Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I've said this before and will say it again: quotas are equality of outcome, not opportunity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    Disgusting? You think equality is ridiculous?
    Let's try something else.

    1) If 90% of the people who go into a particular field are male, and 10% of people who go into a particular field are female, then you would expect 90% of the very best candidates to be male, and 10% of the very best candidates to be female. Do you agree?

    2) If 90% of the very best candidates are male, and 10% of the very best candidates are female, can you explain how setting a 40% quote for females wouldn't cause some females who are mediocre to be picked over better male candidates?

    3) Can you explain why quotas should be used instead of encouraging more female participation in a particular field?

    4) Do you think that females should be allowed to choose which field they want to work in, or should they be pushed into fields where they are underrepresented?

    5) If 90% of those who go into a particularity field are male, and 10% of those who go into a particular field are female, and those who are in the very best positions are 90% male and 10% female - do you consider this to be equality? Or Would you still expect those in the very best positions to be 50% male and 50% female?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If a male is better qualified than the female then he should be hired. If the female is obviously better than the male, then the female is to be hired. I don't understand the issue with this concept.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mark8346)
    Let's try something else.

    1) If 90% of the people who go into a particular field are male, and 10% of people who go into a particular field are female, then you would expect 90% of the very best candidates to be male, and 10% of the very best candidates to be female. Do you agree?

    2) If 90% of the very best candidates are male, and 10% of the very best candidates are female, can you explain how setting a 40% quote for females wouldn't cause some females who are mediocre to be picked over better male candidates?

    3) Can you explain why quotas should be used instead of encouraging more female participation in a particular field?

    4) Do you think that females should be allowed to choose which field they want to work in, or should they be pushed into fields where they are underrepresented?

    5) If 90% of those who go into a particularity field are male, and 10% of those who go into a particular field are female, and those who are in the very best positions are 90% male and 10% female - do you consider this to be equality? Or Would you still expect those in the very best positions to be 50% male and 50% female?

    1. No, I do not agree with your frankly ridiculous assertion that women's competency decreases in any field in which they form a minority because it's based on conjecture. Your hypothetical doesn't even hold up in real life because real life tells us that women are equally competent as men even in professions that are male dominated just because they are conspicuous in a smaller frequency compared to men doesn't mean that their competency somehow diminishes. Incompetent women exist but so do incompetent men and the reverse is true as well. In reality there a set limit of board positions open for applicants i.e. a small handful of jobs available which are often over-subscribed so finding competent females shouldn't prove arduous in fact it should improve the application screening process and make candidate consideration more rigorous ensuring the best men and women are being recruited. This has been reported by Svarva, "You had to look more thoroughly to find females. This started a more professional process," who is also the head of the corporate assembly and the election committee at Statoil, the largest company in the Nordics.


    2. I have already debunked your assertion that female candidates would be mediocre in a world where there's a finite number of positions available and a finite number of candidates. However to address your #2 I think we need to address why hypothetically there will be less competent/skilled females compared to men in any given field, that is, we need to examine sexism and positive male discrimination at that point of education entry (schools/universities) and also the inequality at the top, that is, male domination of board positions which this quota aims to address.


    3. I think you'll find that there has been an effort to encourage girls and young women into STEM and as someone posted on the earlier pages women in STEM subjects is rapidly increasing which is good however we need to address the systemic discrimination against women both in the present and the past to allow women to move to the top positions. The fact that women make up 5.2% of fortune 500 CEO roles and a minority in board positions isn't down to female incompetence it's the direct result of decades of female persecution and discrimination in the workplace. This is why you'll find many women in middle-management with little prospects of job progression because men are holding on to the top roles. Going back to your question more women in board/CEO positions will inspire young women/girls to pursue such careers in the future.


    4. I think women should be encouraged, not pushed, into sectors where they are underrepresented in a bid to increase diversity in the workplace which has many benefits such as a better understanding of the market place, customers and suppliers as well as improved public image and employee relations which all have the net effect of increasing productivity. There are so many diverse and disparate jobs within each sector that there will be jobs to suit every individual. What you're misunderstanding is that women are not underrepresented because of a lack of interest or outright prejudice rather a lack of positive encouragement and incentives.

    5. Gender equality should mean an equal balance and equal representation from both genders so I don't think that 90% of higher power/CEO/managerial/board positions being held by one gender is what I would define as gender equality. I expect a higher female representation and this quota aims to achieve that by correcting past wrongs.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    That's totally and utterly sexist.

