NationStates Jolt Archive

Norweigan company boards must be at least 40% female by 2007, or the companies will face forcible liquidation.

Gottaa love big government in action. Next they will be telling companies how many natural blondes and brunettes they must hire. PC has really run amock.


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/05/norway.women.reut/

Well, many executives are biased against promoting women higher up the coroprate ladder, believing them to lack leadership skills and the like.

It may level the playing field a bit.

I never believed in leveling the playing field.

You should only get the job if you're qualified, not if you fit under a certain group of people.

Norweigan company boards must be at least 40% female by 2007, or the companies will face forcible liquidation.

That's slightly misleading. Apparently companies are required to have 40% of either gender on their board.

That said, I don't think quotas are a good idea.

Well, many executives are biased against promoting women higher up the coroprate ladder, believing them to lack leadership skills and the like.

It may level the playing field a bit.

they might also feel threatened

Norweigan company boards must be at least 40% female by 2007, or the companies will face forcible liquidation.

Gottaa love big government in action. Next they will be telling companies how many natural blondes and brunettes they must hire. PC has really run amock.


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/05/norway.women.reut/

It's not PC, it ensures equality.

That said, I don't think quotas are a good idea.

Indeed, quotas tend to be counteractive, as all they are is enforced discrimination.

.......how many computer science girls can you find just randomly walking around the campus?

Now take the number of guys, and calculate your ratio. Its not 6 to 4.

Norweigan company boards must be at least 40% female by 2007, or the companies will face forcible liquidation.

Gottaa love big government in action. Next they will be telling companies how many natural blondes and brunettes they must hire. PC has really run amock.


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/05/norway.women.reut/
that really is incredibly stupid, it'll mean that some men might get sacked even though they're perfectly good at their job, doesn't sound much like equality to me

I sure LOCE gender equality! :D

while it might be kind of rough at the beginning (i have no idea of the current state of gender equality in norwegian companies), as they get to the full understanding of what is required the will begin to train and promote the women needed to fill these positions.

either that or theyll just add BS board positions for the sole purpose of putting women in them.

"Since 2002 the percentage of women in boards has risen to only 11 percent from six," Daavoey said. "Yet there are thousands of qualified women out there -- companies can choose from half the adult population."

They seem to think that there ARE qualified women out there, and that these companies are CHOOSING not to hire women.

I never believed in leveling the playing field.

You should only get the job if you're qualified, not if you fit under a certain group of people.
I think the allegation is that qualified women are not being hired because they're women.

That said, I agree with Dempublicents1 and FairyTInkArisen. I'm a bit leery of this plan.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

In a Norwegian, and Scandinavian, context this makes sense. The low percentage of women in corporate boards is in sharp contrast to the gender distribution in the rest of society.

I don't agree with the Norwegian way of doing something about it, but it is clear that the lack of women in the boards has a lot to do with discrimination, and not just "chance" or unavailability of qualified women.

while it might be kind of rough at the beginning (i have no idea of the current state of gender equality in norwegian companies), as they get to the full understanding of what is required the will begin to train and promote the women needed to fill these positions.

either that or theyll just add BS board positions for the sole purpose of putting women in them.
The article seems to suggest that Norway is pretty balanced gender wise in all other areas (including government), and that just a few sectors are lagging. I hope the government is willing to pay for the training that may be needed to lure women into those sectors IF women are not already IN those sectors. It's hard to say why they feel this is necessary. Are women being passed over in favour of men, or are there just not women entering these fields?

that really is incredibly stupid, it'll mean that some men might get sacked even though they're perfectly good at their job, doesn't sound much like equality to me
It's like with black people several years back.

Because men don't like to hire/promote women, the government has to make it compulsory. It's almost the only way

I sure LOCE gender equality! :D

Don't we all?

Anyhoo.
Erm... well that's rubbish.
It's just affirmitive action, which doesn't solve any problems, and is quite possibly the single worst idea in the history of ever. All you get is men resentful of the women who've taken their jobs, men in the board thinking the women are only there because of their gender, and women not being taken seriously. You also have women who feel patronised as if they need help to be given these jobs as they aren't qualified to earn them on their own, and all sorts.

I think the allegation is that qualified women are not being hired because they're women.

