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.

Absolutely ridiculous that a law like this has passed in a country that claims to have a free market, and social equality.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Most people simply don't understand how a business works (qed: this thread).

That's a mighty big horse you've got there good sir, you'd best ride it carefully.

Ah, no prob.

I have no idea how a car works from a physics point of view. So I don't go into a thread about car science and brag about what I know.

On the other hand, on this very topic, that's not the case for a lot of people. Not limited to this forum, but in general, everyone seems to be an expert on how businesses work.

So who here brags about how much they know about businesses?

I can only see one person doing so.

I am not specialised in business but I am certainly capable of debating the subject.

Surely the best way to do things would be to provide a CV completely devoid of any identification. No names, no genders and no age. Just a list of your qualifications, work experience and what you can do well. If you write or present a better CV, there is the job and it cannot be biased in either direction from the recruiter. Just reduce people to numbers and be done with it.

Going out of your way to promote diversity is fairly justifiable in the event that applicants are equal, but if there is a superior applicant then they should get the role. It isn't sexist, racist or loaded to expect a company to hire the best person for a job. If it happens that a particular sector is dominated by a particular type of person, then any 'solution' should be to encourage more people to get into that line of work rather than rig the final line to get the wrong people into work for the right reasons.
Speaking as a white male, diversifying the workforce is only ever going to hurt me and I don't appreciate losing out on a job because they had a more exciting surname or different plumbing down under. If they are smarter, more capable or more reliable then sure thing; these qualities are actually relevant to the job. But let's not pretend that possessing bodily bits makes you more qualified to be a CEO.

Mozzamanx wrote:
Surely the best way to do things would be to provide a CV completely devoid of any identification. No names, no genders and no age. Just a list of your qualifications, work experience and what you can do well. If you write or present a better CV, there is the job and it cannot be biased in either direction from the recruiter. Just reduce people to numbers and be done with it.

I agree. This isn't a feasible approach, however, as you need to invite people to a job interview in order to test their communication skills and higher tier jobs require further tests with personal presence; furthermore, you need to check the criminal record and the overall background before inviting someone - and the anonymous CV idea falls short again. It's a neat idea, but can't be kept up in reality.

The only correct way to tackle the issue is to positively support women by creating a better working field for them - enforcing it does the exact opposite.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If people actually looked at the development as a whole, they'd realize that women slowly began to take on more and more jobs they did not use to take on before and that even in big companies, women start to get a hold. It just takes time. Enforcing laws to do so is not only sexist, but extremely counter-productive - what do you think that a woman's colleques will say about her when a woman solely got the job because she's a woman? But alas, as I said: short-sighted decisions greatly work on easily impressable people and most people are because they don't understand the topic and just rely on catchphrases for their definition of understanding. If Germany sticks to their plan, we'll be looking at lawsuits and all cost going directly back to the state.

The point is however that this rate of natural progression can be increased by setting in place requirements for proportions of women in top level positions. Sure, it may be hard in the short term but as time progresses and more women are given the opportunity to get into those kinds of roles, the legislated requirements for proportion of women can likely be relaxed as both the pool of candidates grows, and the culture at the top (and indeed throughout the workplace) becomes more women friendly.

The opportunities are already there. Forcefully speeding the process up will let the car roll over the cliff and crash.

Look 50 years back in the past and you'll see the enormous steps we've taken towards an equal level - almost eliminated the Gender Gap, women being able (and allowed!) to work where they want (mostly, excluding some religious places), being able to both be a mother and having a strong career. There is no sign for this development to stop, in the contrary, it will keep rising strong.

This reminds me of when they ran this test in Sweden, and they had two people make calls to a company to ask about the currently vacant job they were advertising. Both had identical qualifications but the one with an African name was told that the job was taken and the one with a Swedish name was instructed to come to a job interview when he called a minute later.

There's far, far, far more bias - conscious but also subconscious - in the businesses than many think. We naturally tend to prefer those who are reminiscent of ourselves, so a vast majority of men among the top dogs means any change to that tends to be slow.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If people actually looked at the development as a whole, they'd realize that women slowly began to take on more and more jobs they did not use to take on before and that even in big companies, women start to get a hold. It just takes time. Enforcing laws to do so is not only sexist, but extremely counter-productive - what do you think that a woman's colleques will say about her when a woman solely got the job because she's a woman? But alas, as I said: short-sighted decisions greatly work on easily impressable people and most people are because they don't understand the topic and just rely on catchphrases for their definition of understanding. If Germany sticks to their plan, we'll be looking at lawsuits and all cost going directly back to the state.

