Corporate affirmative action for women?

[CitizenCain]

The question certain people here don't ask: By which other means would you ensure that women get an equal representation?

Clearly because certain people here use their brains for more than just to fill up their skulls.

The better question is why in the hell we should take measures to achieve "demographic balance" in the workplace or board room, and the answer would be that we shouldn't, of course.

Yes, wiggin. And our government allowed our industry to rectify the situation by themselves. Strangely enough, absolutely nothing changed at all.

And it couldn't possibly be for the same reason that 90%+ of German primary school teachers are female, could it? Gotta be some nefarious conduct. Evil industry is keeping women out of the boardroom, just like evil government is keeping men out teaching grade 2.

[Aimless]

Although I hear there's generally more money in the boardroom

[Loki]

I hear there's a lot of money in mining and construction, too. Mandate 40% female workers?

[GGT]

If women applying for mining or construction jobs aren't hired even though they're qualified, that could be considered employment discrimination.

The OP article doesn't prove the case that women aren't in corporate boardrooms because of discrimination, but the justice minister wants to "use" the threat of quotas for social engineering purposes, or to break the glass ceiling for women. We all know a proposal like that wouldn't fly in the US. My guess is it wouldn't pass muster in the EU either, because they're not a monolithic group politically or culturally.

One thing about getting on a BoD is that it's not something one applies for, like other jobs. It's a position offered by/through executives and other board members. Publicly owned companies can require BoD positions be voted in by shareholder proxy votes, but the short list usually comes from the board itself.

<Charities and philanthropic groups have a different 'corporate culture' and executive structure with board members from outside groups, and often don't pay for those positions, anyway. They tend to recruit more women than for-profit corporations.>

[Lewkowski]

Such a half-empty glass viewpoint; it reeks of the old can't have light without shadow argument. However, you seem to view success as a universal zero-sum game. Obviously there are winners and losers in many situations, but arguing that all situations result in inequality is a terribly limited and flawed outlook on the world. In regards to environment, noone said it determined decisions. Environment is the context needed to understand why something happened, not a tool to bludgeon personal responsibility out of the equation.

Success isn't a zero-sum game however one can not measure success unless one knows failure. If everyone fines success then what is success? A meaningless attribute. My position is simple, if you can't pin the blame for failure on the individual then one can not pin success on the individual either. Some people don't have a problem with that but I do.

[GGT]

Lewk, how does blame for individual failure or success fit into this thread?

[RandBlade]

Lewk, how does blame for individual failure or success fit into this thread?

In this instance there's an alleged "failure" on companies to find demographic balance, without looking at the "reasons" behind it.

[Dreadnaught]

The question certain people here don't ask: By which other means would you ensure that women get an equal representation?

And I mean measures you can actually implement and not some hand-waving gesture which magically conjures one non-existant driving force or other.

Hey buddy, Muslims make up 5% of Germany's population. How come I don't see Muslims on 5% of corporate boards?

The problem is the question you're asking isn't too meaningful. Corporate boards are meant to provide oversight. The demographic makeup of corporate boards usually has very little correlation to the demographic makeup of the company. There's usually just a 6 - 12 of them, after all! And their importance varies from company to company.

If we're going to have a meaningful discussion of gender parity in the workforce, we should have a discussion about gender parity in the workforce that's actually meaningful. IE focusing on pay disparities for women and men in the same position. Or discuss the cultural issues that may be getting in the way of women's advancement.

But these issues are always squishy and require squishy solutions, not hard-cut solutions like quotas.

[GGT]

In this instance there's an alleged "failure" on companies to find demographic balance, without looking at the "reasons" behind it.

But, boards don't operate as individuals, and corporations aren't people. If Lewk is trying to "blame" women as a group, or certain women for "failing" to get board director positions, then he's suggesting corporate culture isn't/can't be part of a problem. Dread makes more sense:

If we're going to have a meaningful discussion of gender parity in the workforce, we should have a discussion about gender parity in the workforce that's actually meaningful. IE focusing on pay disparities for women and men in the same position. Or discuss the cultural issues that may be getting in the way of women's advancement.

[Khendraja'aro]

Hey buddy, Muslims make up 5% of Germany's population. How come I don't see Muslims on 5% of corporate boards?

The problem is the question you're asking isn't too meaningful. Corporate boards are meant to provide oversight. The demographic makeup of corporate boards usually has very little correlation to the demographic makeup of the company. There's usually just a 6 - 12 of them, after all! And their importance varies from company to company.

If we're going to have a meaningful discussion of gender parity in the workforce, we should have a discussion about gender parity in the workforce that's actually meaningful. IE focusing on pay disparities for women and men in the same position. Or discuss the cultural issues that may be getting in the way of women's advancement.

