Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Introducing a 40% quota for women on company boards? Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No. It's stupid. Why on earth would a man agree to potentially being discriminated against on the basis of his gender and undercut by someone less qualified? It's completely illogical.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Sexist. Patronising to women. Illiberal. Anti-meritocratic. Absurd.

    These are terms you should use in what, if you are sensible, will be an ardently anti-quota speech, OP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hexagon999)
    Should we?

    I have a debate on this on Saturday so both sides of the argument would be much appreciated.

    thanks
    I have a coursework piece on this so will also appreciate this thread!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    One of the most profoundly stupid ideas around, not to mention sexist. It should be meritocrical. If no women make the cut tough titty if no men do we'll same ending. The priority should be for the success of the company not to cure some harpies damaged ego.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hexagon999)
    Women consistently perform better than men in GCSEs and A levels yet only 10% of company boards are made up of women. Why?
    A Levels and GCSEs do not correlate with success in the working world. At least not to boardroom level anyway, promotion to those lofty heights takes a certain type of person.

    Systems of promotion should in my opinion, always be meritocratic, using quotas means the best person can be denied the job on some arbitrary requirement to hit percentages. That's not how the world of work should function, nor is it a path to success.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Domeface)
    There is literally not one even slightly valid argument in favour of this. Anybody who supports this must either be painfully stupid or utterly bigoted.

    The reason that women are statistically under-represented in boardrooms is that on average more women take less career-focussed life choices compared with men (eg career breaks to have children, more likely to work part-time). This is not a bad thing, it's just the choices that people make.

    There likely is some discrimination present due to the potential for a women to get pregnant and go on maternity leave for months, costing the company lots of money (and morese if she is in a highly paid position). However, that problem is with the maternity leave system; if paternity leave were the same length of time, this discrimination would not occur.

    Outside of this, there's no reason why a company would choose to hire a less able man instead of a more able woman; the only thing that really matters to a big corporation is how much profit they make. If the woman will make them more profit, then they will hire her. To do otherwise would be detrimental to the business.

    Positive discrimination is not a solution at all. It is literally enforcing the problem that it's trying to solve, that being hiring on the basis of sex rather than ability. Not only does this destroy the meritocratic nature of the workplace, but as others have said, implies that women need to be disproportionately favoured in order to get these positions.

    If you support positive discrimination, then either you haven't actually thought it through, or you're an idiot.
    Impossible... W-w-w-where can I stuff the word patriarchy in this sentence?.???.?.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hexagon999)
    Women consistently perform better than men in GCSEs and A levels yet only 10% of company boards are made up of women. Why?
    For Christ's sake. Company boards are populated by old people at the peak of their careers. It takes time to work up to the company board. Women aged 11-30 are ahead of boys now due to indirect affirmative action (mainly coursework and recruitment drives). They will therefore be prime candidates for the boardrooms in 30 or 40 years' time.

    No more affirmative action needs to be applied. It will have two effects:
    - to directly discriminate against men
    - to sink companies who had to promote to their 10-person boardroom 4 less able, less experienced (on expected value) women.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hexagon999)
    Women consistently perform better than men in GCSEs and A levels yet only 10% of company boards are made up of women. Why?
    10% of company boards are made up of women, and yet women perform better than men in GCSEs and A Levels.

    Why? Our education system is obviously biased against men!!!

    (I don't agree with that, but people would be accusing the education system of bias if the boys were getting better grades than the girls.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    On a somewhat similar note: a friend of mine (who's applying for a Phd in philosophy at various universities in the states) told me that his professor advised him to state in his personal letter that he's a visible minority because it would increase his chances. And I've heard this from other professors (and online) as well.

    The professor said the reason behind this is because 'the field is currently dominated by white men' and so they want to make it more diverse.

    My friend and I thought this was pretty tasteless. If it happens that more men are better candidates or that more white individuals are better candidates for a philosophy program, so be it (as long as candidates are not discriminated during the selection process). Why should a great student be less deserving of an offer because he doesn't fit the 'diversity picture'?

    I'm not white nor male and I would hate if that decreased my chances at success. Jobs should be based on merit.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hexagon999)
    Should we?