The point is however that this rate of natural progression can be increased by setting in place requirements for proportions of women in top level positions. Sure, it may be hard in the short term but as time progresses and more women are given the opportunity to get into those kinds of roles, the legislated requirements for proportion of women can likely be relaxed as both the pool of candidates grows, and the culture at the top (and indeed throughout the workplace) becomes more women friendly.

Uhh...

So gender equality is helped getting achieved by forcing companies to hire women because they're women, rather than for their skills?

 Sigvatr wrote:
I agree. This isn't a feasible approach, however, as you need to invite people to a job interview in order to test their communication skills and higher tier jobs require further tests with personal presence; furthermore, you need to check the criminal record and the overall background before inviting someone - and the anonymous CV idea falls short again. It's a neat idea, but can't be kept up in reality.

A lot of people will know, or know of, or know the manager/other colleague of the people applying for the position and will be able to find a hell of a lot out about them even with an anonymous CV...

Even if they don't, it is quite easy to look at a CV, see that the person is currently "X" at company "Y", then go look at the company's website to see exactly who that person is...

The only correct way to tackle the issue is to positively support women by creating a better working field for them - enforcing it does the exact opposite.

Opinion stated as incontrovertible fact while simultaneously putting down anyone who would attempt to contradict you?

However, I would suggested that your point that this discourages women in the boardroom is about as far from the truth as it is possible to get

 Sigvatr wrote:
The opportunities are already there. Forcefully speeding the process up will let the car roll over the cliff and crash.

Dubious. That the highly paid jobs are unpopular with women now is likely far more due to that the women who could get them know it's harder so they go for a job it's easier to have a decent career in. This legislation may be harsh in the short term but as people get used to the idea more and more competent female CEOs will fill the ranks.

Sometimes you need to be forceful.

 Ashiraya wrote:


There's far, far, far more bias - conscious but also subconscious - in the businesses than many think. We naturally tend to prefer those who are reminiscent of ourselves, so a vast majority of men among the top dogs means any change to that tends to be slow.

Yes. People hate changes. A lot. And keep in mind that a lot of people in higher positions are older people, 50+, who like changes even less. Give me a few more years and when I'm at their place, we'll talk again

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If people actually looked at the development as a whole, they'd realize that women slowly began to take on more and more jobs they did not use to take on before and that even in big companies, women start to get a hold. It just takes time. Enforcing laws to do so is not only sexist, but extremely counter-productive - what do you think that a woman's colleques will say about her when a woman solely got the job because she's a woman? But alas, as I said: short-sighted decisions greatly work on easily impressable people and most people are because they don't understand the topic and just rely on catchphrases for their definition of understanding. If Germany sticks to their plan, we'll be looking at lawsuits and all cost going directly back to the state.

The point is however that this rate of natural progression can be increased by setting in place requirements for proportions of women in top level positions. Sure, it may be hard in the short term but as time progresses and more women are given the opportunity to get into those kinds of roles, the legislated requirements for proportion of women can likely be relaxed as both the pool of candidates grows, and the culture at the top (and indeed throughout the workplace) becomes more women friendly.

Uhh...

So gender equality is helped getting achieved by forcing companies to hire women because they're women, rather than for their skills?

Not quite true - they won't hire the incompetent, and it's highly unlikely that insufficient competent candidates exist. They are likely held back just as much if not more by stigma and passive resistance than questions of competence.

 Ashiraya wrote:
So who here brags about how much they know about businesses?

I can only see one person doing so.

I am not specialised in business but I am certainly capable of debating the subject.

You're 17. I don't care how intelligent you may be, you simply haven't had the time to learn anything meaningful about the subject. There are undoubtedly MBAs and others much more qualified posting on Dakka (if not in this very thread) who are much more qualified to give a professional opinion than someone who has yet to even go to university.

The law is a bad idea. If you want to pass laws and regulations that make it easier for women to become CEOs then do so, but a strict quota isn't the way to go.

 Ashiraya wrote:


Sometimes you need to be forceful.

Yes. Displaying the most brutal form of sexism and angering the people that feed your citizens isn't the correct way to do it, however. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

How many times has any politican asked US how we think that women could get promoted to CEO? Or how one could make their way easier?

