Yes, says the Norwegian government which has a law insisting that 40 per cent of company directors must be female. And this is isn’t just about equality – it argues that the economy will benefit as well.
Yes, says the leader of the opposition in the UK. David Cameroon has announced if he gets into power, then at least a third of his cabinet will be women. (At the moment, 6 of his 28-strong shadow cabinet are women).
We need to do something, says a leading female Japanese businesswoman. In an interview she has detailed the multiple problems that women in Japan have at work. Forget glass ceilings, there is ‘an iron ceiling – with a few holes in it’.
Meanwhile, there’s a conference in Brussels this week which wants to increase the role of women in conflict resolution (and make the world more stable in the process it claims). And the UN wants more to help women in the developing world to contribute more to the income of their families by providing micro-credit.
Would all these ambitions be helped if quotas were set and women received positive discrimination?
Is it time inequalities were rectified by legislation?
Would such positive discrimination help all of society?
Or should your country be a meritocracy where every job goes to the best person regardless of their sex?
RSS feed
BBC World Have Your Say 
As a woman I don’t believe in positive discrimination for women or for anyone. Discrimination of anykind is unjust and unacceptable. Women should make progress in life like everyone else on their own merits. I certainly wouldnt want to get any position simply because I was a woman. And why is it assumed that a man cant represnet the iinterests of women and vice versa? What a silly society we live in. Its the quality of the person that matters not their sex or gender.
Removing negative discrimination is of course a different matter and we shoudl do everything possible to see that dsicrimination does not take place.
There are weaker forms of positive discrimination , such as making educational opportunities easier for certain groups , that I don’t object to as strongly. but even there a great deal of care is needed because almost by definition when we postively discrminate for one group we are negatively discriminating against others.
Here is the problem, while you wish to be fair to all in the workplace, if you wish to hire only the best staff for your organisation, the better qualified, the better educated, the better able and they all happen to be male, what do you do? Do you hire only them and be seen to be biased and discriminating against women. Or do you hire lesser quality applicants simply because they are women and have your competitors instead benefit from employees that will enhance their bottom line? And are you being fair to someone who has perhaps struggled more than a female applicant, worked harder and gained more skill and experience simply to pass them over for being the wrong gender? Just because someone is born male does not necessarily mean that they have had a better deal in life. On the face of it it would seem equitable to enable a policy of positive discrimination, but ultimately someone will lose out unfairly simply because they are on another side of an arbitrarily defined line.
bottom line: in a capitalist system the best person for the job will get it, because the company needs to make the highest level of profits in order to satisfy its stock holders. there is absolutely no place for any government interference in the hiring practices of private businesses. thus there should never be any quotas, or positive discrimination, for any group, race or sex regarding jobs or hiring practices.
This is wrong on so many levels. I’ve also heard that some scandinavian countries have minimum quotas for female members of parliament. While it would be nice if people elected women, FORCING them to elect women is undemocratic. You should be able to vote for who you want. I get sick to my stomach when people say “there needs to be more females in parliament, or more minorities”. If people want them, they will vote for them, but don’t FORCE it upon them. That’s undemocratic.
As for this Norwegian rule, under it would not 100% female directors be okay, but 65% male directors be illegal? That’s simply wrong. This political correctness is absolutely sickening. It’s funny how you tolerate discrimination when it benefits you. You should be ashamed of yourselves if you support discrimination like this. Maybe one day YOU will be disadvantaged by it.
Actually, there are nobody in scandinavia that are forced to elect women in the parlament. It is true about the 40 % directors have to be women, which is completely stupid and weird, but we don’t want 100% female directors either. Beside, don’t say that all women like the positive discrimination. If you had read all the comments here you would see that it’s far from the truth. We would like to be chosen in a job because of our qualifications, NOT because of sex!
Economically speaking, discrimination (by option or by force) is always damaging to the system. If you reason that the best people for any position comes from all walks of life, then that means some of the best in a field are women, blacks, Hispanics, or whatever your local minority is. If a company discriminates, they are limiting the people to choose from in the fields in which they employ. They will eventually loose out to a company that has better more qualified people.
If the government forces a company to reverse discriminate, it is forcing a company to hire people who are not the best in their occupation. This results in a 2 problems. 1) The company is forced into a disadvantage with companies outside the regulations. 2) The people from the target group are less inspired to perform at their peak. This further multiplies the company’s disadvantage.
The only way to improve or remove the condition known as a “glass ceiling” is to better educate and better inspire the target minority group. There are certain situations where affirmative action is useful. Slavery produced one of these situations. But its usefulness must be monitored.
No, they don’t.
Great, so not only are white people descriminated against through policy in education, grants, scholarships, and work… But now males will be beat out by someone with less qualifications in order to fill quotas…
Not that I ever plan on being a Norwegian company director, but to those who do, and are capable, its a bit of a blow to know that if it comes down to it, they will be denied a position based on their gender….
Brett ~ Richmond, Va.
I believe the world would be more peaceful if it was ruled by women.
Women are more careful in decision making and they are more committed to their duties. I believe they deserve even more than positive discrimination.
Kwabena in Ghana
Kwabena:
“Women are more careful in decision making and they are more committed to their duties. I believe they deserve even more than positive discrimination.
Kwabena in Ghana”
Hhaha, maybe, but have you seen who they choose to date? In most cases, who they choose tends not to be the result of careful decisionmaking. In fact, if you ask most western women in their 30s, they will describe their relationship choices as being “poor, I was stupid back then”.
Sorry, what did you say? That women are stupid? I don’t like positive discrimination, however, when I listen to people like you I understand why we have them. Women can be just as well, or even better in some cases, than men. So don’t come here and tell me that we are stupid. The only reason why we say that our choices in DATING is bad is because we evaluate our self, while some boys don’t.
I don’t mean to be rude to boys, because I know that there are a lot qualified and intelligent men, but you have to see that we can be just as good as you guys!!
Women still have a long way to go to achieve equality with men in key positions, such as government and managerial posts. In some societies, this can be due to mentalities which view women in a lesser degree citing examples that they can’t take risk or firm decisions. The other handicap facing them is the discrimination in education making it difficult for them to compete with men to get key jobs.
It is still news today when a female president is elected. In USA primary elections, the Democrats have raised a lot of interest because Hilary Clinton is the first American women to enter the presidential contest.
There are countries like Saudi Arabia where it is still hard to imagine a female minister as women there are still battling for rights taken for granted in other Muslim countries like driving, or travelling unaccompanied. In this country, a woman can’t set up a project without having a male tutor. Recently a Saudi businesswoman was arrested because of being in a café with one of her aids with whom she was discussing her financial affairs. In this country, it is likely that the percentage of company female directors will remain 0% for some time to come.
What can make women reach key positions at an equal rate with men is their ability to be assertive and to have the qualifications to assume their high responsibilities. As for men, they should come to terms with the fact that one’s worth isn’t through gender but through mental assets. Some societies have been revolutionised a great deal. Maybe one day we’ll hear of female army generals. Female heads of states and prime ministers will be commonplace in the majority of the parts of the world. Maybe in this case, the roles will be reversed and men will start asking for more rights as those they have inherited from their male ancestors have been eroded by the unstoppable aggressive advances of women in every field to the tops of all ladders in society.
