I think this is a good idea for America, too. The television audiences of daytime talk shows look like fertile pools of female executive talent. Women are, you know, are identical to men in every way. Regardless of women's life preferences, let's make all of corporate America 50% female today!
2
I think that idea to hire more women on such positions is wise, but to set a standard as 30 or more percent is not correct. This can drive to bad consequences: people can hire women only in order to stick to this standard, in order to prevent company from paying fines. Everything should be correlated with effectiveness. Talking about America, it shouldn't be confined within the strict limit especially in short term
1
Why not 50%?
3
Why is there not quota for minorities and homosexuals too? Why is this method necessary only for women and not all under represented groups?
2
Kind of funny the comments (by the men) - and they totally confirm the sad fact: men will NEVER ever give up just a tiny slice of power without force - or the law. So there, it's a good way to go. Hope the next law worldwide is equal pay, and I mean FORCED to comply with by companies! The shrieks of "It's not gonna work" are just desperate attempts at holding on to power. So far, it didn't work the other way, did it? Men had the luxury over centuries to try out just about everything they pleased. Let's give women the same gift of experimentation!
5
A quota for women is plain crazy. 30%? Why not make it 80%? By what scientific standard did the politically correct leaders come to the 30% figure? Woman should be able to to to court if they are more -- not equally -- qualified and are rejected on what is shown to be gender bias. Maybe there should be 50% women leading a particular company. Maybe there should be 5% at another company. Setting what seems to be arbitrary numerical requirements is ridiculous, and will not lead to respect for the women who are hired under these ludicrous requirements.
1
This seems to be the only way to even approach gender equality.
3
So the ethnic/gender/religious/disabled makeup of a community should be echoed in all areas of that community. Legislate that all jails/prisons house the same ethnic/gender/religious/disabled proportion as the surrounding community. All businesses hire the same proportion of ethnic/gender/religious/disabled persons. All ethnic/gender/religious/disabled students become proficient in all areas of study before a school and its staff are considered competent (oh wait, we already tried that)
5
How many people commenting here have actually worked in Germany? I have and can see clearly why this law was necessary. It is not lack of support for working mothers that is keeping women from boards. Maternity provision is very good (though childcare not so much). This has the side affect of holding women back. My sister-in-law, who joined Mercedes in a top talent program was told she had to decide between her career and a child since she was in her 30s. She had a child, has been sidelined and is thankful she earns what she does even though she is worth much more.
For my part, my department was taken over in a political battle between the CFO and the CTO. The man taking over my role was shocked to learn that I earned as much as he did. I was expected to take a demotion of two levels. When I approached the workers council, which was supposed to represent my interests, for advice, I was told I already made enough money for a woman and to be happy I wouldn't have to work so hard. Others told me to have a baby. As someone with 5 figure student loans after attending Harvard Business School, this didn't sit too well with me.
The lone woman on the board of my company was from HR and widely and unfairly disparaged. After 3 years of this, I got fed up and moved to Britain. It was clear there was no way I could compete with lesser qualified, less hardworking men. Discrimination was blatant and rampant and will only be eliminated if the men in power are held to account.
For my part, my department was taken over in a political battle between the CFO and the CTO. The man taking over my role was shocked to learn that I earned as much as he did. I was expected to take a demotion of two levels. When I approached the workers council, which was supposed to represent my interests, for advice, I was told I already made enough money for a woman and to be happy I wouldn't have to work so hard. Others told me to have a baby. As someone with 5 figure student loans after attending Harvard Business School, this didn't sit too well with me.
The lone woman on the board of my company was from HR and widely and unfairly disparaged. After 3 years of this, I got fed up and moved to Britain. It was clear there was no way I could compete with lesser qualified, less hardworking men. Discrimination was blatant and rampant and will only be eliminated if the men in power are held to account.
5
Do the authors and readers really not realize that 50% of the pampered often mediocre to idiot children of the 1% are female? More quotas. That ought to really help our civilization! Now our rich and powerful will have a legal government approved super-morale sounding excuse to give their 22 year old daughters 150 K board positions when they graduate from college ( remember Chelsie Clinton). This is just another way for the rich and powerful to gain a humanitarian oh so "liberal" excuse for nepotism, or giving their mistresses or wives' friends a job that some middle or working class guy who has been working for the firm for a decade and actually has the relevant degree and experience deserves. Actually why don't we just cut to the chase and give 50% of our population a gift of a few million to spend on child care so they don't have to raise the babies they have in order to feel "fulfilled and inspired". Then they will not have any excuse for doing less work than men, avoiding making decisions for fear of losing income and so demanding quotas in order to get jobs they could never win by merit alone.
4
Like most officially mandated things, artificial responses and unintended consequences will result. Might female board members be treated differently, might others simply assume they are there for quota reasons and not merit? Progress is great, but mandates sometimes backfire. Let's hope this gives talented females true opportunities for a voice on boards.
4
I think that the men who will be skeptical of women's qualifications would have had that point of view even without the quota. But with these changes these women won't have to worry about whether they seem powerful. They will simply BE powerful. The men can think what they want.
3
In the second paragraph, "Merck" is mentioned as a multinational company that is "based here", that is, in Germany. In fact, Merck & Co. is a U.S. company based in New Jersey. There is a company called "Merck KGaA" based in Germany, but it is smaller than Merck & Co. The U.S. version of Merck is what your readers would know as the manufacturer of Gardasil, Januvia, Zostavax, etc.
http://www.merck.com/about/our-history/facts/home.html
http://www.merck.com/about/our-history/facts/home.html
Upon what evidence do people decide this is a good thing or a bad thing, or are moral intuitions the sole touchstone ?
1
American business, as a whole, needs to stop denying, deflecting, excusing, and justifying gender discrimination. Bite the bullet and do something about it. Good for Germany. Even if what they are doing ends up not being the answer to the problem at least they admit there is a problem
2
The only way for women (and black) to get ahead is the quota system. Afterwards, let the women (and blacks) prove their worth to stay there. I was the first woman hired by my boss decades ago. Once I proved I was as good (or better) than the men (which is not hard for a woman to do, LOL) my boss hired a lot more women. Some were good workers, some were incompetent, just like the male workers were. I was one of only 3 women in my grad school, in 3 years of classes, when I started, then the only woman in my office in Atlanta for a few years. But I proved that women could do the work. Quotas would have helped me back then because then everyone wouldn't have been watching one woman. I was so self conscious if I made a mistake.
