4 ms·

That's unfortunate, we've had a similar law on the books here in Norway since 2006. There where some noise about it at the beginning. But the consensus now seem

That's unfortunate, we've had a similar law on the books here in Norway since 2006. There where some noise about it at the beginning. But the consensus now seem to be that it is a positive.

native_samples 4y ago
By "the consensus" you mean the press stopped reporting on objections and now tell you there's consensus? There's obviously no consensus that it's positive. It's clearly, very obviously and very badly negative. It's blatantly sexist discrimination against men who have done nothing wrong, which is deeply immoral. It also many other subtle negative effects. It degrades the language and confidence in the rule of law because these laws that make people unequal are invariably presented as "equality" laws. It also makes it impossible to respect women on boards! Everyone knows they might be there only to satisfy a legal quota, not because anyone actually respected their abilities. I've actually heard quite a few women opine that they start out suspicious of women in powerful positions these days, because they know directly how easy it is to get there on the back of feminism, but they need competent services in that moment and not a job. If you want to create anti-female sexism where none should exist, forcibly replacing men for sexist reasons is a great way to do it across the board.
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  This sounds like you don't actually live here. I'm not a native in Norway, and what you describe isn't what I see at all. Is there a small part of the population that is against it? Sure, and there probably always will be. There is also a small population of xenophobes and racists, but they definitely aren't the majority. I've actually heard quite a few women opine that they start out suspicious of women in powerful positions these days, because they know directly how easy it is to get there on the back of feminism, but they need competent services in that moment and not a job. Just to fill you in, people are suspicious of people in powerful positions. Right now, folks that agree with you blame feminism. Previously, they'd say it was obvious that she sexed her way to the top. I'd not take any of this seriously.
  - smcin 4y ago
    Instead of discussing imputed attitudes or motives, since the Norway law is already 16 years old, why not look at actual studies of quantitative results on company performance? (by company size, sector, age etc.) I found 21.7K publications on Norway’s quota for women on corporate boards https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Norway%E2%80%99s+quota+for+women+on+corporate+boards+&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Norw... Which are the most authoritative? What were their findings? (on actual company performance metrics, not just on the effect on gender representation on boards or executive search committees, or pay gaps)?
  - native_samples 4y ago
    For what it's worth, even though I don't agree with you, your post really should not have been flagged to death. I don't see what rules it's breaking so I vouched for you to bring it back.
smcin 4y ago
How many years after the Norway legislation did it take to measure the outcome? Can you cite any definitive studies on that? (other than https://www.economist.com/business/2018/02/17/ten-years-on-from-norways-quota-for-women-on-corporate-boards https://www.economist.com/business/2018/02/17/ten-years-on-f... "Ten years on from Norway’s quota for women on corporate boards: Gender quotas at board level in Europe have done little to boost corporate performance or to help women lower down") As to the California state law 2018/SB826 ('Women on Boards'), IIRC part of the reason the state acted was out of frustration that federal legislation on this topic had not happened despite years of discussion.
- einarfd 4y ago
  You are right that on the economically side the reporting and research, indicates that there is no measurable difference on economical performance between before and after law. But before the law was introduced there was worry that an influx of unexperienced women would undermine profitability, which did not happened. The positive, (as seen from most Norwegians view), is that there are now more powerful women in Norwegian industry and private sector. This is obviously an ideological view, and if you view more women in powerful position as of no or negative value. Then it isn't a positive for you.
  - tsol 4y ago
    Wouldn't that disproportionately help mostly already wealthy upper class Norwegians who have the ability to qualify as CEOs? I think that matters, as often these types of measures don't take into account lower classes

That's unfortunate, we've had a similar law on the books here in Norway since 2006. There where some noise about it at the beginning. But the consensus now seem to be that it is a positive.

native_samples 4y ago

By "the consensus" you mean the press stopped reporting on objections and now tell you there's consensus? There's obviously no consensus that it's positive. It's clearly, very obviously and very badly negative. It's blatantly sexist discrimination against men who have done nothing wrong, which is deeply immoral. It also many other subtle negative effects. It degrades the language and confidence in the rule of law because these laws that make people unequal are invariably presented as "equality" laws. It also makes it impossible to respect women on boards! Everyone knows they might be there only to satisfy a legal quota, not because anyone actually respected their abilities. I've actually heard quite a few women opine that they start out suspicious of women in powerful positions these days, because they know directly how easy it is to get there on the back of feminism, but they need competent services in that moment and not a job. If you want to create anti-female sexism where none should exist, forcibly replacing men for sexist reasons is a great way to do it across the board.

Broken_Hippo 4y ago
This sounds like you don't actually live here. I'm not a native in Norway, and what you describe isn't what I see at all. Is there a small part of the population that is against it? Sure, and there probably always will be. There is also a small population of xenophobes and racists, but they definitely aren't the majority. I've actually heard quite a few women opine that they start out suspicious of women in powerful positions these days, because they know directly how easy it is to get there on the back of feminism, but they need competent services in that moment and not a job. Just to fill you in, people are suspicious of people in powerful positions. Right now, folks that agree with you blame feminism. Previously, they'd say it was obvious that she sexed her way to the top. I'd not take any of this seriously.
- smcin 4y ago
  Instead of discussing imputed attitudes or motives, since the Norway law is already 16 years old, why not look at actual studies of quantitative results on company performance? (by company size, sector, age etc.) I found 21.7K publications on Norway’s quota for women on corporate boards https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Norway%E2%80%99s+quota+for+women+on+corporate+boards+&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Norw... Which are the most authoritative? What were their findings? (on actual company performance metrics, not just on the effect on gender representation on boards or executive search committees, or pay gaps)?
- native_samples 4y ago
  For what it's worth, even though I don't agree with you, your post really should not have been flagged to death. I don't see what rules it's breaking so I vouched for you to bring it back.

smcin 4y ago

How many years after the Norway legislation did it take to measure the outcome? Can you cite any definitive studies on that? (other than https://www.economist.com/business/2018/02/17/ten-years-on-from-norways-quota-for-women-on-corporate-boards https://www.economist.com/business/2018/02/17/ten-years-on-f... "Ten years on from Norway’s quota for women on corporate boards: Gender quotas at board level in Europe have done little to boost corporate performance or to help women lower down") As to the California state law 2018/SB826 ('Women on Boards'), IIRC part of the reason the state acted was out of frustration that federal legislation on this topic had not happened despite years of discussion.

einarfd 4y ago
You are right that on the economically side the reporting and research, indicates that there is no measurable difference on economical performance between before and after law. But before the law was introduced there was worry that an influx of unexperienced women would undermine profitability, which did not happened. The positive, (as seen from most Norwegians view), is that there are now more powerful women in Norwegian industry and private sector. This is obviously an ideological view, and if you view more women in powerful position as of no or negative value. Then it isn't a positive for you.
- tsol 4y ago
  Wouldn't that disproportionately help mostly already wealthy upper class Norwegians who have the ability to qualify as CEOs? I think that matters, as often these types of measures don't take into account lower classes