1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gender Quotas Now

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Nov 25, 2002.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Well, not in the US, but Sweden!

    'The Swedish government <a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/apbiz_story.asp?category=1310&slug=Sweden%20Women%20Directors">will introduce a gender quota for corporate boards</a> unless one in four board members is a woman by 2004,' Deputy Prime Minister Margareta Winberg declared Monday.

    'It's a promise to all those women who are angry. It's a threat against those companies who don't like it.'

    Stockholders and company executives have objected to this new policy, pointing out that they should be allowed to choose the best person for the job, regardless of their sex.

    Women are very involved in Swedish politics, making up 45% of the parliament and almost half of the state cabinet positions, but remain rare as executives of private companies. Norway has set even higher quotas, demanding that women make up 40 percent of private board members.

    I love women, but why this pathetic quotas based on something a person is born with rather than what that person has achieved?
     
  2. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I don't know about Norway and Sweden but are they going by the percentage of women eligible or the percentage in the work place? I fully believe women are as capable as men but I do not see the same percentage of women entering the CEO track by education and job selection as men. Corporations should not have to worry about percentages, but if they are required to it should be by percentage eligible by education and training. Whenever anything but excellence is the criteria the whole country suffers. I think the people who make these demands are trying to bring the whole world down to their level. It is obvious they are incapable of logical thinking. I gotta quit reading this crap. Sorry.
     
  3. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    Don't you mean born without? :happy:

    I love women too, but think this is stupid policy.
     
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Re: Re: Gender Quotas Now

    With a penis or without I meant. ;) Wise guy.
     
  5. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    Just grabbed this snippet Shiny, not to pick on you, but to point out the reason why such a quota is perhaps needed.

    Why would a woman want to enter the CEO track if it's more likely that a man, who may be <i>less</i> qualified, will get the job? Perhaps such a quota system will entice more women to follow that track. And assuming that society will suffer from such programs is simply implying that the targeted demographic is not qualified or worthy of special opportunity to help even the balance. Give me one example of where it is proven that a quota system or equal opportunity resulted in an inferior system that has harmed society... just one is all I ask.

    It always irks me to no end when the <i>"but shouldn't the most qualified person get the job"</i> argument is used against quota systems and equal opportunity. What bull shit that is. If you think we've always lived in a fair society you've been living in a cave. Traditionally it has <i>not</i> been the most qualified <i>person</i> who gets the big important jobs, but it <i>has</i> always been the most qualified <i>white, straight, man</i> to get the big important jobs.

    I'll never understand why quota systems cause such a bloody ruckus. :rolleyes:
     
  6. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Because far too frequently with quota systems you get unqualified or poorly qualified people put into positions merely to meet the quota du jour. When this happens, the same amount of quality work has to get done and that puts a heavier workload on the people who did get there by their own efforts.
     
  7. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    You fix racial inequity or glass ceilings or whatever at the education level. You teach young blacks or women that they can get there, you give them the tools and then you keep selecting by excellence. Any other selection criteria brings down the whole group and should be an insult to the selected group.

    But you took my post and changed it. My point was that women are not choosing to enter the CEO track by their own choice. They are choosing areas they want to enter to include having children and raising them. You want to believe they don't enter because they are afraid or choose not to compete. Again their choice.

    I will not start hunting for any stats. By definition, when the standard is other than excellence the standard has been lowered. In order to put any other criteria forward you lower the excellence standard. If the current economic situation has taught us anything it is there is nothing more important to big business that success. So now you or the Swedes would demand that selection be made from those less successful.

    So your argument is it has never been fair, so live with it. I think you are recognizing the wrong bullshit, the wrong crap.
     
  8. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    Like I asked, give me an example, just one, where such a quota system has been proven to result in harm to society by creating an inferior workforce.

    First of all, I didn't change your post. I only borrowed a sentence, and to the best of my knowledge, and certainly by my intention, it was not taken out of context.

    Saying that women are choosing professions so they can have children is a little behind the times Shiny. It's just not true. Women are increasingly choosing professions that take them out of the stereotypical "home maker" role (whether good or bad is another topic for discussion perhaps in a different thread).

    I think this is a good example where the assumption that less qualified people, women, will be getting the jobs instead of more qualified people, men, is bogus. For one, the ratio they are shooting for is 1 in 4 -- only 25%. Clearly there is inequity in a profession where 25% representation is a goal for a quota system, in a population with 50% representation by that same demographic. I find it difficult to imagine there aren't at least 25% qualified women to be CEOs, and whose qualifications are better than the men whose jobs they will win over.
     
