6 ms·

When I read stuff like this >EU pushes 40% quota for women on boards [1] My jaw just like ... drops. Just image the OUTRAGE that would be caused if the headli

When I read stuff like this >EU pushes 40% quota for women on boards [1] My jaw just like ... drops. Just image the OUTRAGE that would be caused if the headline was this >EU pushes 50% quota for women in coal mines I am all for equality, but just handing everything to women on a silver platter, and making rash decisions because they are a different gender is just stupid policy making imo. >"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." (Goodhart's Law) [2] [1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/65f494e6-f5e7-11e1-a6c2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ay6fJsEv http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/65f494e6-f5e7-11e1-a6c2-00144... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

lkbm 11y ago
>When I read stuff like this "EU pushes 40% quota for women on boards" My jaw just like ... drops. Just image the OUTRAGE that would be caused if the headline was this "EU pushes 50% quota for women in coal mines" [Edited because my first attempt at quotes was screwing up] There might be a difference between demanding equal representation in governance and equal representation in low-level labor. In both cases I want the best person for the job to have the job, but in one case, the job involves representing the interests of a diverse group. > I am all for equality, but just handing everything to women on a silver platter If we were handing things to _a woman_ on a silver platter, that'd be a problem. This is more along the lines of insisting that every state, even lousy ol' Arkansas, empty Wyoming, and teeny tiny Rhode Island each get at least three seats in Congress.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  It's the job of board members to represent the interests of a diverse group of shareholders. Do male and female shareholders somehow have different interests - men want shareholder value maximized while women want something else?
  - zo1 11y ago
    It's a false problem (or manufactured?). I personally think that discrimination of the sort that started this movement has long been eradicated for the most part. That's why the goal-posts have now moved on past actual cases of discrimination and more into grey areas such as "micro-aggression", "representation-quotas" and the like. Consequently, I'm not comfortable making sweeping conclusions about institutionalized racism/sexism, merely from quotas and fancy-new-age feminism terms that take male-female dynamics to extremes in order to justify wrong-doing.
- ensignavenger 11y ago
  To make your analogy really work, we would have to require women to vote for women directors and men to vote for men directors. But as another commenter noted, I question whether the interests of men and women are really all that divergent.
mattmanser 11y ago
We're way, way, way past that. I used to think like you, until I started realizing just how institutionally misogynistic corporations and business is. At how low the numbers are. Corporations have had decades to reform and yet the number of women on boards or CEOs or leadership positions is still ridiculously low. The glass ceilings still exists. Generations have passed and the problem hasn't corrected itself. There is no reason the number shouldn't be near 50%. Women are as capable as men. It's nowhere near 50%. So, the only solution is positive discrimination. Your jaw may drop, but the companies of the world had their chance and all they've demonstrated is that the present system is quite obviously, without argument and without anything at all you can say to counter it, complete and utter misogynistic. What other conclusion can you draw? Occam's razor suggests the system is to blame. It it weren't, the numbers would reflect the male/female employment percentages, but they don't, they're still heavily skewed towards men. So either you choose the "qualified" candidates, who are "qualified" by an obviously misogynistic system. Or you positively discriminate. Does your jaw still drop? Or do you understand why it is necessary now?
- scrollaway 11y ago
  What if it's not the company's fault? What if the root cause is well before the person ever gets near the hiring process? What if it's, for example, education? The amount of men/women who get pushed into field X or Y? So we blame schools now. But, hold on, is it the schools' fault? Couldn't it be the parents'? They're pretty damn responsible for how a child will view the world, and if the person is pushed at a young age to look at the world a certain way, they will probably see themselves and their future a certain way as well. How many little girls have you heard say "when I grow up, I want to be a coal miner!"? ... is it the parents' fault though? Could it be the companies advertising lifestyle product targeted at men/women girls/boys, shaping social expectations around those? My point is we don't really know. Gender inequality in statistics is caused by the sum of lots of factors, few of them which can actually be directly affected. Forcing companies to hit a certain target simply causes people to be hired because of the color of their skin of the shape of their genitals. Massively counterproductive if you want equality...
- chlodwig 11y ago
  There is no reason the number shouldn't be near 50%...What other conclusion can you draw? No reason? No other possible conclusion? You should argue the opposite position and try to pass an ideological turing test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test Here are some sources to get you started on your research: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gender-bias-in-the-workplace http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gend... http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Matters-Darwinian-Behavior-ebook/dp/B00NDDDI4G/ http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Matters-Darwinian-Behavior-ebo...
iamdanfox 11y ago
A women-in-business non-profit found that Fortune 500 companies with most women board members consistently outperformed those with fewest [1]. Market forces should therefore cause the numbers of women board members to increase accordingly, however, "change has occurred at a sluggish pace" [2]. The 40% EU objective stipulates that "qualification and merit will remain the key criteria" and will hopefully challenge unconscious biases that may be behind the sluggish progress [3]. [1]: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/bottom-line-corporate-performance-and-womens-representation-boards-20042008 http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/bottom-line-corporate-perf... [2]: http://www.ey.com/US/en/Newsroom/News-releases/Women-are-joining-US-corporate-boards-at-an-increasing-rate http://www.ey.com/US/en/Newsroom/News-releases/Women-are-joi... [3]: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1205_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1205_en.htm
- chlodwig 11y ago
  'A women-in-business non-profit found that Fortune 500 companies with most women board members consistently outperformed those with fewest...Market forces should therefore cause the numbers of women board members to increase accordingly, however, "change has occurred at a sluggish pace"' Correlation!=causation. From my observation, the correlation most likely runs the opposite direction. Board members of any type have quite limited impact on the management of a company. They fire the CEO if the numbers are bad, but otherwise, they are pretty much just along for the ride. They certainly are not involved in the kind of product decisions where having a female opinion could plausibly make a difference (and any company that has made it to the Fortune 500 status certainly knows how to solicit the opinion of women and customize their products accordingly). However, I have personally seen "hot" companies, who are getting a lot of media attention, deliberately add female board members in order to avoid the negative press of having an all male board. One CEO of such a company described how the prospective board member put them through the ringer - she had a lot of demand to on boards, so she could be quite choosy about which company she joined.
- mafribe 11y ago
  women-in-business non-profit Now that's an unbiased source. In any case, if "Fortune 500 companies with most women board members consistently outperformed those with fewest" then you have a sure-fire way of making money, and you should invest everything you have, becoming wealthy along the way.

