Companies 'may be forced to appoint women to boards'

thebigbiffo · 10-04-2013 10:50AM #1

Sky News are reporting that laws may be created in the UK which will 'force' a company to appoint women to their boards.

Cant find the Sky story but it probably related to this EU initiative:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20322317

How can this be justifiable? This essentially means that if you do not have 40% of your board female, you MUST hire a woman regardless of whether you have a male candidate more qualified.

This is where the feminist movement has gone WAY too far. Now, it's justifiable to discriminate against men and nobody bats an eyelid.

I agree with some kind of oversight to ensure there is no sexism taking place in choosing a candidate - but actively forcing a company to hire a woman?? That's just sick in my opinion.

Where does it end? Will there be a physically handicapped quota in a few years? How about a racial quota? Maybe break it down to regional representation?

I'm actually shocked that this kind of law is being seriously considered. It's nothing short of disgraceful.

Seachmall · 10-04-2013 10:56AM

"Who needs qualifications when you have boobs?!"

"Women, don't strive too hard, we'll give you a lift!"

I'm sure there are genuine reasons for these things but the above is how I can't help but interpret it as.

And it's pretty condescending.

jaffacakesyum · 10-04-2013 11:00AM

I don't agree with gender quotas at all but I do think it's a shame there's little else you can do to get rid of the "old boys club" which certainly still exists in businesses today. What's stopping an employer picking a man over a better qualified woman? Nothing really. Sure it's "discriminatory" in law but you can't prove she's not getting the job because of her gender.

Still, I don't think gender quotas are the solution.

I wonder would men support gender quotas for things like primary school teaching?

Nodin · 10-04-2013 11:03AM

Odd, one of the main requirements to get on to any board I've ever dealt with seems to have been to be a dickhead.

DonkeyStyle \o/ · 10-04-2013 11:05AM

"if candidates are found to be equally qualified, then preference should be given to women"

It's not the other candidate's fault he was born a man. Nice equality there.

Duggy747 · 10-04-2013 11:06AM

How liberating for women, to be patronisingly given a position because you're a woman rather than your skills and have others doubt your capabilities because of so.

"Ah yeah, she only got that job because she's woman / probably sucked someone off!"

NothingMan · 10-04-2013 11:07AM

Why do women have boobs?

So you have something to look at when you're talking to 'em...... *honk*

livinsane · 10-04-2013 11:08AM

My ex used to say that if he ever ran a company, he would hire a man over a woman everytime so he wouldn't have to deal with maternity leave.

HondaSami · 10-04-2013 11:14AM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Sky News are reporting that laws may be created in the UK which will 'force' a company to appoint women to their boards.

Cant find the Sky story but it probably related to this EU initiative:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20322317

How can this be justifiable? This essentially means that if you do not have 40% of your board female, you MUST hire a woman regardless of whether you have a male candidate more qualified.

This is where the feminist movement has gone WAY too far. Now, it's justifiable to discriminate against men and nobody bats an eyelid.

I agree with some kind of oversight to ensure there is no sexism taking place in choosing a candidate - but actively forcing a company to hire a woman?? That's just sick in my opinion.

Where does it end? Will there be a physically handicapped quota in a few years? How about a racial quota? Maybe break it down to regional representation?

I'm actually shocked that this kind of law is being seriously considered. It's nothing short of disgraceful.

Is this what they are proposing really? regardless of qualifications or who is the best candidate you have to hire a woman ?

VinLieger · 10-04-2013 11:17AM

You gotta love feminists, "We dont need the help of men we are equal in every aspect" while simultaneously shouting "This is too hard we need a law that puts us first"

awec · 10-04-2013 11:18AM

This is blatant sexism, along with all quota laws.

But it's the ok type of sexism, because it discriminates against men.

HondaSami wrote: »

Is this what they are proposing really? regardless of qualifications or who is the best candidate you have to hire a woman ?

This already happens.

Women can be hired to help boost the gender quota at a company, they may not be the best candidate.

jaffacakesyum · 10-04-2013 11:22AM

VinLieger wrote: »

You gotta love feminists, "We dont need the help of men we are equal in every aspect" while simultaneously shouting "This is too hard we need a law that puts us first"

Yes because all feminists agree with gender quota laws?? :rolleyes:

Zulu · 10-04-2013 11:24AM

Didn't you get Ivana Baciks memo? Sexism is bad, but it's ok to be sexist in order to get rid of sexism. You see if you want to stop sexism, you need to introduce even more sexism.

HondaSami · 10-04-2013 11:26AM

awec wrote: »

This already happens.

Women can be hired to help boost the gender quota at a company, they may not be the best candidate.

I would find this disgraceful and an insult to men and women if it's true, not saying it's not btw.
The best candidate should get the job for their skills not because they have boobs.

awec · 10-04-2013 11:26AM

HondaSami wrote: »

I would find this disgraceful and an insult to men and women if it's true, not saying it's not btw.
The best candidate should get the job for their skills not because they have boobs.

I agree.

Gender quota laws dictate otherwise.

