5 ms·

In Germany and France, the women are fighting to get such laws going through. My very personal take on the issue is that one needs such law to "change the habi

by Loic 4y ago

In Germany and France, the women are fighting to get such laws going through. My very personal take on the issue is that one needs such law to "change the habits" and then hope that the new normality later reduces the need for such laws.

DoreenMichele 4y ago
Well, I am skeptical that such an approach is really a good idea. So I personally hope they aren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- epgui 4y ago
  Are you skeptical of whether the approach is morally good, or of whether it's effective? Because it is often very effective over time.
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    My concern would be that it could lead to women getting positions for which they aren't really qualified and this undermining corporate health over time, among other things. Having a smaller slice of a larger pie can be a better deal than a larger slice of a dying economy because people are being stupid in the name of ethics and equality.
    - epgui 4y ago
      That is more of a short-term concern: over the longer term, it is widely understood that establishing more equitable opportunities has the effect of redressing systematic inequities that are preventing full participation & competition of traditionally marginalized groups. The classic illustration is that the increased prevalence of women/black/hispanic/indigenous role models in STEM, for example, encourages a higher degree of participation and competition from these traditionally marginalized groups in the field. If there is no good reason to think these marginalized groups are inherently less suited for the role, then over time, they should be selected on the basis of merit in roughly demographic proportion.
      - DoreenMichele 4y ago
        Historically, "men" were made, not born. You had to prove yourself a man. You weren't granted that status based solely on the bits between your legs. Women who join male dominated groups tend to feel the men are just being mean to them because male and female culture differs. It's probably a waste of my time to try to discuss it here. So I think I shall bow out without completing my thought in this comment.
        epgui 4y ago
        > Historically, "men" were made, not born. You had to prove yourself a man. I don't think women had the historical opportunity to be "made a man", so this very-rhetorical argument / play on words is not particularly persuasive.
        krageon 4y ago
        You see such stories in media (and I would wager in practice, with any lady that enters a male-dominated group and ends up actually fitting in) frequently enough.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - Loic 4y ago
      Do not worry. Women are totally qualified to get such positions. In fact, in Germany/France, they are usually more qualified than men. I don't know in the US, but on my side of the Atlantic women must be 10 times better than men to be considered for the same responsibility job. For me as an external consultant for big companies, it means I really enjoy working with women. They are always extremely good in what they are doing as soon as they are one level up.
      - serenitylater 4y ago
    - didibus 4y ago
      Boards of directors of public companies are normally elected by shareholders. I wouldn't say they're chosen based on their real qualifications, more so their reputation and popularity. The number of seats is kind of arbitrary from what I understand, you could add more or have less seats. Also what the board is responsible for is generally governed by government regulation in some jurisdiction. The whole thing is about corporate oversight to some extent, supposed to be you have unbiased members that don't have skin in the game like execs and CEOs and other employees and who can represent shareholder's interests as well as government regulation. I'm not sure how I personally feel about the law, but the idea that you'd need say a gender parity of board members isn't that insane as compared to say for hiring for a doctor, engineer, scientist, etc. If you think of the purpose of the board to be that unbiased oversight, you could argue diversity is a good way to optimize for reduced bias.
      - DoreenMichele 4y ago
        the idea that you'd need say a gender parity of board members isn't that insane I'd like to shoot for a higher standard than "less nutty than some other proposal" personally. But I'm weird that way.
tgv 4y ago
I see it as window dressing at best. Getting a job on a board is great for that one person (they get money, influence, status), but doesn't do anything for the others. I've asked this before: what's the goal, and how does putting women (in this case) on boards help towards that goal?
- TuringTest 4y ago
  > I've asked this before: what's the goal, and how does putting women (in this case) on boards help towards that goal? It's all about overcoming inertia by pushing against it. There's a cultural bias in corporate boards to only or primarily hire men. Putting women on them can show that they are equally capable, and gives these women the opportunity to create the contacts needed so that other women in the future will also have access to them. All this is more difficult as long as the cultural tendency to discriminate in favor of men remains unchanged.
  - flipbrad 4y ago
    I suspect these laws bear out their effects in considerably more numerous (and more subtle) ways than many critics realise. I suspect most will understand (i) the law immediately addresses a numerical imbalance, and (ii) also creates visible models/ examples to inspire future women to go for board seats. But also (iii) it builds the CVs of the current crop of women benefiting from the law to get onto boards, meaning they'll be less at a disadvantage next time they apply for another board (people are often on multiple boards at once), boosting 'organic'/'natural' (non-discriminatory) gender balance in the competition for seats; and (iv) when it comes to replacing the female board member, the company/organisation can more naturally contemplate another woman also doing a great job in that seat (whether or not they hire one into that seat would be a question of available candidates, but at least the headhunters and board would be able to - at least - imagine a woman in the role). Those are all quite significant levers.
  - tgv 4y ago
    > Putting women on them can show that they are equally capable How is that a goal? Putting someone on a board isn't visible, at all. Almost nobody sees board members, and certainly nobody sees their achievements (which is needed to demonstrate capability). And visibility/perception of capability hasn't been needed in the past. Women have stormed institutions that were male bastions once. > so that other women in the future will also have access to them That's circular reasoning. Note that I'm not at all arguing against anyone in a board position. It's just that this seems to be a "feel-good" measure without any reason and effect.
belorn 4y ago
If such law is effective and useful then we should use it in a gender neutral way in all places where gender segregation exist. A good verification that a law is good is when the usefulness of the law remain the same regardless of whom it is targeted against or whom favors by it. Few laws got removed faster then when one such law was tried in Sweden, and the argument was the exact same thing as in California. No one likes discrimination, and when the "wrong" demographic benefited the political support goes into negative. Sweden has a worse gender segregation than US, and at the extreme end you got profession and educational programs that are practically single-sex. Gender quotas would force a change of habits, but you won't find much political support for it. Would even you be a supporter if it was used as a general tool against gender segregation?