3
Once again, this is an example of trying to change the game by playing by the rules from INSIDE the game. Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for it. Any steps we can take to dismantle the built in "affirmative action for men" as one reader so eloquently put it, are good steps to take. But, at the current pace in the US, it will take women 411 YEARS to reach parity and have 250 Fortune 500 CEO seats. We can build companies much faster than that -- with the structures and policies that we want to operate with (i.e. balance). Once we build those companies, and there will be plenty of men who want to join us, we'll have leverage from OUTSIDE the game. The fastest way to change the game is to create a new game.
3
Until job interviews for musicians in major orchestras became blind, in other words, the judges only heard the instrument being played and did not see who was playing it, men would consistently be chosen over women applicants. Once blind judging was implemented, women were hired on a parity with men.
Those commenters who claim that, due to quotas, unqualified women would be filling these jobs, and that their positions on boards would be tainted and devalued, don't understand why this was instituted in the first place. Men just don't see qualified women in their midst. Instead they see their moms, whose status is highest in the home and less so in the world at large.
Status shouldn't be assigned based male prerogative alone, which is the status quo. Get used to this change; it's good for everyone.
Those commenters who claim that, due to quotas, unqualified women would be filling these jobs, and that their positions on boards would be tainted and devalued, don't understand why this was instituted in the first place. Men just don't see qualified women in their midst. Instead they see their moms, whose status is highest in the home and less so in the world at large.
Status shouldn't be assigned based male prerogative alone, which is the status quo. Get used to this change; it's good for everyone.
6
When will the US become more pro-active and progressive in its thinking. Just look at our leading industries and it becomes apparent how regressive and sexist this country has become. Glad to see there is some enlightened leadership in Europe.
2
The thinking behind many of the comments is that women are the only ones who have to make a choice between home and work because a woman's primary place is in the home. Such thinking is gender biased because it assumes that men should not be the primary care giver and women the primary family earner.
1
Another attempt at "we are all equal" yet, we constantly create programs to set people apart. Diversity at schools = more qualified students passed over by less qualified students. The same is possible now, in the corporate world.
1
Long overdue. And maybe more women will mean that corporations will be more amenable to female worker issues and leave issues for both genders.
2
Germany also has a requirement for labor representation on the board of directors. Thus Germany has a significantly smaller gap between executive pay and the workers who actually do the work to create the wealth, and has significantly less labor strife. There's not much to be gained by going out on strike against a company on which you have representation on the board.
Having representation on the board also means management cannot engage in underhanded anti-labor dealings behind the backs of the workers.
The German auto industry has higher wages and shorter working hours than US auto makers, but yet has no problem competing against and even beating US auto makers.
Having representation on the board also means management cannot engage in underhanded anti-labor dealings behind the backs of the workers.
The German auto industry has higher wages and shorter working hours than US auto makers, but yet has no problem competing against and even beating US auto makers.
3
I expected more intelligent comments in the NY Times...but when it comes to male-female equality, misogyny once again rears its ugly head.
"Men start businesses, women win them in divorce."
"We're not going to hand it to you..You can start your own companies..I did! I started five of my own."
As a woman I chose not to have children because I couldn't give them the quality of life I wanted for them as my career eclipsed everything in my life by sheer numbers of hours and numerous moves.
Men! You will NEVER get it! You didn't do this on your own--mothers, sisters, wives who gave up their dreams so YOU could do anything you wanted! There is common thinking with my male medical colleagues that one's first wife puts you through medical school, residency, starting up a practice, raising the children...THEN when you make it, get a trophy wife to show off your wealth and standing in the community. And they say this without a drop of irony!
I see the same thing when guys make general officer status (generals, admirals), they trade in. When they make 0-7, they and their spouses go to special weeklong seminars where they are told "Your new rank will give you new power. You will be seen as extremely attractive by many women. It's NOT you, it's the rank!" Then we see what happens with Dwight Eisenhower to David Petraeus.
Women! We have to stop enabling men to think this way! We have to stop treating men as superior and help each other. We have to take it ourselves.
"Men start businesses, women win them in divorce."
"We're not going to hand it to you..You can start your own companies..I did! I started five of my own."
As a woman I chose not to have children because I couldn't give them the quality of life I wanted for them as my career eclipsed everything in my life by sheer numbers of hours and numerous moves.
Men! You will NEVER get it! You didn't do this on your own--mothers, sisters, wives who gave up their dreams so YOU could do anything you wanted! There is common thinking with my male medical colleagues that one's first wife puts you through medical school, residency, starting up a practice, raising the children...THEN when you make it, get a trophy wife to show off your wealth and standing in the community. And they say this without a drop of irony!
I see the same thing when guys make general officer status (generals, admirals), they trade in. When they make 0-7, they and their spouses go to special weeklong seminars where they are told "Your new rank will give you new power. You will be seen as extremely attractive by many women. It's NOT you, it's the rank!" Then we see what happens with Dwight Eisenhower to David Petraeus.
Women! We have to stop enabling men to think this way! We have to stop treating men as superior and help each other. We have to take it ourselves.
9
Not to mention that women start more businesses in American today than do men.
Here's the the thing. There are basic skills needed by all no matter their personal walk through life. Those skills only get one so far. Beyond them there is luck, genius, timing and opportunity. Genius is the least reliable way to ultimate success. When women or men are denied any of the other three, they are too often sidelined for life. It takes persistence to rise from the sideline and persistence requires a continual out pouring of energy. But here is the neat thing, while the quantity of a person's persistence maybe innate, it can also be learned or taught. Success builds on success, but you have to start by trying.
This kind of government overreach into regulation of private business and private lives gives credence to right wing paranoia. It will only serve to increase the bitterness of the polictical divide between liberals and conservatives. If democratic governance ever collapses in Germany and elsewhere, here's one of the causes. It's happened before and it can happen again.
Chalk another one up for victim socialism. Why not go for reparations, and make it 51%?
Germany is as usual doing what serves their interests best - companies with mixed gender boards performed 26% better than companies with all male boards during the financial crisis, in terms of their share value. This was reported by Bloombergs:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-31/women-as-directors-bea...
