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.

nomotog wrote:

 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?

The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

Tell me more about this resistance capable women have to get to higher positions that men do not have.

Do you think the 9:1 ratio is there because women do not want careers? I am pretty sure we talked about the CEOs not wanting change on the last page.

niv-mizzet wrote:
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.

Compare to women in the same social and economic situation as you and watch as the privileges reappear.

Naturally, sometimes there is less space for them to exist, but privileges are a rather general thing anyway.

Sigvatr wrote: Precisely. If politics are interested in overcoming a bias, the "same qualifications, women gets favored" approach wins out by a long shot. By doing so, you actively counter-work any existing bias and still hire a person because of her qualifications, not because of her gender.

Please help me to understand how the above proposal in bold is any better than an enforced quota? At least once the quota is filled everything can go back to a possible equality, with your proposal it would not be long before men become the descriminated party.

I do understand the problem, and from a business perspective an employee should only ever be employed if they can positively influence the effectiveness of the organisation. That said, it's obvious that descrimination is happening across all sectors. But again, the proposal in bold above really only works if you have a 100% match between a male and a female, and then, even in that most unlikely scenario, why should the male be set back because of his gender?

Men and women are not equal in every way. A man can not give birth (arguably one of the most important aspects of the human condition) to further human life forms, but equally Women can not (yet) impregnate another woman (yes, I know there are artificial means, but you still need sperm!). While this doesn't have any bearing on the board room, one can assume that, unless the female is willing to give birth at the boardroom table, there is likely a planned absence for this to take place. Should a woman be descriminated against because she wants to further the human race? No, of course not, but equally, should the company have to put on extra effort to ensure productivity because a certain individual chooses to be absent? Maybe.

The way in which we do business must orbit around the organisations people (they are important) so working conditions and technoology (such as it is) should be employed to support the individuals lifestyle choices, plus it's the only way to get the best out of your team.

A woman can be a mother and still make organisational choices, in the same way that a man can be a father and make those same choices.

I dunno, I guess I don't really see the point of this law... I mean, Germans clearly don't have issues with having women in the top positions of leadership, I mean, Angela Merkel has been the leader of the country for some time now, and unless I'm hugely wrong on this, that isn't going to change anytime soon.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

Tell me more about this resistance capable women have to get to higher positions that men do not have.

Do you think the 9:1 ratio is there because women do not want careers? I am pretty sure we talked about the CEOs not wanting change on the last page.

Tell me more about how this means that laws must force corporations to replace parts of their boards with women, because they're women.

niv-mizzet wrote:
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.

Compare to women in the same social and economic situation as you and watch as the privileges reappear.

Naturally, sometimes there is less space for them to exist, but privileges are a rather general thing anyway.

Tell me more about these privileges, and how I can use them.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I dunno, I guess I don't really see the point of this law... I mean, Germans clearly don't have issues with having women in the top positions of leadership, I mean, Angela Merkel has been the leader of the country for some time now, and unless I'm hugely wrong on this, that isn't going to change anytime soon.

She cannot be re-elected again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delephont wrote:

Sigvatr wrote: Precisely. If politics are interested in overcoming a bias, the "same qualifications, women gets favored" approach wins out by a long shot. By doing so, you actively counter-work any existing bias and still hire a person because of her qualifications, not because of her gender.

Please help me to understand how the above proposal in bold is any better than an enforced quota? At least once the quota is filled everything can go back to a possible equality, with your proposal it would not be long before men become the descriminated party.

Proposal in bold: two people are equally qualified. Woman gets the job to overcome / compensate the bias.

Quota: A women is less skilled than a man. The woman gets the job.

Big fethin whoop..
Norway has a 40% min. quota of females in EVERY board of directors. Simply put.there aren't enough females to go around anymore in the higher business echelons domestically.. :p

 Sigvatr wrote:


Quota: A women is less skilled than a man. The woman gets the job.

Not going to happen. There's enough competent women out there to fill the quota.

Don't you think there's enough competent women out there for the 'very best' category to be at least 30% female?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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.

