Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should there be quotas for women in boardrooms? (poll) watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you support the idea of a quota for women in boardrooms?
    Yes - 50% of positions should be held by women
    0
    0%
    Yes - but the quota should be less than 50%
    0.96%
    No, but more should be done to get women into top jobs
    38.46%
    No, and nothing needs to be done to get more women into top jobs
    60.58%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The idea of imposing a quota for women in boardrooms has cropped up in the news again today, so I thought I'd gauge support for it with a poll.

    My view is that we shouldn't have such quotas, for three main reasons:

    1. It will be counterproductive. People will start to question whether women in top jobs got there on merit or whether they are simply there because a certain amount of women are required.

    2. I believe that discrimination against group X doesn't become favourable because it allows special privileges to group Y.

    3. Discrimination isn't likely to be the cause of the lack of women in boardrooms, nor is it likely to be the cause of the differences in average pay between men and women.

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I said no, there shouldn't be quotas, but we should be doing more to get women into top jobs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    I said no, there shouldn't be quotas, but we should be doing more to get women into top jobs.
    Could I just ask why you feel it's important?

    I've always thought that appointments should be on merit; I couldn't care less whether a company's staff were 100% male or 100% female, 100% white or 100% black; so long as they're there on merit it doesn't bother me in the least.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Could I just ask why you feel it's important?

    I've always thought that appointments should be on merit; I couldn't care less whether a company's staff were 100% male or 100% female, 100% white or 100% black; so long as they're there on merit it doesn't bother me in the least.
    1. I believe that we do far better as a society if everyone is on a more equal level. Having an more equal distribution of the population being represented at every level will result in better decisions for the population. Not only that, it also helps to remove sterotypes, stigmas, and other negative perceptions of certain groups.

    2. I believe that groups which have been kept down in a systematic manner, whether through law or even general society norms, deserve a leg up so to speak. I believe that women and other groups have been systematically disadvantaged in certain areas, and deserve to be recompensed in some manner to make things fair.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    1. I believe that we do far better as a society if everyone is on a more equal level. Having an more equal distribution of the population being represented at every level will result in better decisions for the population. Not only that, it also helps to remove sterotypes, stigmas, and other negative perceptions of certain groups.

    2. I believe that groups which have been kept down in a systematic manner, whether through law or even general society norms, deserve a leg up so to speak. I believe that women and other groups have been systematically disadvantaged in certain areas, and deserve to be recompensed in some manner to make things fair.
    Doesn't 2 naturally require that certain opportunities be taken away from other people that have done nothing wrong - say, me, a white middle class male who happened to be born this way through no fault of his own?

    I seem to recall something about 'two wrongs don't make a right' from somewhere.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    No, all discrimination is wrong regardless of the intentions behind it. Quotas lead to the best candidates being rejected because they're male in some circumstances, that is unacceptable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    As you have stated, it is counterproductive. Someone shouldn't be hired simply because they are a woman, especially if there may be a handful of men who are of a superior fit for the particular job.

    An interesting statistic would be the percentages of men and women in relation to each other, who actually persue these top jobs, if anyone has access to the like?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Doesn't 2 naturally require that certain opportunities be taken away from other people that have done nothing wrong - say, me, a white middle class male who happened to be born this way through no fault of his own?

    I seem to recall something about 'two wrongs don't make a right' from somewhere.
    If a father commits a crime, and the rest of his innocent family are disadvantaged because he loses his job and income and is sent to jail, is that wrong?

    I await your answer.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    If a father commits a crime, and the rest of his innocent family are disadvantaged because he loses his job and income and is sent to jail, is that wrong?

