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.

I have little problem with enforcing gender quotas on the boardroom.

Hopefully it will even up the cyclical experience disparity at the top end of management that women tend to suffer from (as there are few women execs, so there is a smaller pool of suitability experienced women who can go for the big positions, which means there are fewer women execs, etc...).

Once a few generations of management turn through the new system, there should be a much larger pool of women with the experience to take on the big posts, and so will have more of an even footing in competing with men, and likely a much wider gender spread on the hiring panel so a much better chance of being selected based on merit rather than gender.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Ludicrous law. Unworkable, unfair and unenforceable.

Wanna bet?

 Ashiraya wrote:
I think this is sad. That is, it's sad that it's so difficult for women to reach those positions that something like this has become necessary.

That said, I am not certain if a law is the best way to go about it.

That's because men do have one biological factor to their advantage, testosterone, men tend to have more testosterone, which means they are more prone to aggressive and risk taking behaviours, 3 guesses as to what you need to do well in a high pressure corporate position (such as CEO)?

That's of course not to say that women don't exhibit those traits, just that less of them do, less often which means less women succeed less often, compared to male counterparts. Also, comparing the ratio of female to male executives is a meaningless exercise, it tells us nothing useful, what we need to look at is the ratio of people in those executive positions compared to how many people of the same gender work in the field. I would even guess that the number, while still needs to do a bit of climbing is much closer than this 90% of executives are men therefore sexism nonsense.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
I love it when privileged white males complain they're being discriminated against, I enjoy witnessing the self-pity.

Oh do clear off. I detest this idea that being white and male grants some sort of privilege.

If you are a woman and even in the position of being considered for an executive role (meaning you would already be an experienced upper/senior manager) then you are already more ‘privileged’ that 99% of white men on the planet.

 LuciusAR wrote:
I detest this idea that being white and male grants some sort of privilege.

That is mighty white of you.

 Ahtman wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
I detest this idea that being white and male grants some sort of privilege.

That is mighty white of you.

Yes he's here all week ladies and gents.

 Ahtman wrote:
That is mighty white of you.

That's might American of you.

 LuciusAR wrote:
I detest this idea that being white and male grants some sort of privilege.

Uhh...

What about transgender people? How does this law apply to them?

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes he's here all week ladies and gents.

To serve is honor enough.



Don't forget to tip your waiter.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What about transgender people? How does this law apply to them?

Pretty sure they will go by the juridical gender.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
I detest this idea that being white and male grants some sort of privilege.

Uhh...

Uhh... what? Seriously?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
I love it when privileged white males complain they're being discriminated against, I enjoy witnessing the self-pity.

Do you have anything to actually contribute to the topic besides your display of blatant sexism / racism?

 LuciusAR wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
I love it when privileged white males complain they're being discriminated against, I enjoy witnessing the self-pity.

Oh do clear off. I detest this idea that being white and male grants some sort of privilege.

It's the heroic survival of this self-pitying, victim status, that of the poor oppressed white male contending with 'racism' and 'sexism', even while defending the over-proportion of white males in the boardroom, that's especially entertaining. I salute you!

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:


It's the heroic survival of this self-pitying, victim status, that of the poor oppressed white male contending with 'racism' and 'sexism', even while defending the over-proportion of white males in the boardroom, that's especially entertaining. I salute you!

Ladies and gentlemen. I give you...

The Tu Quoque Fallacy.

 LuciusAR wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
I detest this idea that being white and male grants some sort of privilege.

Uhh...

Uhh... what? Seriously?

...What about all the privileges?

http://amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
I love it when privileged white males complain they're being discriminated against, I enjoy witnessing the self-pity.

Do you have anything to actually contribute to the topic besides your display of blatant sexism / racism?

 LuciusAR wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
I love it when privileged white males complain they're being discriminated against, I enjoy witnessing the self-pity.

Oh do clear off. I detest this idea that being white and male grants some sort of privilege.

It's the heroic survival of this self-pitying, victim status, that of the poor oppressed white male contending with 'racism' and 'sexism', even while defending the over-proportion of white males in the boardroom, that's especially entertaining. I salute you!

Go get 'em Brit! Down with the white male oppressor! For Mother Russia! er...for economic justice!

The vast majority of white males do not enjoy any sort of ‘privilege’, they are just doing their best to get by. They do their best to raise and provide for their kids whilst constantly fearing for their jobs, assuming they even have one. Most of them are only a few bad months away from losing the roofs over their heads and permanently live in worry about the bills getting bigger and bigger whilst their own wages shrink or stagnate.

Tossing around insults about ‘privileged’ white males is just so much racist and sexist nonsense.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Tossing around insults about ‘privileged’ white males is just so much racist and sexist nonsense.

You consider the list of privileges an insult?

Actually, it should be obvious that it isn't racism or sexism. By saying that white men are privileged I do not say that they are inferior in any way - they are simply better off.

My opinion of business is simple. Best man for the job. And by man I mean person, man or woman. And if two people are tied in qualifications, interview and personality to determine the better candidate. And if that happens to be a man, so be it. If its a woman, so be it. If they'll maximise profits, who cares?

