3 ms·

>I think that next year 100% of executive board positions should be held by capable people, regardless of their sex So, in theory, 50% of capable people should

>I think that next year 100% of executive board positions should be held by capable people, regardless of their sex So, in theory, 50% of capable people should be women, no? edit: If your point is that we shouldn't be positively discriminating to artificially reach equidistribution of men and women in the workplace, then I agree, but your line of argumentation is often used to imply that women are less competent.

NietTim 12y ago
No. Because woman carry kids when they get pregnant and inadvertently will get behind on work experience compared to their male peers when they have to take time off for birth/etc. (Especially in the Netherlands it's common to take a full year off/more)
- jameshart 12y ago
  So clearly your argument is that the most competent people will all be those who have maximized their amount of time in the workplace. We're looking for 70 year olds who never took a day off sick for all board positions. Surely the worst impact of taking time out to have kids should be a slight delay in the career trajectory of the most talented women, not disqualification from board positions because they've now inevitably and irretrievably fallen behind their male peers.
mvanvoorden 12y ago
I don't think so, as more men tend to choose an education that paves an easier path to acquiring a board position. This is not because women are less capable, but because they somehow feel less attracted to this field of work. This of course also has to do with our parents, media and other surroundings teaching us about gender roles and such. It's only since a few years that for example technical studies try to attract more women, as these were before considered 'a man's thing'. It's going to take a few generations for all of this to 'even out' and then we might see 50/50, but it could also result in 70/30 or 30/70, if it turns out that in a gender-neutral unbringing, one gender might be more capable of leadership than another.
- mc32 12y ago
  To me the answer is not gender neutral upbringing, but rather emphasizing that everyone has the dame potential to achieve and make the tools available to everyone. Let's say instead of gender differences, we had people with different physics handicaps, we wouldn't pretend there aren't handicaps, ache same time we would not steer people but rather provide them all with the same opportunities and not encourage or discourage because of a particular handicap. Let the people, children, figure out what works and doesn't work for them, given their abilities and handicaps. The biggest problem I see is people steering or lowlighting certain paths because of some preconceptions --a deaf person can't sing well, instead let them prove they can't sing, or that they can sing, regardless of hearing.
  - toothbrush 12y ago
    the dame potential That sounds rather sexist lol :p j/k instead of gender differences, we had people with different physics [sic] handicaps That might be considered rather insulting. Having a penis, vagina, or whatever linear combination of the above isn't really comparable to being handicapped.

NietTim 12y ago

No. Because woman carry kids when they get pregnant and inadvertently will get behind on work experience compared to their male peers when they have to take time off for birth/etc. (Especially in the Netherlands it's common to take a full year off/more)

jameshart 12y ago
So clearly your argument is that the most competent people will all be those who have maximized their amount of time in the workplace. We're looking for 70 year olds who never took a day off sick for all board positions. Surely the worst impact of taking time out to have kids should be a slight delay in the career trajectory of the most talented women, not disqualification from board positions because they've now inevitably and irretrievably fallen behind their male peers.

mvanvoorden 12y ago

I don't think so, as more men tend to choose an education that paves an easier path to acquiring a board position. This is not because women are less capable, but because they somehow feel less attracted to this field of work. This of course also has to do with our parents, media and other surroundings teaching us about gender roles and such. It's only since a few years that for example technical studies try to attract more women, as these were before considered 'a man's thing'. It's going to take a few generations for all of this to 'even out' and then we might see 50/50, but it could also result in 70/30 or 30/70, if it turns out that in a gender-neutral unbringing, one gender might be more capable of leadership than another.

mc32 12y ago
To me the answer is not gender neutral upbringing, but rather emphasizing that everyone has the dame potential to achieve and make the tools available to everyone. Let's say instead of gender differences, we had people with different physics handicaps, we wouldn't pretend there aren't handicaps, ache same time we would not steer people but rather provide them all with the same opportunities and not encourage or discourage because of a particular handicap. Let the people, children, figure out what works and doesn't work for them, given their abilities and handicaps. The biggest problem I see is people steering or lowlighting certain paths because of some preconceptions --a deaf person can't sing well, instead let them prove they can't sing, or that they can sing, regardless of hearing.
- toothbrush 12y ago
  the dame potential That sounds rather sexist lol :p j/k instead of gender differences, we had people with different physics [sic] handicaps That might be considered rather insulting. Having a penis, vagina, or whatever linear combination of the above isn't really comparable to being handicapped.