    People should be picked on the their ability not their gender
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    1. No, I do not agree with your frankly ridiculous assertion that women's competency decreases in any field in which they form a minority because it's based on conjecture. Your hypothetical doesn't even hold up in real life because real life tells us that women are equally competent as men even in professions that are male dominated just because they are conspicuous in a smaller frequency compared to men doesn't mean that their competency somehow diminishes.
    So you think it's ridiculous to think that if 90% of the people in a field are male, and 10% are female, that 90% of the best people in the field will be male, and 10% of the best people in the field will be female?

    This is basic statistics.

    If I had 900 red apples, and 100 green apples, and my goal was to pick the best 100 apples out of the entire lot - I would expect to end up with 90 red apples and 10 green apples, Not 50 red apples and 50 green apples.

    Don't you see that if I was to choose 50 red apples and 50 green apples - I would be taking 5.5% of the red apple group but 50% of the green apple group. This would suggest that either green apples are better than red apples, or I am passing some of the best red apples just so I can have more green apples.

    5. Gender equality should mean an equal balance and equal representation from both genders so I don't think that 90% of higher power/CEO/managerial/board positions being held by one gender is what I would define as gender equality
    You don't consider the ratio of male:females going into the field to be relevant when discussing the ratio of males:females in the top positions in the field?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No. I disagree. I'm tend to lean more to offering subsidies and grants to develop women more. I cannot agree that 40% of a best qualified people for a job are women.

    I understand that women shouldn't face discrimination at work, and I support initiatives to get more women into work, but I don't think quotas are the way. Just look at whats happening in USA with blacks being tokened in muniversities and entertainment, California is like an oasis there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mark8346)
    So you think it's ridiculous to think that if 90% of the people in a field are male, and 10% are female, that 90% of the best people in the field will be male, and 10% of the best people in the field will be female?

    This is basic statistics.
    No, I said your hypothetical was based on pure assumptions and ridiculous assertions. The most glaring assumption that you made is that you assumed everyone (90% males, 10% females) in a given field is seeking CEO/board jobs and also applying to the same jobs creating this false picture that there's a limited number of jobs avilable which all happen to be male dominated which is so far removed from real life which is why I said your hypothetical doesn't hold up in real world, it's ridiculous, you're ridiculous.



    You don't consider the ratio of male:females going into the field to be relevant when discussing the ratio of males:females in the top positions in the field?

    Mark why don't you address all the other points I've made in my previous post. Why are you so abased to engaging in a full-on debate instead of cherry-picking what you want. And for the record the male/female ratio is relevant to the topic because it's the reason for why a quota was needed in Norway, Spain and a few other EU countries and why it is needed in the UK.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because I think that you are blinded by zealotry - you can't even agree that if the population is 90% A, 10% B then the very best in the field will also be in the ratio 90% A, 10% B. How could a rational human being possibly think otherwise? If you are not even willing to be rational then debate becomes pointless.

    The most glaring assumption that you made is that you assumed everyone (90% males, 10% females) in a given field is seeking CEO/board jobs
    I assumed no such thing. I only assumed that the same % of each group will be interested in such jobs, and that the same % of each group is extremely skilled at their job. This is logical.

    Let's give a detailed example. We have 9000 men and 1000 women
    10% of each group are interested in becoming CEOs leaving us with 900 men and 100 women applying.
    10% of each group is extremely skilled - leaving us with 90 men and 10 women who are the best people for the job. Not 50 men and 50 women. As a result, as the original group was 90%, 10%, we expect those in the best positions to be 90%, 10%.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    Disgusting? You think equality is ridiculous?
    This is not equality. Check your definitions. It's called positive discrimination. I personally don't find any positive aspects to it though.

    If you truly believe in equality, you would support a truly meritocratic promotion policy where the gender of the candidates is not disclosed and only skills and merits are assessed. I don't think you support equality.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    No, I said your hypothetical was based on pure assumptions and ridiculous assertions. The most glaring assumption that you made is that you assumed everyone (90% males, 10% females) in a given field is seeking CEO/board jobs and also applying to the same jobs creating this false picture that there's a limited number of jobs avilable which all happen to be male dominated which is so far removed from real life which is why I said your hypothetical doesn't hold up in real world, it's ridiculous, you're ridiculous.