Germans seldom try to argue with the facts. In fact, in Norway it has been shown that both categories of company did equally well under normal circumstances, but mixed gender boards did much better during the financial crisis.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-31/women-as-directors-bea...
Germans seldom try to argue with the facts. In fact, in Norway it has been shown that both categories of company did equally well under normal circumstances, but mixed gender boards did much better during the financial crisis.
6
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The vast majority of all businesses are founded by men. The winners that claim market share then become those that feminists hound to have women placed on their respective boards. Those companies are strong to begin with -- the existence of women isn't a "reason" why they're better in crises.
1
Exactly. It is the bottom line that counts, and not much more. Once these companies who have more money than God, realize that their testosterone based business ethos has been a drag on their performance they will wake up to reality.
"All we are saying is Give Women a Chance". My apologies to John Lennon.
"All we are saying is Give Women a Chance". My apologies to John Lennon.
2
Who could care less (in the Western world) if a company is 100% female or male managed? But I think legislating seats for gender, race, ethnic group, etc., is generally a bad idea. It weeds out merit, and in the corporate world, there is already precious little of that.
2
Business needs the best qualified people regardless of gender, race, age, sexual preference, religion, height, weight, or anything else. Businesses are in the business of making money, not making sure the playing field is level.
1
Quotes is another name for reverse discrimination. The correct answer is it should be the best people available, regardless of race, gender or creed. Period. Any attempt to mandate selections other than this is just lessening the quality for the sake of appearances.
1
Not necessarily. Of course it should be the best people available. Are you under the impression that the best people available are getting the top jobs now?
1
"Quotas" are loathsome. "Competence" is not. Which do you prefer?
2
The law is based on the incorrect assumptions that there are equal numbers of women who want the positions, they want them as much as men, and they are willing to sacrifice their personal and family lives for them to the same extent as men. Women and men behave differently and hold different values. Society/culture tells men they are only valuable if they sacrifice their lives for their careers. Men also may simply be more driven to get to the top of hierarchies because of differences in aggression, testosterone, etc. It is a fantasy to presume that we can (or should) conjure up a more "equal" society by just reserving a percentage of seats for women. When there is a board seat opening, do we really assume that among the best qualified applicants, those who have prepared to compete for the position through sacrificing their lives for their job, ignoring their families, working ungodly hours, are at least 40% women? What such laws actually do is establish two sets of criteria: for men, if you want a board seat, you have to give up your life for your job. For women, the criteria are less stringent. Other countries who have implemented such quotas have found the result to be a small number of women who are have the experience and qualifications get positions on many different corporate boards, to help each meet their quota. So a small # of qualified women get a windfall of cash for little work, and the men who want to be on the boards all have to work just a little bit harder.
10
Judging from your comment it seems that you have no understanding how your "country club" mentality clouds your thinking about gender discrimination. It is those in the country clubs who look around and see themselves inside and decide they're better than the rest. They do not see the system that promotes The Old Boy networks. They don't see the systematic discrimination and how this club actively seeks to keep out those not like themselves. They fool themselves thinking they hit a triple when they were born on third base.
One of the most dynamic stories in the International Corporate World is the story of what has happened at GM. The American auto industry has already been hit with a very recent massive crisis. The three American auto giants have come through better than before the crisis. A standout in this story is Mary Barra. Not only did she have to guide America's largest auto company through this mess, she also had to deal with the crisis of the faulty ignition switch issue.
Mary Barra will be in the history of how corporations must do crisis management. Her communication with the American public and her decision to lay out every nasty bit of that corporate mistake, and to bring in Ken Feinberg for resolution has been described as nothing less than masterful. There is no man who could have handled that any better than she did.
You have a closed mind. Many other men also have one. Too bad, you need to deal with it.
One of the most dynamic stories in the International Corporate World is the story of what has happened at GM. The American auto industry has already been hit with a very recent massive crisis. The three American auto giants have come through better than before the crisis. A standout in this story is Mary Barra. Not only did she have to guide America's largest auto company through this mess, she also had to deal with the crisis of the faulty ignition switch issue.
Mary Barra will be in the history of how corporations must do crisis management. Her communication with the American public and her decision to lay out every nasty bit of that corporate mistake, and to bring in Ken Feinberg for resolution has been described as nothing less than masterful. There is no man who could have handled that any better than she did.
You have a closed mind. Many other men also have one. Too bad, you need to deal with it.
3
"The law is based on the incorrect assumptions that there are equal numbers of women who want the positions" -- gosh, men and math.... it's 30:70. Relax, you still get more than twice the number.
3
The reason why they are instituting this rule is because of men like you. Men like you who assume women have less stringent criteria. Men like you who assume women do not work ungodly hours. Men like you who assume there are not enough ambitious women to fill just 3/10 spots on boards of companies. Men like you who assume that a woman must have gotten a windfall if she can play with the big boys.
And let's face it, many board directors do not give up their life for that job. Many board directors are selected by their male friends and peers. Board directors often are paid nice salaries to look the other way so that executive officers may do what they like. Although this rule may not be the best vehicle to achieve equality, your post reminds me, yes actually, we have a long ways before we achieve equality.
And let's face it, many board directors do not give up their life for that job. Many board directors are selected by their male friends and peers. Board directors often are paid nice salaries to look the other way so that executive officers may do what they like. Although this rule may not be the best vehicle to achieve equality, your post reminds me, yes actually, we have a long ways before we achieve equality.
1
Let the best candidate for the position be appointed to the board. Never should the age, sex or colour of the candidate be the deciding factor. It is merit and not percentages that count.
I've spent almost 20 years as a faculty member in the sciences. I imagine business is similar to science so I'll post my observations here. Sadly, there's lots of bias against women. And as one moves up ladder to the top schools and institutions, it gets worse instead of better. In the current system, there is a heavy emphasis to maintain the old boy system, not through a conscious effort to keep women down but rather because people tend to promote those they feel most comfortable with. So the guys tend to hire other guys, give those guys better resources and access to students, invite guys to the boards that make the big decisions and dole out large sums of money. Having a quota is one of the few ways to break this system because it forces committees to give a chance to women and minorities i.e. those who are not best buddies with the committee. Often those outsiders are smarter, better qualified and all they need is a chance.