  9. Sir Joseph

    Sir Joseph Registered User

    We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used to create them - Albert Einstein

    Fixing ratios of females to males by having a quota put in place to fix the ratios of females to males just doesn't make sense.
     
  10. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Actually the way I look at it is it is demeaning to women, a quota says that the women who got there on their own power got lucky and didn't do it by their own shining example. Then anyone who comes after is considered suspect, did they really deserve the position or are they artificially in a position that they neither worked for or deserved. It flies in the face of a meritocracy, which is a major part of the Free Enterprise System, which doesn't surprise me all that much coming from Sweden.
     
  11. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    That's like asking who was executed on the death roll and was innocent of the crime.

    Without DNA and without having a rewind/forward button you can't.

    How many white kids were stunted out of their school of choice because of quotas for minorities? How many kids lost the trust of the "system" and went on to do less important things in their and society's life?

    Quotas are nothing more than a legal way to discriminate. It's used to dumb down kids in schools by bringing down the intelligence level of the class. Quotas are used to give the less applicable person to the job because of their skin color, or now gender in Sweden and Norway. Quotas are used to get people who never came in to the forum, to post under the guise that they will not be interrupted by those that used up their post limit (couldn't help myself there ;)).
     
  12. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    What a Concept! Corporate management isn't screwing the pooch hard enough or fast enough...hmmm...what to do...Bingo!!! We'll start forcing them to appoint people even less qualified than they are to help make faster decisions.

    I can only presume that you're being facetious here. While debacles like Worldcom and Enron surely aren't attributable to quotas, they are attributable to the placement of inferior selection to the boards of major corporations. Thousands of people lost their pensions in that example.

    Noo, I'm pretty sure that corporate upper management all too frequently tends to get things fucked up enough without any outside help from a gaggle of bureaucratic boneheads with entirely too much time on their hands.

    You might read that last sentence in the paragraph of mine you quoted. The real work still has to get done...oh yeah, just pile it on the backs of people that actually got to their position by honest effort. The good ol' boys have been doing it for decades...yeah, I guess you're right, what's one more piker.
     
  13. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Like it or not choosing to have children is a choice about the CEO track. Most large companies do not look favorably on any time off, from man or woman. Maybe not politically correct, but not behind the times, just stating facts, unpoplular little buggers to the quota mongers of the world.
     
  14. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    I like how you worked my signature into your post. Very clever. Now I'll have to change it! :eek:

    In any event, it does make sense if the ratios will never get there on their own due to the "old boys club" mentality that is the corporate world.

    Besides, the problem was created by doing <i>nothing</i> about the situation. Doing <i>something</i> is clearly a different approach, and I think Einstein might even agree.
     
  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I agree with you man, but there has to be a more honorable way, one that will probably take time but one that will not punish the innocent on both sides of the fence.
     
  16. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Well, how about for a change, instead of just doing 'something', we do something useful...I mean besides the usual left wing uninformed feel good social tinkering?
     
  17. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    It's not pathetic when you're not getting promoted because you've got a vagina rather than a penis.

    Do you know how many times I've heard the term "little woman" when a male boss has referred to me? Do you know how many times my male coworkers have been surprised by the fact I can handle a computer - and probably run circles around them when it comes to cars? It may sound silly, but it's very real, and it's incredibly frustrating. And nothing you do, short of a sex change operation, can make it go away.

    It's like how white people don't believe racism is alive and well in this country. Seriously, the second most white people where I used to live found out I was hispanic, they would change towards me. One woman even said "darling, you could easily pass"... wtf? Like I'm trying to hide my heritage?

    I don't like the fact that quotas have to be legislated - not one bit. But when there's no other recourse, what can you do? Lay down and let yourself get used as a rung on the corporate ladder?
     
  18. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    Surprizingly, I could possibly agree with you on this. Not being a woman, I have no idea whether such a quota system would be considered demeaning. My only argument to this is that it seems to me that success is measured less by <i>how</i> you get there, and more by what you do <i>when</i> you get there. The quota system does not, to my knowledge, prevent one from being fired or demoted based on consistently poor performance.
     
  19. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    It's not the fault of the quotas - it's the fault of the recruiters, who are too lazy to put in the time and effort it takes to seek out qualified applicants to a position. It's the fault of the hiring managers who would rather put in a black/gay/female/asian to fill in the quota rather than go through the entire interviewing and screening process.

    Quotas are there to ensure everyone gets an equal shot at a particular position - they are supposed to eliminate bias.
     
  20. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Oh, maybe not everywhere, but when quotas are in place it is very difficult to get rid of poor performers. They are usually given fewer duties and the people who should have gotten the job are doing it anyway.
     

Share This Page