Companies 'may be forced to appoint women to boards'

thebigbiffo

Sky News are reporting that laws may be created in the UK which will 'force' a company to appoint women to their boards.

Cant find the Sky story but it probably related to this EU initiative:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20322317

How can this be justifiable? This essentially means that if you do not have 40% of your board female, you MUST hire a woman regardless of whether you have a male candidate more qualified.

This is where the feminist movement has gone WAY too far. Now, it's justifiable to discriminate against men and nobody bats an eyelid.

I agree with some kind of oversight to ensure there is no sexism taking place in choosing a candidate - but actively forcing a company to hire a woman?? That's just sick in my opinion.

Where does it end? Will there be a physically handicapped quota in a few years? How about a racial quota? Maybe break it down to regional representation?

I'm actually shocked that this kind of law is being seriously considered. It's nothing short of disgraceful.

Seachmall

"Who needs qualifications when you have boobs?!"

"Women, don't strive too hard, we'll give you a lift!"


I'm sure there are genuine reasons for these things but the above is how I can't help but interpret it as.

And it's pretty condescending.

jaffacakesyum

I don't agree with gender quotas at all but I do think it's a shame there's little else you can do to get rid of the "old boys club" which certainly still exists in businesses today. What's stopping an employer picking a man over a better qualified woman? Nothing really. Sure it's "discriminatory" in law but you can't prove she's not getting the job because of her gender.

Still, I don't think gender quotas are the solution.

I wonder would men support gender quotas for things like primary school teaching?

Nodin

Odd, one of the main requirements to get on to any board I've ever dealt with seems to have been to be a dickhead.

DonkeyStyle \o/

"if candidates are found to be equally qualified, then preference should be given to women"

It's not the other candidate's fault he was born a man. Nice equality there.

Duggy747

How liberating for women, to be patronisingly given a position because you're a woman rather than your skills and have others doubt your capabilities because of so.

"Ah yeah, she only got that job because she's woman / probably sucked someone off!"

NothingMan

Why do women have boobs?

So you have something to look at when you're talking to 'em...... *honk*

livinsane

My ex used to say that if he ever ran a company, he would hire a man over a woman everytime so he wouldn't have to deal with maternity leave.

HondaSami

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Sky News are reporting that laws may be created in the UK which will 'force' a company to appoint women to their boards.

Cant find the Sky story but it probably related to this EU initiative:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20322317

How can this be justifiable? This essentially means that if you do not have 40% of your board female, you MUST hire a woman regardless of whether you have a male candidate more qualified.

This is where the feminist movement has gone WAY too far. Now, it's justifiable to discriminate against men and nobody bats an eyelid.

I agree with some kind of oversight to ensure there is no sexism taking place in choosing a candidate - but actively forcing a company to hire a woman?? That's just sick in my opinion.

Where does it end? Will there be a physically handicapped quota in a few years? How about a racial quota? Maybe break it down to regional representation?

I'm actually shocked that this kind of law is being seriously considered. It's nothing short of disgraceful.

Is this what they are proposing really? regardless of qualifications or who is the best candidate you have to hire a woman ?

VinLieger

You gotta love feminists, "We dont need the help of men we are equal in every aspect" while simultaneously shouting "This is too hard we need a law that puts us first"

awec

This is blatant sexism, along with all quota laws.

But it's the ok type of sexism, because it discriminates against men.

HondaSami wrote: »

Is this what they are proposing really? regardless of qualifications or who is the best candidate you have to hire a woman ?

This already happens.

Women can be hired to help boost the gender quota at a company, they may not be the best candidate.

jaffacakesyum

VinLieger wrote: »

You gotta love feminists, "We dont need the help of men we are equal in every aspect" while simultaneously shouting "This is too hard we need a law that puts us first"

Yes because all feminists agree with gender quota laws?? :rolleyes:

Zulu

Didn't you get Ivana Baciks memo? Sexism is bad, but it's ok to be sexist in order to get rid of sexism. You see if you want to stop sexism, you need to introduce even more sexism.