by Loic 4y ago

DoreenMichele 4y ago

Well, I am skeptical that such an approach is really a good idea. So I personally hope they aren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

epgui 4y ago
Are you skeptical of whether the approach is morally good, or of whether it's effective? Because it is often very effective over time.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  My concern would be that it could lead to women getting positions for which they aren't really qualified and this undermining corporate health over time, among other things. Having a smaller slice of a larger pie can be a better deal than a larger slice of a dying economy because people are being stupid in the name of ethics and equality.
  - epgui 4y ago
    That is more of a short-term concern: over the longer term, it is widely understood that establishing more equitable opportunities has the effect of redressing systematic inequities that are preventing full participation & competition of traditionally marginalized groups. The classic illustration is that the increased prevalence of women/black/hispanic/indigenous role models in STEM, for example, encourages a higher degree of participation and competition from these traditionally marginalized groups in the field. If there is no good reason to think these marginalized groups are inherently less suited for the role, then over time, they should be selected on the basis of merit in roughly demographic proportion.
    - DoreenMichele 4y ago
      Historically, "men" were made, not born. You had to prove yourself a man. You weren't granted that status based solely on the bits between your legs. Women who join male dominated groups tend to feel the men are just being mean to them because male and female culture differs. It's probably a waste of my time to try to discuss it here. So I think I shall bow out without completing my thought in this comment.
      - epgui 4y ago
        > Historically, "men" were made, not born. You had to prove yourself a man. I don't think women had the historical opportunity to be "made a man", so this very-rhetorical argument / play on words is not particularly persuasive.
        krageon 4y ago
        You see such stories in media (and I would wager in practice, with any lady that enters a male-dominated group and ends up actually fitting in) frequently enough.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - Loic 4y ago
    Do not worry. Women are totally qualified to get such positions. In fact, in Germany/France, they are usually more qualified than men. I don't know in the US, but on my side of the Atlantic women must be 10 times better than men to be considered for the same responsibility job. For me as an external consultant for big companies, it means I really enjoy working with women. They are always extremely good in what they are doing as soon as they are one level up.
    - serenitylater 4y ago
  - didibus 4y ago
    Boards of directors of public companies are normally elected by shareholders. I wouldn't say they're chosen based on their real qualifications, more so their reputation and popularity. The number of seats is kind of arbitrary from what I understand, you could add more or have less seats. Also what the board is responsible for is generally governed by government regulation in some jurisdiction. The whole thing is about corporate oversight to some extent, supposed to be you have unbiased members that don't have skin in the game like execs and CEOs and other employees and who can represent shareholder's interests as well as government regulation. I'm not sure how I personally feel about the law, but the idea that you'd need say a gender parity of board members isn't that insane as compared to say for hiring for a doctor, engineer, scientist, etc. If you think of the purpose of the board to be that unbiased oversight, you could argue diversity is a good way to optimize for reduced bias.
    - DoreenMichele 4y ago
      the idea that you'd need say a gender parity of board members isn't that insane I'd like to shoot for a higher standard than "less nutty than some other proposal" personally. But I'm weird that way.

