German leader singles out demographic for arbitrary punishment/solution

The Diabolical Monocle

But its cool, it only discriminates against men.

And they're all the same after all, one homogeneous group acting as a collective, each one responsible for the actions of the collective.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11255970/German-boardrooms-to-introduce-female-quotas.html



Germany's largest companies will get more women in the boardroom whether they like it or not, after Angela (sausage slicer) Merkel's government agreed to impose a controversial new quota system.
Under the proposed law, which will apply from 2016, large, publicly listed companies will have to ensure that at least 30 per cent of seats on their boards are filled by women.
"We can't afford to do without the skills of women," Mrs Merkel said, hailing the new measure in the Bundestag. Germany is the latest in a series of European countries to introduce similar quotas for women in the boardroom, after Italy, Norway and the Netherlands.
But German business leaders united in criticism of the new law, and even suggested it might be unconstitutional, while there were angry exchanges between MPs as it exposed divisions within Mrs Merkel's ruling coalition.
Currently, fewer than 20 per cent of boardroom positions in Germany are occupied by women, according to Deutsche Welle. The new quota will apply to more than 100 of Germany's largest companies. Those that fail to meet it will be forced to keep some seats on their boards empty and face further, as yet undetermined, sanctions. Another 3,500 medium-sized firms will have to publish gender equality targets from 2016...

Fr_Dougal

Interesting...

wildefalcon

About time.

The Diabolical Monocle

All 'Wurst' jokes verbotten after 20:45.

nokia69

something about the evil patriarchy

Karl Stein

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Under the proposed law, which will apply from 2016, large, publicly listed companies will have to ensure that at least 30 per cent of seats on their boards are filled by women.

Publicly listed companies.

If the shareholders don't like it they can sell their shares can't they?

Drakares

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Angela (sausage slicer) Merkel

Liked your post just because of this.

nokia69

Karl Stein wrote: »

Publicly listed companies.

If the shareholders don't like it they can sell their shares can't they?

what difference does that make

if it was government jobs quotas then you would say the government has to help the wimmin

shruikan2553

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

"We can't afford to do without the skills of women,"

Then they should be able to be on these boards without quotas.

lazybones32

Sounds like Germany is coercing women into positions and forcing the companies to accept candidates who mightn't be the most qualified for the position. German Democracy is still a riddle to me.

Lower the bar for women...because they're as good as/better than men and shouldn't need to prove it?

bodice ripper

lols at posters thinking a company board is a meritocracy...

DeadHand

Demeaning to women, no?

"Ye clearly can't make it on your own, girls, here are some laws to help you out"

How will the women who made it onto boards already on their own steam feel about this? Insulted and frustrated, I'd imagine.

What if a male candidate loses out to an obviously inferior female candidate to satisfy the quota? Why should he be held back for making the terrible career choice of being born with a penis?

Women have all the educational opportunities men have now, more if anything. Women are clearly as bright (have always been) and, nowadays, are just as confident as men. The balance these laws are attempting to force unfairly would have occured naturally, given time.

And I hate having to use clumsy language like "women are x, men are y" but trying to deal with wretched gender politics like this forces me to.

As it is, gender quotas in any area are undemocratic and unmeritocratic. They serve only to insult women and embitter men.

More divisive nonsense.

pickarooney

Is it a good idea to reduce the number of board members a company has? Who benefits or misses out in that scenario?

Stinicker

Jobs for the boys girls.

Iranoutofideas

What about the Trans community. How many board seats do they get?

Eramen

Yup, Angela Merkel is definitely a sausage slicer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-dOGsjRjh8

Karl Stein

nokia69 wrote: »

what difference does that make

Afaia a publicly listed company is what's also known as a corporation. Corporations are opt in legal entities that are creations of the state - they enjoy state upheld benefits such as limited liability.

If the state sees fit to create regulations for companies/corporations to abide by then that's the state's prerogative. If businesses don't like it then don't become a PLC/Corporation. If shareholders don't like then sell the shares.

if it was government jobs quotas then you would say the government has to help the wimmin

What?

hfallada

Apparently its pissing off a lot of women, who through hard work and skill made it to the top of companies. But know they will just been seen as token measure in a company. The Germans actually call them "quotatildas", as in women only there to fill a quota.

I dont understand how women still believe that the only barrier to them being at a top of a company is their gender. When there is plenty of LGBT individuals in senior roles in most US companies(Although the US is still quiet intolerant of LGBT people and roughly half of US states can legally discrimination against hiring workers if they are gay). But the CEO of the Apple is Gay, the highest paid female of a US company was actually born a man. There is far greater reasons than just gender, why there is a lack of women in most companies.