You might think that the top institutions would be more aware of the problem, but unfortunately that's not the case. Take the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, for example, which has tremendous clout in the biological sciences. It could be a force for good, by promoting women to the same extent as men. However, its male-dominated review board tends to promote guys, and only a small % of HHMI scientists are women. Now there's a story for the New York Times: look at private funding for sciences, who gets money and who keeps it. HHMI, Ellison etc. etc.
You might think that the top institutions would be more aware of the problem, but unfortunately that's not the case. Take the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, for example, which has tremendous clout in the biological sciences. It could be a force for good, by promoting women to the same extent as men. However, its male-dominated review board tends to promote guys, and only a small % of HHMI scientists are women. Now there's a story for the New York Times: look at private funding for sciences, who gets money and who keeps it. HHMI, Ellison etc. etc.
6
Balance reflective of the general population is a good thing. We should practice that here.
For starters: The US population is 72% white. But the white underrepresention in certain professions cannot by corrected in one step, so let's aim for an intermediate goal. Effective with the 2015-2016 season, all NBA teams must contain 50% white players.
For starters: The US population is 72% white. But the white underrepresention in certain professions cannot by corrected in one step, so let's aim for an intermediate goal. Effective with the 2015-2016 season, all NBA teams must contain 50% white players.
1
Anabeta:
Your question is what should come first, child care or affirmative action -for women.
You might not be aware that the child-care issue has been resolved in other nations including Germany decades ago and is far superior the the one in the US.
There is another little 'affirmative' action policy on the books in Germany, the one that large companies have at least one Union representative sitting on their Board of Directors.
Your question is what should come first, child care or affirmative action -for women.
You might not be aware that the child-care issue has been resolved in other nations including Germany decades ago and is far superior the the one in the US.
There is another little 'affirmative' action policy on the books in Germany, the one that large companies have at least one Union representative sitting on their Board of Directors.
2
I should not be shocked at all the negative comments from readers from the U.S. on this article. We consider ourselves superior to the rest of world, but the minute it comes to money or actual power and we want nothing to do with progress. The next hurdle, and maybe even more important, is the sexism that exists within the nerd ranks in Silicon Valley where women are sexually harassed and treated as outsiders even after receiving engineering degrees from prestigious universities.
16
@ Opinionated READER - "...but the minute it comes to money or actual power and we want nothing to do with progress."
No, we want nothing to do with government enforced QUOTAS. especially those that have nothing to do with MERIT.
No, we want nothing to do with government enforced QUOTAS. especially those that have nothing to do with MERIT.
In the US, we should begin with baby steps. Perhaps requiring that 10% of all board members have a conscience. This might indirectly have the same result as the German plan.
2
Interesting that the Greens and leftists voted no. As ever with the far left nothing is always better than not enough.
1
Ha ha! Can I steal that line from you? I can find it to be useful!
So what happens if they can not find enough qualified women for that 30%, should the company and stock holders suffer? Or does her being a woman automatically qualify her, no matter the skill set?
3
So you start from the assumption that there are insufficient qualified women to be on the boards of corporations? Are there insufficient women to sit on the supreme court, be in congress, be president....or how about German Chancellor?
10
What do you think the odds of that is? Shareholders suffered when unqualified men were in those positions. Is seems being a man automatically qualified men no matter the skills set.
Stop the fraud - men are the ones who predominantly commit fraud - think financial crisis.
Stop the fraud - men are the ones who predominantly commit fraud - think financial crisis.
2
Isn't the German Chancellor democratically elected? Or is that decided by quota, too?
The success of one set of quotas always leads to demands for more quotas. The number of ways people can be grouped to establish that they are in a minority status in some situation is infinite. Women will demand higher quotas in boardrooms, and then Muslims will reasonably demand quotas. Men will demand quotas if women get too far ahead. Ethnic groups of various background will request quotas be established for admission to universities. People applying for an executive position from a group that is too numerous will ask why they are not being fairly evaluated in comparison to someone from a quota-favored group. Every group that advances itself by a quota is always under the impression that once they get in the door that way, the door shuts behind them - but it never does. We can expect quotas for groups organized by sexual orientation, by religious belief or unbelief (shouldn't those of Jewish heritage obtain a double-quota protection in Germany?), by ethnic origin and always, most importantly, by political pull. Quota -power always winds up being a game of political power.
4
Without affirmative action programs Jews, black and women would still be excluded from clubs and universities.
6
The idea that Jews need affirmative action to get ahead is laughable. Quotas HURT them, not helped them! All they have ever needed is for people to get out of their way.
Affirmative action is just a euphemism for state sponsored discrimination.
A quick question here: What does the German Government expect from the law other than seeing a woman face on the board?
2
A quick question here: What do you base your quick question on?
It is an-inexplicable-pardox that Angela Merkel has led the crusade to this benighted law. An examination of her history shows how women (cf. Wikipedia and a recent profile in Vanity Fair) can achieve great status and power even when coming from an unprepossessing background.(Mrs. Thatcher is another as are the significant legislators and governors in this country.)
Now we have a rigid quota. It is condescending. It will lead to perceptions that success is based on anything but merit i. e. the corporate equivalent of the potted plant. And in too many cases it will be true. (I know the latter is too often true with regard to males-but 2 wrongs do not make equality-or real benefit to women except the few who receiving one of the coveted positions.)
It is the product of "numerology" (cf. Wikipedia): the idea that one statistic is the determinative-sole- proof of discrimination rather than a basis for further investigation. And worse quotas a "solution" to this "serious" "problem".
Oh wait!!! An examination of one list of 300 top pop composers (cf IMDB: Greatest Pop/Rock Composers) shows a similar egregious disparity. As does the failure of women artists to achieve high status in the art market. Something must be done! Quotas must be imposed on Christies and galleries both with regard to quantity and price. And listeners must be compelled to meet certain minimums with regard to listening and buying preferences. EUREKA! I have converted even as Saul on the road to Damascus!
Now we have a rigid quota. It is condescending. It will lead to perceptions that success is based on anything but merit i. e. the corporate equivalent of the potted plant. And in too many cases it will be true. (I know the latter is too often true with regard to males-but 2 wrongs do not make equality-or real benefit to women except the few who receiving one of the coveted positions.)