HondaSami

awec wrote: »

This already happens.

Women can be hired to help boost the gender quota at a company, they may not be the best candidate.

I would find this disgraceful and an insult to men and women if it's true, not saying it's not btw.
The best candidate should get the job for their skills not because they have boobs.

awec

HondaSami wrote: »

I would find this disgraceful and an insult to men and women if it's true, not saying it's not btw.
The best candidate should get the job for their skills not because they have boobs.

I agree.

Gender quota laws dictate otherwise.

Yeah, blame ALL the feminists, the feminist hive mind agrees unanimously

Zulu

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Yes because all feminists agree with gender quota laws?? :rolleyes:

Of course they probably don't, yet we don't see any of the usual shills out denouncing them.
You also can't ignore that the louder feminist voice supports them, so he/we can't be blamed for making such comments.

It would probably be more accurate to say "feminism" as opposed to "feminists", but we all know what was meant.

Nodin

HondaSami wrote: »

I would find this disgraceful and an insult to men and women if it's true, not saying it's not btw.
The best candidate should get the job for their skills not because they have boobs.

Or being related to the boss. Or riding the boss.

Or being related to one boss and riding the main boss.

Nodin

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, blame ALL the feminists, the feminist hive mind agrees unanimously

This is true. I poked one with a stick once and the other 5 jumped as well.

Peregrine

I wonder how many women would love to know that the only reason they were suddenly put into a board was to fill a quota, not because they earned it.

Gender quotas are government induced sexism

jaffacakesyum

Zulu wrote: »

Of course they probably don't, yet we don't see any of the usual shills out denouncing them.
You also can't ignore that the louder feminist voice supports them, so he/we can't be blamed for making such comments.

I can and I will blame him/you. I'm sick of people generalising all feminists to be x y and z. It wouldn't be allowed on here if you were generalising any other group so why is it allowed when it's feminists? Who cares if it's a louder voice. There's a loud voice of men who are anti-Irish women on boards.ie but that doesn't mean I can go around saying all men on boards are anti-Irish women. It's nonsense. I hate this "oh well they shout the loudest so they must represent all feminists".

awec

I don't understand how feminist groups are not up in arms about this. It is patronising and demeaning to women and it's goal is to see women treated differently to men, is that not what these groups are out to stop?

Clearly not all feminists are for these quotas, but has any group ever spoken out against them in any meaningful way?

NothingMan

HondaSami wrote: »

The best candidate should get the job for their skills not because they have boobs.

Excellent. I'm going to become a lingerie model now. All these years my lack of boobs and my downstairs brain sticking outside the thong held me back, but now...:P

Zulu

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Gender quotas are government induced sexism

I dunno, would the "government" have ever done anything about them if they weren't being pushed by certain lobby groups? I doubt it. Government love the status-quo.
Gender quotas are feminist* induced sexism.


*terms & conditions apply.

HondaSami

Nodin wrote: »

Or being related to the boss. Or riding the boss.

Or being related to one boss and riding the main boss.

Yes but a man could be riding his boss as well, same advantage really.

Nodin

HondaSami wrote: »

Yes but a man could be riding his boss as well, same advantage really.

I was not gender specific.....

VinLieger

awec wrote: »

I don't understand how feminist groups are not up in arms about this. It is patronising and demeaning to women and it's goal is to see women treated differently to men, is that not what these groups are out to stop?

Clearly not all feminists are for these quotas, but has any group ever spoken out against them in any meaningful way?

Exactly, i may have been a bit generalising in my previous post of course all feminists dont think alike and this is probably a case of the loudest ones getting their way but im yet to hear one feminist group come out in public opposition to these kind of gender quota proposals.

Dante

If by 'board' they mean ironing-board, I'd be all for this.

Zulu

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I can and I will blame him/you. I'm sick of people generalising all feminists to be x y and z.