10-04-2013 11:26AM

Yeah, blame ALL the feminists, the feminist hive mind agrees unanimously

Zulu · 10-04-2013 11:27AM

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Yes because all feminists agree with gender quota laws?? :rolleyes:

Of course they probably don't, yet we don't see any of the usual shills out denouncing them.
You also can't ignore that the louder feminist voice supports them, so he/we can't be blamed for making such comments.

It would probably be more accurate to say "feminism" as opposed to "feminists", but we all know what was meant.

Nodin · 10-04-2013 11:27AM

HondaSami wrote: »

I would find this disgraceful and an insult to men and women if it's true, not saying it's not btw.
The best candidate should get the job for their skills not because they have boobs.

Or being related to the boss. Or riding the boss.

Or being related to one boss and riding the main boss.

Nodin · 10-04-2013 11:28AM

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, blame ALL the feminists, the feminist hive mind agrees unanimously

This is true. I poked one with a stick once and the other 5 jumped as well.

Peregrine · 10-04-2013 11:29AM

I wonder how many women would love to know that the only reason they were suddenly put into a board was to fill a quota, not because they earned it.

Gender quotas are government induced sexism

jaffacakesyum · 10-04-2013 11:30AM

Zulu wrote: »

Of course they probably don't, yet we don't see any of the usual shills out denouncing them.
You also can't ignore that the louder feminist voice supports them, so he/we can't be blamed for making such comments.

I can and I will blame him/you. I'm sick of people generalising all feminists to be x y and z. It wouldn't be allowed on here if you were generalising any other group so why is it allowed when it's feminists? Who cares if it's a louder voice. There's a loud voice of men who are anti-Irish women on boards.ie but that doesn't mean I can go around saying all men on boards are anti-Irish women. It's nonsense. I hate this "oh well they shout the loudest so they must represent all feminists".

awec · 10-04-2013 11:30AM

I don't understand how feminist groups are not up in arms about this. It is patronising and demeaning to women and it's goal is to see women treated differently to men, is that not what these groups are out to stop?

Clearly not all feminists are for these quotas, but has any group ever spoken out against them in any meaningful way?

NothingMan · 10-04-2013 11:31AM

HondaSami wrote: »

The best candidate should get the job for their skills not because they have boobs.

Excellent. I'm going to become a lingerie model now. All these years my lack of boobs and my downstairs brain sticking outside the thong held me back, but now...:P

Zulu · 10-04-2013 11:31AM

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Gender quotas are government induced sexism

I dunno, would the "government" have ever done anything about them if they weren't being pushed by certain lobby groups? I doubt it. Government love the status-quo.
Gender quotas are feminist* induced sexism.

*terms & conditions apply.

HondaSami · 10-04-2013 11:31AM

Nodin wrote: »

Or being related to the boss. Or riding the boss.

Or being related to one boss and riding the main boss.

Yes but a man could be riding his boss as well, same advantage really.

Nodin · 10-04-2013 11:33AM

HondaSami wrote: »

Yes but a man could be riding his boss as well, same advantage really.

I was not gender specific.....

VinLieger · 10-04-2013 11:34AM

awec wrote: »

I don't understand how feminist groups are not up in arms about this. It is patronising and demeaning to women and it's goal is to see women treated differently to men, is that not what these groups are out to stop?

Clearly not all feminists are for these quotas, but has any group ever spoken out against them in any meaningful way?

Exactly, i may have been a bit generalising in my previous post of course all feminists dont think alike and this is probably a case of the loudest ones getting their way but im yet to hear one feminist group come out in public opposition to these kind of gender quota proposals.

Dante · 10-04-2013 11:35AM

If by 'board' they mean ironing-board, I'd be all for this.

Zulu · 10-04-2013 11:37AM

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I can and I will blame him/you. I'm sick of people generalising all feminists to be x y and z.

So we simply can't ever discuss what the major thrusts of a particular movement are simply because "not every member" thinks the same? Well thats a convienient "get out" clause. :rolleyes:

It wouldn't be allowed on here if you were generalising any other group

Yes it would, and it does. When we discuss a political movement, when we discuss a social movement it always happens. It would appear that it's only to be discouraged when it asks awkward questions of feminism. Why is that?

Who cares if it's a louder voice.

Anyone forced to listen.

If you are a member of a group, and you find that you are being misrepresented - do something about it. Show us all where feminist lobby groups are denouncing gender quotas...

SeventySix · 10-04-2013 11:43AM

I don't agree with quotas at all but it is a fallacy to say that women and men are equal in job interviews.

Women are asked about maternity leave still in interviews, despite the fact that it is illegal. I know from my friends, most working in male dominated companies, that many men still think women with kids cant commit to their jobs as fully as men can.

And before the cries of 'why dont men get paternity leave??' Given that less than 40% of most company boards are women, its mens fault that men dont have paternity leave so ask your brothers.

syklops · 10-04-2013 11:43AM

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Yes because all feminists agree with gender quota laws?? :rolleyes:

bluewolf wrote:

Yeah, blame ALL the feminists, the feminist hive mind agrees unanimously

The word feminist was mentioned 3 times before Jaffacakesyum commented. Not once was the word ALL placed in front of it, and yet you still get outraged. :rolleyes:

Companies 'may be forced to appoint women to boards'

Comments