Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Europe is considering gender quotas in the boardroom   (csmonitor.com) divider line 29
    More: Obvious, Europe, gender quotas, supervisory board, Lithuanian, CDU, German Chancellor, political consciousness, Viviane Reding  
•       •       •

477 clicks; posted to Business » on 16 Jul 2013 at 11:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-07-16 10:17:41 AM  
At the end of the day, people will have to be convinced that [women] bring something to the table

They can bring food or drink. I'm flexible.
 
2013-07-16 11:29:11 AM  
Male or female, they'll all still be sociopaths who hate little people.
 
2013-07-16 11:33:13 AM  
Holy shiat, need more coffee. I read the headline as "Europe is considering gender quotas in the bedroom"  and started wondering how they intended to do that.
 
2013-07-16 11:43:01 AM  
Nothing says "we are just as good as you are" better than artificial quotas backed by law.
 
2013-07-16 12:07:05 PM  
Why does Merkel hate women?
 
2013-07-16 12:07:25 PM  

LemSkroob: Nothing says "we are just as good as you are" better than artificial quotas backed by law.


Yep. This'll show people how strong, capable, and independent women are.
 
2013-07-16 12:10:48 PM  
Anyone who's to stupid to tell the difference between the EU and Europe probably writes crap.

TLDR.
 
2013-07-16 12:34:11 PM  

spawn73: Anyone who's to stupid to tell the difference between the EU and Europe probably writes crap.

TLDR.


One wants a boardroom count, the other a final Countdown.
 
2013-07-16 01:22:19 PM  
As long as they include  mines, logging, lumber mills, steel mills, heavy construction, etc. I'm fine with this.
 
2013-07-16 01:26:03 PM  

mrlewish: As long as they include  mines, logging, lumber mills, steel mills, heavy construction, etc. I'm fine with this.


THIS
 
2013-07-16 01:36:56 PM  
Anything that helps break up the club of the same 10 people who sit on every board in the country is a good thing in my book.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-07-16 01:38:38 PM  
1. Get a sex change operation.

2. Become the quota female on all the corporate boards.

3. Profit.
 
2013-07-16 03:09:35 PM  
I remember my very first internship....it was the summer after my freshman year of college, at a very large insurance company (think Allstate/State Farm).  I was part of a fairly large group of 24 interns...some guys, some girls.  We all were assigned to different parts of the company, different roles and all that jazz - but we'd do 'team building' crap with each other, grab lunch together, goof off in the game room.  This was my first 'real world' job that wasn't McDonalds.....and I felt really bad for noticing it but

I felt like the girls were pretty crappy, in general, compared to the guys.  At one point, I told a group of my friends that, 'Man, it sounds really bad - but all the girl interns are retarded and lazy!' - and they all called me sexist.  The thing is, I don't consider myself sexist.  They weren't bad BECAUSE they were girls - they were bad because they didn't know what they were doing and didn't seem to interested in trying.  But my friends did not believe me.

I wanted to find an objective way to make my point.  Our systems were such that, each morning we would log in to our workstations and we were connected via a 'chat' program - like 'Facebook Chat' - only this was a while ago, think 'ICQ' or AIM.  The app had some basic logging features and, because I had all of the interns in my buddy list, I was able to write a small app to parse the log file.  I could see when they became active (showed up to work), because deactive (went home), and what days they never touched their computers.

For the ~10 weeks I collected data, the guys averaged 39.something hours per week and the girls averaged 35.  That was excluding absentee days.  Each girl averaged roughly, two sick days, while each guy averaged roughly one sick day.

When I told my friends, 'Look!  I was right!  *These* girls (maybe not all girls, but THESE girls) were working significantly less than the guys - in terms of time at work.  They took nearly twice as many sick days and on the days they did show up, they worked less hours!'

And my friends said, 'Dude, that's *sexist*'

Now it seems like every year or so I read some study that duplicates my results....but after calmly mentioning it to a handful of times, I've just given up.  No matter how true it is, no matter how you phrase it - unless you are saying we should be giving preferential treatment to women, you're sexist.