It is the product of "numerology" (cf. Wikipedia): the idea that one statistic is the determinative-sole- proof of discrimination rather than a basis for further investigation. And worse quotas a "solution" to this "serious" "problem".
Oh wait!!! An examination of one list of 300 top pop composers (cf IMDB: Greatest Pop/Rock Composers) shows a similar egregious disparity. As does the failure of women artists to achieve high status in the art market. Something must be done! Quotas must be imposed on Christies and galleries both with regard to quantity and price. And listeners must be compelled to meet certain minimums with regard to listening and buying preferences. EUREKA! I have converted even as Saul on the road to Damascus!
2
Men have and had rigid quotas in place when they only hired men for certain jobs and when they only promoted men. I don't believe that every man that has been hired or has been promoted was based solely on merit. Men have kept women and minorities down. Where does is it state that unqualified women will be sought out and hired for the jobs? It's inevitable that some unqualified women will get hired and promoted just like their male counterparts.
You say, "two wrongs don't make it a right" - how would you solve this issue. The playing field in not equitable, so what do you propose we do about it? Men benefited from laws that kept women and minorities, and now so many men are crying foul when the tables are getting turned.
You say, "two wrongs don't make it a right" - how would you solve this issue. The playing field in not equitable, so what do you propose we do about it? Men benefited from laws that kept women and minorities, and now so many men are crying foul when the tables are getting turned.
2
The best-and I am sure sure to some-the most outrageous answer: Let the market decide. Including however encouragement to women-and for that matter to management (not hidden quotas) which has already produced results if not the statistics ideologically wanted.
And an-instructive- anecdote in regard to the above: In the antediluvian days when I entered Columbia Law School-and cavemen roamed dragging women by their hair-there were something less than 15 in the entering class of 300. (As it happened several emerged in the top percentile in grades/academic standing: e.g. Sone Scholars.) Now though as I think I remember correctly more than half in law schools are women. And they are not only hired by even the "white shoe" law firms but reaching higher levels of partner in a competition that is so so speak dog eat dog. The numbers won't satisfy all but they satisfy me knowing that the result is based on merit. And they should satisfy thinking women who value competence and recognition of their real achievements.
And an-instructive- anecdote in regard to the above: In the antediluvian days when I entered Columbia Law School-and cavemen roamed dragging women by their hair-there were something less than 15 in the entering class of 300. (As it happened several emerged in the top percentile in grades/academic standing: e.g. Sone Scholars.) Now though as I think I remember correctly more than half in law schools are women. And they are not only hired by even the "white shoe" law firms but reaching higher levels of partner in a competition that is so so speak dog eat dog. The numbers won't satisfy all but they satisfy me knowing that the result is based on merit. And they should satisfy thinking women who value competence and recognition of their real achievements.
"Germany passed a law Friday that requires some of Europe's biggest companies to give 30 percent of supervisory seats to women beginning next year."
Only 30% when women are 50% of the population, disgraceful. Let the German people destroy these anachronistic companies and go back to an agrarian economy where both sexes work equally in the field all in the name of political correctness.
Only 30% when women are 50% of the population, disgraceful. Let the German people destroy these anachronistic companies and go back to an agrarian economy where both sexes work equally in the field all in the name of political correctness.
4
But they didn't both work equally in the fields, did they? Certainly not in the name of political correctness.
Germany was always several steps ahead the planet in terms of feminist initiatives. Angela will never miss an opportunity to bite a piece of a pie. This lady can be compared with Hillary. But the least on the contrary discriminates women, whom she pays much less than men in her administration.
1
How is she like Hillary? What's wrong with being like Hillary?
i isn't sure that this law will help a women to achieve tops. The German companies will start avoiding all these changes, to get over abroad, for example! Who will want to give the place with a high salary?)
It's a bold move. Let's be honest: many of us who feel threatened by this work in companies where there is more talent than promotional opportunity. So, in the game of musical chairs, where there will be very few winners, adding more competitors is a direct threat to our chance of succeeding.
I've personally been told that unless I am head and shoulders above every female and minority candidate, I have no shot at promotion. None.
I'm not saying it isn't fair to balance out past privilege white males like me may have had, I'm just explaining some of the angst from individuals.
I've personally been told that unless I am head and shoulders above every female and minority candidate, I have no shot at promotion. None.
I'm not saying it isn't fair to balance out past privilege white males like me may have had, I'm just explaining some of the angst from individuals.
3
How is "adding more competitors" a "direct threat to our chance of succeeding". Just because you were told that head and shoulder above female and minority candidate, you have no shot at a promotion - doesn't mean that's true. Go to another company.
I'm sure there's angst among white males - they don't want to give up any power, but what they fail to realize is that in Germany that this will not be the case because 70% of those boards etc.. will be men.
I'm sure there's angst among white males - they don't want to give up any power, but what they fail to realize is that in Germany that this will not be the case because 70% of those boards etc.. will be men.
2
I'm sure the Chinese welcome this move by the competition with glee. Could we also impose quotas for the least achieving employees to be promoted to management? That would help speed things up too. I'm sure we'll have slackers, and drunk-on-the-job workers create associations to pick up on the general stupidity, and demand they also be mandated for top positions in the companies they work in.
I don't really get this ideological invention which is "gender equality". Unless those who want actual gender equality are ready to pay for better education and better training for women (and therapy sessions for assertiveness), there will never be actual gender equality, just sexist measures designed to hold back corporations with the forced promotion of underqualified employees on the basis of gender, not merit or qualification.
Unless the rest of the world shoots itself in the foot by imposing quotas too, this can't end well.
I feel sorry for those women actually good for the job, as any promotion will necessarily be tainted by the stench of favoritism, and they'll likely not be taken seriously, just like the rest of the token boardmembers.
I don't really get this ideological invention which is "gender equality". Unless those who want actual gender equality are ready to pay for better education and better training for women (and therapy sessions for assertiveness), there will never be actual gender equality, just sexist measures designed to hold back corporations with the forced promotion of underqualified employees on the basis of gender, not merit or qualification.
Unless the rest of the world shoots itself in the foot by imposing quotas too, this can't end well.