If I were a business owner, I would make a point to try to have an even balance in the workplace of men and women. I think it makes for a broader range of ideas and innovation. But this should not be forced on anyone by legislation. Government should never have a say in who a business can or can’t employ. It’s not their place, and that type of interference should never be accepted.
No, women do not need positive discrimination or any at all. That is a very bad idea to hire someone because of gender, or because of skin color! The affirmative action in America is a disaster and they are already reversing this. People should be hired for their qualifications and because of their gender or the skin of their color. What Norway is doing is going ot hurt them and cause more damage than good. I am a woman and if I was a Norwagian I would oppose and protest this decision, it is not a smart one.
Hello All,
The corporate and political world is full of folks elbowing their ways to the top. Most won’t make it and relatively fewer women than men so do. I think this result reflects some more fundamental characteristics of humans: Women are programmed to be nurturing. In every aspect, they are just a bit nicer, more fair-minded and trusting than men, and so they are a bit more easily cheated Apologies to all male business types out there who think they got where they are based solely upon superior intellect.). But; I do not believe one “unfair” cancels another “unfair.” An affirmative action initiative would only provide more cheating opportunities.
My personal thoughts on women in positions of power is quite different, however. I cannot think of single reason why they should not occupy slightly more than half of all such places in the world and, the world is the poorer for it that they do not.
later,
g
Hi Ros,
Yes, women do need positive discrimination. But there is a twist. For as long as there is this positive discrimination, women can NEVER be equal up to men. Until they stand head-to-head with the men without any special favors (positive discrimination), they will STILL be considered “less”.
We have a female president who’s doing as much as possible to put females into as many positions in government as possible. There is even now more opportunities for females to get foreign scholarships in Liberian then men!!! Academically, they may be up to the task, but academics doesn’t count for everything. Emotionally, they are not. And I can give you tangible examples of what i am talking. We live with this female leadership on a daily basis.
So yes, women need positive discrimination to enter the door but let them let go of this “distortion” as quickly as possible and establish themselves solely on merits.
Elton
Monrovia, Liberia
The more you show women’s need to get involved in social work the more they become inferior.They still have a heap of sad to jump over.If you employee any one because of gender then you are at stake of losing every thing.Not all woman have capabilities to approach bad times when business is in negative terms.
You seem to be doing a very good job of involving people and getting them deeper into the news, mostly of the day’s events.
Three fundamental issues underlie much of what is happening:
1) tribalism vs. universalism
2) international law vs. national gains
3) individual vs. society
Perhaps these vectors situate most issues in one’s mental space.
How to make one recognize and consider them?
X-M
Do women need positive discrimination?
——————————————————–
Wow always harsh to discuss this. Funny to read about it because this was a big issue as well many years ago in Holland . Not only for womens rights, business wise, but as well for emigrants. To be honest I don’t think the situation has improved that much. Woman still struggling to contain top positions in companies. I think its more that the attitude of us, men, has to change towards having a female boss. Because the way I see it, men still feel threatened by a woman in charge :).
My opinion is to treat everyone equally and make your decisions based on results and effort.
——————————————————–
On the other hand what I see in my environment is that woman choosing more and more the “traditional” ways again. Meaning having kids and taking care of their family. I’m not sure whats up with that because the uprise for emancipation has decreased rapidly in my opinion.
——————————————————-
regards,
Kwabena:
“Women are more careful in decision making and they are more committed to their duties. I believe they deserve even more than positive discrimination.
Kwabena in Ghana”
Steve:
Hhaha, maybe, but have you seen who they choose to date? In most cases, who they choose tends not to be the result of careful decision making. In fact, if you ask most western women in their 30s, they will describe their relationship choices as being “poor, I was stupid back then”.
steve, what does this have anything to do with women and their sex lives??? you’re simply dodging his point with a personal attack…
and yes there should be some form of minimal positive discrimination, if only because men will fight tooth and nail to keep women from positions of power. they would rather have a minority male as their boss than be placed under a woman, if only for their own sexist notions.
there are so many things even in western culture that place the woman in an unspoken ‘lower class’. women make less, are promoted with less frequency, are minimized in religion, expected to both rear children and work and keep a home and yet are not taken seriously.
they literally have to work twice as hard to get to the same point as your typical white male who gets a free pass into the ‘boys club’.
and yes, Kwabena, i agree with you wholeheartedly… men have had the world for so long and see where it’s gone? let the women take the reigns and make it a better place…
as they say,
you teach a man, he betters himself.
you teach a woman, she betters everyone.
So yes, women need positive discrimination to enter the door but let them let go of this “distortion” as quickly as possible and establish themselves solely on merits.
Elton
Monrovia, Liberia
YES.
positive discrimination opens the door for women to stand on their own against men and will get the ball rolling towards true equality of the genders!
to expect a woman right now to be able to compete while hindered with prejudice is just moronic wishful thinking…
i agree 100% elton!
Smackie, “Meaning having kids and taking care of their family. I’m not sure whats up with that because the uprise for emancipation has decreased rapidly in my opinion.”
I’m a lawyer, and see this all the time. They tend by their early-mid 30s to realize that working is no fun, so they quit. One of my current coworkers is quitting to plan her wedding. Can any man do that?
Lwalker, “steve, what does this have anything to do with women and their sex lives??? you’re simply dodging his point with a personal attack…
and yes there should be some form of minimal positive discrimination, if only because men will fight tooth and nail to keep women from positions of power. they would rather have a minority male as their boss than be placed under a woman, if only for their own sexist notions.
there are so many things even in western culture that place the woman in an unspoken ‘lower class’. women make less, are promoted with less frequency, are minimized in religion, expected to both rear children and work and keep a home and yet are not taken seriously.
they literally have to work twice as hard to get to the same point as your typical white male who gets a free pass into the ‘boys club’.
and yes, Kwabena, i agree with you wholeheartedly… men have had the world for so long and see where it’s gone? let the women take the reigns and make it a better place…
as they say,
you teach a man, he betters himself.
you teach a woman, she betters everyone.”
What personal attack? He said that women make better decisions, but if you ask virtually every woman, that in her 20s and 30s, they will freely admit they tend to make very poor decisions. Providing a counter argument isn’t a personal attack.
“because men will fight tooth and nail to keep women from positions of power.” Do you have any evidence to back this up? ALL men? Am I doing something to keep you from positions of power? Can you please notify what I have done to keep you from positions of power given you’ve accused me of doing that since I am male?
“they would rather have a minority male as their boss than be placed under a woman, if only for their own sexist notions.”
What are you basing this off of? I would want to the best boss possible, I am not concerned with their race or gender, like you are. Do you have any basis for this claim?
“they literally have to work twice as hard to get to the same point as your typical white male who gets a free pass into the ‘boys club’.”
I suppose that’s why young women earn MORE than young men in major cities?
