Off Topic Thread 3.0

awec wrote: »

Are you trying to organise a coup? We will strike you down with unspeakable force.

I'd say I'm sh*tting myself but I don't want to get you excited.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

In terms of sporting bodies it makes perfect sense. Men can't accurately represent women when they don't know what it means to be a woman. Being a female athlete is a completely different thing to being a male athlete.

I'm all for it and I hope (probably naively) that it becomes a springboard to even greater diversity on boards once recognition of the benefits of a more diverse board become apparent though even as I write this I recognise the futility of this hope.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

How about the idea of the best person getting the job.

They're having that discussion in the UK at the moment too where the 5 previous heads of the FA have come out to say that the FA boards is continuously populated by elderly white men.

There is no question of saying that any of the individuals on the boards aren't good people who contribute to and have contributed in the past to the relevant organisation. The problem is that you've got a board which has a limited perspective. Add in a token woman and they're often ignored no matter how competent they are because they bring a perspective not seen by the majority. Add in someone with a physical disability and you've got another perspective, a learning disability and you've got another perspective, different skin colour and you've got another.

You can't have nor do you necessarily want every possible perspective but when a board is comprised or even largely comprised of a group of people all coming from just one broadly similar perspective then you've got a huge risk of group think not to mention that the ideas that are being missed out on.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

As someone with a group of close friends who are female athletes at the very top of their sports I respectfully disagree. In my experience they don't actually discriminate based on gender when choosing people to represent them legally or commercially. I've actually had this discussion with them as I found it interesting how many of them choose male agents/union representation (even internationally as they're not all based in Ireland).

Is that not a by-product of under representation though? Less female agents/union reps, means the choice of the 'best' ones invariably results in men being picked.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I am completely in favour of more diversity though and it should be actively encouraged even if this particular proposal seems a bit heavy-handed. It's not about misrepresentation though, that's a very foolish statement by Patrick O'Donovan.

Did he not say 'unrepresented'? As in the sports bodies have no female board members, therefore relevant female issues may be ignored.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Is that not a by-product of under representation though? Less female agents/union reps, means the choice of the 'best' ones invariably results in men being picked.

No, not to my knowledge. I'm talking about professional level which isn't quite fully mature but there is a pretty decent split and plenty of options ex-players involved. The point is that when the girls are looking for these services they don't actually feel that men cannot represent them.

There should be diversity of course. I'm merely saying the idea that women cannot at all be represented by men is totally false and it's actually extremely dismissive of some men who work in women's sport vocationally.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, not to my knowledge. I'm talking about professional level which isn't quite fully mature but there is a pretty decent split and plenty of options ex-players involved. The point is that when the girls are looking for these services they don't actually feel that men cannot represent them.

There should be diversity of course. I'm merely saying the idea that women cannot at all be represented by men is totally false and it's actually extremely dismissive of some men who work in women's sport vocationally.

I don't doubt that for a minute. Being one such myself.

But if I'm honest, I couldn't say with absolute conviction that I wouldn't miss something that would be more obvious to a woman. Or that it mightn't occur to me at all.

But it's not just about the much hackneyed 'women's issues'. It's about a different viewpoint, different experience and outlook that women can bring.

I'm really only talking about sport governance here. Other areas like agencies and union representation would probably have different aspects or viewpoints.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I don't doubt that for a minute. Being one such myself.

But if I'm honest, I couldn't say with absolute conviction that I wouldn't miss something that would be more obvious to a woman. Or that it mightn't occur to me at all.

But it's not just about the much hackneyed 'women's issues'. It's about a different viewpoint, different experience and outlook that women can bring.

I'm really only talking about sport governance here. Other areas like agencies and union representation would probably have different aspects or viewpoints.

Oh yes, no doubt. But that's why you should always have that viewpoint and experience present. I agree with that entirely. I'm just pointing out that the idea that men cannot represent women at all is incorrect.

Diversity is something we should work towards, I'm not sure if quotas are the best way to go about it but I'm certainly happy to accept they are so long as they're enforced intelligently and contextually. But the minister would be better advised to go about it without making silly statements like the one he did.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Quotas are necessary to ensure progress, unfortunately. It's not great for the women that get these jobs because they will always have "only there because PC gone mad!" thing hanging over them no matter how good they are at their jobs.
Much like South African rugby though they should be putting things in place at ground level to ensure that in 10 years time quotas aren't necessary. A few scholarships for female students for various sports management degrees, X amount of intern places for females only etc. etc. Along with a continued drive to promote sport among women, starting at primary school level, and in a few years you'd hopefully see an increase in the talent pool and then you can look at hiring the best person for the job without having to worry about gender.

I'm sorry but no, quotas are not the only way to ensure progress. Look at the 30% club.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I didn't say they were the only way. I said the were necessary to ensure progress.

If progress can be achieved without quotas (which we've seen in practice already) then they can't be necessary. I'd prefer we try the carrot before the stick.