That said, I agree with Dempublicents1 and FairyTInkArisen. I'm a bit leery of this plan.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
I used to be fairly for things like this, until I worked in the Northwest Territories. Up there, quotas are set as to how many aboriginal people must be hired by certain companies (such as the diamond mines and so on). I thought it was a great idea until I realised that quotas do not create qualified candidates. Sure, aboriginals are hired, but they are ill-trained (usually because they drop out of training), and have to be constantly fired and rehired. They end up being the cleaners and cooks instead of the tradespeople, just so the companies can say that have x percentage of native hires. These companies even PAY for the training, but there are wider societal issues that keep the aboriginals of the North out of good jobs. They could have the schooling and training, but they have to first deal with those societal issues. Quotas do nothing to further that.

Then again, the North is a bit different. They would take any local qualified workers rather than fly them in from outside. In other cases of affirmative action-type policies, the employers would NOT choose to hire the targeted group, no matter their qualifications. So I'm not sure on this one. I don't have enough information.

They seem to think that there ARE qualified women out there, and that these companies are CHOOSING not to hire women.


Thats a female politician who is gonna run for re election at some point speaking...

Maybe board memberships dont reflect the population for reasons other than discrimination. Maybe it is because more woman than men CHOOSE to take a significant portion of their working years(say 10-20yrs) off because they might prefer to raise their children. Not that all women do this mind you, but more women than men do. Just that 1 piece of info by itself would severly shrink the number of equally qualified women as men when it comes to TOP positions like being on a company's board.

If you truly are worthy of the position you'll sale yourself to your employer properly and they'll hire you.

If you don't get chosen, it's not because you're a woman, or black, or what have you, it's because they found someone else that is better.

If there was some sort of conspiracy to keep those more qualified out because they're women, then there would be a surge of women led companies that would clearly outshine the men.

These companies even PAY for the training, but there are wider societal issues that keep the aboriginals of the North out of good jobs. They could have the schooling and training, but they have to first deal with those societal issues. Quotas do nothing to further that.
Sounds like a problem of treating the symptom in favor of treating the disease.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

If you truly are worthy of the position you'll sale yourself to your employer properly and they'll hire you.

If you don't get chosen, it's not because you're a woman, or black, or what have you, it's because they found someone else that is better.

If there was some sort of conspiracy to keep those more qualified out because they're women, then there would be a surge of women led companies that would clearly outshine the men.

That is so naive.

Sounds like a problem of treating the symptom in favor of treating the disease.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

yes it does doesnt it. Except that it might not be a "problem" per say but rather different lifestyle choices.

That is so naive.

Is it? Because statisticians and sociologists agree with me. I would find you the source, but I'm quite limited right now.

I would like your explanation as to why it is so naive that a group of supposedly more qualified people couldn't go out and make a better corporation than their competitors.

Sounds like a problem of treating the symptom in favor of treating the disease.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Pretty much. It had good intentions. It just hasn't worked in practice.:(

Is it? Because statisticians and sociologists agree with me. I would find you the source, but I'm quite limited right now.

I highly doubt that.

I would like your explanation as to why it is so naive that a group of supposedly more qualified people couldn't go out and make a better corporation than their competitors.

That's not what you claimed in your original post. No red herrings, please. What you claimed was that if "you're the one with the best qualifications, you'll get hired". That is naïve. And why people of minority and women don't actually get to positions of power to actually do what you say they would do in the same extent as white men is not something you explain.

yes it does doesnt it. Except that it might not be a "problem" per say but rather different lifestyle choices.
Well...to a certain extent that is true. Aboriginals in the north, much more than us in the south, live a very traditional lifestyle centred around hunting seasons. So during good hunting, they often abandon work in order to provide sustenance for themselves and their families. Canadian culture doesn't handle this well. Schools in the north don't take it into account, even though many children are consistantly absent for long periods during these times. Non-aboriginal employers don't respect it, and assume that these people are going on long drinking binges (which in some cases is true).

HOWEVER...much more of their unemployability lies in the fact that few natives complete their schooling (for the reaons listed above? yes, that has something to do with it, it's a vicious cycle), few stick it out and get properly trained, and few value their work the way other Canadians do. So yes, I guess it is based in culture. The problems of abuse and drugs also factor in. Hmmph...it's hard to say. My people (the Cree) have assimilated more, and have gotten used to Canadian 'values'. My northern brothers and sisters haven't. They still live traditionally and Canadian 'values' keep imposing themselves on them without taking into account the cultural differences.

You've given me even more to think about.

Is it? Because statisticians and sociologists agree with me. I would find you the source, but I'm quite limited right now.