    I await your answer.
    Nice strawman; would you care to address what I actually said rather than creating a different argument you'd rather shift the debate onto instead of trying to tell me why a percentage of my opportunities should be withheld from me because I wasn't born with a vagina?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    That is such an old crappy video.
    What an eloquent, developed and well-thought out argument. I commend you on your intellectual brilliance and commitment to quality debate.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    <snip>
    No. Society or companies have no moral obligation to give women top jobs, and creating quotas would discriminate against men, as firms would higher less men than they originally would because they would be legally required to hire women.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, positive discrimination is still discrimination.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No, and nothing needs to be done to get more women into top jobs. People should be appointed to a position because of their abilities, not because of a roll of the dice on what sex they are when born. I certainly wouldn't want to be appointed to fill a quota, and I would imagine that it would create an atmosphere of disappointment if you knew your chances of getting promoted were slim because the quota needed to be fulfilled.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    why is there a need for more women in top jobs? shouldn't be all jobs if its for true 'equality'. you rarely hear about quota for men in Nursing, Education.

    Example scenario: worked rally hard at school and Uni and want to be an Engineer. No sorry youre a man, we only have vacancies for women.:confused:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Positive discrimination is wrong, quotas are even worse
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Nice strawman; would you care to address what I actually said rather than creating a different argument you'd rather shift the debate onto instead of trying to tell me why a percentage of my opportunities should be withheld from me because I wasn't born with a vagina?
    I find it amusing that you can't even answer a relevant question.

    Again, if you send someone to prison for a crime that they committed, and others are disadvantaged for that reason, then how is that wrong?

    Personally, I'm fine with giving disadvantaged people opportunities. There are scholarships/grants available which give preference to students who are poor or come from low income households. If I apply for a scholarship and we have equal (or close to equal) qualifications, and someone from a low income household qualifies for it over me based on the fact that they're poor, then I'm perfectly fine with that.

    I'm not saying that grossly ineligible people should be given a job simply because they're a woman/minority. I'm saying, if there is a job open, and two people are at the very least closely comparable, then I see no problem with giving the traditionally marginalised party a preference.


    However, moving on, every society is better when opportunities (and therefore wealth) are equally distributed. It decreases the amount of poor/marginalised people, and also ensures a better society through decreased levels of crime, teenaged pregnancy, etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    I find it amusing that you can't even answer a relevant question.

    Again, if you send someone to prison for a crime that they committed, and others are disadvantaged for that reason, then how is that wrong?

    Personally, I'm fine with giving disadvantaged people opportunities. There are scholarships/grants available which give preference to students who are poor or come from low income households. If I apply for a scholarship and we have equal (or close to equal) qualifications, and someone from a low income household qualifies for it over me based on the fact that they're poor, then I'm perfectly fine with that.

    I'm not saying that grossly ineligible people should be given a job simply because they're a woman/minority. I'm saying, if there is a job open, and two people are at the very least closely comparable, then I see no problem with giving the traditionally marginalised party a preference.


    However, moving on, every society is better when opportunities (and therefore wealth) are equally distributed. It decreases the amount of poor/marginalised people, and also ensures a better society through decreased levels of crime, teenaged pregnancy, etc.

    You're completely ignoring my point; I am not going to answer a question that is frankly irrelevant. You might as well ask me why the moon isn't made of cheese.

    If you come up with something intelligent, I will respond to you. Until then, I won't be.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No. Among other obvious reasons like the fact that sexist discrimination is wrong; quotas treat all companies the same.
    For example in a large mining company only 10% of the employees might be female, not because of discrimination, just because of the fact that men prefer working in such industries.
    If a quota of 40% was enforced for example it would make rising up virtually impossible for male employees. Even if women were already represented at say 20% in the boardroom it would not be enough for the crude quota system.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Of course not, it's a completely ridiculous idea. People should be promoted on merit or just the person who deserves the job. Gender shouldn't even come into the equation. The funny thing is, all these people shouting 'equality' and 'fairness' who want there to be a quota are in fact going against the entire point of 'equality' and 'fairness' if you start talking about quotas of gender/race.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There's none for men, there shouldn't be any for women.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: April 20, 2013
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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

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.