Storvik told SPIEGEL ONLINE that there was something of a "Norwegian paradox" at play in her country, which is often regarded as one of the best places in the world to be a woman. She explains that while there had long been many women in politics and a moderate number of female managers in the public sector, when it came to the private sector, "we were rather low down the list in Europe." The fact that board members are usually drawn from top managers lead to a low percentage of women on the company boards, with only 6 percent in 2002. "So we didn't have the best point of departure when the reform was introduced."

When politicians proposed the measure in Norway, it sparked a massive public debate -- with opponents saying that such positive discrimination would be unfair to men and that private companies should be given the freedom to appoint whichever candidates they preferred to their boards. Another common argument held that more competent men would be replaced with less skilled or qualified women.

Yet since the law was introduced there have been no complaints from employers associations, nor have CEOs stated that they have had problems finding suitable candidates for the board. ...

... Some also feared that companies would be forced to appoint sub-standard members to their boards, but that hasn't happened either, Storvik and Teigen found. In fact, their study revealed that 36 percent of female board members had a university education lasting six years or more, compared to just 22 percent of their male counterparts. And it is also not the case that a few women are hoarding many positions across numerous company boards. The report found, in fact, that male board members typically had more memberships than their female colleagues.

Meanwhile, Anglican Mainstream screams ANDROGYNY IS DISTRESSING SOCIETY. The megaphone for CoE General Synod member Chris Sugden quotes with approval these thoughts of Julian Mann:

The women bishops' debate at the General Synod sparked a discussion on this morning's ... BBC Radio Sheffield...

It is worth reflecting on the damage feminism, and the behavioural androgyny to which it has given birth, has inflicted on British society since the 1960s:

• House prices have become unaffordable for many because of the impact of double incomes. The pre-1960s practice of women being required to give up their jobs when they got married certainly helped to keep house prices lower in relation to average incomes.

• Social and financial pressure on young mothers to return to work causes distress to themselves and denies babies and toddlers proper emotional engagement with their mothers at a crucial developmental stage. Institutional supervision is no substitute for a mother's love.

• Young women growing up are increasingly without positive female role models resulting in an upsurge of teenage pregnancy, binge drinking and the laddette culture. In pre-1960s' Britain mothers were substantial figures with significant moral authority.

• Marriage has been destabilised because men are being discouraged from giving a lead and women are being discouraged from taking one.

• British society is less capable of producing outstanding women such as Margaret Thatcher and Mary Whitehouse, who were products of Christian Britain.

• The education system has been skewed against boys in favour of girls. This is going to cause huge social problems in the disenfranchisement of young men in employment, in family life and in wider society in the future.