4 ms·

Can someone help me understand why a law that mandates women on company boards (arguably the best position in the market) would be more beneficial than women be

by SpEd3Y 4y ago

Can someone help me understand why a law that mandates women on company boards (arguably the best position in the market) would be more beneficial than women being mandated into all jobs, including lower level men dominated jobs (like brick laying, plumbing, construction, metal working, etc)?

Veen 4y ago
Because more female plumbers isn't something that middle-class college-educated women in the media and industry care about—and those are the women in a position to be heard and to influence policy.
- fortran77 4y ago
  And women don’t want these dangerous or dirty jobs.
CJefferson 4y ago
Serious answer? Because boards of companies have control over many parts of those companies. Ensuring companies have a variety of people on their boards ensure a variety of viewpoints, and make sure female issues are represented. Are there are a wide range of other viewpoints still not represented? Yes, but let's try to make progress where we can. Can men represent female issues? Of course in principle, but in my experience they often don't do well at it. There are plenty of policies, including ones where governments spend chunks of money, to get women into (as you call them) "lower level men dominated jobs", these often involve advertising, and helping people get qualified to do the job. As there are no qualifications for company boards, that type of thing wouldn't help there.
- SpEd3Y 4y ago
  Interesting insight. I see your point and I agree that more points of view can definitely be an asset to a company. But my concern in about mandating these jobs. I tend to disagree with you that company boards have no qualifications. I think you need a pretty impressive resume to even be considered in a company board. So programs for less prestigious jobs that can help women gain the experience and build an resume where they get the job in a non mandated way could be more viable (IMHO). I think if you start mandating these kind of jobs in the name of equality and diversity you: 1. Should mandate blue collar jobs in the name of equality and diversity as well 2. Should really make sure you have qualified and competent people to fill the jobs. Otherwise you risk filling those positions with unqualified people who, despite their best intentions, will not help the cause by under performing.
  - CJefferson 4y ago
    This is an area where there are (I think) no perfect answers. One deeper problem is how boards tend to work in general -- often the people already on the board are involved in choosing new members, so things don't "fix themselves" over time. The best option (I think) would be to make sure as the most qualified and competent people take the jobs, I personally believe in that case you would end up with more women on company boards. One way to do that would be to have boards appointed by a completely independant group, but I suspect most company owners would hate that suggestion. Mandating many blue collar jobs wouldn't work, as there simply aren't enough women with the necessary qualifications, so you would simply shrink the sector by (making up a number I admit) 80%.
    - SpEd3Y 4y ago
      It is for sure a very tricky problem. I also tend to think that if we hire the most competent and qualified people the numbers would naturally tend to 50% or whatever the men/women preference ratio for that job is. What we should strive to do, IMHO, is make sure that everyone has the same opportunities and there is no discrimination preventing different people to get a job. I agree that mandating many blue collar jobs would not work because of the low number of qualified women, but why would that not be the case mandating company board jobs? If we're saying we have very very few women in company boards, doesn't that mean we have very very few women that have experience for positions like those and consequently way more men that have experience and are more qualified? Since board members are such high end positions and paid very well you can't just double the number of such positions which means you'll end up picking women with less experience over men with more experience cause it's mandated. Hence you're picking the less qualified person for the job which will create friction. I think a way better solution would be creating incentives for companies to hire women in the boards or funding companies created by women. That way women can get the same degree of experience as men and then can compete for these positions with similar qualifications which I think will increase their numbers. But in my opinion mandating something like this creates a lot of friction. Government mandated people to wear masks and we all know how that went. So many people did everything in their power to resist that. I think it's human nature to try to resist when something is forced on you.
- achillesheels 4y ago
  If the spirit of the law of corporations is to serve the publics interest, and profit-motivation serves the public interest by increasing the capital savings in private society, then why do a variety of view points matter in achieving the objective? How does a board member with more feminine care knowledge increase the available capital for lending into, say, nail salons, by being more proactive about such internal capital expenditures toward more femininity?

by SpEd3Y 4y ago

Veen 4y ago

Because more female plumbers isn't something that middle-class college-educated women in the media and industry care about—and those are the women in a position to be heard and to influence policy.

fortran77 4y ago
And women don’t want these dangerous or dirty jobs.

CJefferson 4y ago

Serious answer? Because boards of companies have control over many parts of those companies. Ensuring companies have a variety of people on their boards ensure a variety of viewpoints, and make sure female issues are represented. Are there are a wide range of other viewpoints still not represented? Yes, but let's try to make progress where we can. Can men represent female issues? Of course in principle, but in my experience they often don't do well at it. There are plenty of policies, including ones where governments spend chunks of money, to get women into (as you call them) "lower level men dominated jobs", these often involve advertising, and helping people get qualified to do the job. As there are no qualifications for company boards, that type of thing wouldn't help there.

SpEd3Y 4y ago
Interesting insight. I see your point and I agree that more points of view can definitely be an asset to a company. But my concern in about mandating these jobs. I tend to disagree with you that company boards have no qualifications. I think you need a pretty impressive resume to even be considered in a company board. So programs for less prestigious jobs that can help women gain the experience and build an resume where they get the job in a non mandated way could be more viable (IMHO). I think if you start mandating these kind of jobs in the name of equality and diversity you: 1. Should mandate blue collar jobs in the name of equality and diversity as well 2. Should really make sure you have qualified and competent people to fill the jobs. Otherwise you risk filling those positions with unqualified people who, despite their best intentions, will not help the cause by under performing.
- CJefferson 4y ago
  This is an area where there are (I think) no perfect answers. One deeper problem is how boards tend to work in general -- often the people already on the board are involved in choosing new members, so things don't "fix themselves" over time. The best option (I think) would be to make sure as the most qualified and competent people take the jobs, I personally believe in that case you would end up with more women on company boards. One way to do that would be to have boards appointed by a completely independant group, but I suspect most company owners would hate that suggestion. Mandating many blue collar jobs wouldn't work, as there simply aren't enough women with the necessary qualifications, so you would simply shrink the sector by (making up a number I admit) 80%.
  - SpEd3Y 4y ago
    It is for sure a very tricky problem. I also tend to think that if we hire the most competent and qualified people the numbers would naturally tend to 50% or whatever the men/women preference ratio for that job is. What we should strive to do, IMHO, is make sure that everyone has the same opportunities and there is no discrimination preventing different people to get a job. I agree that mandating many blue collar jobs would not work because of the low number of qualified women, but why would that not be the case mandating company board jobs? If we're saying we have very very few women in company boards, doesn't that mean we have very very few women that have experience for positions like those and consequently way more men that have experience and are more qualified? Since board members are such high end positions and paid very well you can't just double the number of such positions which means you'll end up picking women with less experience over men with more experience cause it's mandated. Hence you're picking the less qualified person for the job which will create friction. I think a way better solution would be creating incentives for companies to hire women in the boards or funding companies created by women. That way women can get the same degree of experience as men and then can compete for these positions with similar qualifications which I think will increase their numbers. But in my opinion mandating something like this creates a lot of friction. Government mandated people to wear masks and we all know how that went. So many people did everything in their power to resist that. I think it's human nature to try to resist when something is forced on you.
achillesheels 4y ago
If the spirit of the law of corporations is to serve the publics interest, and profit-motivation serves the public interest by increasing the capital savings in private society, then why do a variety of view points matter in achieving the objective? How does a board member with more feminine care knowledge increase the available capital for lending into, say, nail salons, by being more proactive about such internal capital expenditures toward more femininity?