Me:  'Maybe we should pay people proportional to how many hours they work - regardless of gender?'
Them:  'Yeah!  Exactly, it shouldn't matter what gender you are!'
Me:  'And since women work less, on average, the average woman should earn less.'
Them:  'YOU ARE SEXIST'
Me:  'But you just said.....'
Them:  'No - women should get paid AS MUCH as men.  Or more, because some women are better at their job than some men'
Me;  'Sure, individually, based on their ability and stuff - some women should earn more and some men should earn more.  But on average, as a whole, given that women work less - women should earn less'
Them:  'NO YOU ARE SEXIST'
 
2013-07-16 05:41:02 PM  

mrlewish: As long as they include  mines, logging, lumber mills, steel mills, heavy construction, etc. I'm fine with this.


Uh sure why not?  You know the board members of those types of companies aren't the ones doing the actual physical labor?
 
2013-07-16 06:30:12 PM  
I believe 100% should be either male or female. Or in between.
 
2013-07-16 07:09:23 PM  

ZAZ: 1. Get a sex change operation.

2. Become the quota female on all the corporate boards.

3. Profit.


Why do you need the sex change operation?  Couldn't someone just claim they are pre-op?
 
2013-07-16 07:20:40 PM  
Are they demanding quotas for garbagemen, waste water treatment workers, construction workers, coal miners, oil drillers, military, police, firefighters, lawn maintenance workers, mechanics, and practically every job that doesn't occur in an air conditioned environment?  Ya, didn't think so.
 
2013-07-16 07:44:12 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: They took nearly twice as many sick days and on the days they did show up, they worked less hours!'


At least they stayed home when their pussies hurt.

Your model of quantifying how much a person contributes to the workplace based on how many hours they are present at their desks is deeply flawed.

/But then, lots of real-world managers go by that too, so.
 
2013-07-16 08:16:44 PM  

ramblinwreck: Are they demanding quotas for garbagemen, waste water treatment workers, construction workers, coal miners, oil drillers, military, police, firefighters, lawn maintenance workers, mechanics, and practically every job that doesn't occur in an air conditioned environment?  Ya, didn't think so.


Um, I'd rather not have a woman responsible for the hand crank that gets me out of confined spaces, unless she's jacked, of course
 
2013-07-16 08:40:51 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I remember my very first internship....it was the summer after my freshman year of college, at a very large insurance company (think Allstate/State Farm).  I was part of a fairly large group of 24 interns...some guys, some girls.  We all were assigned to different parts of the company, different roles and all that jazz - but we'd do 'team building' crap with each other, grab lunch together, goof off in the game room.  This was my first 'real world' job that wasn't McDonalds.....and I felt really bad for noticing it but

I felt like the girls were pretty crappy, in general, compared to the guys.  At one point, I told a group of my friends that, 'Man, it sounds really bad - but all the girl interns are retarded and lazy!' - and they all called me sexist.  The thing is, I don't consider myself sexist.  They weren't bad BECAUSE they were girls - they were bad because they didn't know what they were doing and didn't seem to interested in trying.  But my friends did not believe me.

I wanted to find an objective way to make my point.  Our systems were such that, each morning we would log in to our workstations and we were connected via a 'chat' program - like 'Facebook Chat' - only this was a while ago, think 'ICQ' or AIM.  The app had some basic logging features and, because I had all of the interns in my buddy list, I was able to write a small app to parse the log file.  I could see when they became active (showed up to work), because deactive (went home), and what days they never touched their computers.

For the ~10 weeks I collected data, the guys averaged 39.something hours per week and the girls averaged 35.  That was excluding absentee days.  Each girl averaged roughly, two sick days, while each guy averaged roughly one sick day.

When I told my friends, 'Look!  I was right!  *These* girls (maybe not all girls, but THESE girls) were working significantly less than the guys - in terms of time at work.  They took nearly twice as many sick days and on the days they d ...


Yah or people could just be paid based on their own merits.  I know you sort of mentioned that, but you shouldn't automatically be low-balled based on having a vagina and that is the whole point.  I think most women just want to at least start at the same amount as a guy, then if the guy does better, then sure, pay him more, but to start someone out based on stereotypes and preconceived notions is kind of sexist (or racist or whatever ist depending on who or why they are being pre-judged).