So we simply can't ever discuss what the major thrusts of a particular movement are simply because "not every member" thinks the same? Well thats a convienient "get out" clause. :rolleyes:

It wouldn't be allowed on here if you were generalising any other group

Yes it would, and it does. When we discuss a political movement, when we discuss a social movement it always happens. It would appear that it's only to be discouraged when it asks awkward questions of feminism. Why is that?

Who cares if it's a louder voice.

Anyone forced to listen.

If you are a member of a group, and you find that you are being misrepresented - do something about it. Show us all where feminist lobby groups are denouncing gender quotas...

SeventySix

I don't agree with quotas at all but it is a fallacy to say that women and men are equal in job interviews.

Women are asked about maternity leave still in interviews, despite the fact that it is illegal. I know from my friends, most working in male dominated companies, that many men still think women with kids cant commit to their jobs as fully as men can.

And before the cries of 'why dont men get paternity leave??' Given that less than 40% of most company boards are women, its mens fault that men dont have paternity leave so ask your brothers.

syklops

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Yes because all feminists agree with gender quota laws?? :rolleyes:

bluewolf wrote:

Yeah, blame ALL the feminists, the feminist hive mind agrees unanimously

The word feminist was mentioned 3 times before Jaffacakesyum commented. Not once was the word ALL placed in front of it, and yet you still get outraged. :rolleyes:

hardCopy

livinsane wrote: »

My ex used to say that if he ever ran a company, he would hire a man over a woman everytime so he wouldn't have to deal with maternity leave.

It's a pretty common attitude and makes a lot of sense from a business point of view.

It's one of the main reasons parental leave should be split between both parents.

Three Seasons

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I can and I will blame him/you. I'm sick of people generalising all feminists to be x y and z. It wouldn't be allowed on here if you were generalising any other group so why is it allowed when it's feminists? Who cares if it's a louder voice. There's a loud voice of men who are anti-Irish women on boards.ie but that doesn't mean I can go around saying all men on boards are anti-Irish women. It's nonsense. I hate this "oh well they shout the loudest so they must represent all feminists".

Well I haven't heard any feminist groups denouncing it as sexist and discriminatory. It tells you for the most part feminists don't really care about gender equality, merely doing whatever is best for women interests even if that means being sexist in doing so. It's hard to respect such a group. Of course not every single self identified feminist is like this. It would appear the majority are though.

humanji

Folks, just to try and nip this in the bud, this is a thread relating to sexism, not a thread to make sexist jokes.

Dravokivich

I wonder if the UN Declaration of Human Rights has any actual hold within member states:

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Gender Quotas, from what I see, go against it. Any kind of nominal quotas do actually.

HondaSami

SeventySix wrote: »

I don't agree with quotas at all but it is a fallacy to say that women and men are equal in job interviews.

Women are asked about maternity leave still in interviews, despite the fact that it is illegal. I know from my friends, most working in male dominated companies, that many men still think women with kids cant commit to their jobs as fully as men can.

I know several women who use the kid card all the time and it's annoying, some women make it harder for other women to be taken seriously.

Lady Chuckles

Three Seasons wrote: »

Well I haven't heard any feminist groups denouncing it as sexist and discriminatory. It tells you for the most part feminists don't really care about gender equality, merely doing whatever is best for women interests even if that means being sexist in doing so. It's hard to respect such a group. Of course not every single self identified feminist is like this. It would appear the majority are though.

That is an awful lot of baloney! Even in the linked article there are quotes from women not liking this one bit. Do some googling as well and you'll find that the debate is there and that there are feminists strongly against quotas - and thinking it's discriminatory.

dark crystal

livinsane wrote: »

My ex used to say that if he ever ran a company, he would hire a man over a woman everytime so he wouldn't have to deal with maternity leave.

This here is most probably one of the biggest reasons this legislation is being proposed.

SeventySix

HondaSami wrote: »

I know several women who use the kid card all the time and it's annoying, some women make it harder for other women to be taken seriously.

