Male discrimination...

[Palmatum]

EU commissioners are due to debate proposals that would force quotas for women on corporate boards.

EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding is in favour of the proposals to make it mandatory for companies to reserve 40% of seats for women.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20039540

How retarded. I think a few of the comments sum it up quite well...

And what type of discrimination do we call it if a very talented man misses out on a position, to an unqualified woman, purely on the grounds that the company has to fill its gender quota.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination!

[Lora]

Blatant discrimination and borderline sexism.

[Deleted]

That is the absolute definition of discrimination.

It's the people advocating for this junk that makes me absolutely disgusted by modern feminism.

Good job. You are now selected because you are a women and not because you are the most capable person for the job. Bravo. Now go to your support group and revel in your achievements.

[Deleted]

Same happens in Dutch police stations. We had an empty spot for ages but they insisted it'd be filled by a woman... it was empty for 4 months until they got a woman to fill it. It happens on race too, they're dying for middle eastern and black police officers here, so desprate they'll actualy judge by race on the trials. (Yes, i'm not kidding).

[Kisho]

Certainly the wrong way to go about fixing the issue, but I can understand why it's being done. The vast majority of upper management is still male in a lot of companies; whether this is due to the individual men being better choices over the individual women, or if it truly is sexism is of course debateable, but you'd think there are many more competent women than the current representation.

So yeah. Wrong way to fix the issue, but there's still an issue to fix.

[Deleted]

Certainly the wrong way to go about fixing the issue, but I can understand why it's being done. The vast majority of upper management is still male in a lot of companies; whether this is due to the individual men being better choices over the individual women, or if it truly is sexism is of course debateable, but you'd think there are many more competent women than the current representation.

So yeah. Wrong way to fix the issue, but there's still an issue to fix.

Let's take the Netherlands as an example. Woman at large do not want to go for their career. The country has been under investigation by the EU because it just had to be because the Netherlands was treating the poor women so horribly that they had so few upper management and top positions.

So what turned out, they just don't want to make the investment into a career. But of course that had to be concluded after several very expensive researches and new unnecessary rules to give women more incentive to invest in their career.


The women that actually climb to the top do it like any other man or person has done it (hard backbreaking work), they oppose these rules. It's mostly the modern feminist lobby's that somehow speaks for all women and how they are so mistreated because look at the percentage of women in top positions

Let alone feminism lobbying for equal rights in lets say child custody, alimony, too few men as caretakers, too few women as soldiers, conscription for women, the inequality in the amount of time men call off sick and women, the amount of time fathers get off from work when a child is born, etc.

[obdigore]

Let's take the Netherlands as an example. Woman at large do not want to go for their career. The country has been under investigation by the EU because it just had to be because the Netherlands was treating the poor women so horribly that they had so few upper management and top positions.

So what turned out, they just don't want to make the investment into a career. But of course that had to be concluded after several very expensive researches and new unnecessary rules to give women more incentive to invest in their career.


The women that actually climb to the top do it like any other man or person has done it (hard backbreaking work), they oppose these rules. It's mostly the modern feminist lobby's that somehow speaks for all women and how they are so mistreated because look at the percentage of women in top positions

Do you have any links to these super expensive and extensive studies that actually say this?

[Kisho]

Let's take the Netherlands as an example. Woman at large do not want to go for their career. The country has been under investigation by the EU because it just had to be because the Netherlands was treating the poor women so horribly that they had so few upper management and top positions.

So what turned out, they just don't want to make the investment into a career. But of course that had to be concluded after several very expensive researches and new unnecessary rules to give women more incentive to invest in their career.

Well yeah, if they don't want to actually go for the job then fine, no problems. So long as people have the freedom to choose their career (provided they put in the work, of course) rather than be pigeon-holed because of their gender, then I have no issues.

If it turned out that all women actually wanted to be nurses and secretaries, while all men wanted to be doctors and CEOs, then fine. But is that really the case? Are there really some incredibly talented women who are perfect for the director position, but are held back because of their gender?

It's difficult to say. Maybe that investigation you talk about didn't turn up anything, but that doesn't mean it was entirely fruitless. At the very least, it proves that leadership is aware of the issue and ensuring the effects of sexism are minimised, rather than ignored and swept under the rug.

[Collegeguy]

Just means the EU companies would go down hill in the long run.

