Allbright, a “Women’s Network” in the UK that aims to “promote female leadership” has attracted criticism and ridicule around the internet today after the announcement of their new Chairman, Allan Leighton.

The group that proclaims to be a network for professional women in the UK was founded in 2016 by Debbie Wosskow OBE, who launched home exchange website LoveHomeSwap, and Anna Jones, former chief executive of publishing house Hears

According to their website “AllBright supports women at all stages of their careers, with a particular focus on skills, start-ups, and space.”

There was no lack of people online poking fun at the appointment; Co-founder Debbie Wosskow defended the decision, saying that to create change you “need to bring men with you”. Ms Wosskow, also speaking on BBC’s Today, emphasised that the group’s female co-founders remained in charge.

“There’s a very, very interesting dynamic that takes place when women are signing men into a club that celebrates women,” she said.

Some people even believed the news to be a satirical piece at first but at closer inspection it did seem that the two CEO’s beloved Mr. Leighton to be the best person for the job.

The appointment and reaction say a lot about where we are as a society and with women inclusion in the work place. According to a recent poll women in executive positions declined in 2018.

There can be plenty of conversation to be had about equality in the workplace, but this case clearly indicates the ridiculousness of some more recent “diversity” and “inclusionary” initiatives. Clearly, we should be focusing more on outcomes than on symbolic appointments, even though symbolically women being in the position to hire men is a move towards equality in leadership.

The Women’s Equality Party told the Times newspaper that the decision to appoint Mr Leighton “seems at odds with AllBright’s mission to change the way the world thinks about female-led businesses”.

However, It would be hypocritical for women to complain about exclusion or discrimination and then discriminate based on gender when in positions of power themselves. If anything hiring a man proves their point about changing attitudes in regards to gender and leadership, I.E. “It doesn’t matter.” Logically, first hiring a man to do what people saw as a “woman’s job” was sounds comical counter-productive, it just might prove their originally aim.

Still, this is pretty weird stuff. Maybe, just to avoid all the hassle. Hire a woman.

Unless of course, you want to generate headlines, then this move is genius free advertising.

Oh….. they got us… crap!