I would like your explanation as to why it is so naive that a group of supposedly more qualified people couldn't go out and make a better corporation than their competitors.
No one is saying MORE qualified. AS qualified. You are assuming the market is blind to colour, sex, or other ways we discrimnate against one another. It isn't. The market is comprised of people, and people are flawed. Thus, sometimes steps must be taken to correct those prejudices.

You've given me even more to think about.

Good, thats the point of discussions and discussion boards. That and wasting time when I cant sleep.

I highly doubt that.



That's not what you claimed in your original post. No red herrings, please. What you claimed was that if "you're the one with the best qualifications, you'll get hired". That is naïve. And why people of minority and women don't actually get to positions of power to actually do what you say they would do in the same extent as white men is not something you explain.

I can tell you from 1. personal experience and 2. seeing an abundance of qualified women and other minorities who get hired because they were the best candidates.
If you don't get the job, it's because your employer saw someone else better suited for the job.

I understand you want to troll, flame and not agree with anyone, but it's ok to agree, no one will be mad at you.

Speaking of which*Noob alert*, could someone explain those things to me? Ive heard people talking about trolling and flaming, but never understood what they were. Or if someone could point me to a place where I can find out what those are, that would be swell.

Speaking of which*Noob alert*, could someone explain those things to me? Ive heard people talking about trolling and flaming, but never understood what they were. Or if someone could point me to a place where I can find out what those are, that would be swell.

This should clear it up. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=288255)

I can tell you from 1. personal experience and 2. seeing an abundance of qualified women and other minorities who get hired because they were the best candidates.
If you don't get the job, it's because your employer saw someone else better suited for the job.
This is your opinion.

I understand you want to troll, flame and not agree with anyone, but it's ok to agree, no one will be mad at you.
This is just insulting. Fass so far has not flamed, or trolled, but indeed has made his point without resorting to either. Lets ALL keep it that way.

I can tell you from seeing an abundance of qualified women and other minorities who get hired because they were the best candidates.
If you don't get the job, it's because your employer saw someone else better suited for the job.
This happens. It also happens the other way around and that is bad.

How long have men and women been lawfully equal?

This should clear it up. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=288255)



mmmk. Next question: what is an OOC thread? is it just an RP thing?

mmmk. Next question: what is an OOC thread? is it just an RP thing?

Yep. It means 'out of character'. IC means 'in character'.

mmmk. Next question: what is an OOC thread? is it just an RP thing?
Here is a great resource to look up terms: http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/DEAT

This is your opinion.


This is just insulting. Fass so far has not flamed, or trolled, but indeed has made his point without resorting to either. Lets ALL keep it that way.


How can it be my opinion when it is subsidized by real world examples all around me?

As for being just as equal, people don't get hired one over the other for being as equal. You have to be better than the other person applying to get the job. At least that's the way the real world used to work before laws like this.

How can it be my opinion when it is subsidized by real world examples all around me?

As for being just as equal, people don't get hired one over the other for being as equal. You have to be better than the other person applying to get the job. At least that's the way the real world used to work before laws like this.

(a) The fact that you seem to live in an area with a low amount of discrimination does not mean that it does not occur anywhere. Try moving to certain parts of the Southern United States, for instance. Try moving to Utah.

(b) "Better" is a relative term. For some, if an equally qualified man and woman walked up, the job would always go to the man because he is automatically "better".

How can it be my opinion when it is subsidized by real world examples all around me?
Examples which you have failed to share with us. Anecdotal experiences do not count as truth.

As for being just as equal, people don't get hired one over the other for being as equal. You have to be better than the other person applying to get the job. At least that's the way the real world used to work before laws like this.
And again, you deny that any other considerations could be in play aside from qualifications. Based on what, pray tell? Are applications given a number now in place of a name, which often clearly identifies gender, as well as ethnicity? Are interviews done in a manner that hides the race or gender of the applicant?

The 'real world' of which you speak is hardly a meritocracy, no matter how much we could all wish it to be. The 'real world' is not colour blind, blind to gender, blind to differences. Neither is the market. Laws like this do not create the awareness of such differenecs. That awareness already exists.

(a) The fact that you seem to live in an area with a low amount of discrimination does not mean that it does not occur anywhere. Try moving to certain parts of the Southern United States, for instance. Try moving to Utah.

(b) "Better" is a relative term. For some, if an equally qualified man and woman walked up, the job would always go to the man because he is automatically "better".

A. I've lived in Georgia, North Carolina, New York City and upstate New York.

B. I don't know where you've seen that, maybe you're the one that lives in a secluded area with high discrimination.

Examples which you have failed to share with us. Anecdotal experiences do not count as truth.


