Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Lol at falling for TSR's resident feminist troll
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Err, no. Companies should not hire women because they're afraid of getting fined; they should hire women because they happen to be qualified for the job. Most of the time the gender makeup of a company is utterly irrelevant. Gender even being a factor in the hiring process is pointless unless it actually has relevance to the position. Ironically, this is probably the most 'feminist' opinion to be had on the matter.

    Such legislation would result in companies turning away male applicants simply for being male - this is sexist, discriminatory, unfair, and grossly hypocritical.

    If people happen to want more women in certain areas of the workforce, then encourage more to apply for those jobs. Don't legislate unethical discriminatory practices because the arbitrary gender demographics of a company aren't 'correct'. It's unjust to those who would be turned down for being men, and insulting to the women who aren't being hired for being the best, but because they have vaginas.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Err, no. Companies should not hire women because they're afraid of getting fined; they should hire women because they happen to be qualified for the job. Most of the time the gender makeup of a company is utterly irrelevant. Gender even being a factor in the hiring process is pointless unless it actually has relevance to the position. Ironically, this is probably the most 'feminist' opinion to be had on the matter.


    You're a fool, a naive fool. It's no good going on about how the job application should be gender blind and that true equality means no discrimination even the positive kind when the current situation on boards and CEO/managerial positions tells us a different story. The presence of gender inequality and the active discrimination of women in the workplace is a real thing regardless of how many times you deny it. What do you propose should be done to address this issue? Or perhaps you don't think it's an issue at all. The government needs to interfere because the situation is dire for women on boards and top positions where it's a man's club and men set the rules as women are being marginalised.

    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Such legislation would result in companies turning away male applicants simply for being male - this is sexist, discriminatory, unfair, and grossly hypocritical.


    boo f---ing hoo, the poor men that are going to be left jobless deserve some sympathy. Are you ****ing serious? This quota is for boards/ceo/managerial jobs the people applying to these jobs are going to be rich they are going to be paid a lot and have had plenty of other jobs with high pay so let's not pretend that the everyday man is going to suffer because that's not the case.


    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    If people happen to want more women in certain areas of the workforce, then encourage more to apply for those jobs. Don't legislate unethical discriminatory practices because the arbitrary gender demographics of a company aren't 'correct'. It's unjust to those who would be turned down for being men, and insulting to the women who aren't being hired for being the best, but because they have vaginas]

    Women are already being encouraged to go into STEM at the education leveland more women are going into all 4 sectors but we also need to help women who are already in the sectors that are being discriminated against because women are equally competent as men but they are not reaching the top level jobs on the boards which tells us that women are being overlooked irrespective of competence and skill-level.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No, of course not.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    sure, but don't let them wear shoulder pads
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    sure, but don't let them wear shoulder pads
    What's wrong with shoulder pads? A good pair of shoulder pads will make you feel like a superhero and create the illusion of a smaller waist which is always a good thing. :rear:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Gonna put this here because it's vaguely relevant

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Gonna put this here because it's vaguely relevant
    Me too

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jlsmp)
    Me too

    I don't think i get it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I don't think i get it
    Its a video on how to fix a leaking tap just in case anyone has one.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jlsmp)
    Its a video on how to fix a leaking tap just in case anyone has one.

    I'm sorry, i don't quite follow
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No, what a load of clap trap.
    You want to be on the BoD in a firm, earn it don't expect to get there just down to your genitals.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    You're a fool, a naive fool. It's no good going on about how the job application should be gender blind and that true equality means no discrimination even the positive kind when the current situation on boards and CEO/managerial positions tells us a different story. The presence of gender inequality and the active discrimination of women in the workplace is a real thing regardless of how many times you deny it. What do you propose should be done to address this issue? Or perhaps you don't think it's an issue at all. The government needs to interfere because the situation is dire for women on boards and top positions where it's a man's club and men set the rules as women are being marginalised.
    If there is legitimate concern that female applicants are being discriminated against, then the law is bring broken and the firm should be audited. I will reiterate: the genitals of the CEOs and employees do not matter. What matters is that applicants are being treated fairly and without unlawful discrimination.


    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    boo f---ing hoo, the poor men that are going to be left jobless deserve some sympathy. Are you ****ing serious? This quota is for boards/ceo/managerial jobs the people applying to these jobs are going to be rich they are going to be paid a lot and have had plenty of other jobs with high pay so let's not pretend that the everyday man is going to suffer because that's not the case.
    Excuse me? That is incredibly sexist. Do the livelihoods and rights of men not matter? Why are a man's career prospects expendable and not a woman's? Rights are not dependent on income, either (and your very same argument would apply to female managers/CEO applicants too, you moron). There should be no discrimination here - you are being entirely hypocritical.

    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    Women are already being encouraged to go into STEM at the education leveland more women are going into all 4 sectors but we also need to help women who are already in the sectors that are being discriminated against because women are equally competent as men but they are not reaching the top level jobs on the boards which tells us that women are being overlooked irrespective of competence and skill-level.
    Again, if there is suspicion that women are actually being turned down for being women, then the law is being broken, the firm should be audited, and the necessary legal sanctions should be imposed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Put this to the people and they'll tell her to shove it up her hairy *******. No business should be forced to accept employees they do not want because they do not have a ****. What the ****.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    ( . Y . )

    Erm, lol

    annihalated?

    loolol

    You gave me some long ass statement and i was busy so i wanted you to cut it down.

    You then say

    "First you complain I don't respond and message me trying to get me to respond and when I do you cba? Well don't engage in discussions that you don't care about, feminism is very important to me"

    And i replied saying
    "Wow.

    i said cba to read all of it can you make a shorter version.
    i never said cba full stop k?

    i do care about it

    If i didnt i would not of asked you to make a shorter version"

    lolol how the hell is that annihilating me? and if anything YOU went AWOL because you havent replied yet.



    wow
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder why most women turn their back on today's feminism?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Reason #1056 why political correctness needs to piss off
 
 
 
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

1,739

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.