Birneybau

Nice use of the old 'thread title trick' (TTT) ; P

nokia69

Karl Stein wrote: »

Afaia a publicly listed company is what's also known as a corporation. Corporations are opt in legal entities that are creations of the state - they enjoy state upheld benefits such as limited liability.

If the state sees fit to create regulations for companies/corporations to abide by then that's the state's prerogative. If businesses don't like it then don't become a PLC/Corporation. If shareholders don't like then sell the shares.



What?

yes the state can make the laws that it wants, but that doesn't make it right

I don't believe in quotas, if women are not good enough to get onto the boards then hard luck, try harder girls

Donkey Oaty

If German companies don't like this, they can register their HQs outside of Germany.

This will have the advantage of lower corporation taxes and access to cheaper prostitutes at the AGM.

The_Valeyard

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

If German companies don't like this, they can register their HQs outside of Germany.

This will have the advantage of lower corporation taxes and access to cheaper prostitutes at the AGM.

If only they knew of a country that could help them with the lower corporation taxes!

Not sure about the prostitutes.

Littlekittylou

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

But its cool, it only discriminates against men.

And they're all the same after all, one homogeneous group acting as a collective, each one responsible for the actions of the collective.






Germany's largest companies will get more women in the boardroom whether they like it or not, after Angela (sausage slicer) Merkel's government agreed to impose a controversial new quota system.
Under the proposed law, which will apply from 2016, large, publicly listed companies will have to ensure that at least 30 per cent of seats on their boards are filled by women.
"We can't afford to do without the skills of women," Mrs Merkel said, hailing the new measure in the Bundestag. Germany is the latest in a series of European countries to introduce similar quotas for women in the boardroom, after Italy, Norway and the Netherlands.
But German business leaders united in criticism of the new law, and even suggested it might be unconstitutional, while there were angry exchanges between MPs as it exposed divisions within Mrs Merkel's ruling coalition.
Currently, fewer than 20 per cent of boardroom positions in Germany are occupied by women, according to Deutsche Welle. The new quota will apply to more than 100 of Germany's largest companies. Those that fail to meet it will be forced to keep some seats on their boards empty and face further, as yet undetermined, sanctions. Another 3,500 medium-sized firms will have to publish gender equality targets from 2016...

This is a totally misleading post and you know it.

Littlekittylou

nokia69 wrote: »

yes the state can make the laws that it wants, but that doesn't make it right

I don't believe in quotas, if women are not good enough to get onto the boards then hard luck, try harder girls

In one sentence you actively use the term 'girls' pejoratively and at the same time say that quotas are not needed. It is exactly that type of attitude and denigration taken to an extreme in business that makes quotas necessary.

You just proved my point.

Sound of Silence

Littlekittylou wrote: »

In one sentence you actively use the term 'girls' pejoratively and at the same time say that quotas are not needed. It is exactly that type of attitude and denigration taken to an extreme in business that makes quotas necessary.

You just proved my point.

That's quite the stretch.

Littlekittylou

Sound of Silence wrote: »

That's quite the stretch.

7-inch stretch?

The Diabolical Monocle

Littlekittylou wrote: »

This is a totally misleading post and you know it.

Do I ?

..... well if you say so it must be true.

BTW, In what way do I know it to be misleading? Just so I know.

Littlekittylou

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

..... well if you say so it must be true.

:-)

You said so yourself. If you know it's true then it must be misleading.

RDM_83 again

bodice ripper wrote: »

lols at posters thinking a company board is a meritocracy...

True enough, but this measure does nothing to tackle that issue at all. If we're actually concerned about making corporations more accountable and socially responsible just increasing the number of women members is pretty pointless.
What skills does a women have that a man can't have? (the same applies in reverse too obviously)

Boskowski

For those about 100 listed companies affected vacancies on the board must be filled by women until the 30% quota is reached.

The Diabolical Monocle

Littlekittylou wrote: »

:-)

You said so yourself. If you know it's true then it must be misleading.

But do I know in what way its misleading ?

Slot Machine

It's not about women "not being good enough", it's about a culture that refuses to acknowledge the idea that a women could be good enough.

nokia69 wrote: »

the wimmin

Ugh.

Littlekittylou

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

But do I know in what way its misleading ?

I think it might be in your brain. :-)


It's big in there!

