Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:
One could quite easily create a law enforcing a minimum quote of women in a non-sexist way. You simply have to apply the same percentage quote to men as well.

In other words, if a registered company above a certain value/net turnover is required to have a minimum of 30% females on the board, it should be law that a minimum of 30% of the board must also be comprised of men. That way, everyone gets their quotas, and in an even, fairhanded sort of way.

Simply instituting the quote for women alone is blatant sexism in the most traditional form of the word. But a little ingenuity can stop this being the case. I believe it to be unneeded in view of current societal shift, and unwarranted interference by the government. But it could definitely be handled in a less cackhanded way if this is a nettle that they have decided must be grabbed.

thats a really good idea!

Though its something that would have to be applied across all fields, otherwise selective application of it to "blue" only jobs isnt far off from the original problem with being one sided.

The good thing is that it applies across all jobs in all fields, just as male dominated groups like fortune 500 CEOs could do with female perspective, and so could nursing/teaching/ect for example be required to hire more men, 30% of miners/engineers/rig workers/soldiers/ect should also be 30% female.

 Ketara wrote:
Simply instituting the quote for women alone is blatant sexism in the most traditional form of the word.

Or just a recognition of the obvious fact that there is no current problem with having too few men in high-level jobs. Adding new laws that have no meaningful effect just so you can prove that you're "fair" is just bad government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
The good thing is that it applies across all jobs in all fields, just as male dominated groups like fortune 500 CEOs could do with female perspective, and so could nursing/teaching/ect for example be required to hire more men, 30% of miners/engineers/rig workers/soldiers/ect should also be 30% female.

That sounds nice in theory, but only if you don't think about it very much. The equality issue here is an issue of access, not outcomes. Having 10% of CEOs be men wouldn't be a problem if very few women were interested in those jobs, but the reality is that women are interested but are being rejected (or turned away earlier in their careers) at disproportionate rates compared to equally-qualified men. Is there a similar problem in nursing, where qualified men who want the jobs are being rejected because of sexist attitudes?

It's somewhat skewed by the number of women who self-select out of certain fields for any number of reasons. There aren't a lot of women engineers because not many women choose to pursue a career in engineering. Whether that's pure coincidence or because society pressures women to choose more feminine jobs or because women perceive the engineering field as being unfriendly to women or if it's some other factor isn't entirely clear, particularly since it's probably some combination thereof. A lot of women also drop out of their careers, or choose to hold back their careers, in order to find time to start a family. Women tend to work fewer hours on average than men, which may be due to aforementioned family matters or may be that women prioritize free personal time over working overtime, a perfectly viable choice but one less likely to lead to promotions. It's really hard to determine the extent to which women can't get a particular job or position versus choosing not to go for a particular job or position.

My question is to the Op or any on the board who understand the details of this German law

Does it apply only to Females or does it apply to Males who identify of female?

If it's the later I see several problems for this law in the future.

Whats to stop companies from hiring men who identify as women (and men who just say this so they can get around said law)?

With the rise of the "I was born X but identify as Y" and other SJW stuff aren't they causing more harm then good?

Not to blow my own horn, but again who determines which companies have to hire the 30% of women? Is it like the first 30% of companies that hire a new CEO will have to hire a female one?

Will big enough companies be prevented from moving their office overseas to bypass the requirement? Bigger companies do that for reasons like tax codes, etc, i can't see why they wouldn't consider it for something like this.

What will be the consequences if the 'big' players all leave the country (office-wise) and only the 'small' companies are hit with this requirement? Could be bad if the more profitable companies rebase to somewhere else?

Will companies be able to apply for exemptions to these requirements? We have anti-discrimination laws here in australia but you can apply (pay) for an exemption, thats how hooters got in.

Even if the basic premise (creating quotas to end descrimination) is sound, the implementation of it could end up being problematic at best.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Simply instituting the quote for women alone is blatant sexism in the most traditional form of the word.