But these issues are always squishy and require squishy solutions, not hard-cut solutions like quotas.

First of all, your muslim question cannot even be answered since we don't collect data on religious affiliation... secondly, your "squishy solutions" amount to:

Let's do fuck-all.

And "corporate boards"? Strange, I thought we were talking about managers in general and not just the top-dogs.

[Aimless]

ITT, 5% is as big as 50%

[Dreadnaught]

First of all, your muslim question cannot even be answered since we don't collect data on religious affiliation... secondly, your "squishy solutions" amount to:

Let's do fuck-all.

And "corporate boards"? Strange, I thought we were talking about managers in general and not just the top-dogs.

Why do you not collect this data? Is it because you're afraid it will show the depths of your pernicious discrimination and how underrepresented Muslims are on corporate boards in Germany?

Do you see the point I'm trying to make here? What you start to discuss having real quotas here, you open the discussion to the idea of pretty much any type of quota.

But if you read the opening post, we are talking about board rooms. That's the inane proposal that was cited in the article Wiggin posted. The solution is to change the culture of the workplace. And it's changed enormously over the past few decades without quotas. The threat of lawsuits for discrimination in employment and advancement seem to make a big difference; making people conscious of even the image of discrimination really matters.

[Khendraja'aro]

Last time I looked, religious affiliation was still a choice. Gender isn't.

And "it changed enormously"? You're once again ignoring the fact that our own German industry promised change. And nothing happened.

[Loki]

Last time I looked, religious affiliation was still a choice. Gender isn't.

And "it changed enormously"? You're once again ignoring the fact that our own German industry promised change. And nothing happened.

And the relevance is? You expect people to convert to Christianity just to be on a corporate board. We can also look at Turkish and Arabic names to denote people from non-German cultures. So why stop at women? Why not diversity the board room on the basis of sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability as well?

[Nessus]

And the relevance is? You expect people to convert to Christianity just to be on a corporate board. We can also look at Turkish and Arabic names to denote people from non-German cultures. So why stop at women? Why not diversity the board room on the basis of sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability as well?

If we take Hanlon's razor as an axiom, I wonder what corporate boards with 40% Down's syndrome sufferers would do worse than the current mess

[Khendraja'aro]

And the relevance is? You expect people to convert to Christianity just to be on a corporate board. We can also look at Turkish and Arabic names to denote people from non-German cultures. So why stop at women? Why not diversity the board room on the basis of sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability as well?

One thing at a time?

[Aimless]

Shush Khen prioritising etc. not permitted on phony slippery slope; 5% = 50%

[Loki]

One thing at a time?

Why start with women? Last I checked, the disparity in income between men and women is far lower than that between European natives and Muslim immigrants, and certainly even higher between the able-bodied and disabled.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not quite sure how to answer such a unrealistic notion of having to fix everything at once. Is that your notion of constructive criticism? Whenever someone tries to correct something, you go "But what about the other injustices in the world?"

I mean, just imagine: Someone sets out to feed starving people in Ruanda. And you come swooping in and cry: "But what about the people in Aserbaidjan? Don't you care about the oppressive regime there? You're a dastardly person for not doing something about that and only caring about Ruanda!"

Honestly, that's how you appear at the moment.

Another example: When we begin to teach over here, we're under supervision for the first 18 months. During that time, our performance is evaluated and we get feedback as to what we're doing right or wrong.
Without exception, ALL our supervisors told us that they'd be concentrating on the big issues first and only after having solved those big issues, they'd turn towards the smaller issues.

You come across as one of those persons who'd be absolutely unliked in our seminars because you'd be one to heap all the problems, mistakes and errors upon a newbie because you're unable to overlook an issue not matter how small.

[Loki]

Except my point was that the inequality between ethnic groups was far larger, and is causing serious social problems to boot. So no, you're the one fixating on relatively minor issues and ignoring the real discrimination against Muslims and other immigrants.

[Aimless]

Except my point was that the inequality between ethnic groups was far larger, and is causing serious social problems to boot. So no, you're the one fixating on relatively minor issues and ignoring the real discrimination against Muslims and other immigrants.

I am glad you recognise the magnitude and importance of this problem I myself have often wished the immigrants were as successful as the feminists in changing society. But at least it's a little easier to be an immigrant woman these days, maybe

[Khendraja'aro]

Except my point was that the inequality between ethnic groups was far larger, and is causing serious social problems to boot. So no, you're the one fixating on relatively minor issues and ignoring the real discrimination against Muslims and other immigrants.

