To ask your opinion on gender quotas

[eatabagofdicks]

After speaking with men who believe that many men are being pushed out of positions they deserve because of gender quotas. What are your opinions? Interested in women's point of view after being in a room full of men all night.

We're not all multinational behemoths sitting on endless supplies of capital

Indeed, but even the massive multinational corporates aren't doing it very well. If they were all getting nearer 50/50 men/women, it would filter out to more SMEs. A lot of those corporate companies are investing a lot in programmes to attract women - women's recruitment days, returnships for those who've had career breaks, women's networking organisations and so on. A lot of this is because there have been studies showing companies with more diverse boards make more profit, partly because they make better decisions because the diversity brings in different viewpoints.

But in most cases, the lower level managers who are doing much of the hiring and promotion of people in the early stages of their careers haven't got the message. They probably have been told at some point, but were probably more focussed on how to make the 10% reduction in costs that they'll be measured on at the end of the year, and which people to move round so they can get started on the new project which has come in, when they're already behind on the other work they're doing. So you find that the women who are moving up the ladder all come from the same departments, and in other departments, people end up frustrated and disappointed and by the time they realise the opportunities won't be coming, and make a sideways move, they're already behind others who have been well-mentored and encouraged. You need to make sure people are being prepared to move up, to gain experience, so that when you get to the top roles, you've got a decent pool of possible candidates, and not just a couple of white men who are probably both called Dave.

I don't think there should be gender quotas, it should just be down to the best candidate getting the job.
I have always been drawn to more male stereotype jobs, I've been a labourer for example doing loft conversions and extensions. I've never come across a tool I couldn't use due to being female (!).

I've recently started a new job that very few women do and I had to pass all the same tests that the men did. Certainly didn't get any special treatment or offered the job because I am a lady.

A lot of those corporate companies are investing a lot in programmes to attract women - women's recruitment days, returnships for those who've had career breaks, women's networking organisations and so on. A lot of this is because there have been studies showing companies with more diverse boards make more profit, partly because they make better decisions because the diversity brings in different viewpoints

Sounds good to me. If some of them are on that path already let's leave them to it. If their competitors don't follow and these voluntary internal policies yield the results you've outlined, they either adapt or they get left behind. Let that take place in a true meritocracy rather than urging the government to stick their beaks with cack handed measures which could unintentionally jeopardise it. If it's already happening, why give the government the chance to fuck it up? Authoritarian meddling will change the picture drastically and it will take a long time to fully understand what the results of those measures are. If they are damaging, we'll have gone out of our way to create a needless set back which could take a generation to undo. Market forces are working. Companies are showing you that they want the best people in the most suitable positions. The ones who achieve that aim will surpass their competitors - except in cases where governments have succumbed to lobbyists and helped to create monopolies. Those companies can do whatever they want because we empowered the state and those companies were in a position to lobby their way to a dominant position. Let's stop handing so much power to the state allow market forces to see to it that we get a true meritocracy.

Let that take place in a true meritocracy

That's not what we have now.

That's not what we have now

Ok. But I quoted a big paragraph from your previous post which said that big companies were taking their own voluntary action and that it was bearing fruit already. I said that the government ought to leave it alone and let it unfold naturally and I gave my reasons as to why I take that view. I'm not sure whether we agree or not.

But Ebearhug said its not working. I worked at a company that supported girls in stem events at secondary schools but didn't think it needed a women's network - i.e. outright rejected the idea.

That isn't how it comes across to me. She said that companies are "investing" in those programmes and that studies have turned out positive data. Implicit within that are the suggestions that:

A) companies are spending money and using other resources to operate these programmes. They don't typically spend money and send staff out (at a further cost) for such things if there is no intention of yielding some kind of benefit.

And B) there are already companies with the kind of diversity at board level that most people want to see. Moreover, they can demonstrate the benefits of it.

If all of this is true it isn't going to fizzle out and it will gain momentum. You risk stopping that momentum once the government starts to legislate. If the government could effectively control private companies we wouldn't have tax havens and such like. When good things begin to happen as a result of market forces, it's best left alone. That's my view anyway and I've repeated it enough times now so I'll be quiet until I have something new to offer on the subject.

I quoted a big paragraph from your previous post which said that big companies were taking their own voluntary action and that it was bearing fruit already.

I didn't say it was bearing fruit.

