ask why it's so over whelmingly men expressing the disaffected divorce sentiments.

I suspect not, more likely those males concerns are dismissed with some stereotyping and a little misandry to keep it all ok.

Perhaps the affirmative action crowd could consider some quotas for achieving better outcomes for men following divorce. somehow I doubt that the same arguments as used to support affirmative action would be considered.

I'll start with a question, why as a single parent without a live in partner can I expect to recieve about 1/9 of the child support from my ex that I was required to pay during the period our son lived with her and her husband?

For the record, I don't particulary want their money, just a refund of the excess I was hit with.

The CS formulas are not specifically gendered, rather structured in a way that provides a very gendered outcome in a lot of cases.

R0bert

Oh Babette,
Here are some tips for how we could consider taking your views more seriously:
- don't start by telling us you can't even be bothered using a dictionary, an early warning that you are not planning on consulting any independent source that will confirm our current shared usage of words and meaning
- when you become increasingly irritated by pompous statements by CEOs, explain to us what your business qualifications are, so we can balance their knowledge and experience against yours,
- when you make a claim such as companies being the top 200 because women are not involved in the decision making of the organisation at least try to back it up with some data, or at least an argument as to how this claim is in anyway possible
- you appear to have failed to notice that the reasoning behind this is to some extent equity, but there are also very significant economic and productivity reasons to push for women in leadership
- some citation is helpful when you make outrageous claims like most households being dependant on male breadwinners, it makes me think you are living in the 1950s
- your comments about how are boys are struggling are irrelevant. I am pretty sure our boys are not struggling because we need more women in leadership. I have no doubt that we need to be concerned about why certain groups of men are faring so badly, but the men in jails are not the ones missing a gig on the board.

We do not have affirmative action in the country, apart from some very minor exceptions. We do have very uneven workplace participation amongst certain groups, and where minorities as constantly shut out of employment they have a right to ask why this is, and how they are supposed to survive.
But the CEOs are not talking about an of that. They are talking about good business. And that is what keeps a country financially stable, or not, sound business practice.

Once upon a time, there were males and females. Males protected the group and happily did their thing and babies were born and rared by the females. This situation worked well and everyone knew what their role was.

Evolution being what it is worked its magic and now there is mass confusion and bitter argument about what female and male roles are or should be.

Men marry men, lesbian women make love to a syringe to get pregnant, the battle between the sexes rages, women body builders and boxers look ever more bizarre and men very soon will perform synchronized swimming in the Olympics or perhaps speed-knitting.

Who is responsible for this calamitous situation, this attempt to force humans into unnatural, unproductive equality?

Off with her head, I say!

-There is an obvious imbalance between the number of men and women in leadership roles in both business and government.
-It is purest ignorance (And offensive) to suggest that men are somehow better leaders simply because they have testicles.
-The imbalance is unfair, inequitable and damaging to women but advantageous to men.
-Some attempt at changing that imbalance, the one that is advantageous to men, is presented as 'mysandry'.
-Balance between the genders is man hating?
-This is the level of logic we are supposed to take as a serious argument?
-Next you'll point at the sky and say "it's falling".
I'll take that statement just as seriously.