Should UK companies/services be fined if they don't have 40%+ women on boards?

She used that specific quote for a reason. Daenerys has said many things, much more appropriate than this.

I think you're grossly underestimating the competency of women and overestimating that of the men's perhaps because you're a man yourself but I digress. The best person for the job can be a woman suggesting that women wouldn't secure top board positions because they're simply female is sexist and prejudicial.


I think you and a whole bunch of people in this thread, unsurprisingly ALL male so far, are misguidedly feeling threatened and misconstruing the OP as somehow diminishing the worth of men in the workplace. Inequality is a real thing. Women and men are equally competent. So why is it then that women are falling behind in board/managerial positions and make up a smaller demographic when compared to men? The explanation is discrimination. Plain and simple.




Men don't have quotas because they are overepresented what a ridiculous argument.

Perhaps the way it was phrased was a tad sexist, but there is an element of truth to this. Would you rather be given an interview based on your merits, or due to the fact that your interview place fulfilled a quota? If I were a woman, I would prefer the first. Enforcing positive discrimination such as this is still discrimination, so you move further from equality. It's the same with black football managers, Arsene Wenger argued against the proposed quota for each interview to feature at least 1 black candidate. You undermine the worth of the candidate if you judge them based only on their gender or skin colour. True equality comes when you judge a candidate meritocratically, though I can't deny that in society there is a prejudice leaning towards people perceiving men being more qualified than women, and I believe we should address this problem instead of introducing such a quota which further divides, and arguably discriminates even worse, than what we have now.

No what I am trying to say is that if the quota isn't filled and 2 people are going for the job, one male and one female, there will be a bias towards the female applicant. Which isn't fair.

Disgusting? You think equality is ridiculous?

There was no element of truth to that poster's commentary on the lack of competency in female circles compared to that of the men's simply because we know that women are equally competent just look at schools and how girls are over performing while the male counterparts are falling behind due to their favourable discrimination being stripped away. And with the effort to get more women in STEM we can in the future have a more equal female representation in positions of authority/money in big companies, firms and/or services.

What makes you think that members of boards and top managerial positions actually care why they got the job when their salaries are exceeding 500k? I certainly wouldn't care how I got the job and I doubt you would too if you were being a large sum for your talent/merits and what you bring to the table as long as you're contributing to the company respective to your pay check - it's all good. The truly ironic in this thread so far is that when people (read: men/boys) keep parroting the same tired message of the best person for the position should get the job they don't realize that they're basically agreeing quotas need to be implemented to overcome prejudice that harms businesses and the economy as a whole because women are equally qualified and competent.

I don't see how a quota that is promoting diversity and equality can "further divide" the already divided only boys club companies/firms perhaps you can elucidate me on that front.

Or managerial positions* (couldn't fit that in the title)

That's exactly what the Swedish Justice and Migration Minister is planning to do and I for one think it's a great move. The fines would depend on the size of the company or they could be "dissolved" if they don't meet the 40% quota. I think 40% is a fair figure.

I think it's a win-win for both the women who will be promoted/employed into these high-ranking positions and also for the companies benefiting from the diversity and women friendly atmosphere in board meetings/decisions.




http://www.thelocal.se/20150515/employ-more-women-or-else-swedish-companies-told

Women are equally competent as men.

I would most definitely care what I got the job for. I wouldn't want people thinking that I've only been hired to fulfill a quota. If anything I would feel even more demeaned and maligned; I wouldn't be seen as an equal, but instead as an annoyance or something that is in the way. That's why we should focus on forming equality between men and women based on the paradigms of society rather than trying to artificially stimulate some sort of perceived equality.

The thing is, the quota doesn't promote diversity or equality. Karen Brady, Hilary Devey, Deborah Meaden? All women, all viewed as successful businesspeople. Did any of those get in by this supposedly 'diverse' quota? No! They worked hard to be in the roles that they are, like most people do. I won't deny that there are elements of nepotism and preferences towards males inherent within society, but you must understand that people are not appointed solely on gender. It's simply nonsensical to suggest that there's some wider conspiracy that is going on, meaning that males get ahead and females don't. Hard work makes you succeed, male or female. If you don't believe in that, then how can you say you believe in equality? If a woman is forcibly appointed over a man by a company under duress of fines or dissolution, is that equal? No, because you've decided that the woman is going to get the job because it serves your best interests.

It is not equality if you've been hired to fill a quota. It makes a mockery of women if they are only permitted jobs because they've handicapped men. Women make it into the boardroom by themselves already and I'm sure most businesswomen would only want to have a place on a board of directors because of their achievement.

If women are as competent as men they don't need quotas.

The right person for the job.

That is where it starts and ends.

What I find more demeaning is that you, a male, wants to decide what a female should or should not feel when she gets a job. If you think that a would-be woman board member got the job because of a quota and not her qualification that's your prerogative but I see a real false dichotomy in this thread that has been repeated more than once by more than one person regardless of how many times you repeat the same downtrodden argument it won't become true. Women can be competent as men. This quota is for broadening gender diversity on BOARDS but it doesn't diminish the competency of the role person filling the managerial role. What it does diminish however is the ubiquitous male-ness in such workplaces and I feel that rubs you, a male, the wrong way because if this was implemented in the UK it would have the potential to seep down the pyramid and potentially limit your job prospects because a woman is either equally or more qualified than you. The hostility in this thread is enough evidence of that let's not beat around the bush (this is not directed at your per say).

Its clear that society values the role of 'board member', hence the passionate anger in the comments.

If we were instead to impose a quota more directly on the barriers - such as 40% of men should take primary responsibility for the children, the aging parents and ensure they provide an environment where their working wives can devote themselves almost entirely to their jobs,....then we'd achieve the same thing. Would this maybe focus the mind on the inequality. Society does not value these carer roles that women do, I can't imagine that 40% of men want to do them, hence the desire to deny the problem.

"Even though approximately 60 percent of all university degrees in the European Union are taken by women (Ohlsson, 2011) only 10 percent of board members in the companies of the European Union are women (Dagens Nyheter, 2011). " I know women like to change their minds but thats a hell of an about turn in fortunes! It reminds me somewhat of the 7% of kids who go to fee paying schools who take up circa 70% of the board positions and top jobs in law and the media.

So there are of course all sorts of discrimination, men suffer discrimination too, but one must prioritise and the discrimination against women is unequivocal. The problems with inequality in our school system is also being debated widely. I disagree that its a socialist agenda, its governments job to impose some civilisation on the free market sometimes.

I think this is a sexist comment. Are you saying that women are less skilled than men across the board?