Aaaaand ... we're actually working on that one as well. But thanks for playing.

[RandBlade]

I've still not seen anyone demonstrate why its a problem that needs government action to fix in the first place.

[wiggin]

I've still not seen anyone demonstrate why its a problem that needs government action to fix in the first place.

THANK YOU! That is my feeling as well.

[Khendraja'aro]

Ah, yes. "Why is it such a problem if there are no women in important decision-making roles?"

Back to the kitchen it is then, I guess. They should be grateful that we let them vote!

[GGT]

I've still not seen anyone demonstrate why its a problem that needs government action to fix in the first place.

But if you read the opening post, we are talking about board rooms. That's the inane proposal that was cited in the article Wiggin posted. The solution is to change the culture of the workplace. And it's changed enormously over the past few decades without quotas. The threat of lawsuits for discrimination in employment and advancement seem to make a big difference; making people conscious of even the image of discrimination really matters.

Threats can be that "outward pressure" that initiates change, even if it means simply raising awareness to a problem. Governments and legislators have the unique ability to do that, and get more attention than hundreds of citizen/consumer protests or boycotts. I think that's what she's doing here, and practically said so in the article. She doesn't like quotas, but likes what (the threat of) quotas can do.

In other words, she's trying to get male-dominated boardrooms and executives to realize, and ask, why half of the population, half of university grads, and half of the work force practically disappear at the top, or hold positions of power in private companies. And what they can do to help change that within their own culture or organization. See, it got wiggin's attention and now we're discussing it here!

Subtitle: How Will Women Break the Glass Ceiling in Corporate Boardrooms?

[Veldan Rath]

While it is nice that the the 'male-dominated boardrooms and executives' get donkey punched into asking why...how about BEFORE legislation gets written, those same twits do the work themselves and ask and find out why why instead of making a bread and circus's law? (Those evil white men! Punish them even though it will only cure the symptom!)

[wiggin]

Ah, yes. "Why is it such a problem if there are no women in important decision-making roles?"

Back to the kitchen it is then, I guess. They should be grateful that we let them vote!

Please, women are in plenty of important decision making roles. They just aren't in a large proportion on corporate boards. So what? Men aren't a large proportion of caring for and educating our children - so that obviously means that women are getting an unfair advantage to indoctrinate the next generation. They're all going to turn out to be raging feminists! Oh noes! Spot the flaw in the logic there?

You assume that imbalance compared to demographics necessarily means that there is a concerted effort afoot to deny women power or access to certain jobs. You have yet to prove that's even remotely the case, though. I have no issue of skewed gender (or race, or ethnicity, or nationality) ratios if said skewing is a result of a natural process. Show me discrimination and I'll be first on the bandwagon.

In other words, she's trying to get male-dominated boardrooms and executives to realize, and ask, why half of the population, half of university grads, and half of the work force practically disappear at the top, or hold positions of power in private companies. And what they can do to help change that within their own culture or organization. See, it got wiggin's attention and now we're discussing it here!

Except that I've already got a pretty good idea of why there are such few women in the boardroom, and it doesn't really bother me. It got my attention because it's a bad idea, not because it's something important we should talk about.

[RandBlade]

Ah, yes. "Why is it such a problem if there are no women in important decision-making roles?"

Back to the kitchen it is then, I guess. They should be grateful that we let them vote!

Really? That's your argument. We had a female Prime Minister, the most important decision maker in the country, 33 years ago, 3 years before I was born. Don't you Germans currently have a female Chancellor?

Women do make up a (growing) proportion of all parts of society including board rooms etc without having any quotas.

Can you provide evidence​ that this is a problem that needs government action to fix.

In other words, she's trying to get male-dominated boardrooms and executives to realize, and ask, why half of the population, half of university grads, and half of the work force practically disappear at the top, or hold positions of power in private companies. And what they can do to help change that within their own culture or organization. See, it got wiggin's attention and now we're discussing it here!

Much has been made in this thread of the fact that more than half of university graduates today are female: That's true, but is it relevant? Afterall, even without taking into account what proportion choose to get a corporate career (as opposed to say education which is non-corporate but does require a degree) do people normally go straight from graduation to the boardroom? I thought normally there was a career in-between.

So since this is deemed relevant, for how long has it been true?
Since it became true, how long have those graduates been working in their chosen careers?
How much experience do the board room members normally have?

[CitizenCain]

Seems to me that before forcing this on private enterprise, maybe government should try it on itself, hmm? 40% of legislators or cabinet members must be women to address that imbalance.

Then, if anyone still thinks its a good idea, we can discuss it, or at least have a great example of what a stupid clusterfuck this type of moronery creates.