I feel sorry for those women actually good for the job, as any promotion will necessarily be tainted by the stench of favoritism, and they'll likely not be taken seriously, just like the rest of the token boardmembers.
2
Leave us Chinese out of it, you would only compound the issue by including race.
1
Maybe the men should be in therapy for aggressiveness and oppression of others. I know what you mean about "sexist measures designed to hold back corporations…" - it was sexist and is sexist that men have more of those types of jobs and make more than women.
Where's your proof that these "…measures are designed to hold back corporations…"? What makes you think that unqualified women will fill these positions? Unqualified men fill them and I have no doubt that some of these jobs will be filled by unqualified women. That's inevitable.
Don't feel sorry for women - they don't need your pity. "This can't end well"? - What makes you think things are going well now?
The stench of favoritism is already in the air - brought to you by men.
Think what you like about women in power being tokens, but keep in mind that when women start to fire those who do not take them seriously, things will change.
What are you so afraid of…oh, that's right…you're afraid that things won't end well - lol!
Where's your proof that these "…measures are designed to hold back corporations…"? What makes you think that unqualified women will fill these positions? Unqualified men fill them and I have no doubt that some of these jobs will be filled by unqualified women. That's inevitable.
Don't feel sorry for women - they don't need your pity. "This can't end well"? - What makes you think things are going well now?
The stench of favoritism is already in the air - brought to you by men.
Think what you like about women in power being tokens, but keep in mind that when women start to fire those who do not take them seriously, things will change.
What are you so afraid of…oh, that's right…you're afraid that things won't end well - lol!
2
The biggest question here is where are all of these new female directors going to come from? In a country where so few women occupy very senior level roles, how will boards be able to find women with solid corporate governance qualifications? I predict that the result of this mandate, at least initially, will be a very small handful of women who are each sitting on multiple boards...and once they are all "overboarded" what is going to happen next?
12
What makes you think that all male directors are qualified for "very senior level roles". What do you mean by over boarded? Men are over boarding - aren't they?
1
Numerous men sit on multiple boards. Check out the annual reports.
A quota shouldn't be implemented within 12 months. It should be implemented over a longer period, with the percentage being high to allow development of top female potential.
For example, I'm sat on a management board and if I knew that my board had to be 40% female by 2020, I would scramble to ensure the development of our top people had a sufficient number of women in it to attain an excellent board made up of at least 40% women. I know, If I don't do this but my competitors do, my company will fall behind. The new board members I'm forced to promote won't be well prepared so our strategy will be worse and the next layer of management won't carry it out effectively because of their resentment.
For example, I'm sat on a management board and if I knew that my board had to be 40% female by 2020, I would scramble to ensure the development of our top people had a sufficient number of women in it to attain an excellent board made up of at least 40% women. I know, If I don't do this but my competitors do, my company will fall behind. The new board members I'm forced to promote won't be well prepared so our strategy will be worse and the next layer of management won't carry it out effectively because of their resentment.
1
You gals can have all the jobs for all I care. I have always wanted to stay home and be a house hubby.
2
Well, it's such a relief that the "gals can have all the jobs". If you "always wanted to stay home and be a house hubby", why don't you make that happen. You could become one of the gals.
I applaud the goal, but I wonder about the law of unintended consequences. Shouldn't other groups against whom there has been discrimination now be given Board representation, too? For example, as Europe becomes increasingly Muslim, why wouldn't Muslims be entitled to their fair share of Board seats?
3
It's a women-men issue, not a religious issue.
1
The real problem is that raising children and taking care of elderly parents is very time consuming and prevents many from spending the 70 hours per week needed to make it in these jobs. This is the real problem. One that is unadressed by quotas. And the cause of underepresenation.
1
I cannot speak for other countries but in the U.S. what is missed in the rush for "board diversity" is the that board member selection suboptimal in general.
The overwhelming focus on director "independence" has led in large part to competence, relative skills and track record taking a back seat. As such, far too many boards underperform as witnessed by the level of activist investor activity and the focus on the part of activist investors to replace sitting board members with those with higher levels of competence as it relates to the specific company and/or value creation in general.
Philosophically, I am opposed to quotas in any context. As an investor, I am especially opposed to board quotas regardless of what the quotas represent. What I do expect as an investor is that board members are chosen for their ability to maximize my investment over time. This does not mean I am opposed to women on boards or in high level management positions. I am not. The CEO of my largest company in the 1980's was female as was the CFO of my holding company (primary investment vehicle). I have served on or as chairman of 15 company boards and numerous non-profit boards. Many, but not all, had women members. But in all aforementioned noted cases, the women were not selected because they were women but because they were the best choice for the particular role.
The overwhelming focus on director "independence" has led in large part to competence, relative skills and track record taking a back seat. As such, far too many boards underperform as witnessed by the level of activist investor activity and the focus on the part of activist investors to replace sitting board members with those with higher levels of competence as it relates to the specific company and/or value creation in general.
Philosophically, I am opposed to quotas in any context. As an investor, I am especially opposed to board quotas regardless of what the quotas represent. What I do expect as an investor is that board members are chosen for their ability to maximize my investment over time. This does not mean I am opposed to women on boards or in high level management positions. I am not. The CEO of my largest company in the 1980's was female as was the CFO of my holding company (primary investment vehicle). I have served on or as chairman of 15 company boards and numerous non-profit boards. Many, but not all, had women members. But in all aforementioned noted cases, the women were not selected because they were women but because they were the best choice for the particular role.
4
I agree with you. Lets put talent, experience and dedication above gender or race quotas.
3
Why only 30 % women?
3
I guess this is a good thing. But will these "corporate" women be sympathetic to the plight of their non-corporate sisters? Will they truly implement more family-friendly policies? Or will they be Margaret Thatchers, smug in their own success and contemptuous of other women? I'd like to see the Times do a follow up story as to whether women in the board room make any difference.
8
jeez…really??? - "will these 'corporate' women be sympathetic to the plight of their non-corporate sisters??? What plight? Do you ask men is they are sympathetic to this same plight?
Men are contemptuous of other men, too. T
Men are contemptuous of other men, too. T
1
If women are to be effective leaders, they have to put leading all first. Both men and women in the board room should be working toward family friendly policies for both men and women, since in an unbiased world, either could be a care giver.
