Turn on thread page Beta

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CodeJack)
    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.

    I would hope such an endeavour would prove your ability to articulate coherent arguments and string together readable sentences in lieu of resorting to insults where your already lacking intellectual capacity has failed you.

    You're not competing against everyone you if this quota was implemented which is what we were talking about, you're competing against males and I would be competing for the 40% quota female positions against other women. You need only think of affirmative action/positive discrimination for minorities. If anyone is demonstrating their glaring inexperience with how the world of jobs works it's you. Your arrogance is very unbecoming.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Its women life choices which result in such a disparity. In fact women in their 20s - early 30s earn more than men. Now I wonder... what could women be doing which may halt/delay career progression?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drewBusby)
    Its women life choices which result in such a disparity. In fact women in their 20s - early 30s earn more than men. Now I wonder... what could women be doing which may halt/delay career progression?
    Childbearing shouldn't be something that women should have to forgo in order to be successful in the workplace.


    And I disagree most board positions are made up of people in their 40s and and over and if you look back 40 years ago the Sex Discrimination Act came into force and so did the Equal Pay Act. So my point is women weren't inspired or told to pursue certain career sectors because they were too male-dominated only now women are being pushed into technology and other STEM subjects which have always been very male. So when these recently qualified and liberated women reach the top they're still being overlooked in favour of the familiarity that comes with hiring a man. Why fix it if it's not broken? Fines will provide an incentive at least, it's a starting point.
    Offline

    2
    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...
    A gender blind application will removes one ability to discriminate, yes?
    Its almost sounds like when you speak of equality, you mean equal outcomes not opportunity.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    I would hope such an endeavour would prove your ability to articulate coherent arguments and string together readable sentences in lieu of resorting to insults where your already lacking intellectual capacity has failed you.

    You're not competing against everyone you if this quota was implemented which is what we were talking about, you're competing against males and I would be competing for the 40% quota female positions against other women. You need only think of affirmative action/positive discrimination for minorities. If anyone is demonstrating their glaring inexperience with how the world of jobs works it's you. Your arrogance is very unbecoming.
    No, they're competing against each other. Say Microsoft put up an application for a new CTO. If male and female applicants are both applying to that job, how are they not applying against each other? There can't be two CFO's.

    Same with a job application in this industry. 99% of the time, there is only one position available. And if you're thinking of replying "Well the job would only allow women to apply due to the new 40% rule", that's straight out discrimination against males. Restricting their job applications is exactly what you're complaining about is unfair to women, which doesn't even happen.

    Also, trying to sound intellectual by stringing together words like that, in an effort to put me down, sounds ridiculous. You sound like you tried to deep-throat a thesaurus at lunch and now it's not agreeing with you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Jack welcome to my ignore list and one that point I'm going to to sleep. Good night all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    I disagree most board positions are made up of people in their 40s and and over and if you look back 40 years ago the Sex Discrimination Act came into force and so did the Equal Pay Act. So my point is women weren't inspired or told to pursue certain career sectors because they were too male-dominated only now women are being pushed into technology and other STEM subjects which have always been very male.
    Its always men fault. Its men fault that women sway towards gender studies/nursing courses. Even when men are discriminated against when it comes to grants for stem courses. What next, should universities relax the entry requirements for women. Such steps have already been taken when it comes to physical tests within certain industries, so such a move wouldn't be at all surprising.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    Jack welcome to my ignore list and one that point I'm going to to sleep. Good night all.
    strong



    Offline

    15
    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?
    'Don't you think it's prejudicial to assume that women "simply" lack the same ambition that drives me' << you're not only looking at this from the wrong ******* perspective, you're also putting words in your attackers mouth to try to obliterate the most logical matter of approaching the situation.
    i say this, as the ****** question you're asking in the first place, isn't in any way related to the matter at hand; which is the animalistic, idiotic viewpoint that women automatically be given 'shortcuts' to the top; because of the fact that they have a pair of boobs. this is a presentation of stupidity of the highest level (one which goes back to the caveman ideology in which women were fed first; because they were seen to need protection; thus not only are you insulting the female species by claiming they need a 'shortcut'; but you're also destroying all equality that has been improved in recent times) on a site that is supposed to contain educated mindsets. you're asking the wrong damn question. how the **** do you even connect the dots between the idea that women aren't interested in that sector to the fact that they 'lack the ambition'? it isn't a matter of 'lack of ambition', but rather a matter of 'lack of interest'!.

    you need help. psychiatric help.

    listen yeah; as EVERY single other poster on this forum (excluding the one you try to coerce into your sick, twisted way of thinking because she expressed her views on an idiotic, nonsensical matter and the first 'troll' poster) and indeed website have said (& quite frankly, i'm surprised TSR hasn't banned your account yet for your sexists, racists, misandriast remarks/comments/essays/what have you. you are a terrible human being and i pray that i never meet someone like you):

    it is a matter of skill and ability in that particular field. moreover, why do you people not complain about the fact that there are <40% representation of females in the bin/warehouse sector?

    people chose career fields and duration ('full time'/'part time' because of their OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCES, and for the umpteenth time, to suggest otherwise is an absurdity of the highest level.

    i will only say this once; and for the love of all things good, try to get this through your thick skull:


