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

This idea has good intentions but it's completely impractical if you think about it.

Look at the technology industry or software development - female developers don't have a large share there and fining these companies is only going to make that worse as they cannot invest funds into promoting girls into software development (Yes, some companies do this)

In a tech company you may have little female staff and so out of chance you will have less chance of a female board member. This is basically being a jerk to a specific sector.

Don't let the male posters in this thread paint a picture of affirmative action/positive discrimination/gender diversity quotas as demeaning or unethical because they have been benefiting from the persecution of women and minorities for decades it's only now that the rules are shifting in favour of another group that they're speaking out against positive discrimination.

As I have maintained throughout this debate the best person can be female this quota doesn't supersede competence in favour of a pair of breasts. If you want to maintain that women aren't in board positions in a higher proportion because they're incompetent or unskilled I will brand you both delusional and sexist.

As I have maintained throughout this debate the best person can be female this quota doesn't supersede competence in favour of a pair of breasts.

This is why more girls and women still in education are being promoted to pursue careers in STEM and in particular technology but how do you propose for this to happen if the would-be female role models are all decidedly male. I am not denying the presence of women in such boards but without more women being show-boated as leaders, bosses and head honchos girls still at school won't be inspired. If women are less competent than men in a given job in a given section in which they're both equally qualified in that's the fault of the system.

This is why more girls and women still in education are being promoted to pursue careers in STEM and in particular technology but how do you propose for this to happen if the would-be female role models are all decidedly male. I am not denying the presence of women in such boards but without more women being show-boated as leaders, bosses and head honchos girls still at school won't be inspired. If women are less competent than men in a given job in a given sector for which they're both equally qualified in that's the fault of the system.

The **** are you even trying to say. Tech fields have less women because less women are interested, not because there is a lack of opportunity for women.

Well it does. Say you have 30 applicants for a board job and you prefer 3 of these guys who have applied for whatever reason (experience / qualifications ).

Now if you've already gotten, say, a 70% male board, you can't hire them. You have to go for the next best option which is female. Now sure, she may be good at the job, but she's still not the best you wanted.

I'm all for gender diversity and having equal parts in the business, but a company should not be fined for not having enough women. Gender equality means gender takes no part in the job and it's not discriminated against.

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.

You completely ignored and dismissed vannR's suggestion that all candidates be gender blind, as such they cannot be picked for being male or female and can only be judged on their merits. If you truly believe women are just as capable then you should logically have no problem with this.

A gender-blind application process will not address the gender inequality in board positions which this quota aims to tackle mainly because you're not actively recruiting the gender that is being discriminated against on both a systemic (school/univeristy: education) and career ladder level (promotion, job progression: women being stuck in the middle with little prospects of moving up). We need to actively recruit women for two reasons to address the gender bias that is favouring men which exists for reasons I put down to sexism and male camaraderie but others dismiss as female incompetence, and to inspire women at the bottom of the career ladder to pursue high-power positions and view it as accessible.


In the same way that more black/Asians are being recruited in the health sector I think gender diversity is a good thing. The gender-blind recruitment method that was put forward by your friend would only work when there's an equal representation in a bid to maintain the balance of the scales. Maybe in 40 years...

No, some women simply might not want to work in specific sectors.

You're approaching the issue from the wrong angle you as a male will be competing against the other males in the application process.

There is no gender inequality if everyone is given equal opportunity. If a woman is the best candidate she will be hired, simple as.

I apologise for missing this post considering it was on page one. It's a good argument however don't you think we should analyse the reasons behind 50% of the workforce avoiding a particular sector? Don't you think it's prejudicial to assume that women "simply" lack the same ambition that drives me?

There is no gender inequality if everyone is given equal opportunity. If a woman is the best candidate she will be hired, simple as.

You're conflating two different things what you mean is that you think there's no gender inequality in the application process for board/managerial positions when in fact what you said was that there's no gender inequality in board positions when evidence shows your statement to be glaringly false because women make up a minority of said positions.

No because it's the same job. You're sounding like you're commenting on an industry you don't even work in.

EVERYONE is competing against EVERYONE.



Jesus ****ing christ, I sure as hell wouldn't hire you. Equality is giving them an equal chance, not an equal employment outcome. It's not equality when you're putting one gender in front of the other!


I feel I could write a dissertation on how stupid you are.