1
It's a good start.
3
How about if everyone simply waits and sees how this plays out? It may take some time, but it could make a huge and positive difference in corporate governance. How will we ever know if we don't try?
3
Well, it could make a huge and negative difference in corporate governance. But, heck, I don't drive a BWM or Mercedes, so why not give it a shot.
now all the women who made it or would have made to the board room by merrit can now be dismissed as quota gals.
4
Not necessarily. Aren't some men dismissed as quota guys? You know - those unqualified men who get promoted.
2
The real problem here is the sexual dynamic. Take the two women pictured above. They both seek an important job. The calculus of the men on the team is This one is a babe...and maybe I have a chance; qualified or not, despite the dangers of distraction I'll hire her for the fantasy benefits! or Thank goodness this one looks like the men on the team and I won't be distracted; best of all, she's more qualified than the male applicants. Good luck sorting that one out people. Oh yes...ESPN makes a concerted effort to have a minimum number of women presenters...Rosie O'Donnell need not apply. We are stumbling around in the dark here. Hopefully it will come out right in the end...but I doubt it.
1
These two women already have important jobs. Why does it matter that men think in terms of fantasizing about sex with respect to women?
1
White guys in the NBA. Didn't Kurt Vonnegut write about the Handicapper General enforcing the new constitutional amendment "Nobody can be better lookin than you."? I am sympathetic to the intentions here, but doing this is flying in the face of very deep seated relations between the genders, such as Men Pursue, Women Resist. Change the fundamentals and the incidentals fall in line. Trying to force it from the other direction, i.e., force the incidentals to alter fundamentals is shoveling sand against the tide.
2
Jeez - what era are you in - some women pursue and some men resist. Who cares if this is flying in the face of very deep seated relations between the genders? Change needs to happen despite the notion that it may fly in the face of very deep seated relations between the genders.
2
Here's the fundamental problem and the reason we need quotas for women in the work force, especially on corporate boards.
We're human, and as humans we feel most comfortable around people who are most like us. The corollary is that we also have that unfortunate human ability to instantly sense when someone is different. This is the us-versus-them phenomenon. Social scientists of a postmodern bent would say that we're adept at "othering" people who are not like us.
What does this look like in the 21st century? In the US, people who make up about half the population hold only about 17 percent of the positions that run our businesses. Men are so accustomed to hiring other men, people who meet the prerequisite of being "tall, pale and male" (to borrow a phrase from The Economist) that women don't have a chance.
Two of America's greatest problems are the failure to allow women to thrive in the workforce and our inability to achieve a reasonable work-life balance. Women face gender-related obstacles throughout their development, but they become particularly disabling at the office. American men and women are slaves to the workplace to the detriment of themselves and their own families.
I've been maintaining that these problems cannot be solved through TED talks or by well-meaning HR departments, all of them ineffective bottom-up approaches.
Until women have actual power over entire companies, men are going to keep on favoring the tall, pale and male.
We're human, and as humans we feel most comfortable around people who are most like us. The corollary is that we also have that unfortunate human ability to instantly sense when someone is different. This is the us-versus-them phenomenon. Social scientists of a postmodern bent would say that we're adept at "othering" people who are not like us.
What does this look like in the 21st century? In the US, people who make up about half the population hold only about 17 percent of the positions that run our businesses. Men are so accustomed to hiring other men, people who meet the prerequisite of being "tall, pale and male" (to borrow a phrase from The Economist) that women don't have a chance.
Two of America's greatest problems are the failure to allow women to thrive in the workforce and our inability to achieve a reasonable work-life balance. Women face gender-related obstacles throughout their development, but they become particularly disabling at the office. American men and women are slaves to the workplace to the detriment of themselves and their own families.
I've been maintaining that these problems cannot be solved through TED talks or by well-meaning HR departments, all of them ineffective bottom-up approaches.
Until women have actual power over entire companies, men are going to keep on favoring the tall, pale and male.
33
Let's be realistic. Women now outnumber men in college degrees, and they get higher grades than men do when they take these college courses. The same goes for Grad school students. Most of the high school valedictorians are women, Additionally, psychology tests have shown that women have a greater propensity to be honest than men. We get better smarter business, and less corruption.
And you gotta admit, if we had more women running the country things couldn't be any worse than with all the old men we have in Washington at the moment. Seems cut and dry to me.
And you gotta admit, if we had more women running the country things couldn't be any worse than with all the old men we have in Washington at the moment. Seems cut and dry to me.
6
Data show men doing better than women? Discrimination.
Data show women doing better than men? The natural state of things.
Ah feminist equality.
Data show women doing better than men? The natural state of things.
Ah feminist equality.
You don't appoint positions based on percentage points, equality, or any other politically correct notion. As if running businesses in the modern world wasn't hard enough, now German companies will have to consider giving positions to people they would rather not give them to. This has nothing to do with women's equality, but rather just political pandering. No one respects a person who gets a position because they were required to be hired.
If politics would really like to help women, laws would concentrate on work/life balance. I know quite a few women who are forced to work overtime (without overtime pay). They are exhausted and stressed that they don't have more time for their families. On the surface it may seem that putting women on the board might help this issue, but it won't. In the real world board room, the dollar counts the most... not employee comfort. When a woman joins the board, to survive they enter the same male board mentality. Nothing will change.
If politics would really like to help women, laws would concentrate on work/life balance. I know quite a few women who are forced to work overtime (without overtime pay). They are exhausted and stressed that they don't have more time for their families. On the surface it may seem that putting women on the board might help this issue, but it won't. In the real world board room, the dollar counts the most... not employee comfort. When a woman joins the board, to survive they enter the same male board mentality. Nothing will change.
14
Was it politically correct to appoint men because they were men? Running a business is hard…and? What makes you think that all the women who will be filled by women will be unqualified? Do you have a problem with unqualified men being promoted or hired?
1
Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a trend trend to a more balanced and matriarchal world.
Thank you
Thank you
2
Christine Lagarde (CL), Managing Director of the IMF, interviewed by Sanna Torén Björling (STB) in Dagens Nyheter (DN) today, March 7, 2015:
CL: I believe that setting quotas (for the percentage of women on corporate boards) can be a good idea.
STB: You mean by law?
CL: Yes, yes! Definitely.