tgv 4y ago

I see it as window dressing at best. Getting a job on a board is great for that one person (they get money, influence, status), but doesn't do anything for the others. I've asked this before: what's the goal, and how does putting women (in this case) on boards help towards that goal?

TuringTest 4y ago
> I've asked this before: what's the goal, and how does putting women (in this case) on boards help towards that goal? It's all about overcoming inertia by pushing against it. There's a cultural bias in corporate boards to only or primarily hire men. Putting women on them can show that they are equally capable, and gives these women the opportunity to create the contacts needed so that other women in the future will also have access to them. All this is more difficult as long as the cultural tendency to discriminate in favor of men remains unchanged.
- flipbrad 4y ago
  I suspect these laws bear out their effects in considerably more numerous (and more subtle) ways than many critics realise. I suspect most will understand (i) the law immediately addresses a numerical imbalance, and (ii) also creates visible models/ examples to inspire future women to go for board seats. But also (iii) it builds the CVs of the current crop of women benefiting from the law to get onto boards, meaning they'll be less at a disadvantage next time they apply for another board (people are often on multiple boards at once), boosting 'organic'/'natural' (non-discriminatory) gender balance in the competition for seats; and (iv) when it comes to replacing the female board member, the company/organisation can more naturally contemplate another woman also doing a great job in that seat (whether or not they hire one into that seat would be a question of available candidates, but at least the headhunters and board would be able to - at least - imagine a woman in the role). Those are all quite significant levers.
- tgv 4y ago
  > Putting women on them can show that they are equally capable How is that a goal? Putting someone on a board isn't visible, at all. Almost nobody sees board members, and certainly nobody sees their achievements (which is needed to demonstrate capability). And visibility/perception of capability hasn't been needed in the past. Women have stormed institutions that were male bastions once. > so that other women in the future will also have access to them That's circular reasoning. Note that I'm not at all arguing against anyone in a board position. It's just that this seems to be a "feel-good" measure without any reason and effect.

belorn 4y ago

If such law is effective and useful then we should use it in a gender neutral way in all places where gender segregation exist. A good verification that a law is good is when the usefulness of the law remain the same regardless of whom it is targeted against or whom favors by it. Few laws got removed faster then when one such law was tried in Sweden, and the argument was the exact same thing as in California. No one likes discrimination, and when the "wrong" demographic benefited the political support goes into negative. Sweden has a worse gender segregation than US, and at the extreme end you got profession and educational programs that are practically single-sex. Gender quotas would force a change of habits, but you won't find much political support for it. Would even you be a supporter if it was used as a general tool against gender segregation?