And again, you deny that any other considerations could be in play aside from qualifications. Based on what, pray tell? Are applications given a number now in place of a name, which often clearly identifies gender, as well as ethnicity? Are interviews done in a manner that hides the race or gender of the applicant?

The 'real world' of which you speak is hardly a meritocracy, no matter how much we could all wish it to be. The 'real world' is not colour blind, blind to gender, blind to differences. Neither is the market. Laws like this do not create the awareness of such differenecs. That awareness already exists.

Wrong, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm saying that it doesn't happen widespread enough to enact laws over it. To place laws like that seriously limit the potential of an employer to be able to hire people that are truly qualified for the job, not just as well qualified for it.

A. I've lived in Georgia, North Carolina, New York City and upstate New York.

And you never met a single bigot? Let me guess, you lived only in big cities in GA and NC?

B. I don't know where you've seen that, maybe you're the one that lives in a secluded area with high discrimination.

I haven't personally seen it - I tend to avoid bigots. But I don't deny that it occurs.

Wrong, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm saying that it doesn't happen widespread enough to enact laws over it. To place laws like that seriously limit the potential of an employer to be able to hire people that are truly qualified for the job, not just as well qualified for it.

In your area, that may be correct. Are you an expert on social issues in Scandinavian countries?

Wrong, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm saying that it doesn't happen widespread enough to enact laws over it. In your experience. You're backtracking a bit here, but I'll letcha.


To place laws like that seriously limit the potential of an employer to be able to hire people that are truly qualified for the job, not just as well qualified for it.
I don't think it seriously limits them. Neither do I fully support such a law. I suspect that this is more of a PR thing to raise awareness. Hopefully women will step up themselves and fill the gap without companies being punished for non-compliance. If there were to be a 50/50 split of qualified candidates, then great.

Norwegian company boards must be at least 40% female by 2007, or the companies will face forcible liquidation.

Gotta love big government in action. Next they will be telling companies how many natural blondes and brunettes they must hire. PC has really run amock.


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/05/norway.women.reut/
This is not surprising considering the prevalence of violence against women in Scandinavian countries.

The New York Times recently reported on an Amnesty International essay;

Sweden Boldly Exposes a Secret Side of Women's Lives (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00E17F6345B0C758CDDAD0894DD404482&incamp=archive:search) the essay suggests patriarchal beatings have become as commonplace in Sweden as driving a Volvo station wagon.

"Swedish feminists, who have pushed relentlessly and successfully for women's rights, are tackling domestic violence, issue muted by Swedish sense of privacy and dismissed as sort of thing that happens elsewhere; stinging Amnesty International report and startling admissions by well-known victims set off calls for new attitudes; report praised Sweden's laws as unambiguous but warned that assaults against women have spiraled upward in 15 years and shelter system is frayed;

If Amnesty International and the New York Times are correct, these nations are far behind the rest of the civilized world. Enforcing radical mandates may be the only way to bring them up to speed.

And you never met a single bigot? Let me guess, you lived only in big cities in GA and NC?



I haven't personally seen it - I tend to avoid bigots. But I don't deny that it occurs.

Yes, and no. I met one clear racist when applying for a job and that was in NYC out of all places. Out of every job I have ever applied for there has only been one where it was clear that they didn't want me because of what I was born. They simply put it, "you don't have the culture we're looking for" and I moved on (It was a small Middle Eastern company that sold to sold supplies to grocery stores). I've met a lot less bigots in the south than I have in the North. Maybe I'm just lucky whichever way you look at it.

In your area, that may be correct. Are you an expert on social issues in Scandinavian countries?

Definitely not. Are we going to use the excuse that if you're not from there you don't know the issue? Western corporate cultures are very alike. I've traveled enough to see this.

Are you implying that anytime there's something happening in the U.S. others cannot comment on it because they aren't experts on social issues regarding the United States?

In your experience. You're backtracking a bit here, but I'll letcha.



I don't think it seriously limits them. Neither do I fully support such a law. I suspect that this is more of a PR thing to raise awareness. Hopefully women will step up themselves and fill the gap without companies being punished for non-compliance. If there were to be a 50/50 split of qualified candidates, then great.

I'm not backtracking, my observations have been personal and how those around have been affected.

This could very well hurt corporations if they're forced to hire leadership that isn't as good as the leadership they desired.

