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...)
    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.
    A lot of women are incompetent and unskilled. So are a lot of men. That's why there's both men and women in board positions, though the fact that much more are men is what I was saying about attitudes within society as a whole. You can't address a problem that's the product of another problem. Address the first problem, and all other problems succeeding it will cease.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xboxcp)
    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.

    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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.
    B-but guys stop oppressing me by not making me a director on the basis of my gender alone


    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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.
    It could simply be that the women in that particular organisation aren't as good as the men; in other companies, the opposite might be true. It could be that women tend not to enter certain types of businesses. It could be for a whole host of reasons. What is relevant is particular candidates in particular businesses, not women as a group. In that regard, decisions should be made on merit.

    Or not. If a company wishes to promote people for the sake of gender equality rather than merit they should be free to do so. But they certainly should not be required to do so.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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.
    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.

    Both male and female have an equal opportunity to apply for a job currently. You're then discriminating against males if you limit the jobs they can apply to.

    Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do you really think employers make a conscious effort to discriminate against women? Like its all a huge conspiracy all businesses sign up to. The reasons are men and women are different both with strengths and weaknesses. A reality of being a woman is you are more likely than a man to have a child and take time off work or even leave work to care for your child. Women with children are more likely to take up part time work than a man. Employers want people on full time contracts who aren't likely to suddenly decide to leave or reshuffle their work hours.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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.
    So because loads of guys are in STEM careers and technology, it's their fault that girls don't venture into these types of careers? That's ludicrous. And no it's not the fault of the system, it's the fault of the woman. No one is going to hire anyone who isn't competent, end of. If I want to hire a competent girl over an incompetent boy, I'm able to do it without criticism. But if I want to hire a competent boy over an incompetent girl, why should I have to attract criticism?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CodeJack)
    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.
    Clearly this just emphasises the need for the state to coerce private companies to act as tools for social engineering by promoting the occasional interested woman to the top automatically, in the hope that more women then become interested.

    /leftism
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    no way
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CodeJack)
    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.
    You're approaching the issue from the wrong angle you as a male will be competing against the other males in the application process the 30 or 40% that makes up the female quota is not accessible to you, that is, the fact that a woman would've received "your job" offer is besides the point. I also don't appreciate this bleak picture you guys are painting that when a woman is hired for a board position she will be sub-par and unproffessional and incompetent when the research shows otherwise (look at my post in page 4 and in particular Norway) as companies can benefit from diversity in a number of ways including best understanding of customers/market because they are female.

    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.
    That would only work if there was no inequality in the workplace, society/school/homes but that's not the case to suggest otherwise is feigning ignorance to an issue with plighting half of the population. Gender equality can only be achieved when inequality/discrimination/sexism/misogyny is abrogated and this can't happen without more women being conspicuous at the top.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    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...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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...
    There is no gender inequality if everyone is given equal opportunity. If a woman is the best candidate she will be hired, simple as.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Protégé)
    No, some women simply might not want to work in specific sectors.
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    You're approaching the issue from the wrong angle you as a male will be competing against the other males in the application process.
    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.

    That would only work if there was no inequality in the workplace, society/school/homes but that's not the case to suggest otherwise is feigning ignorance to an issue with plighting half of the population. Gender equality can only be achieved when inequality/discrimination/sexism/misogyny is abrogated and this can't happen without more women being conspicuous at the top.

    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!

    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    There is no gender inequality if everyone is given equal opportunity. If a woman is the best candidate she will be hired, simple as.
    See, she gets it. Simple concept.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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?
    Nah, I don't mean that they lack ambition, just that they are interested in certain sectors. For example, males only make up 10% of nurses in the UK and USA. Males aren't so interested in that profession and I don't see it as a problem.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    This is stupid. Positive discrimination is just as bad as negative discrimination. There should be no discrimination. People should be hired based on their merit alome and not their gender. If a male and a female are both applying for the same job, the female shouldn't be taken just 'to fill the quota', but similarly, the man shouldn't be taken 'just because he's a man'. It should be based on who is the most qualified for the job and who is the best candidate. Gender should not play a role in the process.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Nope, I think you'll find you just don't understand what inequality is.

    You've lived one heck of a sheltered life in a first world western country. You're just looking for things to be offended by and looking for something to be a victim of. You're not a victim, stop acting like one.
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Shame women studies degrees are pretty much useless.
 
 
 
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

1,233

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.