Not because there are 40% women on their boards, but because the wrong people make the wrong decisions.
Sex has nothing to do with being the wrong or right person, and the right people will go somewhere else only to compete with those EU companies.

[Deleted]

Let's take the Netherlands as an example. Woman at large do not want to go for their career. The country has been under investigation by the EU because it just had to be because the Netherlands was treating the poor women so horribly that they had so few upper management and top positions.

So what turned out, they just don't want to make the investment into a career. But of course that had to be concluded after several very expensive researches and new unnecessary rules to give women more incentive to invest in their career.


The women that actually climb to the top do it like any other man or person has done it (hard backbreaking work), they oppose these rules. It's mostly the modern feminist lobby's that somehow speaks for all women and how they are so mistreated because look at the percentage of women in top positions

Let alone feminism lobbying for equal rights in lets say child custody, alimony, too few men as caretakers, too few women as soldiers, conscription for women, the inequality in the amount of time men call off sick and women, the amount of time fathers get off from work when a child is born, etc.

Yeah i want to see those studies as well. For my master's I just read 4 articles who argue both sides of the coin. Obviously these forums are occupied by males predominantly, they dont see that woman working in teams and non managerial positions have the least throughput to higher positions. None of this has anything to do with talents, but because males dont want to report to a female superior and woman stereotypical characteristics are often presumed "soft" and counterproductive. However when woman do not behave in this soft manner, they are punished (not promoted) for not acting their "gender". So yes, these kinda policies are necesary, however the numbers are insane. 40% is too much to obligate, because indeed there are woman want part time jobs, children to care for and certain industries are notably less populated by woman.

This kinda policies are necesary, however not that high of a percentage. We should do something about the perception of woman as "tokens" in organizations, and set aside our pride, if a woman is more qualified she should get the job. This however is not happening, and seeing the response in these forums they should agree since they argue the same for a male.

[semaphore]

Woman at large do not want to go for their career.

What's your evidence for this? Anecdotal evidence does not count.

[Deleted]

Do you have any links to these super expensive and extensive studies that actually say this?

Sure. It's been a few years since I've read them I'll see what I can dig up.

http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/80726...onitor2010.pdf



To translate a few summaried parts of those researches

http://translate.google.nl/translate...-1.htm&act=url

http://translate.google.nl/translate...elfstandig.htm


"The number of women in paid employment of 12 hours or more increased from 57 percent in 2007 to 60 percent in 2009. Again, the goal of 65 percent in 2010 'almost certainly' not achieved. "

Only 60% of the Dutch women actually work more than 12 hours a week (children or not), they do not want to be financially independent because the work has to be fun, flexible, and certainly not full-time. So the man has to be the one that makes the money so the comfortable lifestyle can continue.

"Three quarters of Dutch women work part-time. On average they work 25.3 hours a week. "

[Deleted]

Yes, this is the height of stupidity. These companies are operating in a free market under competition. If bringing in women would improve their performance, that's what they would've done already.

[semaphore]

Also I don't necessarily think 40% is an appropriate percentage to suddenly jump into, mostly because a lot of industries are going to have a hard time suddenly coming up with qualified, experienced women for that many positions. But gradually aiming for somewhere around (perhaps slightly lower) this percentage seems reasonable to me. Unless you mean to argue that there is such a significant difference in capabilities that men are much more able to fill these roles.

For the record I'd support the same for predominantly female industries like child care.

The vast majority of upper management is still male in a lot of companies; whether this is due to the individual men being better choices over the individual women, or if it truly is sexism is of course debateable, but you'd think there are many more competent women than the current representation.

Exactly.

---------- Post added 2012-10-23 at 09:54 AM ----------

"The number of women in paid employment of 12 hours or more increased from 57 percent in 2007 to 60 percent in 2009. Again, the goal of 65 percent in 2010 'almost certainly' not achieved. "

Only 60% of the Dutch women actually work more than 12 hours a week (children or not), they do not want to be financially independent because the work has to be fun, flexible, and certainly not full-time. So the man has to be the one that makes the money so the comfortable lifestyle can continue.

"Three quarters of Dutch women work part-time. On average they work 25.3 hours a week. "

Is the second paragraph actually in the study anywhere, or did you just inserted your own interpretation in between two factual findings? And what you said (without agreeing with it) is more like socialisation at work. "Women do not pursue careers, because society tells them to stay home and let their husbands be the breadwinners." That is not really a good thing to be content with, and I say this on behalf of both genders.