Correct, 0 times. Zero.

Politics have no internal interest in improving the situation. They want to talk big and convince their fellow sheep. Their course will not end well and the issue will be fought upon the backs of tax payers. If they stick to their course, ask everyone fired in order to make up for cost what they think about enforcing laws without consent. I'm sure they'll be excited.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If people actually looked at the development as a whole, they'd realize that women slowly began to take on more and more jobs they did not use to take on before and that even in big companies, women start to get a hold. It just takes time. Enforcing laws to do so is not only sexist, but extremely counter-productive - what do you think that a woman's colleques will say about her when a woman solely got the job because she's a woman? But alas, as I said: short-sighted decisions greatly work on easily impressable people and most people are because they don't understand the topic and just rely on catchphrases for their definition of understanding. If Germany sticks to their plan, we'll be looking at lawsuits and all cost going directly back to the state.

The point is however that this rate of natural progression can be increased by setting in place requirements for proportions of women in top level positions. Sure, it may be hard in the short term but as time progresses and more women are given the opportunity to get into those kinds of roles, the legislated requirements for proportion of women can likely be relaxed as both the pool of candidates grows, and the culture at the top (and indeed throughout the workplace) becomes more women friendly.

Uhh...

So gender equality is helped getting achieved by forcing companies to hire women because they're women, rather than for their skills?

Not quite true - they won't hire the incompetent, and it's highly unlikely that insufficient competent candidates exist. They are likely held back just as much if not more by stigma and passive resistance than questions of competence.

Quite true, though!

After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
So gender equality is helped getting achieved by forcing companies to hire women because they're women, rather than for their skills?

No, it is getting women a fair crack at the top spots that would otherwise go to the old boys club that currently runs everything

When you are mandated at having a certain percentage of your management structure as women you look for the best women - surprisingly a lot of them will be on par or better than the kind of men who would otherwise be on track to get the job, simply because of the inherent policy of hiring people like yourself... which in this case would be more men.

And as mentioned repeatedly, giving more women the opportunity to gain this kind of experience means more women with the experience - you are automatically increasing the skill pool for the future as well as helping break down the male-centric hiring policy of many companies from the inside by introducing more women into the kinds of places which make hiring choices.

 thenoobbomb wrote:


After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.

Precisely. That's the problem. That's sexism in its most devious form. It's sexism LEGALIZED by the government. That's wrong in so many ways.

 Sigvatr wrote:


Yes. Displaying the most brutal form of sexism and angering the people that feed your citizens isn't the correct way to do it, however. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

How many times has any politican asked US how we think that women could get promoted to CEO? Or how one could make their way easier?

Correct, 0 times. Zero.

Politics have no internal interest in improving the situation. They want to talk big and convince their fellow sheep.

Of course they won't ask you, it's the same reason no companies ask their customers what they'd like to see next. Sweeping questions won't yield much that is reliable. And if they should only ask the competent, who decides who is competent? Who has a degree in correct gender quota solutions?

You're making a lot of assumptions and your heavy personal investment in the matter doesn't help.

And calling this the most brutal form of sexism is utterly absurd. You think something like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

is better than being stuck with a few girls in the manclub?

 trexmeyer wrote:
You're 17. I don't care how intelligent you may be, you simply haven't had the time to learn anything meaningful about the subject.

This isn't rocket science, you know.

I strongly doubt I need to be so heavily invested as to be biased myself in order to contribute to the debate. Little I have seen so far suggests it to be the case.

 Ashiraya wrote:


And calling this the most brutal form of sexism is utterly absurd.

It's the most brutal form for us because it's legalized sexism. Most forms of sexism you encounter are illegal. A crime that gets legalized is the worst thing that can happen as it automatically makes people think that it's a right thing.

...not making any nazi comparisons, don't get your hopes up.

I only want to talk about Western culture, though, as the topic is about it. Feel free to create another topic about sexism in other parts of the world.

Again, how about actually talking about the issue at hand, rather than sensationalising a tangent?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


And calling this the most brutal form of sexism is utterly absurd.

It's the most brutal form for us because it's legalized sexism. Most forms of sexism you encounter are illegal. A crime that gets legalized is the worst thing that can happen as it automatically makes people think that it's a right thing.

...not making any nazi comparisons, don't get your hopes up.