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0334472920070803
And it only reduces after 30 because that’s when women start quitting thier jobs, and switching to part time. Sorry, but it isn’t sexism if you get paid less if you choose to work 15 hours in a week where fulltimers work 60 hours a week.
positive descrimination?!?! is that the new name for affirmative action?
it is very tough to put ONE policy out for something as complicated as this for everyone. even for one nation let alone the international audience we have here.
i will say this…in the evolutionary BLINK of an EYE – we have turned milliniums of established social and FAMILIAL order on its ear – in the area of gender relations.
I DO believe all people deserve certain levels of treatment in life. I DO NOT believe that all so called ‘progress’ is good for collective humanity.
if anybody is really reading this – you define PLEASE; what is ‘good’. And don’t forget the whole of humanity, not just the individual.
To L.Walker,
You said;
you teach a man, he betters himself.
you teach a woman, she betters everyone,
Well I am a woman and I can tell you that that is a gross oversimplification and simply stereotypes both men and women. I have had bothe good and bad women and men Bosses. Some of the worst bosses ( and employees) that I ever had were women – not because they were women just because of the type of people they were.
Could we please stop this stereotyping – there are both good and bad men and women in all walks of life. I’ll make it by my own steam thank you very much. I don’t need some happy clappy hand out.
Bravo UK Homeowner. My favorite boss ever was a woman, and L. Walker telling me I would, gulp, rather have a minority male than a woman boss simply because I’m male. The implications of that are scary, it’s presuming I’m racist and sexist, like I think having a minority boss is a slightly better option than a woman. I resent the suggestion, and I think it reflects on L. Walker’s personal beliefs about gender and race.
L.Walker:
“because men will fight tooth and nail to keep women from positions of power. they would rather have a minority male as their boss than be placed under a woman, if only for their own sexist notions.”
What a wonderful display of sexist stereotyping.
(sarcasm) Yes, thats right, because we live our lives to oppress women… (/sarcasm)
I’m a male and I would rather work under a competent boss. Sex or race does not matter. A good boss is a good boss. I think almost everyone will agree on that point.
Brett ~ Richmond, Va.
Steve: One of my current coworkers is quitting to plan her wedding. Can any man do that?
—————————————
One way to see positive discrimination in its finest. In this case we understand the situation (mostly) and let it be, same goes for getting off because of pregnancy.
Imagine to have a male colleague telling/asking you that he is quiting his job to plan his wedding? Haven’t seen that yet.
—————————————
But on the other hand these kind of statements and examples are based on sexes and how we see and seen things for ages already. We except the ways of the female and visa versa.
Is it then question of values and norms? Culture? How you were raised, men-female relation, men-men relation or female-female relation?
—————————————
As I said in my previous post: these issues are always difficult to discuss, because there is so much to it. So I think if this issues needs to be solved is to search for it in a more intimate environment and help woman and motivate woman to get on top and always be open for discussion no matter what.
regards,
Dear Ros,
I think that discrimination where there is competence is good. But when it is done simply because the law desires a certain class of people getting certain privileges, then it is dead wrong. During the elections of 2005 in Liberia, the elections commission came up with an inane suggestion, that was passed into law calling for all parties in the elections to have 30% of their candidates as females. They didn’t even consider the fact that politics is something of choice. When they finally realized that they could not enforce this ludicrous law, they embraced reality and abandoned their quest.
Affirmative action might have worked in other societies because the problem in those plases was not just one of competence, it was just sheer discrimination. But in the case of most underdeveloped countries like my, the problem is far more than just discrimination.
Lamii Kpargoi in Liberia
I believe that, as intelligent citizens, positive discrimination should not be neccesary in our so called sophisticated society. However, I am aware of the large extent of sexism and false stereotypes, especially in the economy, so I would support legislation.
Selina
Smackie:
Steve: One of my current coworkers is quitting to plan her wedding. Can any man do that?
—————————————
One way to see positive discrimination in its finest. In this case we understand the situation (mostly) and let it be, same goes for getting off because of pregnancy.
—-
—– My response:
Well, my coworker wasn’t hired because she was female, she was hired because she was qualified. However, she’s willingly choosing to quit so she can plan a wedding. You’ll hear things about a gender pay gap too, but many women choose not to work, or work part time, and then they average all salaries together and determine that men make more. Duh. of course, if you average all salaries, and given that so many women don’t work (no salary) or work part time, they will on average earn less.
All I know is that if I quit my job to plan a wedding, i would likely be homeless. My coworker is obviously relying on her fiance for financial support, and men don’t have that luxury. So ladies, when complaining about how life is so unfair, you have the choice of working or not working. If I choose not to work, I’d be living on the streets.
I don’t know that women make better employees than men and should be actively alloted positions. In fact when I have encountered female bosses, they are generally harder and worse to deal with than are the men. Once they get into a position of power they are basically the same and only concerned about keeping that power and enhancing their position. So no I dont think they should be given such opportunities especially if they are not as good as other applicants for a position. Would you want say a mediocre but half staffed team of female neurosurgeons operating on your brain or an all male line up of top skilled surgeons? I think I know the answer to that. But all up, whoever is best should get the job, perhaps we should be asking should women be given better opportunities for education and training instead…. then they can compete on an equal footing with males in the workforce. That is more valid, I don;t know about other countries but in Singapore you can be as good as your talent and skill allows you to be and what if I was selected above others to a job and failed at it because i was aleeser qualified woman than how would that make my employers feels and how would that then affect such a policy?
Hi Steve…I don’t think you’re sexist or racist, and I always enjoy your discussions, but when you say things like…women find that they don’t like working and quit…comments like that can come across as very sexist, especially to those of us who work really hard at our jobs. If we’re trying not to stereotype, we should avoid generalizations about women wanting to work 15 hours a week and get paid for 60. If you saw that comment about men, I suspect you would feel offended.
Actually if anything, younger women have an advantage in the workforce, though this HYS is about directors, which is usually older people (age discrimination. nope, it’s an experience issue). When I was in law shcool, law firms would come onto campus after we would submit resumes to the firms. The firms would get our class facebook (back then it was not the online service, but a book of our faces) and lo and behold, the attractive female students would get interviews, even when they had substantially lower grades. Males and less attractive females complained, and eventually the school passed a policy where lawfirms were forbidden from having access to the facebooks so they don’t grant interviews based upon physical appearance. Lo and behold, the students with the highest grades started getting interviews again.
Alison:
“If we’re trying not to stereotype, we should avoid generalizations about women wanting to work 15 hours a week and get paid for 60. If you saw that comment about men, I suspect you would feel offended.”
—
That wasn’t my point, I was saying that sometimes the gender wage gap myth gets brought up, and it’s that, a myth. The reason why on average women earn less than men is two fold: (1) many women go into lower paying fields becuase they have interest in those fields (2) more women don’t work at all or work part time. So on average, women make less, but if you took a man and a woman in the same company, same job title, they will earn the same in every case assuming they started the same and performed the same way.
In fact, L. Walker made many comments like what you suggest. She said that no man wants to work for women, that all men want to hold women back, and that, GASP! Men would rather work for a minority than work for a woman. [sarcasm]Nothing more than I as a white male dislikes than minorities and women! [/sarcasm]
First, GREAT topic. As a gender studies major this area of discussion is especially fascinating to me. One the other hand, this question for me is a conflicting one.