lkbm 11y ago

>When I read stuff like this "EU pushes 40% quota for women on boards" My jaw just like ... drops. Just image the OUTRAGE that would be caused if the headline was this "EU pushes 50% quota for women in coal mines" [Edited because my first attempt at quotes was screwing up] There might be a difference between demanding equal representation in governance and equal representation in low-level labor. In both cases I want the best person for the job to have the job, but in one case, the job involves representing the interests of a diverse group. > I am all for equality, but just handing everything to women on a silver platter If we were handing things to _a woman_ on a silver platter, that'd be a problem. This is more along the lines of insisting that every state, even lousy ol' Arkansas, empty Wyoming, and teeny tiny Rhode Island each get at least three seats in Congress.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
It's the job of board members to represent the interests of a diverse group of shareholders. Do male and female shareholders somehow have different interests - men want shareholder value maximized while women want something else?
- zo1 11y ago
  It's a false problem (or manufactured?). I personally think that discrimination of the sort that started this movement has long been eradicated for the most part. That's why the goal-posts have now moved on past actual cases of discrimination and more into grey areas such as "micro-aggression", "representation-quotas" and the like. Consequently, I'm not comfortable making sweeping conclusions about institutionalized racism/sexism, merely from quotas and fancy-new-age feminism terms that take male-female dynamics to extremes in order to justify wrong-doing.
ensignavenger 11y ago
To make your analogy really work, we would have to require women to vote for women directors and men to vote for men directors. But as another commenter noted, I question whether the interests of men and women are really all that divergent.