Personally I haven't really worked with other women, at least not in the same positions as myself so I won't be a judge on this.  However, I have worked with a tremendous amount of super lazy guys.  Even if they are around the workplace 12+ hours a day it certainly doesn't mean they are working.  Sorry but standing around the break room snacking, sitting in someone's office chatting about transformers, having nerf gun fights, endlessly browsing reddit, creating memes in photoshop, watching youtube videos, doing your dailies in wow, etc. is not working.  Of course I don't believe that's all men, but I've worked with plenty who exhibit this type of behavior on a daily basis and no their workload is not good.  I know it's not good because I've either been the bug tracker, tracked statistics, or had to regularly review submissions.  (Yes there are variables to this in terms of priority of bugs or quality of submission but I'm factoring that in).  Applying your logic I should pay all men less because of this and well that's silly.

The only guys I give a pass to are the ones who can get a lot done yet still goof off, that's perfectly acceptable to me.  It's the low/poor performers who also goof off where it becomes an issue for me.

Granted I'm a woman in an industry largely dominated by men, so my view is a little skewed as I have no basis of comparison other than myself and I generally kick people's asses in terms of quantity (and generally quality) of work done.
 
2013-07-17 12:00:00 AM  

PillsHere: However, I have worked with a tremendous amount of super lazy guys. Even if they are around the workplace 12+ hours a day it certainly doesn't mean they are working. Sorry but standing around the break room snacking, sitting in someone's office chatting about transformers, having nerf gun fights, endlessly browsing reddit, creating memes in photoshop, watching youtube videos, doing your dailies in wow, etc. is not working.


I'm guessing IT?

sslimgs.xkcd.com


PillsHere: Granted I'm a woman in an industry largely dominated by men, so my view is a little skewed as I have no basis of comparison other than myself and I generally kick people's asses in terms of quantity (and generally quality) of work done.


It seems you have the bar set too high.  Take your average male coworker, and the job he does, the amount of effort he puts in.  That's the bar.

Would you say that most women are capable of doing that job, some women are equally capable of doing that, or few women are equally capable of doing that?
 
2013-07-17 12:29:03 AM  
Norway put a quota system in place for boards, mandating a minimum representation of 40% for women.

10 years later, and its 36%, not far off.

however, women only hold 20% of senior executive positions in the country.
 
2013-07-17 01:19:04 AM  
The only way you'll have parity of men/women in all professions is if you force people out who want to be in them, and force people into them who aren't interested. Being prevented from doing what you actually want is not "equality" and it certainly isn't freedom.


c.f. "the Norwegan gender paradox"  (basically, the greater freedom people have to chose their life path, the more closely their choices mirror "stereotypes" of male/female work preferences)
 
2013-07-17 01:21:00 AM  

sendtodave:
Would you say that most women are capable of doing that job, some women are equally capable of doing that, or few women are equally capable of doing that?


Some women are capable of doing a better job.

But some aren't. For example the author, who wrote this: "whether the 27-member EU Council, the European Union's legislative body, turns the idea into law this fall remains to be seen. should not be allowed to cover EU politics.
 
2013-07-17 01:51:54 AM  

pseudowho: The only way you'll have parity of men/women in all professions is if you force people out who want to be in them, and force people into them who aren'interested. Being prevented from doing what you actually want is not "equality" and it certainly isn't freedom.


Sure, but the debate is about corporate boardrooms, not "all professions".
Women tend to be better educated, but boardrooms are still to some extent old boys clubs. If women with more qualifications are passed over for consideration as board members for the benefit of rewarding good old buddies but to the detriment of corporate management, perhaps legislation to encourage change is worth considering.
 
2013-07-17 04:12:04 AM  

Gergesa: ZAZ: 1. Get a sex change operation.

2. Become the quota female on all the corporate boards.

3. Profit.

Why do you need the sex change operation?  Couldn't someone just claim they are pre-op?


Damnit, why didn't I read your post earlier??? I.. I... I've made a horrible mistake.

/cries
 
2013-07-17 06:49:02 AM  

Dansker: Sure, but the debate is about corporate boardrooms, not "all professions".
Women tend to be better educated, but boardrooms are still to some extent old boys clubs. If women with more qualifications are passed over for consideration as board members for the benefit of rewarding good old buddies but to the detriment of corporate management, perhaps legislation to encourage change is worth considering.


The article is not just about the boardroom, it's about trying to get at least equal numbers of women and men in all (desirable) professions. They're just trying to do it in a top-down fashion by trying to make it happen in the board room by enforcing quotas.

Third paragraph: "push for mandatory corporate board quotas for women - which proponents hope will trickle down and improve gender equality throughout workplaces".