I understand the argument behind social change practices like Affirmative Action and this newest “positive discrimination.” Some group which have been historically been oppressed (i.e. slavery), in a way, deserve a chance to catch up.
But I can’t stomach that this is the way to go about it. It seems like a quick fix in my eyes. The root of the problem is the way in which we see women in the workplace. For one, there is still an issue between dominance and respect between men and women. It speaks to both sides that a man should feel threatened by a female boss. It speaks to the ideals we still hold: Men should be assertive, women should be passive. This isn’t a good thing for either side.
Additionally, As it’s been said here, women face great challenges in the workforce. While many have moved past it, we still hold the sentiment that a woman’s energies should be focused on the private, the family. This is in part due to the fact, that once impregnated, a woman cannot simply escape the situation in lieu of an abortion. Men, while on the majority are obviously decent human beings (much to the dismay of some “uber-feminists), do have this luxury.
But, I digress. I think that a positive discrimination clause does nothing but support the inequalities, as it is inherently unequal. We need to put in the hard work, promote young girls education in the sciences and mathematics, and work to teach our children to see each other a different way. I think it’s already happening! I’m double minoring in child-psych as well, incidentally 🙂
Some say to young to know what she’s talking about,
Laura in Minneapolis
“Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, “equality” is a disaster.”
Robert A. Heinlein, 1973
If the best person for the job just happens to be a woman, then I’m all for it. But if positive discrimination is having more women in the workplace so that men have something to look at, then I think the men who sit around making these laws need to get their priorities straight.
And to Steve, I have to say… there is a wage discrepancy.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm
One article that draws it’s information from the us census
Women still make about 74 cents to the a man’s dollar. And they do not compare a male chemist to a female teacher. The compare a male teacher and female teacher, or male chemist and female chemist, who have been working in similar areas and similar amounts of time.
Lastly- it’s even a worse picture for women of color, who make even less to a man’s dollar.
Laura: That link you provide is 4 years old. The link I provided, which I will provide again, show that women make more money than men. This is from August 2007.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0334472920070803
I don’t know that women make better employees than men and should be actively alloted positions. In fact when I have encountered female bosses, they are generally harder and worse to deal with than are the men. Once they get into a position of power they are basically the same and only concerned about keeping that power and enhancing their position. So no I dont think they should be given such opportunities especially if they are not as good as other applicants for a position. Would you want say a mediocre but half staffed team of female neurosurgeons operating on your brain or an all male line up of top skilled surgeons? I think I know the answer to that. But all up, whoever is best should get the job, perhaps we should be asking should women be given better opportunities for education and training instead…. then they can compete on an equal footing with males in the workforce. That is more valid, I don;t know about other countries but in Singapore you can be as good as your talent and skill allows you to be and what if I was selected above others to a job and failed at it because i was aleeser qualified woman than how would that make my employers feels and how would that then affect such a policy?
Serina in Singapore
Quotas for women would mirror Affirmative Action. The debate on the effectiveness of this policy is never ending, but in my opinion it is merely reverse racism and creates much resentment rather then cohesive and productive teams.
I am a woman and feel we are still not equal in this world, however, being chosen to fill a quota is offensive. It says, yet again, that I am only good for my ovaries rather than my intelligence and business acumen.
I believe we need to change the social stigma against women by increasing the availability of education and truly creating the best candidate for the job.
The important theme that isn’t enforced enough is “carrot and stick” If you discriminate against women, which as sigrin mentioned if you have qualified women and they aren’t being hired or promoted, then the company/business/enterprise needs to get the stick – Punishment. Fines. Consequences. And add benefits, tax credits, etc to those who do follow guidelines for how many w omen should be in the industry.
Enforcement is the biggest problem here though. As long as the “old boys society” continues to operate with impunity discrimination will continue.
no, i dont want positive discrimination. the best should always get the job.
kalypso.vienna,austria
Discrimination based on gender in order to promote women into higher positions in the work force is a spurious policy that will only hurt the competitiveness of women and the entire society overall. Women needed a guaranteed equal playing field with men, with laws which strictly prohibit discrimination based on gender. That way, women will earn their positions based on their merit. Allowing quotas is just another way of saying that two wrongs makes a right.
Zachary
Houston, TX, USA
I don’t see this being about women vs men at all..I see this issue being about recognition of the productive skills and intuitive approaches women possess…women in key positions with heavy duty responsibilities have been credited with more loyalty, hard working ethics and willingness to go the extra mile..look at Condoleeza Ryce ..can’t get bigger than that..
Nicola, Jamaica
Steve, I would feel more comfortable trusting the results with a US census study than one done by a private college, but regardless- the results are encouraging!
I think it shows that we’re starting to do something right, like the push for women to go to college. Hopefully soon this will trickle down to the workforce.
I’ve heard several examples of why women shouldn’t be helped by laws that are used against affirmative action laws that help minorities. I don’t know if affirmative action really helps. It used to be people would vote with the pocket book, I dont know if Americans are smart enough to do that anymore. I dont have alot of faith in American democracy any more. Maybe the UK will show us the way. Keep up the good work. Regards Chris
full disclosure, I am a male but was birthed by a woman and have a female wife and daughter. So I might be biased.
As a woman I believe it is important to implement affirmative action as much as possible. But it is not a permanent solution to a system that favors a certain type of individual. It is a system wide change we need but we have to be realistic: this does not happen overnight. Positive discrimination is a step towards bringing change on several different levels.
The arguments of “I don’t want the job because I’m not the best for the job, I don’t want it just because I’m a woman” is rather silly. Affirmative action or positive discrimination is based upon the principle that if you were faced with two candidates that are both equally qualified but one of them is a minority, you would choose the minority candidate. Am I wrong or perhaps sounding idealistic?
It is laws like these that make it harder and harder for men to be the sole provider in the home and for women to raise their children in the home
I graduated from college with a degree in Chemical Engineering in 1977. I went to work for an large oil company in the US only because they were required to provide opportunities for women. Even though I had better grades and background than a lot of the men in my class, I would never have gotten that job without equal employment opportunity enforcement. I do not agree that quotas are appropriate, but I do think that oversight is still needed in the workplace to ensure that women are treated equally for getting employment and once they are employed.
Cathy
Outside San Francisco California
Ros,
In your introduction to the show you mentioned a conference in Brussels about women in conflict negotiation roles. Unfortunately, as long as certain Middle Eastern states like Iran and Saudi Arabia refuse to give women more rights, then women will never make it in conflict resolution.
Positive discrimination is discrimination. As such, it should not be enforced.
ZK, Singapore
I find the law disturbing for one major reason other than the gender based discrimination (it’s okay for a board to be 100% women, but not 100% male), and that reason is that the government is telling a corporation’s shareholders who they must elect to the board. That’s absolutely revolting. If you don’t own shares in a corporation, you have no say what happens within that corporation. The Norwegian government is taking away property rights from the shareholders, by forcing them to elect certain Board members that they might not have wanted to choose.
Say if the best candidates were men? They would have to choose lesser qualified candidates because the government forced them. And what’s next? Will they start making professional sports teams be 20% female?
I cannot believe shareholders in Norway would allow the government to tell them who must run companies. It’s similar to how the nazis had requirements that certain amounts or all of the directors had to be members of the Nazi party.