Also, IIRC the extraordinarily low participation rate for Dutch women has been attributed to a taxation system that penalises a second full time earner, and lack of support for mothers with young children. Combined with the effects of socialisation this would have significant adverse impact.

[Deleted]

Is the second paragraph actually in the study anywhere, or did you just inserted your own interpretation in between two factual findings? And what you said (without agreeing with it) is more like socialisation at work. "Women do not pursue careers, because society tells them to stay home and let their husbands be the breadwinners." That is not really a good thing to be content with, and I say this on behalf of both genders.

Also, IIRC the extraordinarily law participation rate for Dutch women has been attributed to a taxation system that penalises a second full time earner, and lack of support for mothers with young children. Combined with the effects of socialisation this would have significant adverse impact.

That second paragraph is my own interpretations of the articles. And it's mostly exactly what is being told there. And also there you will find that it's not society that tells Dutch women to "stay at home and let their husbands be the breadwinners". The ambition of Dutch women is just nowhere to be found. So much that the policy-making parties have contemplated to changing the full-time requirement for a senior position, which is totally insane. As those positions require more than a full-time mindset.

In other countries the possibility and opportunity to work part-time and being able to be financially stable is not even there most of the times. But in the Netherlands it's the law to be able to work part-time.

[semaphore]

And also there you will find that it's not society that tells Dutch women to "stay at home and let their husbands be the breadwinners". The ambition of Dutch women is just nowhere to be found.

So your contention is that Dutch women are somehow natually without ambition? That somehow Dutch women are just born without the mindset to work full time? That Dutch women are just uniquely stuck in the traditional gender roles even though Dutch society is the same as the rest of Western civilisation?

Because from my vantage point the socialisation explaination makes a heck of a lot more sense. I mean, really. Most people, both genders included, would work less if they can do so without suffering financially. Even your articles said so.

[Deleted]

So your contention is that Dutch women are somehow natually without ambition? That somehow Dutch women are just born without the mindset to work full time? That Dutch women are just uniquely stuck in the traditional gender roles even though Dutch society is the same as the rest of Western civilisation?

Because from my vantage point the socialisation explaination makes a heck of a lot more sense.

They have easy access to a comfortable part-time lifestyle. Does it always have to be the fault of someone else?

Is it somehow the fault of society because it provides easy access to a part-time job?

Men would like to work less, but then the finances get botched because the other half doesn't want to work more, most of the time. This used to be a hot topic years ago and I was amazed by the responses of many street interviews on TV. Part-time was fine and working more was/is a no-no. Because where would the time be for the poor souls social life?

Anyhow, I have a lot of work to do so I'll try not to peek around the corner for the next 10 hours

[semaphore]

They have easy access to a comfortable part-time lifestyle. Does it always have to be the fault of someone else?

Did I blame anyone? No. I'm outlining the cause of the phenomenon, not pointing fingers. Don't get so defensive when no one's accusing you. This is a problem with society, and therefore something that society should work together to solve. Not heaping blame on each other in a competition to see who's have it worse.

Men would like to work less, but then the finances get botched because the other half doesn't want to work more, most of the time.

Which is exactly why I said the situation is not one to be happy about - for both genders. Just as men shouldn't have to shoulder a greater share of the financial burdens, the participation of women in the labour force should also be encouraged. It's two sides of the same coin. Neither you nor anyone else should settle for the cope out that "women just don't want to work". I don't.

Equality is not a zero sum game. We all benefit from it, just as we are all the lesser for any discrimination.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

This is a terrible idea.

[Ynna]

Okay, this is a sensitive topic, and I'll try to tackle it as such.

Positive discrimination in the form of quota generally isn't the best idea. I want 100% of competent people in charge, regardless of their gender. If a competent man loses out on a job to a less competent woman because of quota, that would be bad. The other way around would also be bad.

That being said, the number of powerful people in pretty much every field are white and/or male, despite there being plenty of non-white, non-male people who are fully qualified (and sometimes even more so) who don't fill those positions.

Quota like this are intended to counteract the positive discrimination of men that happens by default. The idea behind it is good, even if the execution isn't.