mattmanser 11y ago

We're way, way, way past that. I used to think like you, until I started realizing just how institutionally misogynistic corporations and business is. At how low the numbers are. Corporations have had decades to reform and yet the number of women on boards or CEOs or leadership positions is still ridiculously low. The glass ceilings still exists. Generations have passed and the problem hasn't corrected itself. There is no reason the number shouldn't be near 50%. Women are as capable as men. It's nowhere near 50%. So, the only solution is positive discrimination. Your jaw may drop, but the companies of the world had their chance and all they've demonstrated is that the present system is quite obviously, without argument and without anything at all you can say to counter it, complete and utter misogynistic. What other conclusion can you draw? Occam's razor suggests the system is to blame. It it weren't, the numbers would reflect the male/female employment percentages, but they don't, they're still heavily skewed towards men. So either you choose the "qualified" candidates, who are "qualified" by an obviously misogynistic system. Or you positively discriminate. Does your jaw still drop? Or do you understand why it is necessary now?

scrollaway 11y ago
What if it's not the company's fault? What if the root cause is well before the person ever gets near the hiring process? What if it's, for example, education? The amount of men/women who get pushed into field X or Y? So we blame schools now. But, hold on, is it the schools' fault? Couldn't it be the parents'? They're pretty damn responsible for how a child will view the world, and if the person is pushed at a young age to look at the world a certain way, they will probably see themselves and their future a certain way as well. How many little girls have you heard say "when I grow up, I want to be a coal miner!"? ... is it the parents' fault though? Could it be the companies advertising lifestyle product targeted at men/women girls/boys, shaping social expectations around those? My point is we don't really know. Gender inequality in statistics is caused by the sum of lots of factors, few of them which can actually be directly affected. Forcing companies to hit a certain target simply causes people to be hired because of the color of their skin of the shape of their genitals. Massively counterproductive if you want equality...
chlodwig 11y ago
There is no reason the number shouldn't be near 50%...What other conclusion can you draw? No reason? No other possible conclusion? You should argue the opposite position and try to pass an ideological turing test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test Here are some sources to get you started on your research: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gender-bias-in-the-workplace http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gend... http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Matters-Darwinian-Behavior-ebook/dp/B00NDDDI4G/ http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Matters-Darwinian-Behavior-ebo...

iamdanfox 11y ago

A women-in-business non-profit found that Fortune 500 companies with most women board members consistently outperformed those with fewest [1]. Market forces should therefore cause the numbers of women board members to increase accordingly, however, "change has occurred at a sluggish pace" [2]. The 40% EU objective stipulates that "qualification and merit will remain the key criteria" and will hopefully challenge unconscious biases that may be behind the sluggish progress [3]. [1]: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/bottom-line-corporate-performance-and-womens-representation-boards-20042008 http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/bottom-line-corporate-perf... [2]: http://www.ey.com/US/en/Newsroom/News-releases/Women-are-joining-US-corporate-boards-at-an-increasing-rate http://www.ey.com/US/en/Newsroom/News-releases/Women-are-joi... [3]: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1205_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1205_en.htm

chlodwig 11y ago
'A women-in-business non-profit found that Fortune 500 companies with most women board members consistently outperformed those with fewest...Market forces should therefore cause the numbers of women board members to increase accordingly, however, "change has occurred at a sluggish pace"' Correlation!=causation. From my observation, the correlation most likely runs the opposite direction. Board members of any type have quite limited impact on the management of a company. They fire the CEO if the numbers are bad, but otherwise, they are pretty much just along for the ride. They certainly are not involved in the kind of product decisions where having a female opinion could plausibly make a difference (and any company that has made it to the Fortune 500 status certainly knows how to solicit the opinion of women and customize their products accordingly). However, I have personally seen "hot" companies, who are getting a lot of media attention, deliberately add female board members in order to avoid the negative press of having an all male board. One CEO of such a company described how the prospective board member put them through the ringer - she had a lot of demand to on boards, so she could be quite choosy about which company she joined.
mafribe 11y ago
women-in-business non-profit Now that's an unbiased source. In any case, if "Fortune 500 companies with most women board members consistently outperformed those with fewest" then you have a sure-fire way of making money, and you should invest everything you have, becoming wealthy along the way.