Deborah Coddington: Fairer sex will do just fine without token handouts

Stephen Fry. Photo / Supplied

Men, despite Stephen Fry's retarded outburst over women not liking sex, don't appear to have a monopoly on pomposity.

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took questions from her Christchurch audience, former finance minister Ruth Richardson tried to show off with this: "On behalf of our grandchildren yet to be born, what do you believe are the geo-political shifts that are going to be witnessed over the course of the next generation?"

Clinton, savvier than Richardson could ever hope to be, put the former member for Selwyn firmly in her place. Tongue firmly in cheek, she said it was a profound question; "One I wish I was smart enough to answer convincingly."

She predicted that China, India and other nations would rise, but naturally defended America's premier place in the world. What did Richardson expect? "Just between us girls, Ruthie, this Obama guy's completely bombed. The US is chopped liver."

It's disappointing when silly women let the side down, but I'm even more dismayed when only the men - like Fry - are roasted for their stupidity.

This week, Equal Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor descended from her lofty perch and declared the "dearth of women on boards of New Zealand's top companies is a cause for alarm which must be addressed".

What pompous rubbish. The 2010 Census of Women's Participation is a skewed piece of nonsensical research, if you read through all 92 pages. For instance, it bemoans the under-representation of women in media because only 11.54 per cent of editors are women.

But it completely ignores magazines, thus rendering invisible Pamela Stirling, Virginia Larson, Kate Coughlan, Annah Stretton, Sido Kitchin, Raewyn Watson - many more women editing highly successful magazines.

And what this census doesn't reveal is how many women turn down requests to sit on boards as company directors.

Maybe they are smarter than men, and don't wish to expose themselves, under the Companies Act 1993, to the legal and reputation risks when a corporate curdles from the heat and shareholders cast around for someone to blame.

Feminism, to a liberal, is not equality of numbers just to please the Human Rights Commission.

Equality is about freedom of choice. So long as women can choose to be directors of public companies, or run their own successful companies - such as Trilogy - or even eschew the red-tape hassles, Inland Revenue nightmares, staffing problems and opt to be an employee, then we shouldn't fret.

McGregor grumbles that only 10 per cent of directorships of the top 100 companies on the stock exchange are held by women. But those companies are not performing particularly brilliantly, so maybe women choose not to go there.

And is there anything to suggest women on their boards would improve things? Might just as well put blow-up dolls around the board table.

There is evidence that women with strong commercial backgrounds, such as Joan Withers, now a full-time professional company director, can make a positive difference to the corporate bottom line.

But women like Withers, who left school aged 16, are scarce. It's no good, as she said in a recent interview, to just appoint gals with legal or accounting degrees.

And don't be fooled by those who say we're slipping behind Australia. That country uses a stick to "encourage" ASX companies to "address board diversity". The Aussies have a Sex Discrimination Commissioner who wants companies to have quotas and penalties if they don't comply voluntarily with gender equity.

Mai Chen, who started NZ's Global Women, has said the ASX had "shown leadership" and she "can't see why New Zealand wouldn't be ready for a similar move".

Luckily Nicki Crauford, CEO of the NZ Institute of Directors, is cautious about quotas. She points out they're not in the interests of women. "If you're not careful," she says, "people will perceive that women are in management or board positions simply to make up the numbers."

Beware tokenism. And a last piece of advice, steer clear of companies with former MPs on the board - male or female. They're only there for their ego.

Unless they ran a successful business prior to Parliament, there's no skill gained in the House which qualifies them to sit on a board. I was there and we were great at spending, not investing, your money.