Steve
USA
Laura:
If you say the results are encouraging, should men then complain that women make more than men now?
Women have faced negative discrimination for hundreds if not thousands of years, so I feel it’s only right that we make some concerted organised efforts to relieve the inequalities of women to counteract the concerted organised efforts our societies have made to inflict it in the first place.
I think that people should be allowed to rise to whatever position they can reach in corporate life through normal employment competition. Women, as a group, tend to present companies with a variety disadvantages as employees that men as a group don’t, and that men tend to rise to positions of power is simply reflective of the fact that (once again, taken as a group) women tend to keep their jobs for shorter periods of time, and when they do stay they tend NOT to want to take jobs that will take them away from coworker friends. They are more likely to take days off. They are more likely to up and go when they get married. They are less available to move to accept promotions. Until all of these factors (and more) are accounted for in the statistics, I don’t feel the need for “positive discrimination” has been proven.
Laura: PS, what do you think about this, after that French caller said there aren’t enough female engineers. Should women be forced to enter fields that they tradiotionally choose not to enter, such as engineering? I began university as an engineer (though I switched) and there were virtually no females, but there were many in my liberal arts classes such as Political Science. Should there be quotes on how many female students take liberal arts degrees which are lower paying, and have minimum quotas for engineering and the sciences, so that some women might even be forced to take s uch classes if it means that it increases the amounts of women in the sciences and engineering and might increase the level of pay these women have when in the workforce?
If we can have quotas in the boardroom, if we can force people to vote for women, shouldn’t we be able to force women from Womens Studies classes into Engineering?
I think more men are physically able to perform as CEOs and things like that. Some women like having babies, which cuts that population by some. Also, I had 3 female bosses at one place, and they all had their monthly cycle at the same time, and EVERYONE knew it. They were grumpy, made bad judgment calls, and would even call out around that time. Im not saying that its always the case, but there are these cases. Last, most men are more aggressive, which you want in a CEO.
-Anthony, LA, CA
As female scientist, I find that in many ways it is not that women are not qualified for such jobs, but rather that the way such jobs are structured and the way that many high powered companies are run simply often turn many “qualified” women off. I think it is also important to address why many typically female-dominated careers–in education, care giving, etc–which many would consider to be equally if not more important, are not better paid or given the same amount of power and influence.
Adrienne
Portland, Oregon
Steve:
We can hardly generalize that “Women make more money than Men,” based on a study done by Queen’s college in New York, which looked at young women and men in a handful of urban areas- can we?
I’m accepting your argument that things are becoming more equal. We agree that “positive discrimination” is not the way to go. I don’t think you can argue against the fact that up until the last couple years, and still today, men have been overly represented in the public sphere- and in many cases have beat out equally qualified women for jobs.
Just look what Hillary is up against. I voted and was heavily involved in the campaign for Obama, but I respect her for trying to break into the ultimate “Boy’s Club.”
Steve:
“Will they start making professional sports teams be 20% female?”
Why not!
“It’s similar to how the nazis had requirements that certain amounts or all of the directors had to be members of the Nazi party.”
Also, hold on to your alarmist language. Throwing out Nazi party references for dramatic effect is disrespectful to history and unwarranted.
I don’t neccessarily disagree with positive discrimination, but I do think it is discouraging that there seems to be a difference between being qualified to hold a particular position in employment and being a woman. I work in a research university as a lab assistant and have asparations to get a PhD and teach at a university. In the US in my field fewer that a qaurter of faculty positions are held by women. This seems at odds with my observations that all of the women that I work with and around are very smart and very qualified and I find it hard to believe that this kind of intelligence in women in science is that hard to come by.
Further more, I find the sentiment that women need to change, that they need to be more educated, get more exposure to math and science etc., very interesting. From my own observations I’m not so sure that the oposite is not also true. Perhaps it is also employers that need to be educated and have more exposure to the fact that there are capable women in the workforce.
As a woman living in the USA…I am ecstatic that we finally have a woman running for President. I feel positive discrimination for women does need to be in place for 5-10 years. At the end of that time then it can be revisited. We have too few women in CEO and Chairman of the Board jobs. I’m amazed that countries around the world have had women in ruling positions from queen to prime minister, etc…and we have yet to even have a woman VP much less President. I don’t think Hillary would be considered seriously if Bill hadn’t been in already.
institutionalised descrimination of any kind is no good. It simply means that someone, no matter how skilled, will lose out based on gender or race. Nowadays companies want the best person for the job whether male or female. But the moment you introduce quotas, their (Companies’) hands are tied. They have to worry about proportions.
Imagine having a huge percentage of unemployed men and some of them very skilled but beaten becoz a woman had to be picked for the job.
Andrea:
Steve:
“Will they start making professional sports teams be 20% female?”
Why not!
—
Because people would likely stop watching.
“It’s similar to how the nazis had requirements that certain amounts or all of the directors had to be members of the Nazi party.”
Also, hold on to your alarmist language. Throwing out Nazi party references for dramatic effect is disrespectful to history and unwarranted.
—
Doesn’t take away that the Nazis required companies to make Nazis directors. It’s called a comparison, a similarity. Governments shouldn’t tell corporations who should be on the board of directors, period. Shareholders decide, not governments. If you want a say in who the board of directors are, buy some shares and vote your shares. Don’t dictate to corporations who they must choose.
Steve-
I just read your PS.
my response:
I think we need to begin at a much earlier age. In recent years we have begun studying how girls and boys are taught differently in school, and adjust the subconscious ideas on gender educators project to their students. We have started training teachers to be conscious of their biases.
Obviously you’re trying to make a point with your idea of “forcing female college students to take engineering classes.” I have also noticed here in Minnesota that women dominate my history, gender study, child psychology, and youth study classes, while men dominate my chem and physics classes. I think it speaks to how my generation was raised. Perhaps those who are 7 years old now will see a different trend?
For what it’s worth, I think it’s just as hard for men to break into a field like Nursing without a social backlash (my dad is a nurse, i should know) as it is for a woman to break into rocket science. This issue is important to BOTH genders.
And steve, who is forcing anyone to vote for a woman? I’m confused on that one.
This is somewhat off the subject but it is pertinent. Has anybody ever noticed that, although women have been kept out of positions of power all throughout history, they have never done as other subject groups have; that is, violently rebel against their oppressors? I was just listening to the young woman who said that, although she does not really approve of the bombing of the school in Jerusalem, it is understandable that they would turn to violence because they are so badly mistreated. Where is the difference?
Your guest commented on Affirmative action in the US, and said it dealt with equally qualified candidates. In theory that’s true, in practice, it wasn’t. What basically has been ending affirmative action in the education system is that lessor qualified minority candidates were admitted over higher qualified white candidates. The white candidates sued, and won. Look of the University of Michigan Affirmative Action cases. It wasn’t equally qualifiled candidates, that’s the problem. They has substantially lower standarized test scores, grades, etc, but still were admitted basically because of their skin color. That’s discrimination based upon race.
Laura:
“For what it’s worth, I think it’s just as hard for men to break into a field like Nursing without a social backlash (my dad is a nurse, i should know) as it is for a woman to break into rocket science. This issue is important to BOTH genders.