So everyone arguing equal pay for equal work (like the US Democratic Party, which means even the Neo Nazis in germany ya wussies) can't be taken seriously?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


Quota: A women is less skilled than a man. The woman gets the job.

Not going to happen. There's enough competent women out there to fill the quota.

Don't you think there's enough competent women out there for the 'very best' category to be at least 30% female?

Within some companies there most definitely won't be.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 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?

The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.

I know form my experience picking teams, you want to avoid stacking the deck with just the people who look the most accomplished. You end up with a lot of the same people and that leads a brittle team and small verity of options. It's very hard to qualify best because best is well it's literally a nonsense word best for one might not be best for another.

nomotog wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 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?

The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.

I know form my experience picking teams, you want to avoid stacking the deck with just the people who look the most accomplished. You end up with a lot of the same people and that leads a brittle team and small verity of options. It's very hard to qualify best because best is well it's literally a nonsense word best for one might not be best for another.

The one that has the best education, best results, most experience, and whom is the most highly regarded by the staff seems like a pretty accomplished guy and an obvious choice to me.

 Ashiraya wrote:


Don't you think there's enough competent women out there for the 'very best' category to be at least 30% female?

There aren't.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


Quota: A women is less skilled than a man. The woman gets the job.

Not going to happen. There's enough competent women out there to fill the quota.

Don't you think there's enough competent women out there for the 'very best' category to be at least 30% female?

Within some companies there most definitely won't be.

Yep. Fortunately, any damage that will do - if at all - will be minor in comparison to all the highly competent women the law will allow to become CEOs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


Don't you think there's enough competent women out there for the 'very best' category to be at least 30% female?

There aren't.

Why do you think so?

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 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?

The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.

I know form my experience picking teams, you want to avoid stacking the deck with just the people who look the most accomplished. You end up with a lot of the same people and that leads a brittle team and small verity of options. It's very hard to qualify best because best is well it's literally a nonsense word best for one might not be best for another.

The one that has the most education, highest results, most experience, and whom is the most highly regarded by the staff seems like a pretty accomplished guy and an obvious choice to me.

What if you already got that one?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


Quota: A women is less skilled than a man. The woman gets the job.

Not going to happen. There's enough competent women out there to fill the quota.

Don't you think there's enough competent women out there for the 'very best' category to be at least 30% female?

Within some companies there most definitely won't be.

Yep. Fortunately, any damage that will do - if at all - will be minor in comparison to all the highly competent women the law will allow to become CEOs.

You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.

Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.

 Ashiraya wrote:

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

Why?

More men tend to go into the computer sciences and engineering than women. (http://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/2011-profile-engineering-statistics.pdf)

More women tend to go into teaching and nursing than men. (http://www.nln.org/researchgrants/slides/pdf/AS1112_F29.pdf) (http://www.collegeatlas.org/top-degrees-by-gender.html)

One pays higher than another. There's nothing 'wrong' about it.

My wife is brilliant and would be a great engineer or programmer. But she loves teaching.

 Ashiraya wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
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.

Compare to women in the same social and economic situation as you and watch as the privileges reappear.

Naturally, sometimes there is less space for them to exist, but privileges are a rather general thing anyway.

Well I don't socialize much, so I just know the women at work.
You mean the one who's older -married- boyfriend is covering her bills and getting her a new car for Christmas?
Or maybe the one who got promoted when she claimed sexual harassment against our boss that no one else saw, and he was fired and replaced with her without an investigation?
Or the one that went out on a date with a cop to get out of a speeding ticket?
Or if we go a little into the past, the ones who would have two men duel for their amusement by claiming to each that the other impugned their honor.
I realize you're going to make the assumption that it really is exactly like you think it is here, but until you move here and study it for a decade or two, you can't know for sure.

The world is not exactly the same everywhere else as it is around you. It is also not like it is here everywhere else. Any blanket solution will be flawed, and any blanket viewpoint is flawed.

nomotog wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 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?

The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.

I know form my experience picking teams, you want to avoid stacking the deck with just the people who look the most accomplished. You end up with a lot of the same people and that leads a brittle team and small verity of options. It's very hard to qualify best because best is well it's literally a nonsense word best for one might not be best for another.