Or just a recognition of the obvious fact that there is no current problem with having too few men in high-level jobs. Adding new laws that have no meaningful effect just so you can prove that you're "fair" is just bad government.

Really? I'd say it's the inherent epitome of good government. The law, applying equally to all men and women. No discrimination based on exactly what piece of packaging they happen to be equipped with between their legs, in the same way the law doesn't publicly grant extended stop and search powers for being a certain skin colour, fines for being from a certain region, or rules imposing a minimum quota of asexuals on the board of every publicly quoted company (because they're highly underrepresented).

This piece of legislation is cackhanded discriminatory 'bad government'. Modifying it in line with the above simply makes it cackhanded bad government instead. If the law is not equal to all, then it is 'bad government'.

 Ketara wrote:
If the law is not equal to all, then it is 'bad government'.

idk, it's really easy to take this into some "the law forbids the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges" territory. If a particular group has specific problems and laws are made to specifically address these problems then it isn't necessarily an issue that these laws don't do anything for another group without those problems.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

So why are you in so many feminism-related threads lately?

Mostly because it's a topic that highly interests me, is important and I am very actively involved in - on top of being more knowledgeable than most Dakka users. Especially those that claim to be feminists but have no idea what they're talking of.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

So why are you in so many feminism-related threads lately?

Mostly because it's a topic that highly interests me, is important and I am very actively involved in - on top of being more knowledgeable than most Dakka users. Especially those that claim to be feminists but have no idea what they're talking of.

Yes, your unflinching belief in managerial omniscience sure showed us the error of our ways. I repent!

I think I will still hang my hat on ensuring each minority group in a given workforce is given an interview in direct proportion to the number of applicants.

As was pointed out in the case of women, there appears to be a certain preference to given jobs which can arguably be based on cultural gender roles.

I think that trying to promote a minority where it skews them above those with better skills for the job is the wrong thing to do: the benefit of diversity could be outweighed by lacking competitive advantage due to skill-set.

So the question still remains, if down to two applicants of extremely similar merits, pick the minority you are short of or coin-toss?

I would pick diversity as an asset worth considering when all else has been covered.

As it so happens my mother is one of the "10%" of female CEO's out there, not of a fortune 500 company but a fairly big one that provides irrigation services to a bunch of farmers in our region, all part of the dairy industry machine.

I've talked to her about this subject before and she said that the idea that board members sit around blocking women from positions of power is ridiculous. You have to remember that if the company doesn't turn out a profit the members of the board don't get paid. So unlike your average McDonalds store manager who gets paid either way, they can't afford to hire based on any qualification other than merit, they HAVE to hire the best person for the job.

Now you say what if you have two equally qualified people and and one is male and one female? Its a myth, doesn't happen, the board can usually tell after looking at a CV and a few interviews who is going to make them money, because that's what they are there for, to make money and hiring people purely based on whats between your legs isn't the best way to make money.

My mother told me that she has never been turned down from a position based on her gender, sure she has encountered sexism, but its comments from co-workers or attitudes, not hiring practices.

 Ketara wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Simply instituting the quote for women alone is blatant sexism in the most traditional form of the word.

Or just a recognition of the obvious fact that there is no current problem with having too few men in high-level jobs. Adding new laws that have no meaningful effect just so you can prove that you're "fair" is just bad government.

Really? I'd say it's the inherent epitome of good government. The law, applying equally to all men and women. No discrimination based on exactly what piece of packaging they happen to be equipped with between their legs, in the same way the law doesn't publicly grant extended stop and search powers for being a certain skin colour, fines for being from a certain region, or rules imposing a minimum quota of asexuals on the board of every publicly quoted company (because they're highly underrepresented).

This piece of legislation is cackhanded discriminatory 'bad government'. Modifying it in line with the above simply makes it cackhanded bad government instead. If the law is not equal to all, then it is 'bad government'.

The math doesn't line up. If you only meet the minimum requirements of the quota, who are the other 40%?