Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should there be quotas for women in boardrooms? (poll) Watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you support the idea of a quota for women in boardrooms?
    Yes - 50% of positions should be held by women
    0
    0%
    Yes - but the quota should be less than 50%
    0.96%
    No, but more should be done to get women into top jobs
    38.46%
    No, and nothing needs to be done to get more women into top jobs
    60.58%

    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Trying to eradicate sexism by forcing people to be sexist is one of the most moronic ideas that I've ever heard.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lou029)
    To get to the equal society we all want.
    I don't want an equal society. If equality means representatives from every ethnic minority, sex and sexual orientation. I want the best society. If achieving that means that there aren't any women on any boards, or there are only a few women, or parliament is full of asexuals, homosexuals and lesbians, then that's fine, and performance shouldn't be reduced just to accommodate those who are less capable, aren't able to commit, and are less suited to the demands of the job.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    You're completely ignoring my point; I am not going to answer a question that is frankly irrelevant. You might as well ask me why the moon isn't made of cheese.

    If you come up with something intelligent, I will respond to you. Until then, I won't be.
    You won't respond to me?

    Oh no, whatever will I do?



    Lol. You can't counter my argument, so you choose to run away. Rather than continue the discussion, or even bother to dissect my OTHER point, the first point that I made.

    Pathetic
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    What an eloquent, developed and well-thought out argument. I commend you on your intellectual brilliance and commitment to quality debate.
    That sarcasm makes me jizz in my pants.

    Let me re-iterate. That video is complete propaganda and inaccurate, I bet that guy hasn't even read or understood all the relevant studies on this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm between the 3rd and 4th options - given the disparity we should try to find out why, but if it turns out to be just personal preference (and that is the case for a lot of women) then we shouldn't try to push. So we should try to find out why, and if it's something bad like bosses only emailing promotion opportunities to male employees then do something about it, but if the female employees are getting the same emails but choosing to not go for it because of the extra hours (away from family, for example) then that's fine.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    A top position means making sacrifices. You sacrifice your family life, you sacrifice free time, you sacrifice a stable lifestyle. My mother has a high-status career, and because of that she would roll up home about 7pm, barely took any maternity leave to give birth, and I grew up with childminder's and after school clubs. My friend's Dad has a high-status career, and the whole family was plonked abroad for a few years when he was young, because his father's job took him to Hong Kong.

    It's just the way that things are that women are less likely to want to make these sacrifices. Women tend to take out significant chunks of time for maternity leave, meaning that they are several years behind their male colleagues. Women tend to prefer having time with their children, and having the flexibility to pick them up after school and such.

    That's okay. If less women want to make sacrifices for their career, and would rather that their jobs didn't control their lives, then there's no need to try and shoe-horn women into these roles. The women who do want their lives to revolve around and be run by their employers will seek to get the high-status careers, like my mother has. The option is open, and that's all that equality should be: equality of opportunity.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I personally don't think that quotas should be introduced because I believe in a meritocratic working world; discrimination, be it race/gender/class based deserves no place in the working world. I could not say I am against women being discriminated against in the work place to then vote for a system which hires people based on their gender rather than their skills and abilities, thus inevitably discriminating against men in the process.

    I do however believe that more should be done to combat discrimination and prejudice- not necessarily 'doing more to get women into top jobs' but instead promoting equality and encouraging people to be seen as individuals rather than as a class, race or gender.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Quite frankly it is no business of the government who an employer wants to hire. It is the business' business alone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    The idea of imposing a quota for women in boardrooms has cropped up in the news again today, so I thought I'd gauge support for it with a poll.

    My view is that we shouldn't have such quotas, for three main reasons:

    1. It will be counterproductive. People will start to question whether women in top jobs got there on merit or whether they are simply there because a certain amount of women are required.

    2. I believe that discrimination against group X doesn't become favourable because it allows special privileges to group Y.

    3. Discrimination isn't likely to be the cause of the lack of women in boardrooms, nor is it likely to be the cause of the differences in average pay between men and women.


    I totally agree- we should have the best people in the job regardless of sex,race,etc..

    People should get to the top on merit alone
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    No quotas, but more should be done to encourage women into certain careers, and men into others. For example, engineering and childcare.

    That way, everyone has the opportunity, and only the most talented people will be hired.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    If a father commits a crime, and the rest of his innocent family are disadvantaged because he loses his job and income and is sent to jail, is that wrong?

    I await your answer.
    This a strawman argument

    anyhow- the family would receive welfare depending on how much savings the family has.

    Plus surely that would be an incentive foe im to have been law-abiding
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    .
    Basically this is asking; "Should more women be in high-powered jobs?" - to which the answer is yes. There are many capable women, and statistically there should be roughly a 50-50 split.

    However, the question no-one seems to be addressing is why are there so few female street cleaners, or lorry drivers? To which the answer is; because feminists conveniently forget about true equality in the lower echelons of society. When it comes to women in the boardroom, that's discrimination; but of course thjere;s no problem in this regard with the over-representation of men doing the menial jobs on minimum wage, is there...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    This a strawman argument

    anyhow- the family would receive welfare depending on how much savings the family has.