    Mark why don't you address all the other points I've made in my previous post. Why are you so abased to engaging in a full-on debate instead of cherry-picking what you want. And for the record the male/female ratio is relevant to the topic because it's the reason for why a quota was needed in Norway, Spain and a few other EU countries and why it is needed in the UK.
    Well if you support sexist legislation, you're sexist! Simple as.

    The fact no one agrees with you means you are wrong plain and simple.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    No, I said your hypothetical was based on pure assumptions and ridiculous assertions. The most glaring assumption that you made is that you assumed everyone (90% males, 10% females) in a given field is seeking CEO/board jobs and also applying to the same jobs creating this false picture that there's a limited number of jobs avilable which all happen to be male dominated which is so far removed from real life which is why I said your hypothetical doesn't hold up in real world, it's ridiculous, you're ridiculous.






    Mark why don't you address all the other points I've made in my previous post. Why are you so abased to engaging in a full-on debate instead of cherry-picking what you want. And for the record the male/female ratio is relevant to the topic because it's the reason for why a quota was needed in Norway, Spain and a few other EU countries and why it is needed in the UK.
    lol
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm starting to suspect Dany is JamieTT :hmmmm:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I'm starting to suspect Dany is JamieTT :hmmmm:
    I have always thought that she is "Tyrion_Lannister".
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    I have always thought that she is "Tyrion_Lannister".
    Hm it's possible. OP started posting a couple of months after Tyrion stopped, and got straight into 10 posts per day in largely the same forums :holmes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by db_F40)
    lol
    After I annihilated you in that other thread and you went AWOL I'm surprised you've got the gall to actually try to troll me in this thread too never mind sending me VMs.




    (Original post by Juichiro)
    This is not equality. Check your definitions. It's called positive discrimination. I personally don't find any positive aspects to it though.

    If you truly believe in equality, you would support a truly meritocratic promotion policy where the gender of the candidates is not disclosed and only skills and merits are assessed. I don't think you support equality.

    Positive discrimination is not something I even recognise nor acknowledge and if anything white males have been benefiting for decades from positive discrimination so I don't understand why you feel affronted because another group, a real minority, needs it to address gender inequality. The obvious answer is that you're a hypocrite and have an issue with board/CEO level liberated women who will be on par with their male counterparts.

    Quotas are just one method in addressing inequality in CEO/board positions and indeed the workplace as a whole whether it be for race or gender I think we can all agree that diversity is something that can only benefit work-settings and has been shown to increase productivity because the gender/race diverse big bosses can empathise with minorities who make up a large bulk of their marketplace.

    Just because I think women need some support because of past discrimination/sexism in education/society/work environments doesn't mean that I believe women should be given a free pass and indeed in real life work-settings the past candidate does the get the job and there's no reason that said candidate can't be female. Women are equally competent but they're not doing as well as men irrespective of the reason behind this we need balance the scales - I like that balancing the scales. It will be my motto from now on.





    Daenerys - Librando statera
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    How demeaning.

    I don't want the reason for my job application being accepted to be simply because I'm female. I want it to be because I've earned it through hard work on my own merit.

    Forced equality is not true equality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    After I annihilated you in that other thread and you went AWOL I'm surprised you've got the gall to actually try to troll me in this thread too never mind sending me VMs.







    Positive discrimination is not something I even recognise nor acknowledge and if anything white males have been benefiting for decades from positive discrimination so I don't understand why you feel affronted because another group, a real minority, needs it to address gender inequality. The obvious answer is that you're a hypocrite and have an issue with board/CEO level liberated women who will be on par with their male counterparts.

    Quotas are just one method in addressing inequality in CEO/board positions and indeed the workplace as a whole whether it be for race or gender I think we can all agree that diversity is something that can only benefit work-settings and has been shown to increase productivity because the gender/race diverse big bosses can empathise with minorities who make up a large bulk of their marketplace.

    Just because I think women need some support because of past discrimination/sexism in education/society/work environments doesn't mean that I believe women should be given a free pass and indeed in real life work-settings the past candidate does the get the job and there's no reason that said candidate can't be female. Women are equally competent but they're not doing as well as men irrespective of the reason behind this we need balance the scales - I like that balancing the scales. It will be my motto from now on.





    Daenerys - Librando statera
    Its clear you are deluded, I am really hoping this is a troll.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Great. The Sexist trolling OP is back.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    After I annihilated you in that other thread and you went AWOL
    You speak of that? Every time I (or anyone else for that matter) destroy your points in your pathetic threads you simply ignore them. You don't get to use that excuse.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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

1,186

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.