There are studies which have shown companies with more diverse boards are more likely to make bigger profits. There are companies investing in programmes to try and increase the diversity of their workforce. I am not sure that these programmes are having as much effect as would be hoped for.

The area I'm most aware of is IT, but we're not getting hordes of women applying; if anything, it worse than a decade or more ago. The percentage of women on university Computer Science courses was at a peak in the late '80s - it's mostly been going down since then. And if we're not getting them in at the start, they're not in the pipeline to be mentored and trained and prepared, and those who are, there's a lot of attrition in their 30s and 40s women take maternity breaks or get made redundant, which forces them to review their career paths, and quite a few think, I just can't be arsed with fighting for everything, when my male colleagues don't have it half so hard.

So there's part of me thinking, I don't know if I should be speaking to people at schools, to get them to consider roles in tech, because these days, whatever their interests, there's probably an area of tech where they can work with those interests - plus as well as being interesting, and always with something new to learn, roles are well-paid (it's male-dominated), and can be flexible, so it should be good for parents. There is a need for aother more people to enter technology careers, male and female, and all the efforts to encourage women don't seem to be having a very big effect. And sometimes I think, I amdoing them no favours by encouraging them, because they're still having to fight against all the men who are hiring and firing and deep-down, don't think women are actually as good at men, so mediocre white men prevail and promote each other, and they seem to be impervious to efforts to change their mindsets, so they're not going to improve the balance by themselves, which is why some form of positive discrimination is needed, be it quotas or otherwise, unless they suddenly start realising that inadequate male managers are reflecting badly on all the men in the workplace and fix it spontaneously.

Oh ok. I misunderstood you. We disagree but that's ok.

Shatner so you looked at the highly competent women around you in numerous roles and thought 'these must be the only brilliant women in the workplace. All those other women who work in companies that don't have women on the board or in senior roles must just be incompetent.' Seriously? You looked at how good women rose to the top, and thought they must be outliers? Because sexism just doesn't exist in your experience and therefore can't exist? By saying this you're putting your single experience against the research and experiences of thousands and concluding that you outweigh all the evidence. That's pretty privileged.

Somerford, I notice you say that a company gets a bargain employing a great woman because they can pay her less. Do you think this is okay? I don't get how you can believe in the pay gap but not think there's bias involved in creating it. This contradicts your stated opinion that there are no barriers to women's success and that they should just work harder.

I appreciate you're very upset at the prospect of having to theoretically employ an equal number of men and women, but honestly if your business is that small it doesn't sound like it's an issue for you.

For those in favour of quotas, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the five questions below.

1. Would they apply to all classes of employers (Plc, SME, public sector, private sector, small businesses, limited liability partnerships etc)?
2. Would they apply to all levels of a job (e.g. entry-level all the way up to top management)?
3. Would they apply to all types of work (e.g. Your local beautician would be forced to employ x% male eyebrow pluckers and your local abattoir would be forced to employ x% female slaughterers)?
4. Would they apply to every function within an organisation e.g. would a courier company be forced by law to have x% female van drivers as well as say the exact same x% female marketing executives?
5. How would you sanction non-compliance? Would your local builder face a a fine if they did not have x% female bricklayers

And now of course we must be ready for an additional question
6) Will the quota only apply to people who can prove that they carry 2 X chromosomes? Or will a person who merely "self identifies" as a woman be awarded the same status?

That'sSome, okay:

1. quotas should apply to companies who have a Board or advisory group, management team or similar. This does not apply to companies under say ten staff, I would expect.
2. no, quotas are for senior management and boards, because evidence shows that the issue is not women working in companies, it's getting promoted and given opportunities equal to male colleagues. Quotas are supposed to get senior people thinking about ways to build up the women in their firm's experience along the way to make them suitable for senior management in the way that they already do for men, and to give consideration to reasons why this isn't happening naturally. If a sector has trouble attracting or retaining women (e.g. IT) then quotas on boards should also supply the board with the experiences and skills to suggest ways to improve this.
3. see above.
4. No.
5. I wouldn't initially impose sanctions, I would offer tax breaks to companies complying over a 10 year period and after the 10 years I would fine companies that had made no steps to improve. The reason for 10 years is that it takes a long time for attitudes to change and I don't want it to be a case that there's an initial rush to get women on the board and then in 5 years things have slumped back. Also it would take time for the board to change its mindset towards company policies.
6. both should be represented; if your board has 10 seats, there should be 4 men, 4 women, 1 transman and 1 transwoman. Of course that's too perfect to be viable, so I'd say rather than removing one seat for a woman to give to a transwoman, why not expand the board to 11 people?
7. my question: should this apply to ethnic minorities too? My answer: yes, ethnicities should be represented in proportion to the demographics of the workforce. And if all your ethnic minorities are men, action needs to be taken to build skills in ethnic minority women within the company.