Definitely not. Are we going to use the excuse that if you're not from there you don't know the issue? Western corporate cultures are very alike. I've traveled enough to see this.

Are you implying that anytime there's something happening in the U.S. others cannot comment on it because they aren't experts on social issues regarding the United States?

For social issues? Yes.

If you do not know the society, you cannot make a statement that "X is not prevalent there."

This would be like me saying "Well, women don't have to wear a burqua here, so they obviously don't have to in any Middle Eastern countries" or "No one ever pressured me to get FGM, so obviously there is no culture that uses it." You can't extend your own experience beyond your own culture.

For social issues? Yes.

If you do not know the society, you cannot make a statement that "X is not prevalent there."

This would be like me saying "Well, women don't have to wear a burqua here, so they obviously don't have to in any Middle Eastern countries" or "No one ever pressured me to get FGM, so obviously there is no culture that uses it." You can't extend your own experience beyond your own culture.

lol, ok you and I have completely different points of views. You get to pick and choose on where one can comment and where one can't.

lol, ok you and I have completely different points of views. You get to pick and choose on where one can comment and where one can't.

It is not picking and choosing. *No one* can comment on the prevalence of something in an area they've never been to on the basis of their experience in a completely different area. It is simply illogical to do so.

They seem to think that there ARE qualified women out there, and that these companies are CHOOSING not to hire women.

That seems to follow what I've read and heard, what with companies using the tired old "women will want to take meternity leave" excuses and pseudoscience about how "womens brains work differently."

Lots of fields, including ones like maxillofacial surgery, are "boys clubs." Women aren't accepted as easily because they are perceived to be weak; not as tough as men.

That seems to follow what I've read and heard, what with companies using the tired old "women will want to take meternity leave" excuses and pseudoscience about how "womens brains work differently."

Lots of fields, including ones like maxillofacial surgery, are "boys clubs." Women aren't accepted as easily because they are perceived to be weak; not as tough as men.

This "philosophy" in the workplace doesn't go over well with me. It's bullshit. The thing is, the media seems to glorify it! Outrageous!!

(a) The fact that you seem to live in an area with a low amount of discrimination does not mean that it does not occur anywhere. Try moving to certain parts of the Southern United States, for instance. Try moving to Utah.

(b) "Better" is a relative term. For some, if an equally qualified man and woman walked up, the job would always go to the man because he is automatically "better".I see it more as some employees are more comfortable, or more secure with the man. If they are like that it'll most likely affect their produtivity in some way if they hired the woman (feeling uncomfortable around female employer, worrying that her time of month might lower performance, etc). Sucks, but personal preference is the only thing left if two people are equally qualified.

This is bound to cause capital flight.

That seems to follow what I've read and heard, what with companies using the tired old "women will want to take meternity leave" excuses and pseudoscience about how "womens brains work differently."

.

Why is this psuedo science?

I thought it was pretty much accepted that women(in general) have better language skills and much greater active vocabulary than men.

Likewise, men(in general) have much better spatial ability.

I thought this is pretty well established. If there is some question about this, I will look up links when I get a chance.

I can tell you from 1. personal experience and 2. seeing an abundance of qualified women and other minorities who get hired because they were the best candidates.
If you don't get the job, it's because your employer saw someone else better suited for the job.

That's your "sociology" and "statistics"? Anecdotes? Colour me disappointed, and unsurprised.

I understand you want to troll, flame and not agree with anyone, but it's ok to agree, no one will be mad at you.

I dare you to point out where I did that.

Why is this psuedo science?

I thought it was pretty much accepted that women(in general) have better language skills and much greater active vocabulary than men.

Likewise, men(in general) have much better spatial ability.

I thought this is pretty well established. If there is some question about this, I will look up links when I get a chance.

There are statistical trends, but nothing truly inherent has been discovered.

Pointing out that men and women are statistically different is really no problem. It's when men who are just as good as most women at X or women who are just as good as most men at Y get discriminated against because some idiot got the idea that the statistical differences are innate in all of a given sex.

There are statistical trends, but nothing truly inherent has been discovered.

Pointing out that men and women are statistically different is really no problem. It's when men who are just as good as most women at X or women who are just as good as most men at Y get discriminated against because some idiot got the idea that the statistical differences are innate in all of a given sex.

I guess.

My understanding is that most men and women are within a certain range with regards to language and spatial skills. But the top end of each skill will be more populated with their respected gender, e.g. more men at the top end of the spatial skills. This is consistent with what you just said.