    Plus surely that would be an incentive foe im to have been law-abiding

    It's not a strawman. After the war, Germany (for example) began making (and is STILL making) payments to holocaust survivors.

    Sixty years on. Are you going to argue that they shouldn't be making these payments because it puts a further strain on a weakened German economy?

    Are you going to say that they shouldn't pay for their wrongdoing because it's going to mean less money for the other Germans, including those who had nothing to do with the holocaust?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    No, and no I answered here. I don't believe in society today that if a man and woman were competing for the same job with the same merits that they'd hire the man any more than the woman. The difference in pay gaps can be probably explained because the current bosses came from a generation where men had the top jobs. Now that gender isn't an issue, 50/50 in the boardroom will happen eventually.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    It's not a strawman. After the war, Germany (for example) began making (and is STILL making) payments to holocaust survivors.

    Sixty years on. Are you going to argue that they shouldn't be making these payments because it puts a further strain on a weakened German economy?

    Are you going to say that they shouldn't pay for their wrongdoing because it's going to mean less money for the other Germans, including those who had nothing to do with the holocaust?
    Ok in that particular case yes

    But if you're talking about the family of common criminals that's a different story

    but what on earth has this got to do with boardroom quotas??
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Ok in that particular case yes

    But if you're talking about the family of common criminals that's a different story

    but what on earth has this got to do with boardroom quotas??
    I said quite clearly, where a group of people have been systematically disadvantaged (either through law, or general societal norms) then I believe that that situation should be made equal in some way.

    Therefore, both situations share some similarities

    And if you bothered to read my OP, you'd see that I am against quotas.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The third option is wrong and it worries me people think it's a good idea. Positive discrimination is not a good thing. Imagine 2 scenarios:

    1. Women get into high positions in a company off merit.
    2. Women get into high positions in a company off government pressure.

    How are women going to be respected in the second scenario? it negatively affects the women who would have got in off merit anyway because people are going to think that she only got in because of the government, which will give her less respect in the workplace. Not to mention that the best person should get the job, if it turns out that the best person is a woman then great she'll get the job, if it turns out the best person is a man though, but the government decides there aren't enough women in the top positions so the woman gets the job anyway how is that fair? Unless there is serious evidence that women are being discriminated against in the workplace (which I doubt since any serious business won't get far discriminating against employees for the top jobs,) no good can come from 'helping' women get jobs.

    If a quota did exist 50% is a ridiculous figure by the way, women are statistically far more likely to give up their careers to look after their children than men, obviously sometimes the man becomes the house husband or the couple can afford to pay a nanny, but this isn't commonplace, especially when you add on single mums etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You wouldn't give assign a person to a task which they cant perform well and you have someone else who can perform is much better would you?

    If a person(woman lets say) is performing well she will be assigned to the board, they wont throw in some half assed idiot thats a guy just because hes a guy.

    Just because a board may be higher populated by males doesnt mean discrimination just those men in the firm are better than the other available women.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by justanotherposter)
    The third option is wrong and it worries me people think it's a good idea. Positive discrimination is not a good thing. Imagine 2 scenarios:

    1. Women get into high positions in a company off merit.
    2. Women get into high positions in a company off government pressure.

    How are women going to be respected in the second scenario? it negatively affects the women who would have got in off merit anyway because people are going to think that she only got in because of the government, which will give her less respect in the workplace. Not to mention that the best person should get the job, if it turns out that the best person is a woman then great she'll get the job, if it turns out the best person is a man though, but the government decides there aren't enough women in the top positions so the woman gets the job anyway how is that fair? Unless there is serious evidence that women are being discriminated against in the workplace (which I doubt since any serious business won't get far discriminating against employees for the top jobs,) no good can come from 'helping' women get jobs.

    If a quota did exist 50% is a ridiculous figure by the way, women are statistically far more likely to give up their careers to look after their children than men, obviously sometimes the man becomes the house husband or the couple can afford to pay a nanny, but this isn't commonplace, especially when you add on single mums etc.

    Here's the thing, and this will really knock your socks off.

    Employers ALWAYS have some bias when choosing employees.

    ALWAYS

    If you've ever worked in a number of workplaces, then you'd realise that.

    If there is going to be some bias, it might as well be for the disadvantaged person, which will in turn help society in general
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    Here's the thing, and this will really knock your socks off.

    Employers ALWAYS have some bias when choosing employees.

    ALWAYS

    If you've ever worked in a number of workplaces, then you'd realise that.

    If there is going to be some bias, it might as well be for the disadvantaged person, which will in turn help society in general
    How about some stats rather than a wild claim that employers always show bias? How does deliberately showing bias help society in any way? Showing bias to the disadvantaged gender doesn't help, it still isn't fair on the best person for the job, if anything since there are more male applicants than female applicants for the top jobs on average it's even more unfair since the bias is on a smaller pool of people, reducing the chance that the best person for the job is in that group.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 20, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.