And steve, who is forcing anyone to vote for a woman? I’m confused on that one.”
To become a member of the board of directors, you have to be elected by shareholders. This Norwegian law is telling shareholders that 40% of the people they elect HAVE to be women. Say if they wanted to pick 7/10 board members to be men they have known for many years and know their work? The law is telling them they cannot do that, and at most they can only pick 6 of those 10 men. That’s how they’re being told how to vote with their own shares that they own.
This is a property issue. Nobody but a shareholder of a corporation should have any say in who constitutes the board.
In the USA only on the surface and in white colar jobs do women have some type of equality in the workplace. Theoretically our culture states there is gender
equality, but there is a very subtle, hidden, but VERY REAL glass/steel ceiling in the workplace. Men still “rule” in most blue collar workplaces. They state that is not
true, however my years of 40 years working in manufacturing I find that dispite verbal committments to women in the workplace- reality does not allow them to move up.
Diversity issues with women are seen as a joke- yet competent women are often tossed/ let go any time they try to communicte differently then stoic men.
Just my opinion.
Sandy
Steve:
Trying to draw a comparison between actions that ended in ethnic cleansing and actions that determine who works within a Capitalist system is pretty ridiculous.
Steve:
Thanks for the clarification. I’ve enjoyed this discussion.
Laura
Although I believe there should be an even playing field among minorities and women in the workplace, in practice I have seen EEOC efforts cater to the under qualified. In one instance I had applied at a large city police department. As part of the screening and testing process a written examination was administered. While white males needed a score of 80% to pass, minorities were allowed 70% to pass.
Another instance I observed while working as a manager for a large grocey chain that came into the cross hairs of the EEOC. We were given a list quarterly that outlined, as a district, how many of what minorities we needed in each management position. We would then go out into the community and partner with organizations like The Urban League to try to find minorities to fill key positions. Our fear of retribution from the sanctions of the EEOC out weighed or desire to find qualified individuals, we simply wanted to find minorities.
Laura, you are asking who is forcing anyone to vote for a woman? The Nowergian law is. Once the male quota is filled up, the remaining males will not have a chance even if they were the best in the world.
Andrea:
I’m just saying that you should be wary of governments that force shareholders to elect certain people to the board of directors.
Again, if this is to promote equality, why are women more equal than men?
Under the law, you can have a board that is 100% but you cannot have a board that is more than 60% male.
How is that equality?
Brent: I agree. My father worked in the EEOC office of a major US department for many years, and one of the other lawyers there was minority who was dangerously unqualified for the job, but got it because of AA. The job required that he/she be an admitted attorney in at least one jurisdiction in the US. Not only was he not a licensed attorney at the time he was hired, he failed the bar exam at least 8 times before my dad retired, meaning he had been there for many years, being totally unqualified for the job. In fact he was breaking the law by just being there (unlicensed practice of law is a crime), and was at no point a licensed attorney during my dad’s tenure there, though I don’t know if that changed after my father retired. But that doesn’t take away that he was hired unqualified, broke the law by being there, and did that for many years.
Good point, Steve.
The board can be 100% women but men can’t be 61%. Such laws are not good. This is not equality at all. I can almost foresee a day when men will also begin to form men’s groups and laws will be made in favour of men just to balance things up. With these methods, there will never be equality.
No, in western countries where women are seen as equals and opportunities abound for those with some creativity and drive.
Yes, in those countries where women are still viewed as property and inferior beings. But such a move is worthless when there is no education, and poverty and civil strife remain the doings of the day.
One troubling issue: Where is the consideration of the children we bear, ladies?After all, we are not men! Far from it.
Our lives are at best fleeting–let us not forget that generation we are responsible for having brought into this life.
Affirmative Action (rather than reverse discrimination) for minority races has produced some real results in the USA before it was dismantled recently.
When you lift a segment of the population to new opportunities for education and jobs, you lift them economically and make them players in the system.
I am not sure female fits A.A. because women have had educational opportunities and job opportunities for decades, nearly a century.
What you are talking about is rank in jobs, not education or jobs.
If we are to have positive discrimination, then we ought to start with military conscription aka the draft. How about it, male feminists, are you prepared to tell your woman feminist friends its time to march on down to the recruiting office whether they want to go or not, have their heads shaved, and be marched off to Afghanistan?
as they say,
you teach a man, he betters himself.
you teach a woman, she betters everyone.”
Who says this? What evidence is there for this statement? Do people just repeat things like this mindlessly?
Or consider the assertion that women in office would promote peace. Does that mean women would end the War on Drugs? Would women legalize drugs? I do not think so.
There is something fishy about the entire positive discrimination business. It seems be saying that women can not compete in the real world. So the system has to be rigged up in order for women to get anywhere. What the positive discrimination policies ultimately do is expand the power of the state. Now the government can tell you who you have to vote for (by requiring female candidates), how you run your business, and so forth.
Effectively, the state is using women here for its own ends.
Typical.
Here’s “positive discrimination” italian style:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7284134.stm
“license to lie for women”. Women can even lie to law enforcement to protect their honor when it comes to matters that might reveal they are cheating on their spouses. First, what a HORRIBLE example this sets. you can hinder police investigations? And what honor? You’re cheating? You have no honor to protect!
I have heard, several times, people saying that women should be given high leadership positions beause they can bring peace. I strongly disgree. I have witnessed a lot of bitter woman against woman quarrels and fights over petty issues. So this issue about who is peaceful has nothing to do with gender.
I hope the Nowergian law works coz what I have observed is that women don’t seem to like the idea of a fellow woman being their boss. They are more comfortable with male bosses.
There is a very serious undertone here of using this topic as a justification for election fraud for a current female candidate.
Election fraud is not reverse discrimination, affirmative action, or anything other than election fraud.
Election fraud subverts the Constitution of the United States, which every official of the US has sworn to defend and protect from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Women should have the same opportunities and should not be prevented from achieving the top jobs, but that’s were legislation should stop.
There are more and more of forward thinking companies that do give equal opportunity to women. And these companies do benefit from having women managerial roles.
But involving government in positive discrimination ultimately would be counterproductive. Women will be resented and their credibility will be undermined.
And further, for women to make it to the top jobs, they will have to sacrifice as much as we men have. I think a good proportion of women will find more important jobs than being corporate warriors. That’s what us unimaginative men do so well…
Yeah, mandate that private employers have to select their leaders by genitalia. I am sure that will promote shareholder value. Not to mention the lack of respect that worthy women for the position will have to face. She will be rejected because she did not “earn” her position of power. Cultural Marxism is a joke.
The other discussion on racism – and this discussion on discrimination, both are related because it is discrimination.
Discrimination is wrong – end of!
I have worked for bad male bosses and bad female bosses – I have also worked for exceptional male bosses and exceptional female bosses – there isn’t any difference.
What you do find, as always, is that it is a small number of women who want ‘positive’ discrimination because they feel THEY have been left out.