Further to the above - quotas are supposed to cut through barriers in workplace culture, and speed up equality by changing the senior levels of companies where people have the greatest influence. This is seen as being a faster route to changing institutional sexism than trying to change things from the bottom up - which is the lean in theory of women can do it if they work hard enough. This is happening and will continue to happen too, but we've been leaning in since the 70s or before and things haven't moved on as much as they should have so something needs to change from the top down too.

Mary Where the fuck did you get half of that rubbish from? Not from my posts. Clearly, you aren't able to have a reasonable discussion. Pity. I'm out.

Would they apply to all classes of employers (Plc, SME, public sector, private sector, small businesses, limited liability partnerships etc)?

I would think it would be similar to the current gender pay gap reporting, which is empowers of over 200 employees.

Shatner: if, in my experience, several big companies haven't had a problem promoting women for the best part of 30 years, what's the issue in other industries?

This is the part I got the view that you didn't believe in sexist work places. The answer to me is obvious - you've had the pleasure of working in places that aren't sexist. Great! That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Actually, I agree with EBear that companies of over 200 employees should do it, and would add any public sector or public funded companies too.

In a recent survey it was found that 98.9% of professional Tarot Card readers are female. Clearly the only explanation for this is the rampant unconscious bias against male Tarot Card readers. We need to do more as a society to convince younger boys that fortune telling IS something they can aspire to and be successful at. Until we break this barrier the whole field of Tarot Card reading will be denied the creativity and innovation that can ONLY come if the profession has a more representative practitioner base. My two sons deserve to have positive role models in this field and the state needs to intervene. I am writing to MP.

Click here and sign the online petition.

We can make a difference

board to change its mindset towards company policies.
6) hmm both should be represented; if your board has 10 seats, there should be 4 men, 4 women, 1 transman and 1 transwoman. Of course that's too perfect to be viable, so I'd say rather than removing one seat for a woman to give to a transwoman, why not expand the board to 11 people? Should this apply to ethnic minorities too? My answer: yes, ethnicities should be represented in proportion to the demographics of the workforce. And if all your ethnic minorities are men, action needs to be taken to build skills in ethnic minority women within the company

I have never heard such rampant Homophobic, Islamophobic, Antisemitism in all my LIFE!!!! Furthermore, your proposals to cruelly to deny appropriate representation of people from Cornwall perpetuates the Regionalist prejudices that has held British businesses back since 1945. Shame on you.

Excellent contribution to the thread, that.

Why thank you.

Series question
If our board has 10 seats, there should be 4 men, 4 women, 1 transman and 1 transwoman

Hypothetically, just say that the most suitable people for that organisation's board (in terms of experience, competence, qualifications, past proven abilities to tackle the particular issues the business was facing) just happened to be say 8 men and 2 women. Would you penalise the company for hiring the best people for the job because this would mean them falling foul of your "required" ratio of 4 men, 4 women, 1 transman, 1 transwoman?

Hypothetically, would you say that the fact that so many board members are currently men reflects the fact that they are the best people for the job?

It is very fucking unlikely that the best qualified people just happen to be almost all males.
It is much more likely that a less qualified male will be promoted over a more qualified woman, because that is how sexism works.

If you have a quota that depends on percentage of women in the job, then it is nearly impossible that there aren't enough qualified women for any position where the quota demands a woman.

I'm not unreasonable, I would start with a 30% quota if only 30% of people in the job are women.

And the idea that there should be 2 trans on a board with 10 people (which means a whopping 20%!) is completely bonkers. Trans people are not 20% of the population.

Vestal
It is very fucking unlikely that the best qualified people just happen to be almost all males

Based on what?

Hypothetically? Is it possible that the best candidates (e.g. with direct personal knowledge, skills, experience of say the competition, competence in the field) just happen not to come from your targetted gender?

Would say No to the more qualified person based on this basis alone?