    'don't you think we should analyse the reasons behind 50% of the workforce avoiding a particular sector' < they avoid the sector: BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED !!!!!


    you can't go forcing companies to look for uninterested, incompetent individuals and offer them 'blue collar' jobs because they were born with boobs; when there are other far better, successful individuals willing to take the job !!

    has the world gone mad?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    very silly move. I'd much rather have a male boss that knows what they're doing than an incompetent female one.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drewBusby)
    strong
    I have no idea what that means
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theDanIdentity)
    'Don't you think it's prejudicial to assume that women "simply" lack the same ambition that drives me' << you're not only looking at this from the wrong ******* perspective, you're also putting words in your attackers mouth to try to obliterate the most logical matter of approaching the situation.
    i say this, as the ****** question you're asking in the first place, isn't in any way related to the matter at hand; which is the animalistic, idiotic viewpoint that women automatically be given 'shortcuts' to the top; because of the fact that they have a pair of boobs. this is a presentation of stupidity of the highest level( one which goes back to the caveman ideology in which women were fed first; because they were seen to need protection; thus not only are you insulting the female species by claiming they need a 'shortcut'; but you're also destroying all equality that has been improved in recent times) on a site that is supposed to contain educated mindsets. you're asking the wrong damn question. how the **** do you even connect the dots between the idea that women aren't interested in that sector to the fact that they 'lack the ambition'? it isn't a matter of 'lack of ambition', but rather a matter of 'lack of interest'!.

    you need help. psychiatric help.

    listen yeah; as EVERY single other poster on this forum (excluding the one you try to coerce into your sick, twisted way of thinking because she expressed her views on an idiotic, nonsensical manner and the first 'troll' poster) and indeed website have said (& quite frankly, i'm surprised TSR hasn't banned your account yet for your sexists, racists, misandriast remarks/comments/essays/what have you. you are a terrible human being and i pray that i never meet someone like you):

    it is a matter of skill and ability in that particular field. moreover, why do you people not complain about the fact that there are <40% representation of females in the bin/warehouse sector?

    people chose career fields and duration ('full time'/'part time') because of their OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCES, and for the umpteenth time, to suggest otherwise is an absurdity of the highest level.

    i will only say this once; and for the love of all things good, try to get this through your thick skull:


    'don't you think we should analyse the reasons behind 50% of the workforce avoiding a particular sector' < they avoid the sector: BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED !!!!!


    you can't go forcing companies to look for uninterested, incompetent individuals and offer them 'blue collar' jobs because they were born with boobs; when there are other far better, successful individuals willing to take the job !!

    has the world gone mad?
    At least I will go to sleep with the knowledge that I have made one male angry.

    Seethe lol






    (Original post by Tai Ga)
    very silly move. I'd much rather have a male boss that knows what they're doing than an incompetent female one.

    omg I couldn't help but reply to this post. There needn't be a choice don't let them fool you a boss who is female can also be competent. I usually agree with your posts but this one I can't let it go unchallenged.

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Nope.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    At least I will go to sleep with the knowledge that I have made one male angry.

    Seethe lol









    omg I couldn't help but reply to this post. There needn't be a choice don't let them fool you a boss who is female can also be competent. I usually agree with your posts but this one I can't let it go unchallenged.

    1) you Really need help. it's not even a funny matter anymore.

    2) 'boss who is female can also be competent' < not when she is an idiot and incapable of the technicalities required for the job. not when she doesn't know any thing pertaining to the skills required to operate the job at its' most maximum operational output. not when, she isn't interested in working there in the first ******* place.

    because an applicant is born female doesn't mean they know all the ****** inner workings of the world & multiverse at large. this is why jobs are given to the better people; because they have experience in the field; because they know what they're doing; because they spent years working hard to get there; because they researched and researched varying degrees & sources of information relating to that particular field and became masters in their own right.

    therefore any company that seeks to employ nincompoops (that is, individuals with boobs; NOT because they worked hard to get to that position; or because they are knowledgeable about that field.. but because they have boobs) into that particular field that the other candidate has done research into; is a fool & deserves to fold/crash imho.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    Disgusting? You think equality is ridiculous?
    Lol.That's not equality apparently.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not, what sort of person would want to be given a job simply because they fill a quota


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    I would hope such an endeavour would prove your ability to articulate coherent arguments and string together readable sentences in lieu of resorting to insults where your already lacking intellectual capacity has failed you.

    You're not competing against everyone you if this quota was implemented which is what we were talking about, you're competing against males and I would be competing for the 40% quota female positions against other women. You need only think of affirmative action/positive discrimination for minorities. If anyone is demonstrating their glaring inexperience with how the world of jobs works it's you. Your arrogance is very unbecoming.
    Your failure to grasp basic percentage represetations is truly astounding.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Forced "equality" is not equality. No.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CodeJack)
    I have no idea what that means
    She threw in the towel, meaning she gave up.
    That is what coaches do in boxing when they see their fighter being battered .
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I thought OP might actually be some kind of intelligent person who was willing to have an adult discussion about this.

    Then I read her other posts.

    Bah, you call yourself a feminist? You've reduced the issue to trolling and name-calling, you've taken it as a 'fight' between genders, and you're an utter disgrace to the term.


    Oh topic: No, quotas aren't a good idea.
    A fundamental change of ideology is needed.
 
 
 
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

3,314

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.