Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    I think this is a sexist comment. Are you saying that women are less skilled than men across the board?
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VannR)
    Answer this question: why do you think that management roles should not be allocated to employees using a 'gender-blind' policy based solely upon personal merit?

    Given that men and women are just as valuable as each other in the workplace, surely this would lead to a fair representation of women in management roles, yes? It appears that to suggest otherwise would be to say that women are in some way deficient and that this entire issue is just women moaning about their inadequacies.

    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.


    (Original post by jlsmp)
    sigh. Hows that equality. Men dont have quotas so it currently is equal. Typical feminist
    Men don't have quotas because they are overepresented what a ridiculous argument.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    What a ridiculous idea. People shouldn't be hired because of what gender they are.
    Started typing but you've already said it. This.

    I can also imagine good candidates ending up understandably resentful that women would be promoted ahead of them on the basis that the company would be fined otherwise. That's bad for the company, bad for the people who are promoted otherwise than on the basis of merit, and bad for the people who aren't promoted otherwise than on the basis of lack of merit.

    More fundamentally it should simply be none of the government's concern who a company chooses to employ or on what basis.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jibola240)
    Quotas are stupid. Hire people based on their merits, not their gender
    (Original post by Penguinfarts)
    I thought we were all meritocratic?
    And yet, historically speaking, there have absolutely been other factors, which is precisely the reason why we've needed to implement policies intended to combat and eliminate discrimination in the workplace.

    If jobs only ever went to the best applicant based on nothing but ability, education, and experience, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. They often don't, because of discrimination. That's the issue.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    Men don't have quotas because they are overepresented what a ridiculous argument.
    nope sorry grow up. When an employer wants to hire someone for the job they choose the best one. doesnt matter if its male female dog chimpanzee or water bottle. If there are more males than females its because they are better suited for the job. But as always whenever a group cant be bothered to work for something they complain and cry inequality!!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Are you going to complain that less than 40% of undertakers, lorry drivers, miners and refuse collectors are female? Or is equality only necessary when you think it is?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    And yet, historically speaking, there have absolutely been other factors, which is precisely the reason why we've needed to implement policies intended to combat and eliminate discrimination in the workplace.

    If jobs only ever went to the best applicant based on nothing but ability, education, and experience, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. They often don't, because of discrimination. That's the issue.
    But we can't confront this issue if we impede it with things like this. As I said, positive discrimination is still discrimination.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Watch companies fall apart as less competent people are being employed into high positions by the virtue of their sex, rather than their actual abilities in the workplace.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    Disgusting? You think equality is ridiculous?
    Equality of outcome is ridiculous and even dangerous.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    That's discriminatory to men, patronising to women and an utterly stupid idea.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jlsmp)
    nope sorry grow up. When an employer wants to hire someone for the job they choose the best one. doesnt matter if its male female dog chimpanzee or water bottle. If there are more males than females its because they are better suited for the job. But as always whenever a group cant be bothered to work for something they complain and cry inequality!!

    If "white males" still have more "positions of power" than would be proportional to their presence in the population, then they've gotten those positions by benefiting from discriminatory systems and cultural institutions.

    So yes, when you have a society where certain groups have been disadvantaged to provide advantages to another group, it's absolutely equitable to strip away those inequitably taken advantages. That's how you bring about actual equality.

    Which doesn't exist, in most Western nations, as any cursory glance at pretty much any set of data available would demonstrate.


    (Original post by Gherk)
    Watch companies fall apart as less competent people are being employed into high positions by the virtue of their sex, rather than their actual abilities in the workplace.
    Women are equally competent as men. I can do this all day. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Guys, she has a signature of "All men must die. But we are not men". That's the "equality" she advocates.

    Not to be taken seriously.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    **** quotas of any kind.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Guys, she has a signature of "All men must die. But we are not men". That's the "equality" she advocates.

    Not to be taken seriously.
    That's a quote from Game Of Thrones, actually. Cause her user is Daenerys, and that's something that she once said.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Lol no, worst idea ever.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    If "white males" still have more "positions of power" than would be proportional to their presence in the population, then they've gotten those positions by benefiting from discriminatory systems and cultural institutions.

    So yes, when you have a society where certain groups have been disadvantaged to provide advantages to another group, it's absolutely equitable to strip away those inequitably taken advantages. That's how you bring about actual equality.

    Which doesn't exist, in most Western nations, as any cursory glance at pretty much any set of data available would demonstrate.




    Women are equally competent as men. I can do this all day. :rolleyes:
    im not saying they arent as competent, im just saying that it has nothing to do with discrimination, thats just a convinient excuse. What you think companies are that childish that they do that? if you work for a job and are better than all the other candidates you will get the position. Btw, females are generally paid less than males so firms would love to have more female employees, they cant do anything about it though when the males are more suited for the job
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    If "white males" still have more "positions of power" than would be proportional to their presence in the population, then they've gotten those positions by benefiting from discriminatory systems and cultural institutions.

    So yes, when you have a society where certain groups have been disadvantaged to provide advantages to another group, it's absolutely equitable to strip away those inequitably taken advantages. That's how you bring about actual equality.

    Which doesn't exist, in most Western nations, as any cursory glance at pretty much any set of data available would demonstrate.




    Women are equally competent as men. I can do this all day. :rolleyes:
    I didn't say that women were incompetent. I said that a worse person (who will happen to be a woman, in this case) for the job will be hired over someone better simply for the fact that they have different genitals. If it were a man being hired over a more competent woman so that a quota is met, I'd be saying the same thing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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/empl...companies-told
    no

    no

    no

    no
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Same problem with any quota. Its fine for people who aren't part of it but for those that make up the quota its a burden. You position regardless of your performance or suitability will be questioned on the basis of that quota. Would they have got the job without a quota, were you the best person or did the quota need filling. Bascially the same problem you get with being BAME in the uk now.

    If a company is systematically filtering 50% of it applicants based on sex rather than ability in critical management positions you'd expect it to suffer against ones that select purely based on ability anyway. Its something that should be implemented by the market anyway.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    I think this is a sexist comment. Are you saying that women are less skilled than men across the board?
    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.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: May 18, 2015
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

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

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