EU threatens gender quota on companies if they don't appoint more women to top jobs

WindSock · 02-03-2011 02:50PM

What if the best person for the job has been a woman, but it was often overlooked because of her gender?
I am not saying filling quotas is the right way of going about it, the whole system is in need of an overhaul imo. But **** it, its all we got,to work with at the moment.

Mr. Presentable · 02-03-2011 03:00PM

WindSock wrote: »

What if the best person for the job has been a woman, but it was often overlooked because of her gender?
.

It wouldn't be much of a way to run a business - the best for the job is the best for the job. I'd be surprised if many reputable companies would fail to hire the best on offer because of gender. Or am I naive?

pickarooney · 02-03-2011 03:09PM

I've never understood how any company could be successful by deliberately hiring/promoting/raising the salaries of les-qualified employees, yet it's apparently a widespread practice, even in hugely successful enterprises such as Google.

smegmar · 02-03-2011 03:17PM

Men get top jobs because they can put in more time and are less prone to emotional decision making. I would leave it entirely up to the companies to decide who is on their board of directors, if they choose a man over a more qualified woman then it is their loss.

It's in general not the role women are best suited to. I know it's not a prefect world but just consider it having 'cheaper car insurance' tax.

biko · 02-03-2011 03:58PM

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

It wouldn't be much of a way to run a business - the best for the job is the best for the job. I'd be surprised if many reputable companies would fail to hire the best on offer because of gender. Or am I naive?

I would say so as men has a bias towards regarding women as inferior.
You yourself has displayed this in this very thread (they get sick, take time off, general sexism).
Yeah it's all jokey now but I think it's not uncommon for men to be jokey like this and also harbour feelings that women are just not up to the job.

smegmar wrote: »

Men get top jobs because they can put in more time and are less prone to emotional decision making.

Studies have shown that women are actually les likely to make rash emotional decisions.

Women are less afflicted than men by overconfidence, or the delusion that they know more than they really do. And they're more likely than men to attribute success to factors outside themselves, like luck or fate.

In 2001, a survey of financial analysts and investment advisers found that women felt it was much more important than men did to avoid incurring large losses, falling below a target rate of return and acting on incomplete information. In short, women are more risk-averse than men. And they shy away from uncertainty: Asked whether having ambiguous information would reduce their confidence and raise their perception of risk, 92% of the women said yes, versus just 69% of the men.

pickarooney · 02-03-2011 04:17PM

biko wrote: »

In 2001, a survey of financial analysts and investment advisers found that women felt it was much more important than men did to avoid incurring large losses, falling below a target rate of return and acting on incomplete information. In short, women are more risk-averse than men. And they shy away from uncertainty: Asked whether having ambiguous information would reduce their confidence and raise their perception of risk, 92% of the women said yes, versus just 69% of the men.

This risk-averseness would probably put someone off founding a company, by the same token, and further perpetuate the situation where the majority of founders/CEOs/board memebers are male. Individuals and companies who can recognise the strength of diversity should be the ones making all the progress but it doesn't seem to be happening yet.

Nolanger · 02-03-2011 06:57PM

smegmar wrote: »

I would leave it entirely up to the companies to decide who is on their board of directors

Imagine how sh*t most movies would be if they had a quota for female film directors?

bronte · 02-03-2011 08:01PM

Nolanger wrote: »

Imagine how sh*t most movies would be if they had a quota for female film directors?

Yeah that Mary Harron's a right talentless bint.

AlmightyCushion · 02-03-2011 08:20PM

bronte wrote: »

Yeah that Mary Harron's a right talentless bint.

American Psycho was brilliant but that's the only decent thing I remember seeing her do. That still puts her over a lot of other directors mind.

pragmatic1 · 02-03-2011 08:42PM

Then there needs to be quotas for hair dressers, beauticians, stylists, ect too. I'll happily wax fannies all day.

Ally Dick · 03-03-2011 12:40AM

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

i'm thinking his wife is his dog... based on his old fashioned attitude i doubt he'd find a woman

Hee hee hee. Sorry for that bit of mischief making. I have enjoyed the witty responses.

Guy:Incognito · 03-03-2011 12:52AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No it can't, we sold our countries soul to it on October 2nd 2010. :mad:

Thanks again to all those that voted YEs.

So your saying this is definately coming in now and it's becaus eof Lisbon?

What about all the other scremongering rubbiish you've spouted over the years that was going to be the end of us but has been quietly fogotten about and you never bring up again? Shall we start digging through it all? Shouldnt we all be living in camps by now?

Victor · 03-03-2011 04:00AM

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Then there needs to be quotas for hair dressers, beauticians, stylists, ect too. I'll happily wax fannies all day.

Ahem, Equal Status Act says that businesses can discriminate with regard to such personal services. You might end up with the American definition of 'fanny'.

EU threatens gender quota on companies if they don't appoint more women to top jobs

Comments