nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Gender Equality

Huckleberry Finn

In Iceland, a law passed in March 2010 which requires Icelandic companies with more than 50 employees to have at least 40% of both gender represented on their boards by September 2013.

How can we make this happen in Ireland?

Also I think it should apply to elected representatives through candidates put forward for election. To ensure 40% of both gender are represented in the Dáil. There seems to be a majority of men on government committees and in Dáil Éireann. Quite evident by the majority of middle aged men in parliament.

Political parties should also ensure that their proposed candidates cover all ages groups equally, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s. To curtail political family dynasties I would suggest parties discourage children of former politicians going forward for election.

Do you agree with some or all of this? For a start I think similar legislation as done in Iceland should occur here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

girl2

This could be fun

Dravokivich

Equality means the same level of opportunity, not a scale which gender has to be balanced on.

[Deleted User]

I think it's silly

smash

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

How can we make this happen in Ireland?

Why would you want it to happen? The person to get the job should be based on merit and credentials, not sex!

Jimdagym

Gender equality is the same opportunities, regardless of gender. The right person gets the job. Its decidedly unequal to deny the right person the job because their genders quota has already been met.

A Primal Nut

What's the benefit? Whatever about it happening in the public sector, forcing it on the private sector is rediculous.

If woman want to be on these boards, they have to put their career first., like a lot of men do. Handing it to them on a plate is a stupid idea.

A lot of women lose interest in moving higher up the ladder once they have a family, more so than men. Individual women have to address that themselves if they want to be on these boards, instead of asking society to adapt to their needs.

The fact is that whether feminists like it or not, a lot of women aren't interested in a job that requires long hours, less so than men do. It's up to women to change this themselves and stop blaming all their problems on discrimination.

In fact, bringing in this law, would in my opinion, be patronising towards those women who have made it through hard work and long hours without resorting to these rediculous quotas.

It's like bringing in a quota forcing more men to be stay-at-home-fathers, even if they don't want to.

Huckleberry Finn

smash wrote: »

Why would you want it to happen? The person to get the job should be based on merit and credentials, not sex!

If it IS based on merit and credentials here, why are the majority men?

biko

Men hire other men. They are also the type of men that look down on women, and black people.

Emeraldy Pebbles

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

In Iceland, a law passed in March 2010 which requires Icelandic companies with more than 50 employees to have at least 40% of both gender represented on their boards by September 2013.

How can we make this happen in Ireland?

We don't. Positive discrimination, to be honest. As a woman, I'd like to know in the future that any jobs I get are got on merit (or through connections :pac:), not to fill some bullsh1t quota.

Cavehill Red

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

If it IS based on merit and credentials here, why are the majority men?

Maybe men are outliers? IE more likely to be found at the extreme ends of the bell curve.
To put it another way, why are the majority of people in prison men? Should we be agitating for gender quotas there too?

Scanlas The 2nd

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

If it IS based on merit and credentials here, why are the majority men?

Perhaps women aren't interested in certain jobs just like men aren't certain jobs.

If primary school jobs are based on merit why are the majority women?

Simply because more women are interested in the job, it doesn't mean men are discriminated against.

Duggy747

Yeah, I mean why would you ever want to hire a person who was best for the job, regardless of sex?

*reviewing interview sheets*
Employer 1: "Well, this person has a x certificates and x amount of years in the field with......"
Employer 2: "This one here is a wom..."
Employer 1: "She's hired!!"

Huckleberry Finn

Some more information from other countries:

Norway was the first country to implement a 40% quota of women on boards (2003) with severe sanctions. Following this reform, the share of women on corporate boards increased from 25 percent in 2004 to 42 percent in 2009.

Spain followed the Norwegian example in 2007 by adopting a similar law (goal of 40% of women on corporate boards in 2015). As a result, the participation of women on boards has risen from 4 percent in 2006 to 10 percent in 2010.

In January 2010, a law was passed requiring French firms of more than 500 employees to reach a quota of 20% of women on corporate boards within three years and of 40% by 2017. In October 2010, about one third of the concerned third reached the 20% goal, but the average was 7%.

Dravokivich

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

Some more information from other countries:

Norway was the first country to implement a 40% quota of women on boards (2003) with severe sanctions. Following this reform, the share of women on corporate boards increased from 25 percent in 2004 to 42 percent in 2009.

Spain followed the Norwegian example in 2007 by adopting a similar law (goal of 40% of women on corporate boards in 2015). As a result, the participation of women on boards has risen from 4 percent in 2006 to 10 percent in 2010.

In January 2010, a law was passed requiring French firms of more than 500 employees to reach a quota of 20% of women on corporate boards within three years and of 40% by 2017. In October 2010, about one third of the concerned third reached the 20% goal, but the average was 7%.

It means nothing if it's a cost saving measure.

biko

Duggy747 wrote: »

Yeah, I mean why would you ever want to hire a person who was best for the job, regardless of sex?

That how men say it when they actually mean - "we'll hire who we want and **** your diversity".