What you will find is that quota’s will be needed for every part of society, how you will add in the 0.1% I have no idea.
its sad in a large country like india and the apostle of democracy laid by the great mahatmagandhiji even on womans day today the parliament couldnt pass the 33%womens reservation bill which would have entitled them to contest in loksabha and rajyasabha thus having their voices heard in highest body in india called parliament and thus enacting laws that would be beneficial for the women in future thus minimising the attrocities and discrimination faced by them over the years .
but the north,east,west male members of parliament whenever this womens bill is tabled on the floor of the house never allows it to be passed even once they tore down the tabled papers forcefully .this tamasha has been going for 6years and it has still not passed yet our leadersincluding our primeminister and other who is who of indian politics will be shedding crocodile tears for womens on womans day in seminars and debates across the country today .
on these paradox setting yet another womens day passes in india were 50 crore womens cant have their 33%resevation bill passed in parliament.
devadas.v
jyothinivas
talap
kannur
kerala
india
Interesting to see this post on WP dashboard on the morning of International Women’s Day!
I see two themes emerging in this discussion.
1. With the mention of “positive discrimination”, most commenters here appear to assume that it automatically is the same thing as hiring a person NOT competent to do the job but being hired anyway. That is a wrong interpretation of the term because…
2. Equality of opportunity to participate is NOT the same as the equality of outcome.
It is easy to take a western country’s soi-disant liberal society perspective. But it also betrays a naive perspective of the world.
In a country where female foeticide runs riot into millions, yes, positive discrimination is needed to keep the male-female numbers in balance.
In a country, where the female child is neglected in favour of the male child, being deprived of nutrition, education and good health, yes, positive discrimination is needed in order not to condemn that girl child to a life of misery which will get perpetuated. An educated woman does not only have fewer children, evidence also shows that her children are likely to have better health and education outcomes too.
In a country, where women are not ‘allowed’ to go to college – why waste money? she will get married and will need a dowry anyway! – yes, positive discrimination and support is needed to enable those women who do want to study and who do not want to marry men whose families demand dowry.
All these discussions look at the 300M or so women who have lived to have these arguments in their 20s. A larger number – in Asia and Africa – would be happy if someone discriminated enough to give birth to them and to keep them alive and well-fed till they could look after themselves.
All a matter of perspective!
If you notice, whenever there are talks of “positive discrimination” it’s about putting women/minorities in the TOP positions, but you don’t see these types of actions for “lower” positions. I’m sure men dominate truck driving and janitorial work, yet you don’t see women demanding that 50% of these positions go to women. why?
I live in Japan and much of the article in the Independent is true, but a major problem for Japanese women and, indeed, any “margin group” in Japan is that in order to be accepted you have to “be the same as the rest”. For many women, this would mean working the ludicrously (and some would say unneeded) long hours that, traditionally, Japanese men have had to work.
The problem or the solution in Japan is that most Japanese dont talk about these problems, but they do vote with their feet, which explains why many Japanese women are becoming more choosy about who they marry, with many not bothering with their male counterparts at all and instead concentrating on their however limited career prospects.
Anyway, here are two articles relating to Womens’ place in Japanese society. The first one was printed recently in the free (American) English magazine in Japan, “Metropolis”
– http://www.japantoday.com/jp/feature/1336
“TOKYO — Serenely and alluringly, the lotus flower opens. Unabashed, the temptress strides out, brimming with sexual beauty and proclaiming that the age of the Japanese lolita has passed. She has blossomed instead into a modern Aphrodite, a woman whose physical beauty exudes power, confidence and charisma. The “kawaii” generation watches in awe as she transforms into something startlingly sexy yet still adorable. She is erotic yet cool — “ero-kakkoii.” ”
The second, is also, I believe, from the same magazine, but written somewhat earlier.
– http://metropolis.co.jp/tokyofeaturestoriesarchive349/343/tokyofeaturestoriesinc.htm
“Rising from the ashes of economic crisis, Japan Inc. is undergoing a renaissance. With a culture that’ beginning to value skills over loyalty and gender corporate Nippon is no longer just a man’s world. Rising like phoenix, sharp-minded businesswomen are quickly capitalizing on the new order and taking their place at the helm. Mayumi Saito spoke to four female entrepreneurs about their climb to the top.”
I hope this is of some use to the debate!
Ja ne!
“
More positive discrimination:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/07/unc.student.killed/index.html
Has she been male, there would have been NO media coverage whatsoever.
Read up on “Missing white woman syndrome”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
I would like to see women stand up and demand more equality in media coverage perhaps?
Let women remain women whether they are mother, sister , wife or boss. Let women understand that it is nature neither a religion nor any legislation that made them women. Let women understand that the whole universe is in their hands ; they are builders of the mankind – which men lack. They are already superior with superlative /positive natural discrimination. Men is only powerful by muscles – which is also natural. And to acquire this muscle women may not kindly belittle themselves. Muscle is never a sign of superiority nor is eligible to claim any superiority.
on international day this kinds of arguements prop up .but the reality of afghan,african and other poor countries are terrible . just last week still due to poverty afghan women are married to old richer men by their parents and the littlegirls before they are used up by this oldpersons sexual pervertiveness commit suicide .this after the so called model democracy setup by usa ,britain ,nato with karzai government implementation of future model.
and in india today on womans day as usual plenty of seminars is going on with our woman president setting the ball rolling but after all this tamashas they couldnt pass 33%women reservation in parliament even after 6 years of tabling it in parliament due to resistance from male chauvenist northern,and western members of parliament .last year when womens bills was tabled this male chauvenist mp pigs literally toredown the bill .and yet the so called progressive women mps are happy in attending seminars and after dinner coming with it .
if women have will they can achieve anything eg of indiragandhi,margarettacher,madlineallbright,condolisarice,first israelipresident all are great examples foe woman .so dont wait for afterdinnerbones thrown by malechauvenistpigs and carry on with your will power and gain equality in future.
devadas.v
jyothinivas
talap
kannur
kerala
india
Of course women need “positive discrimination” (we call it “affirmative action” here in the US)!! In our country, I think only 5 of the Fortune 500 companies have women CEOs – and half the companies on that list don’t even have a single woman DIRECTOR!!
That’s outrageous!
Not to mention it does a disservice to the shareholders – because surely, with a majority of American university undergraduates being female, there must be many qualified businesswomen being kept off boards of directors, and displaced by unqualified men, who get their jobs through the “old boy network”.
Gangbox, unless you own shares of a corporation, you have absolutely no say in how they run things. I hope you understand that. That’s like me telling you what kind of pictures you can hang up in your house. I have no business telling you how to run things in your home. If you want to have an input, buy some shares, until then, you have no right to ask for this.
Another thing gangbox, is that why are women demanding “equality” at only the top positions? What about the rest? Men likely constitute virtually all garbage collectors, virtually all janitors, virtually all truck drivers, yet I don’t see women asking for 50% of these jobs to be reserved for women. Why?
I’m curious about what percentage of people who work at slaughterhouses are women. Say if it’s less than 50%, should there be laws passed that say that women must constitute 50%? But there should for the highest level jobs? Picking and choosing equality, eh?
Good day Ros,and the rest of BBC crow,
I’ll first of all say,I sorry for joining you late.I hope my opoinion will still count.
