Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GetOverHere)
    That's a quote from Game Of Thrones, actually. Cause her user is Daenerys, and that's something that she once said.
    She used that specific quote for a reason. Daenerys has said many things, much more appropriate than this.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This is absurd! A full A* boy shouldn't be rejected for a straight A girl just because he's a boy! This thread is unfathomable and is a insult to men. Feminists now days are spreading like Ebo... Let's not go there with the sexism.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    No, It should be proportional to those who apply. If at a workplace 1 women appy for a position and 9 men apply for the same position then according to this rule 4 women are chosen an 6 men then the woman are over 3x more likely to get the job without even factoring in ability.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    She used that specific quote for a reason. Daenerys has said many things, much more appropriate than this.
    True, I was just stating a fact haha.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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.

    Yes Women can get top managerial jobs and thats why they do but on average they don't do as much as Men and saying that men are overrepresented without proof is a sexist argument.There are laws preventing employers from discriminating against a person's sex when employing people, introducing quotas would be breaking them and be taking us into a society where people discriminated against men rather than equality where women deserved places in companies simply because they were women not because they were the best for the job.

    I can tell you one of the real reasons why women don't get managerial jobs as much as men and its because a lot of them take off longer time off work for raising children than men that is a fact and thus their careers suffer and they miss out on all the career development they would have had if they hadn't had so long off those women, who do get managerial positions probably focused more heavily on work than children.

    Modern Feminists don't like to admit that Men on average aren't the same as Women they don't on average have the same passions or abilities but that doesn't mean that people of either gender can't be any role that they want or are good at.The key thing is ensuring equal opportunities for all regardless of sex.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    :troll:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GetOverHere)
    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.
    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 auspicious 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 thing 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 realise 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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Whether or not that is fair depends on what percentage of applicants for those jobs are female. If it is actually the case that plenty of women are going for those jobs but being turned down in favour of equally qualified men, then quotas would be a good idea. However I doubt that is actually a very significant factor, more likely there are just less female applicants. The societal reasons why there are less women going for top jobs should be investigated and challenged, but simply giving them a shortcut to those jobs is not the answer.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The right person for the job.

    That is where it starts and ends.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    No this is completely ****** stupid and is a clear example of how braindead feminazis are destroying nearly everything.

    You hire people based on their achievements and their merit NOT THEIR SEX.

    Companies should not be forced to hire a woman over a man simply because it'll get them to 40pcnt, this is outright sexism and very hypocritical.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dilzo999)
    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.
    You as a male wouldn't be competing against the woman in your scenario you would be competing against another man. If you fail to secure the job it will be due to your own inadequacy/incompetence not because of a widening-access gender diversity quota.


    People are overblowing the situation by referring to outlier fields, in most sectors the gender divide is 50%. But for some reason people always bring up the (almost anecdotal) exceptions of IT, nurses, mineworkers, etc. If a government tries to enforce an unreasonable quota for those sectors I'd be opposed to it. But generally speaking a 50% quota should be fair for most sectors, but it usually isn't even a 50% quota and a lot of leeway is given in the area of 20 to 40% instead.
    If people really want nepotism/racism/sexism to stop and for the most qualified people to get the job, then measures like these are necessary. You can't let dumb animals like businesses just do what they want, or there'll be **** and chewed down furniture everywhere by the time you get back home again.



    Do you blame affirmative action on black/Asian people getting more jobs in the healthcare sector and do you think they're incompetent compared to their white/Caucasian co-workers?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    Disgusting? You think equality is ridiculous?
    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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Do you think nurses should have a 50% gender divide too?
    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
    This is effing stupid mate,


    So your telling me that you want various police/firefighter/security companies be 'dissolved' because they don't employ at least 40% females?

    Very stupid

    The only way you can get women to do these types of jobs is to lower the physical requirements to get employed. Which is put in place for a reason. And men are on average physically stronger so that is why they are more frequent in these jobs

    but.......................

    Instead you want peoples lives to be at risk because you want a greater number of females to be doing jobs such as these.






    logic
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    Women are equally competent as men.
    If women are as competent as men they don't need quotas.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GetOverHere)
    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.

    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).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    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.
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    If women are as competent as men they don't need quotas.
    (Original post by A5ko)
    The right person for the job.

    That is where it starts and ends.


    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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).
    You sound evil
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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.
    nah m8 not having it

    you're going to reply to my post individually

    Spoiler:
    Show

    quality trolling, btw, I especially liked "passionate anger in the comments"
 
 
 
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

3,310

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
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.