Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antioch]

After such a quota already being introduced in Germany, Norway, Italy, France, and Spain the Dutch labour party announced that they want to impose a gender quota for women on business boards.
They want to impose a minimum quota of 30% for women in top business positions.


I found myself oddly infuriated by this proposal and I see it as nothing but a discriminatory policy targeting men.

People should be given positions because of their qualifications, not because they have a certain gender.


Discuss.

edit: clarified a bit

[Fenrir]

They should be given positions on the basis of their merits, but you can't correct the bias in favor of men by just telling people not to be biased in favor of men. It's a pretty pernicious, self-sustaining kind of thing. A lot of people probably don't even notice it.

[Cheeetar]

So wait- 30% of positions needing to be women (the other 70% being, err... men probably?) is a discriminatory policy targeting men?

[Antioch]

They should be given positions on the basis of their merits, but you can't correct the bias in favor of men by just telling people not to be biased in favor of men. It's a pretty pernicious, self-sustaining kind of thing. A lot of people probably don't even notice it.

I have not seen evidence at all that businesses ARE biased in favour of men. The proportion of men and women in professions varies widely without any discrimination.

Or is it pure discrimination that 97% of students mechanical engineering are men and 73% of medicine students are women?

[Antioch]

So wait- 30% of positions needing to be women (the other 70% being, err... men probably?) is a discriminatory policy targeting men?

Yes, if there are less than 30% women in top positions it will be forbidden to hire a men, thus qualified men will be denied jobs because they do not have the "right" gender.

[Cheeetar]

They have 70% of the slots to fill. Perhaps putting qualified women in 30% of the slots won't be a terrible thing?

[smjjames]

After Germany, Norway, Italy, France, and Spain the Dutch labour party announced that they want to impose a gender quota for women on business boards.
They want to impose a quota of 30% for women in top business positions.


I found myself oddly infuriated by this proposal and I see it as nothing but a discriminatory policy targeting men.

People should be given positions because of their qualifications, not because they have a certain gender.


Discuss.

Is that a minimum or a maximum?

[Antioch]

After Germany, Norway, Italy, France, and Spain the Dutch labour party announced that they want to impose a gender quota for women on business boards.
They want to impose a quota of 30% for women in top business positions.


I found myself oddly infuriated by this proposal and I see it as nothing but a discriminatory policy targeting men.

People should be given positions because of their qualifications, not because they have a certain gender.


Discuss.

Is that a minimum or a maximum?

well one's minimum is another's maximum. It is to be a minimum of 30% women. So a maximum of 70% men.

[Reelya]

They have 70% of the slots to fill. Perhaps putting qualified women in 30% of the slots won't be a terrible thing?

But there aren't an equal number of trainees coming in at the start of the pipeline for the relevant qualifications.

Take Harvard Business School as an example. The proportion is 2/3rds male. Assuming males and females are equally talented then you'd say that 2/3rds of the resulting roles would go to men. And that would be a fair outcome at that stage of the process (men and women succeeded in equal proportion to the rate they entered a relevant course of study).

But do female Harvard MBAs plan a career similar to a male Harvard MBA, then pesky workplace sexism hold them back? Well, not really. 9% of female alumni state they've turned down a promotion because the role would impact their family life, and 37% of female graduates say they plan to interrupt their careers to have kids. Their mothers were much less likely to interrupt their careers, and the surveyed, younger, women say they don't want to repeat that. Top level careers do not give you much time for family, it's just a fact of life, and there's nothing sexist about that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/upshot/more-than-their-mothers-young-women-plan-career-pauses.html?_r=0

[Cheeetar]

So you're saying this will cause a higher demand and thus pay for women in business because of the current shortfall, which will encourage more women to get into business?

[Reelya]

Well, no it won't, and I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from.

The short version is that almost 40% of modern women plan to stop working to have kids, mainly because they don't want to feel they missed out on their kids growing up, which they feel their mother's went through. And many of them even refuse longer hours or promotions.

Quotas won't change any of that.

[Cheeetar]

Well, no it won't, and I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from.

There will be a shortage of qualified women so if there's a quota, they will just boost some less qualified women to that position. Executive pay is generally related to your qualifications however, so those roles will likely be paid less than otherwise.

So producing incentive to get into a field (less qualifications necessary for a higher up position etc.) won't increase the amount of interest in that field?

[Reelya]

Yeah but you get less productivity.

And the hours required for the job don't change. In fact, being under-qualified in a demanding job sounds like Hell on Earth. Women want flexible jobs so they can spend time with their family, and high executive roles don't allow that. Here's a good article on the topic. Even a high-executive woman, with the husband taking over childcare duties 5 days a week, wasn't happy with the work/life balance:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/

[Cheeetar]

Yeah but you get less productivity.

And the hours required for the job don't change. In fact, being under-qualified in a demanding job sounds like Hell on Earth. Women want flexible jobs so they can spend time with their family, and high executive roles don't allow that.

I can't take arguments based on gender roles very seriously.

[Reelya]

It's what women, even feminist women write articles about, see above.

We have figures, stats and surveys to boot. Highly-educated women plan career breaks well in advance.

http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2014/mar/25/70-of-women-fear-taking-a-career-break

Here, in a survey by London Business School, 70% of women responded that they fear the effects of taking a career break. It makes sense that you only fear something if you think it's likely, so I'd say that's a good indication that ~70% of women do actually intend to take a career break. Whether that's "sexist gender roles" or not, it's what's happening. Many women take the break not because they're forced to, but because they want to spend time with their children.

https://fairygodboss.com/Articles/why-millennial-women-plan-on-taking-career-breaks

http://time.com/89992/dont-let-your-husband-be-a-stay-at-home-dad/
"women’s average annual earnings decrease by 20 percent if they are out of the workforce for just one year…30 percent after two to three years, which is the average amount of time professional women off-ramp from the workforce."

^ That's a quote from Sheryl Sandberg's book. I'm guessing she is pretty clued up on what is happening with women in executive positions. :

When a woman starts thinking about having children, Sandberg said, “she doesn’t raise her hand anymore … She starts leaning back.”

Again, not my words, the words of top-tier female executives.