There's this newspaper in Sweden that are leading the "fight against racism".
The strange thing is that every single reporter in the building is white, all the janitors are black...

Crooked Jack

This is ridiculous. The fact is there is not and probably never will be a workable version of this narrow view of "gender equality" simply because men and women are not equal, they are very different. That's not chauvinism it's just reality. You aren't going to have a building site where 40 per cent of the workforce is female.
It has been said plenty already but merit and ability should be the only deciding factors.

A Primal Nut

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

If it IS based on merit and credentials here, why are the majority men?

Because women don't have the same desire to get higher up the ladder and work longer hours as men do. Some do, but more don't. Whether it's because have families or whatever. It's the reality whether you like it or not.

Stop blaming all women's problems on "evil" men. Women have just as many opportunities if they want them.

spoofilyj

Having quots's is not gender equality its actually sexist.

Giving both sexes the same opportunity and selecting the best candidates the job is equality.

Also there are areas that are dominated by one sex and this is probably because more people of that gender enjoy that job, for example not many Women are involved in construction sector and not many men are beauticians, just an example.

Quota's are stupid, simple as.

A Primal Nut

Another example, in college I studied engineering which was mostly men and very women. Nearly everyone I knew who studied Engineering or Science was a man. And it means long hours in college 25 hours of lectures and mandatory labs, plenty of assignments etc.

Meanwhile, a lot of women I knew were studying arts, mostly female-dominated, and would boast about how they spent more time in the pub than in college. So why should they have the same opportunities as me, just because of their gender?

I'm not saying women don't work hard, the ones that studied with me worked as hard as anyone, and they got good jobs. But that's what more women need to do (family or no family) if they want to get to the top.

Huckleberry Finn

There are only 25 women out of 166 members of Dáil Éireann. If only hardwork, credentials and merit played a part here!

chopperbyrne

Ludicrous law. As long as people aren't excluded based solely on their gender, then equality is fine. The best person should be hired, regardless of gender.

Jimdagym

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

There are only 25 women out of 166 members of Dáil Éireann. If only hardwork, credentials and merit played a part here!

And how many woman ran for public office compared to men? Hardlt inequality if women dont want the job to begin with.

Shenshen

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

In Iceland, a law passed in March 2010 which requires Icelandic companies with more than 50 employees to have at least 40% of both gender represented on their boards by September 2013.

How can we make this happen in Ireland?

Also I think it should apply to elected representatives through candidates put forward for election. To ensure 40% of both gender are represented in the Dáil. There seems to be a majority of men on government committees and in Dáil Éireann. Quite evident by the majority of middle aged men in parliament.

Political parties should also ensure that their proposed candidates cover all ages groups equally, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s. To curtail political family dynasties I would suggest parties discourage children of former politicians going forward for election.

Do you agree with some or all of this? For a start I think similar legislation as done in Iceland should occur here.

I don't know enough about the situation in Iceland to be able to make any qualified comments, but I think before we even consider thinking about anything like that here, we need to make a good few changes first.

Currently, there is no legal entitlement to parental leave for men. So women are the ones who will have to stay at home once a child is born, there is no other option unless the father's employer really goes above and beyond.

Day care is excruciatingly expensive, making it unaffordable for a lot of women to go out and work. Nobody should ever be in a situation where they cannot financially afford to work.

A lot of companies are highly and needlessly inflexible where working from home or even flexible working hours are concerned. While I am well aware that for many professions, neither of these are even an option, I know of a good few companies who will not allow it even when it's possible, and in some cases would actually be the better option even for the company itself.

I know a few people have already brought up the point that once women start having children, they are more likely to stay at home. I think they need to at least have the option to go back to work before we can go any further.

Unless they have that option, legislation as outlined by the OP will only result in companies struggling to fulfil an artificial quota, and accept sub-standard emplyees simply in order to comply with the law. Not a good idea.

Zulu

Firstly that is not gender equality, but gender discrimination.

Secondly, if you agree with gender discrimination in order to get equality of numbers, why 40% & not 50%?

pickarooney

What kind of person really wants this kind of job, with all its attendant stress levels and neverending hours? I can't imagine you'd have a great quality of life and your family is bound to suffer. Best of luck to whoever has these ambitions but it's folly to assume that it's in everyone's interest to foist a position on someone who's not really committed to such a lifestyle.

smash

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

There are only 25 women out of 166 members of Dáil Éireann. If only hardwork, credentials and merit played a part here!

You do realise that even female politicians have dismissed gender quotas as being a f*cking retarded idea, don't you?

Dravokivich

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

There are only 25 women out of 166 members of Dáil Éireann. If only hardwork, credentials and merit played a part here!

Well we as voters put them there. How about we chastise ourselves?

biko

Great thread, really got the masses riled up. Well done OP.

Huckleberry Finn

I believe it is to do with who the parties select to put forward.

shopaholic01

People should be employed based on suitability, experience etc. The idea of having a quota of male to female employees is ludricious.

I think discrimination only occurs if equally suitable employees are paid different salaries. The obsession with political correctness and gender equality will only create further discrimination and resentment.