I only want to talk about Western culture, though, as the topic is about it. Feel free to create another topic about sexism in other parts of the world.

It isn't actually sexism though.

Do you feel only having 70% instead of 90% men be CEOs is discriminating against men?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


And calling this the most brutal form of sexism is utterly absurd.

It's the most brutal form for us because it's legalized sexism. Most forms of sexism you encounter are illegal. A crime that gets legalized is the worst thing that can happen as it automatically makes people think that it's a right thing.

...not making any nazi comparisons, don't get your hopes up.

I only want to talk about Western culture, though, as the topic is about it. Feel free to create another topic about sexism in other parts of the world.

It isn't actually sexism though.

Do you feel only having 70% instead of 90% men be CEOs is discriminating against men?

It definitely is sexism.

This law forces companies to put women into high positions because they are women. It assumes that it is necessary for women to have this kind of a law to get these positions. That is sexists to both men and women, isn't it?

You get a job because you're a man: that's sexism.
You don't get a job because you're a woman: that's sexism.
It works the other way round, too.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
It assumes that it is necessary for women to have this kind of a law to get these positions.

Obviously it is, but not for the reason you think. It has nothing to do with innate capability (and thus isn't actually misogyny/andry) but instead it's necessary to have a law for the capable women to get the job despite the resistance to having them there.

What is outrageous here is not the law, it's that the situation is so bad so the law has become necessary.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Do you feel only having 70% instead of 90% men be CEOs is discriminating against men?

I feel it is definitely sexist against the 20% of men who lost out, if the reason they lost out is because they are men and their competition are women. As I said there is nothing wrong with using diversity as a tiebreaker, but it is not as important a quality as proficiency or competence. By all means put women at the top if they belong there, but to lose a job you are more qualified to take because you have the wrong plumbing is grossly unfair in my eyes.

The issue that I have with this, is basically the same issue that I have with the South African Rugby "quota"


For those who don't know, RSA has instituted a quota system for their national level rugby programs, starting with the U-19 teams. By a certain year, there MUST be a certain percentage of black/indian and minority players. A few years after that quota is established, it moves up to the U-23 programs, and soon after that to the "actual" Springboks/Blitz Bokkes, "Lady Boks" (or whatever the various women's teams are called), etc.



The problem that I have with these quota systems is that it artificially creates tension where there doesn't need to be tension. People will begin to wonder if they got selected/hired because of their status vs. their qualifications, those who aren't selected/hired may begin to become disgruntled and angry at the system.... The whole thing becomes a toxic pit, and nobody wins.

Mozzamanx wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

Do you feel only having 70% instead of 90% men be CEOs is discriminating against men?

I feel it is definitely sexist against the 20% of men who lost out, if the reason they lost out is because they are men and their competition are women. As I said there is nothing wrong with using diversity as a tiebreaker, but it is not as important a quality as proficiency or competence. By all means put women at the top if they belong there, but to lose a job you are more qualified to take because you have the wrong plumbing is grossly unfair in my eyes.

Indeed, but that is not what the law is counteracting. By forcing in women, it's letting the women who are more capable get the jobs despite the resistance to having female top dogs.

It is highly unlikely that incompetent women will be put in charge - there's more than enough competent ones available and any profit-driven company will naturally take the best.

You can consider it compensating for the resistance to having women there. It's not a crutch for getting incompetent women into high places.

I can't have an opinion on any racial or gender issues, because I'm a white male, (sad face) and despite being a bad month or two away from being homeless or foodless, I'm told I have some kind of "male privilege?" Where do I sign up to cash some of those puppies in? I believe I'm owed some back-pay on some of them.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
It assumes that it is necessary for women to have this kind of a law to get these positions.

Obviously it is, but not for the reason you think. It has nothing to do with innate capability (and thus isn't actually misogyny/andry) but instead it's necessary to have a law for the capable women to get the job despite the resistance to having them there.

What is outrageous here is not the law, it's that the situation is so bad so the law has become necessary.

Tell me more about this resistance capable women have to get to higher positions that men do not have. Bullying and such happens to men in corporations too, surprisingly!

This law is outrageous, because it is sexist. Capable men may not get a position because companies need to reach this quote. People should be hired based on skill, not on sex - and this law will only force companies to hire based on sex.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.

I am going to ponder something here. Should a company always higher the person they see at the most accomplished?