4 ms·

Are you skeptical of whether the approach is morally good, or of whether it's effective? Because it is often very effective over time.

by epgui 4y ago

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.

Are you skeptical of whether the approach is morally good, or of whether it's effective? Because it is often very effective over time.

by 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.