EazyD

Slot Machine wrote: »

It's not about women "not being good enough", it's about a culture that refuses to acknowledge the idea that a women could be good enough.



Ugh.

It's fairly simple actually. Women have babies, often when that happens the career is put on hold and some employers are wary of such. Doesn't make it right I know but that's the thinking behind it.

Wibbs

Why aren't these same liberal bubble dwellers not arguing for more women in coal mining, deep sea diving, steel and metal workers, construction workers, trawler fishing types, bin collectors, truck drivers, farmers, frontline military, etc? It's nearly always what are seen as the "cushy" low risk higher return jobs they look for quotas in.

Never mind that these company leader jobs are the very top of the tree elite positions. The vast majority of men never get close to the same boardrooms either. Then again the so called "patriarchy" that many of your nitwits rail against is a false comparison to a tiny elite, not how the vast majority of people, men and women, live their lives and careers.

Gender quotas stand to hurt equality if you ask me. Simply put, if a man and woman are going for a particular position that has a gender quota that will be met by hiring the woman, then the man will never get the job even if he's more qualified or suited to the job. Gender quotas are complete bóllocksology.

DeadHand

Slot Machine wrote: »

It's not about women "not being good enough", it's about a culture that refuses to acknowledge the idea that a women could be good enough.

Then why are there several women who have earned these positions already?

Surely if the culture refused to "acknowledge the idea" that women could be good enough there would be none?

Littlekittylou

Wibbs wrote: »

Why aren't these same liberal bubble dwellers not arguing for more women in coal mining, deep sea diving, steel and metal workers, construction workers, trawler fishing types, bin collectors, truck drivers, farmers, frontline military, etc?

They do.

Why do men in those industries moan about women trying to break into them?

I know a female who is in rigging and construction and has been subjected to the most extreme sexual harassment.

You always hear people giving out about the idea of women in frontline military.

Wibbs

Littlekittylou wrote: »

They do.

Not nearly as much as for the cushier numbers.

Why do men in those industries moan about women trying to break into them?

I know a female who is in rigging and construction and has been subjected to the most extreme sexual harassment.

And many a man in sthe same industries will tell you of the near endless ribbing as a newbie/apprentice sent out to source air hooks and the like.

You always hear people giving out about the idea of women in frontline military.

Mainly because it boils down to simple biology and physics. The more technology based military stuff would be no barrier to women(or less robust men), but in actual frontline combat the sheer physicality of some men simply makes them more effective. EG I'd be a physically weak man by most measures and whlle there would be women out there that would have my measure when it got down to the dirty business of hand to hand, eyeball to eyeball wounding and killing they would be in the minority. If it came down to it, weak as I am, I'd "take out" the majority of women in such a situation. Never mind that aspect, consider an engagement where one of your number is hit and wounded and you have to get them away from danger, I'd be in real trouble trying to lift and move an average 12 or 13 stone guy and more women than men would be in similar trouble. In short a platoon or men against a platoon of women, only a fool would bet on the latter except for a rare outlier.

OK let's talk quotas. Why are there not more quotas in play for male teachers? Or health workers? Hell, why not more male biased quotas for higher education where men are dropping behind. EG In Canada the ratio of college goers is near 2 to 1 in favour of women.

Laura Palmer

Wibbs wrote: »

And many a man in sthe same industries will tell you of the near endless ribbing as a newbie/apprentice sent out to source air hooks and the like.

Ah here. I agree with everything else you say but you cannot compare the above to sexual harassment IMO.

DeadHand

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Ah here. I agree with everything else you say but you cannot compare the above to sexual harassment IMO.

You're right there but most male apprentices will be able to tell you about ferocious slagging from the older fellas regarding their sexual history, prowess and preferences as well as their looks, body type and physical features.

I went through it myself.

Didn't bother me but I suppose if I was sensitive or had an appetite for victimhood I could have called it sexual harassment.

Wibbs

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Ah here. I agree with everything else you say but you cannot compare the above to sexual harassment IMO.

Why not? Yes some of that kinda shíte can be sexual harassment, but some of it may also be "take the piss outa the newbie and aim for the obvious bits", IE their gender. I've also seen examples of women in mostly male dominated industries been given an easier time of it because of their gender.


For me personally it boils down to this; I don't give a tupenny fcuk about your race, creed, gender or sexuality, can you do the job or not? Full stop. Period for our American viewers. End of.

Littlekittylou

Wibbs wrote: »

Not nearly as much as for the cushier numbers.