Regardless of the main focus of the article, the larger debate has always been about "gender equality" in the workplace, but it's always defined strictly in terms of ratios of women to men, which doesn't make much sense.
 
2013-07-17 01:17:30 PM  

poot_rootbeer: Fark_Guy_Rob: They took nearly twice as many sick days and on the days they did show up, they worked less hours!'

At least they stayed home when their pussies hurt.

Your model of quantifying how much a person contributes to the workplace based on how many hours they are present at their desks is deeply flawed.

/But then, lots of real-world managers go by that too, so.


I agree - 1,000% that time spent is a horrible measure of performance.  It's just really difficult to objectively quantify productivity or value in a workplace, particularly when different people are performing unrelated jobs.

That's why I started off by noticing, in a general way, that they seemed far behind the guys.  They asked more questions - which isn't inherently bad - but they asked more *stupid* questions.  They seemed to complete tasks slower too....but they also seemed to generally 'care less' about their performance.

But when I mentioned those things - everyone called me sexist.

Those would be better measures of their on-the-job performance....assuming my own subjective observations were correct.  But since nobody would believe me, I tried to find one of the only objective measures I could reliably obtain.  It just happened that it also supported my subjective measures, so it stuck out in my head.

The best measure, in a free market, would be pay.  Top performers should get paid more....but many people would argue we don't have a free-market.

Either way, it's no skin off my back.  Since I'm married, I feel like any of the gender crap is a zero-sum game.  Passing a law that encourages women's financial well-being over than of men, means my wife has a slightly better chance of getting a better job; and I have a slightly lower.  So I don't even feel a loyalty to my gender.  It's just, my personal subjective and objective experiences, along with a good number of studies, along with the actual state of things (honestly, as heartless as Walmart is - nobody thinks they'd rather save 30% on salaries and just hire all women?) - suggest we don't need a law to dictate women should get preferential treatment, in order to meet some arbitrarily defined quotas.
 
2013-07-17 01:24:54 PM  

PillsHere: Fark_Guy_Rob: I remember my very first internship....it was the summer after my freshman year of college, at a very large insurance company (think Allstate/State Farm).  I was part of a fairly large group of 24 interns...some guys, some girls.  We all were assigned to different parts of the company, different roles and all that jazz - but we'd do 'team building' crap with each other, grab lunch together, goof off in the game room.  This was my first 'real world' job that wasn't McDonalds.....and I felt really bad for noticing it but

I felt like the girls were pretty crappy, in general, compared to the guys.  At one point, I told a group of my friends that, 'Man, it sounds really bad - but all the girl interns are retarded and lazy!' - and they all called me sexist.  The thing is, I don't consider myself sexist.  They weren't bad BECAUSE they were girls - they were bad because they didn't know what they were doing and didn't seem to interested in trying.  But my friends did not believe me.

I wanted to find an objective way to make my point.  Our systems were such that, each morning we would log in to our workstations and we were connected via a 'chat' program - like 'Facebook Chat' - only this was a while ago, think 'ICQ' or AIM.  The app had some basic logging features and, because I had all of the interns in my buddy list, I was able to write a small app to parse the log file.  I could see when they became active (showed up to work), because deactive (went home), and what days they never touched their computers.

For the ~10 weeks I collected data, the guys averaged 39.something hours per week and the girls averaged 35.  That was excluding absentee days.  Each girl averaged roughly, two sick days, while each guy averaged roughly one sick day.

When I told my friends, 'Look!  I was right!  *These* girls (maybe not all girls, but THESE girls) were working significantly less than the guys - in terms of time at work.  They took nearly twice as many sick days and on t ...


I agree 100%  - Pay absolutely should be based on merit.

My problem is the assumption that, if pay were based on merit - the average pay for men would equal the average pay for women.  Particularly given a near-endless list of differences between the sexes.

For example - women greatly outperform men in college.  And this isn't even a new thing; it started back in 1978.  It's been shifting further and further in favor of women.  But nobody is pointing to a class ceiling in education.  Nobody, at least, not the general consensus of society feels that Universities are sexist and professors are sexist, and that there is a 'secret' after-hours hair-saloon where all the academic knowledge is freely transferred.  It's just....women do better at college.

If you reversed the genders and said the above about men - that MEN do 'better' at college than WOMEN - you'd be a sexist pig.  You can't say that.  You can't even suggest that the same things that people good students make them bad candidates for the boardroom - because THAT IS SEXIST.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report