I know serveral men that use the kid card regularly, but somehow they aren't making it hard for either themselves or other men to be taken seriously.

dark crystal

HondaSami wrote: »

I know several women who use the kid card all the time and it's annoying, some women make it harder for other women to be taken seriously.

What's the kid card?

VinLieger

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

That is an awful lot of baloney! Even in the linked article there are quotes from women not liking this one bit. Do some googling as well and you'll find that the debate is there and that there are feminists strongly against quotas - and thinking it's discriminatory.

Not one person from the article who disagrees with the proposal is doing so because they find it discriminatory, they all think it doesnt go far enough, maybe you should read the article again

SeventySix

dark crystal wrote: »

What's the kid card?

"I have to leave on time to pick up the baby.", "I need to work from home so I can be there for the kids." etc

dark crystal

SeventySix wrote: »

"I have to leave on time to pick up the baby.", "I need to work from home so I can be there for the kids." etc

Fact is, it's more often than not left up to the women to carry out these familial duties. I wonder how many men are accused of playing the kid card and making it harder for other men to be taken seriously..?

HondaSami

SeventySix wrote: »

I know serveral men that use the kid card regularly, but somehow they aren't making it hard for either themselves or other men to be taken seriously.

I can honestly say i have never seen a man use it.

dark crystal wrote: »

What's the kid card?

School meetings, starting late, finishing early, using the kid as an excuse to get out of work.

Three Seasons

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

That is an awful lot of baloney! Even in the linked article there are quotes from women not liking this one bit. Do some googling as well and you'll find that the debate is there and that there are feminists strongly against quotas - and thinking it's discriminatory.

I would expect plenty of women to be against this as most women aren't feminists IMO.

I haven't heard much from feminists groups being outraged agains such quotas.

thebigbiffo

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, blame ALL the feminists, the feminist hive mind agrees unanimously

Sorry but I will in fact blame all feminists – I’ve never met a feminist who doesn’t blame all men for their woes – so welcome to the club. I’m for EQUALITY, feminism

I’ve always had a problem with the maternity leave issue, because I do in fact believe it’s a very pertinent point when hiring staff. If I’m a struggling SME who needs someone in admin, why can I not ask a recently married 20 something what her intentions are as regards family? If I’m going to lose that staff member a matter of months after hiring them and pay for their leave and other benefits, it has the ability to break my company and cause major upset as I hire cover etc.

It’s not my bloody fault I can’t get pregnant! That’s not sexism, it’s human nature!

dark crystal

HondaSami wrote: »

I can honestly say i have never seen a man use it.

Have a think about why you haven't seen that.

Who do you think is picking up the men's kids after school, taking them to the doctor and the dentist, attending the parent teacher meeting, staying home when their child is sick etc.?

Lady Chuckles

VinLieger wrote: »

Not one person from the article who disagrees with the proposal is doing so because they find it discriminatory, they all think it doesnt go far enough, maybe you should read the article again

I said google it!
It seemed to me you don't think the anti-quota debate is there. I'm telling you it's there. Google it.

SeventySix

HondaSami wrote: »

I can honestly say i have never seen a man use it.



School meetings, starting late, finishing early, using the kid as an excuse to get out of work.

Perhaps its the industry you are in. In my company (IT) there are lots of men that are doing the creche run and having to leave on time. Or drop kids to school so they are in late. Some working from home a day or two a week to be there when older kids get home. Its not seen as anything but normal and the company facilitates it.
In your workplace are there no men with children or if some do have kids are the childs mothers doing 100% of the childcare?

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

.....

It’s not my bloody fault I can’t get pregnant!

Now be honest, how much time have ye put into it....I'm sure if ye put the effort in, you'd be firing out little biffos like the jaysus.

Three Seasons

dark crystal wrote: »

Have a think about why you haven't seen that.

Who do you think is picking up the men's kids after school, taking them to the doctor and the dentist, attending the parent teacher meeting, staying home when their child is sick etc.?

That's a personal issue to be decided between parents as to who takes care of those duties.