Happy women’s day to all woman.I’m in support of women,because God performed the highest miracle in my life on 8 Match,2007.It was from this miracle that,I believe that women are very important,and they can play an important role in any society.
I’m greatly in support of the fact that women need positive discrimation.Positive discrimation,is the policy of providing jobs or other opportunities to people who belong to groups which suffer discrimination.I feel that, if anyone is against the fact that women don’t need positive discrimination;he is simpily given no right to woman.There is every reason that women need positive discrimination.This will improve on the economy of any country and the world’s growth.
Many thanks Ros, and the rest of your team,I hope to join you in your next edition.
Many people wish to read my articles on “learn to be wised”.As I’m writing you,I’ll be coming up with some of the articles that concern our various topics.
Have a great day and remain bless.
Fonjong Terence Tah is my name from Cameroon.I’m now in the historical land Egypt.
Goodbye.
Gee, another story that wouldn’t have even made the news had the victim been male.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/08/auburn.student/index.html
More missing white woman syndrome.
“A feminist group at Stockholm University is campaigning to ban all urinals from campus, and one Swedish elementary school has already removed them. Some Swedish women are pressuring their men to take a stand, so to speak. Yola, a 25-year-old Swedish trainee psychiatrist, says she dumps boyfriends who insist on standing. ”What else can I do?,” said her new boyfriend, Ingvar, who sits.”
“Jasper Gerard reports in the English magazine The Spectator, ”more crucially because a man standing up to urinate is deemed to be triumphing in his masculinity, and by extension, degrading women.” One argument is that if women can’t do it, then men shouldn’t either. Another is that standing upright while relieving oneself is ”a nasty macho gesture,” suggestive of male violence.”
Below the belt? Sorry!
🙂
Get ready women, in this PC ping-pong world, youre next.
Anyone notice that the game-programming industry is BEGGING for female colleagues?
(lots of female gamers, few developers)
If this idea ever extends to certain other fields, say goodbye to certain fields because it will be illegal for anyone to work in them.
Sorry Norway. Youre the fairest diplomats on Earth, but even with your unusually calm, rational populous, this is bad philosophy.
Such a policy in the developed world is not fair. The men happened to dominate because of their capacity and contribution to the society. In the developing world however the situation could make sense. For example in the SPLM of Sudan women have a 25% share of power because of the discriminatory nature of culture in the developing world against women.
The question then is how about the remaining percentage? Is it going to be competed for by both men and women or they are exclusive for men?
I personally would prefer a man to a woman of equal credentials for a position because I don’t want somebody going missing from work later because of a maternity leave which is exclusively a woman’s issue.
Dedi Ramba
Utah, USA
Steve,
Actually, it’s not only shareholders that regulate corporate activity. In the USA, corporations are chartered by the Secretary of State of the state in which they are incorporated (in America, most major corporations choose to incorporate in the State of Delaware, due to that state’s relatively weak corporate regulations).
So, the Secretary of State of Delaware (or New York, or California, or Pennsylvania or wherever the corporation is incorporated) has a whole hell of a lot to say about how corporations are run.
As does the judicial system – of the state in which the corporation is incorporated, of all of the states in which that state does business and of the Federal government.
Not to mention the state legislatures – both of the state of incorporation, and of all the states the corporation operates in, as well as the US Congress.
And of course, there are many village, township, city, county, state and federal agencies, as well as specialized goverment bodies like city planning commissions, zoning boards, port authorities ect, all of which regulate corporate conduct that happens in their jurisdiction.
So, maybe in your imaginary Ayn Randian libertarian universe, boards of directors can do whatever they want.
But in the real world, it’s not like that at all!!!
I agree with you so much, Steve, I am going to use your words on my blog if you don’t mind.
Gangbox – you may call it affirmative action, yet that clothes it up as something different, it is still discrimination. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, poo’s like a duck – guess what? It’s a duck!
No one is saying that there should not be equality, we all agree with equality – what you are intimating is that because of a matter of birth you have greater rights over another person.
That sir/ma’am, is called fascism.
If a woman or man is good enough to do the job needed we support both!
If companies don’t have a woman on the board – ask them why – forcing a woman onto the board will mean that they are ostracised and that will have no meaning whatsoever.
Men are clever and kindly and works hard . Men discovered the world . Thats why they have to get more money and rights .
The email noting that women had an inferiority complex is true. To add to that, they have a persecution complex also. One of the female callers said that there is a stereotype that women are not capable of jobs, incompetent – what century is she living in? Of course they can do the same jobs as men, to think there is an inherent stereotype is just refusing to get that invisible chip off their shoulders.
Similarly, another female caller said that women need extra help to get them to apply for jobs, build up their confidence etc. Well there’s nothing stopping them. Why should a group be entitled to extra assistance for job applications because they’re of a certain gender? As a young man, I went through hell securing some semblance of a secure job… my confidence was battered through countless rejections… if a woman got help to get over those down periods purely based on her being a woman… it beggars belief.
as for the 40% quota in Norwegian boardrooms… no doubt there will be mass numbers of injustice as men who have had years, even decades of experience and have worked their way up to the near top, awaiting that final promotion, are ousted by females who have barely moved up a rank in the company and with little experience.
The idea of positive discrimination, or rather affirmative action, is to scale-up the capacity as well as the status of women who have been striving to break the ‘glass ceiling’ for decades now. I do not however think that a woman should be placed in a position a contending male is more qualified for. I believe women should strive to build their capacity and compete evenly with men and possibly win the contest because they are qualified and more capable. I think the focus should be on increasing their capacity for them to be able to compete with men and win the contests because I believe a reduction in the capability of a leader reduces the quality, output and outcome of the leadership.
I request we use the term ‘affirmative action’ (like the Americans) when referring to this issue instead of positive discrimination because the latter doesn’t sound good.
That’s fine Will, go ahead.
Gangbox: Yes, of course corporations can be regulated by the states and by the SEC, etc if they are public corporations, but if you were a lawyer you would know that the courts have a concept called the Business Judgment Rule when dealing with corporations. remember, Unless a corporation has committed a tort against you, you have no standing to sue it. Only shareholdlers do if the corporation did something such as hiring only male directors. Only the shareholders would have standing, and even then the courts usually defer to the business judgment of the corporation. The state has never been in the business of saying who must be on the board or who constitutes directors. That’s ALWAYS been the domain of the the shareholders in public corporations, and I’m worried that some of the feminist types would try to extend such a rule to closed corporations. I would hope you would object to them. Let me give you an example why. Say you and two male friends (presuming you are a female) want to form a corporation, all three of you are on the board. The board consists of only three people. Your nation passes a law that says that 50% of closed corporation boards must be female. That means one of your male board members would need to go. He would be ousted from his position, even if he stayed on, and the value of his stock has diminished because he’s no longer on the board. This is a tiny corporation we’re talking about, it’s closed, so shouldn’t they run it how they see fit? It’s a slippery slope, but right now the law in question is only for public corporations. As for secretary of states, their only real role is to recieve service of process, as that’s a condition for being allowed to operate in a jurisdiction.
http://willrhodes1961.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/a-woman-a-gun-and-a-floor-mop/
That’s the blog post – and thanks, Steve.