And many a man in sthe same industries will tell you of the near endless ribbing as a newbie/apprentice sent out to source air hooks and the like.

Mainly because it boils down to simple biology and physics. The more technology based military stuff would be no barrier to women(or less robust men), but in actual frontline combat the sheer physicality of some men simply makes them more effective. EG I'd be a physically weak man by most measures and whlle there would be women out there that would have my measure when it got down to the dirty business of hand to hand, eyeball to eyeball wounding and killing they would be in the minority. If it came down to it, weak as I am, I'd "take out" the majority of women in such a situation. Never mind that aspect, consider an engagement where one of your number is hit and wounded and you have to get them away from danger, I'd be in real trouble trying to lift and move an average 12 or 13 stone guy and more women than men would be in similar trouble. In short a platoon or men against a platoon of women, only a fool would bet on the latter except for a rare outlier.

OK let's talk quotas. Why are there not more quotas in play for male teachers? Or health workers? Hell, why not more male biased quotas for higher education where men are dropping behind. EG In Canada the ratio of college goers is near 2 to 1 in favour of women.

What she went through ended up going to court and criminal charges were brought and there were convictions. There was a group mentality involved and a pervading culture in the industry.

It was nothing like what you describe above.

Even though she was vindicated when she went back she was subjected to bullying for some time after.

She got ahead because she is very good at what she does. She now works all over the world doing it. They are still stuck in Dublin. But she should never have had to go through that.

Laura Palmer

Wibbs wrote: »

Why not? Yes some of that kinda shíte can be sexual harassment, but some of it may also be "take the piss outa the newbie and aim for the obvious bits", IE their gender.

Ok well when I think of sexual harassment, I only think of the really horrible stuff like groping and intimidating obscenities, and making the person feel comfortable if alone with them in a lift etc. I don't deem the messing stuff to be sexual harassment, so my own definition of same is not the mild bawdy innuendo, but actual harassment.
It's rare but it happens.

What DeadHand describes is, in my opinion, a lot more extreme than a bit of messing too.

Littlekittylou

DeadHand wrote: »

You're right there but most male apprentices will be able to tell you about ferocious slagging from the older fellas regarding their sexual history, prowess and preferences as well as their looks, body type and physical features.

I went through it myself.

Didn't bother me but I suppose if I was sensitive or had an appetite for victimhood I could have called it sexual harassment.

Maybe then through highlighting of the issue we can change it all ....for the greater good.

It sounds kind of pointless and pathetic on the part of those who do that. They are usually the first to turn around and claim victim hood when they are called up on and and asked to stop.

Oi what about my rights of expression etc?

Its a balance of allowing a certain amount of steam to be blown off in the work place and making sure it never gets out of hand.

Wibbs

Littlekittylou wrote: »

Its a balance of allowing a certain amount of steam to be blown off in the work place and making sure it never gets out of hand.

Depends on what you gauge as "out of hand". In nigh on every society that has ever existed from cave dwellers onward "maleness" and the transition from boy to man for a culture at the time was funneled through a process of exposure to and guidance from older men that weren't your father. The apprenticeship of many trades and professions has a very deep history. IMH it is one aspect that is lacking for many young men these days and again IMH it is a part of why so many younger men are finding it hard to navigate life as they move from their childhood - youth - adulthood. Urban gang culture is an extreme example of that and where it goes wrong. Where adrift boys on the cusp of being men end up looking to slightly older boys/men because of a lack of positive adult men as role models. A more tragic example is the scary suicide rates among young men, men who should have so much to live for.

Again IMH, women can raise themselves more easily and mothers alone can raise them more easily, but men need more. As well as their mothers(and fathers), they need the community of men and positive role models within that community. If you leave boys to fend for themselves without that community, or you try to raise them as "acceptable to women" men, you're on a hiding to nowhere and a very deep history will bear this out as a damn near fact for the majority.

I would see the positive "female" influence on men as a good thing and especially a way to tone down some of the excesses of the "pure" male mind(especially the adolescent male mind), but only when balanced with the "male" influence. These days the latter is left up to chance and the "female" perspective is too often given priority.

Jester252

Congratulation to Germany for reducing strong, smart and powerfully women to a vagina need to fill a seat.

Fr_Dougal

Jester252 wrote: »

Congratulation to Germany for reducing strong, smart and powerfully women to a vagina need to fill a seat.

I believe they're doiing the same thing here in Ireland with regards to Dail seats.