    I have a debate on this on Saturday so both sides of the argument would be much appreciated.

    thanks
    No, no we shouldn't.

    Positive discrimination is usually demeaning and patronising to the group it is meant to help.

    Force companies to put women on their boards? Great - they'll just put women on the board who they know will have absolutely no influence whatsoever.

    Women should get into those positions on merit - that's what we need to change. We need to change people's attitudes, not force their actions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by russellsteapot)
    Because work isn't a examination asking you to write down what you've been taught for the past 2 years.

    I'd be interested to see where we would place genderqueer individuals? Offer them an arbitrary percentage? Disregard them? It might seem a bit pernickety and you couldn't base a debate around it, but it'd make a reasonable point of information if you don't have any others.
    We're not here to debate whether other people that are discriminated against should get quotas so your point is irrelevant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Interestingly, a female surgeon i was talking to actually advocated active discrimination against women (in medicine). She said it was illogical to train doctors who would then take years out of work to have and look after children.

    I entirely disagree myself but thought that was interesting given who it was coming from!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't be stupid. Even women say they don't like female bosses. Too bossy. By all means let nature decide by don't Quota'fy things. Or you'll be out of work and your high level job give to economic migrants, think about it!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Harperson springs to mind regarding this
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    urgh, quotas. employ people who deserve it, if less than 40% of appropriate applicants are women then so be it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Domeface)
    There is literally not one even slightly valid argument in favour of this. Anybody who supports this must either be painfully stupid or utterly bigoted.

    The reason that women are statistically under-represented in boardrooms is that on average more women take less career-focussed life choices compared with men (eg career breaks to have children, more likely to work part-time). This is not a bad thing, it's just the choices that people make.

    There likely is some discrimination present due to the potential for a women to get pregnant and go on maternity leave for months, costing the company lots of money (and morese if she is in a highly paid position). However, that problem is with the maternity leave system; if paternity leave were the same length of time, this discrimination would not occur.

    Outside of this, there's no reason why a company would choose to hire a less able man instead of a more able woman; the only thing that really matters to a big corporation is how much profit they make. If the woman will make them more profit, then they will hire her. To do otherwise would be detrimental to the business.

    Positive discrimination is not a solution at all. It is literally enforcing the problem that it's trying to solve, that being hiring on the basis of sex rather than ability. Not only does this destroy the meritocratic nature of the workplace, but as others have said, implies that women need to be disproportionately favoured in order to get these positions.

    If you support positive discrimination, then either you haven't actually thought it through, or you're an idiot.
    hope you understand I'm not disagreeing with you when I reply like all the other idiots on this thread...

    I don't think you understand what a company board is. it's not a job you apply for. It's an elitist group of friends from public school who choose who comes on the board without an application.

    As for maternity leave, thanks so much for your point! hadnt thought of that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hexagon999)
    I don't think you understand what a company board is. it's not a job you apply for. It's an elitist group of friends from public school who choose who comes on the board without an application.
    That's an inaccurate caricature. Regardless of there not being an application directly, the "elitist group of friends" will choose members who will produce the most profit for the company, because ultimately that is their primary concern. No business chooses their board members based on who their old friends are, and if it did then it would not be a business of any influence.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    To do this would be to conceal with a plaster what must not be ignored but addressed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hexagon999)
    Women consistently perform better than men in GCSEs and A levels yet only 10% of company boards are made up of women. Why?

    edit-- bloody hell! Why so many negs! I'm not saying I agree with the point of view I'm putting across! I just need to prepare both sides of the argument for my debate!
    GCSEs and A-Levels mean **** all in the world of business. GCSEs, A-Levels and degrees get you your first job, but then after that you go by pure merit and experience.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. People should get appointed based on merit and merit alone. It's annoying when this debate comes up... because it's often talked about as though the reason there aren't more women in top positions is because of discrimination. While I agree that may be a small part.. I think the overriding reason is that women just aren't as interested in business or indeed politics, as men. I know there are many great female managers and CEOs don't get me wrong but it's a field that simply attracts less women than men.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.