Well, this is an interesting twist in Germany, guess we start off with "The road to hell is paved with good intentions.".
I know many governments have tried to address equalizing perceived "minority" elements in the workforce:

USA

Minority owned certification (to get preference for government business).:
https://www.sba.gov/content/minority-owned-businesses
http://www.nmsdc.org/mbes/mbe-certification/

Women owned business certification (to get preference for government business).:
https://www.sba.gov/content/women-owned-small-business-program

Canada

Funny, for Canada crown corporations are required to report labor workforce composition and measures taken.
I do not see requirements given specific to race or gender, this is all based on the "Employment Equity Act" http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-5.401/index.html
http://www.labour.gc.ca/eng/standards_equity/eq/emp/leep/index.shtml

Looking at my better known governments methods, I like the idea of not specifically calling for a particular race or gender to equalize.
So if you have equally qualified applicants the only moral thing to do is flip a coin?
Or is it acceptable to realize there is an "imbalance" at some point and give preference until things equalize? (Love to figure out policy of when things equalize).

Fun stuff. I had the honor of working in a crown corporation, it was like the United Nations: it was diverse in the extreme.
It was a lot of fun, running into all the interesting cultural quirks was worth it in general.
I had also never seen so many female managers anywhere.

I see the need / benefit of a good mix in a company, I think the fear is of people using the ends to justify the means.

So.... here's one of the big problems with all of these arguments: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_familiar_line_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html

With a focus on this paragraph:

But we’re still not close to measuring women “doing the same work as men.” For that, we’d have to adjust for many other factors that go into determining salary. Economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn did that in a recent paper, “The Gender Pay Gap.”.”They first accounted for education and experience. That didn’t shift the gap very much, because women generally have at least as much and usually more education than men, and since the 1980s they have been gaining the experience. The fact that men are more likely to be in unions and have their salaries protected accounts for about 4 percent of the gap. The big differences are in occupation and industry. Women congregate in different professions than men do, and the largely male professions tend to be higher-paying.

Noone who is to be taken seriously considers Gender Gap an issue in Western countries. If you want to discuss the Gender Pay Gap, you need to adress the Adjusted Gender Pay Gap which takes all factors into account. For the latter, iirc, the last value for Germany was 5-7%.

5-7% still is a value, but doesn't say as much given the data source used to calculate it.

Rule of thumb: if people talk about Gender Pay Gap and don't use the Adjusted Gender Pay Gap, they want to abuse the data to make a point.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What about transgender people? How does this law apply to them?

Not relevant because they cannot get even in lower management.

largely male professions tend to be higher-paying.

I dunno about you but I see a problem here in itself.

 Ashiraya wrote:


You consider the list of privileges an insult?

Actually, it should be obvious that it isn't racism or sexism. By saying that white men are privileged I do not say that they are inferior in any way - they are simply better off.

Perhaps insult was the wrong word, but the whole ‘white male privilege’ trope is clearly a device designed to shut down debate by telling white men that their viewpoints are irrelevant because they are ‘privileged’.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Noone who is to be taken seriously considers Gender Gap an issue in Western countries..

Oh really?

So, why don't we all just stick to addressing the points that are being raised, rather than bandying about loaded statements such as "no one who is to be taken seriously believes..." and arguing about dismissing points with "tropes"?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Once a few generations of management turn through the new system, there should be a much larger pool of women with the experience to take on the big posts, and so will have more of an even footing in competing with men, and likely a much wider gender spread on the hiring panel so a much better chance of being selected based on merit rather than gender.

Precisely. Most people simply don't understand how a business works (qed: this thread). They assume that people go from unemployed to CEO straight without stopping in between. Working at big companies still is a job widely dominated by men. This has both biological and sociological reasons and women who want to rise up the ranks do have to be tougher than an equivalent male counterpart, simply because it's a field mostly filled with the opposite gender. Naturally, there are only very few women who want to take up that journey and it's a really long-winded one, be it man or woman, and being forced to face prejudice doesn't make it any easier. You have to be constantly delivering and demonstrating excellent work and realize that it's a harsh competition, women even moreso than men. Nepotism further adds to the issue - most men have their sons working at the same company.

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.

 LuciusAR wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


You consider the list of privileges an insult?

Actually, it should be obvious that it isn't racism or sexism. By saying that white men are privileged I do not say that they are inferior in any way - they are simply better off.

Perhaps insult was the wrong word, but the whole ‘white male privilege’ trope is clearly a device designed to shut down debate by telling white men that their viewpoints are irrelevant because they are ‘privileged’.

I have not seen that here. What you first responded to was someone pointing out that it was ludicrous to have white men start shoehorning themselves into the victim folder when they are enjoying far more priviliges than other groups. See the immensely provocative thread title and the angled premise, for example.

Oh, and of course

 Frazzled wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Noone who is to be taken seriously considers Gender Gap an issue in Western countries..

Oh really?

^ This. Trying to blame the discrepancies in salary on that 'women don't choose jobs with higher pay' is not quite right...

 Frazzled wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Noone who is to be taken seriously considers Gender Gap an issue in Western countries..

Oh really?

Yes, read the entire post

Adjusted Gender Pay Gap is important. Unadjusted Gender Pay Gap is trash information.

The Adjusted Gender Pay Gap tackles the actual issue. The term "Gender Pay Gap" is mostly used in discussions when people try to make a point about women being paid less than men. This conclusion is false based on the Unadjusted Gender Pay Gap.

 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.