The one that has the most education, highest results, most experience, and whom is the most highly regarded by the staff seems like a pretty accomplished guy and an obvious choice to me.

What if you already got that one?

You go for the next best one, naturally.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Why do you think so?

# of women in upper management.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 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?

The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.

I know form my experience picking teams, you want to avoid stacking the deck with just the people who look the most accomplished. You end up with a lot of the same people and that leads a brittle team and small verity of options. It's very hard to qualify best because best is well it's literally a nonsense word best for one might not be best for another.

The one that has the most education, highest results, most experience, and whom is the most highly regarded by the staff seems like a pretty accomplished guy and an obvious choice to me.

What if you already got that one?

You go for the next best one, naturally.

My thinking is that you want to fill your tool box with a verity of tools and that once you have a hammer you don't get a second hammer. You know you pick up a screw driver because some times you need to use a screw driver to pull up a nail.

nomotog wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 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?

The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.

I know form my experience picking teams, you want to avoid stacking the deck with just the people who look the most accomplished. You end up with a lot of the same people and that leads a brittle team and small verity of options. It's very hard to qualify best because best is well it's literally a nonsense word best for one might not be best for another.

The one that has the most education, highest results, most experience, and whom is the most highly regarded by the staff seems like a pretty accomplished guy and an obvious choice to me.

What if you already got that one?

You go for the next best one, naturally.

My thinking is that you want to fill your tool box with a verity of tools and that once you have a hammer you don't get a second hammer. You know you pick up a screw driver because some times you need to use a screw driver to pull up a nail.

Those are used for different jobs.

If I need two people to put nails in wood, I'd need two hammers - the two best hammers, preferably.
If I'd need one to put nails in, and one to pull them out, I'd get the best hammer and the best screwdriver.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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.

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

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

My thinking is that you want to fill your tool box with a verity of tools and that once you have a hammer you don't get a second hammer. You know you pick up a screw driver because some times you need to use a screw driver to pull up a nail.

Those are used for different jobs.

If I need two people to put nails in wood, I'd need two hammers - the two best hammers, preferably.
If I'd need one to put nails in, and one to pull them out, I'd get the best hammer and the best screwdriver.

And then you will run into problems when you need a screw driver, but you only have hammers. Made sense at the time I mean we hammer nails, but now the market says screws are the new cool thing and we can't even find a proper screw driver because all our hammer just know what makes a good hammer and they keep saying all the screw drivers are too small and pointed... This metaphor might be kind of strange, but I hope I am at least making my point.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

Why do you think so?

# of women in upper management.

You are of the belief that currently competence is the only factor?

nomotog wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nomotog wrote:

My thinking is that you want to fill your tool box with a verity of tools and that once you have a hammer you don't get a second hammer. You know you pick up a screw driver because some times you need to use a screw driver to pull up a nail.

Those are used for different jobs.

If I need two people to put nails in wood, I'd need two hammers - the two best hammers, preferably.
If I'd need one to put nails in, and one to pull them out, I'd get the best hammer and the best screwdriver.

And then you will run into problems when you need a screw driver, but you only have hammers. Made sense at the time I mean we hammer nails, but now the market says screws are the new cool thing and we can't even find a proper screw driver because all our hammer just know what makes a good hammer and they keep saying all the screw drivers are too small and pointed... This metaphor might be kind of strange, but I hope I am at least making my point.

From a business perspective, it makes no sense to hire someone that is good at something your company doesn't do/need, just because there's a chance that it will happen in the future.

Also, thanks for fixing the spoiler cascade!

 Grey Templar wrote:


You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.

Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.

It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.

Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.

It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.

If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.

 Ashiraya wrote:

It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.

Wouldn't otherwise have?

That's a bold statement.

Especially when the CEOs of F500 companies like Yahoo, GM, HP, IBM, Pepsi, Oracle, and DuPont are all female.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.

Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.

It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.

If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.

You're assuming no gender bias is present when selecting a CEO, something I find implausible.