CL states in the text preceding the above quotatation that companies that have women in high-level decision-making positions are more successful. STB also notes that CL is tired of waiting and is prepared to go much further - as expressed in the quotation above.
Dagens Nyheter, Lördag with full page picture of Christine Lagarde on the cover.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
"Jag tror att kvotering kan vara en god idé
Lagstad kvotering?
Ja, ja! Definitivt."
IMF blog at following URL presents the case for increasing percentages of women in the work force but I do not believe it touches on the postiion quoted above.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2013/sdn1310.pdf
CL: I believe that setting quotas (for the percentage of women on corporate boards) can be a good idea.
STB: You mean by law?
CL: Yes, yes! Definitely.
CL states in the text preceding the above quotatation that companies that have women in high-level decision-making positions are more successful. STB also notes that CL is tired of waiting and is prepared to go much further - as expressed in the quotation above.
Dagens Nyheter, Lördag with full page picture of Christine Lagarde on the cover.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
"Jag tror att kvotering kan vara en god idé
Lagstad kvotering?
Ja, ja! Definitivt."
IMF blog at following URL presents the case for increasing percentages of women in the work force but I do not believe it touches on the postiion quoted above.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2013/sdn1310.pdf
I think women should be given all the top jobs everywhere around the world, and should fill 100% of the seats on corporate boards, government legislatures, military organizations and NGOs as well. Once this is done, the world with become a paradise of freedom, with no more wars, hunger, disease, or poverty, and men will finally know how it feels to be under the thumb of bosses who discriminate against them, usually unconsciously. Oh, wait, scratch that last phrase. We need to get back to the paradise part of my agenda, which would inevitably follow.
13
Most feminist radicals would agree. And that's the sad part.
4
What's a "radical feminist" and why is that "the sad part"?
1
Quotas will lead to resentment. They will also discount the achievement of anyone in the group to which the quotas apply. Whether the quota applies gender, race or age to employees' former positions (department, role, etc.), when someone is given a position because they had to be given it, and not because they would have gotten it anyway (given the existence of the quota, it can reasonably be assumed that most wouldn't have gotten it anyway), those who did not benefit from the quota will not view the quota group as their equals. And who would?
9
Totally agree. It will also hurt these business's. Talk about gov't overreach.
3
I disagree. The way it works is exactly the opposite: to rephrase what you say "when someone is given a position because they had to be given it" due to bias, not merit, they are often mediocre in quality. Often, it takes quotas to give excellent people a chance to be hired.
I base this on 20 years experience watching how the powerful stay that way.
I base this on 20 years experience watching how the powerful stay that way.
3
Jor-el: Resentment of women in leadership positions already exists, and I've been subjected to it since 1990. Quotas can't make it worse.
3
I'm sure this will work about as well as our racial affirmative action teacher hiring in the years following desegregation which brought a flood of illiterates to the front of the classroom that squashed the hopes for so many disadvantaged youth in the name of social engineering.
9
As a 63 year old I watched affirmative action work to redress past discrimination on race during my lifetime. I particularly remember moving to Washington in 1969 where the process of affirmative action and fighting discrimination had been underway for a more than decade. Suddenly I was meeting members of the black middle class, black college and (later) law school classmates. A virtuous circle had been kick started that then ran without further pushing. I see places where the virtuous circle did not get a kick start and they are still woefully backwards. Germany's measure will be such a kick start she will soon no longer need and she will be well ahead of the rest of us.
12
so many of these women who are going to be on boards are victims of discrimination and poverty? Do you suppose, by any chance, that most are graduates from top notch universities and from upper middle class families instead (much like their male counterparts)?
1
Of course, some of these women be from top notch universities and from upper middle class families just like their male counterparts. And…?
1
gcb,
the point is that there is widespread discrimination based on education and class background, not gender. This is obviously a point that you seem to consider of little significance.
the point is that there is widespread discrimination based on education and class background, not gender. This is obviously a point that you seem to consider of little significance.
For all the men (and women) who are bemoaning quotas, consider the latest study on gender and feelings of entitlement. (https://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/.../009.html In this study of nearly half a million people, men were consistently ranked higher than women for traits of narcissism, feelings of self-importance, and confidence. No wonder men feel they deserve more and find quotas distasteful.
11
Or it could be that quotas move people up based on the color of their skin or gender. I have worked many years and have seen this countless times. In the long run it undermines many women as people ask whether they have moved to their position via ability or their gender or color of their skin. This is a legitimate issue, not just something that the psychopaths you mention think about. Its time to open your mind and free yourself from sexist and racist thought processes.
1
Moreover, companies with greater diversity on their governing boards do better than those that are all male, studies show.
2
Yes, quotas in hiring men based on their gender has been the norm and is still the norm.
So - you think it will undermine women? Maybe - maybe not. Doesn't it undermine men when they only hire men whether qualified or not?
So - you think it will undermine women? Maybe - maybe not. Doesn't it undermine men when they only hire men whether qualified or not?
1
America is way behind again. What else is new?
9
Well done, Germany, and Europe in general. It's a shame we need laws to get women, who are 50% of the population, into higher positions, but if this is what it takes to get some men to wake up, so be it. Diversity in higher level positions makes for stronger companies that are more aware of what people (as in 100% of us) actually want, including both workers and consumers. It's pretty basic - too bad more corporate leaders don't get it.
8
Why do so many fail to,understand that lack of acceptance of women in the board room is not fair and needs a push to change. Just because it has been done this way in the past is not a reason to continue. Companies will,function better with women in the board room and maybe will result in better decisions.
9
Well that's one way to dilute the stranglehold that the Good Ole Boy Network has on business. The same should be considered for religious institutions, government and elsewhere.
Women bring a different gender view to issues.
Some men may not appreciate being required to insert "a woman's opinion" into their board rooms, but then again, that's the point.
Women bring a different gender view to issues.
Some men may not appreciate being required to insert "a woman's opinion" into their board rooms, but then again, that's the point.
9
What magical good do women bring to the table, I am interested in the bewitching power of the female in the boardroom. Will this mean we have to serve white chilled chablis along with Evian water
Why do you think what women have to offer is "magical[ly] good"? Bewitching power? What does that mean?
1
Pable: Perhaps chilled chablis along with bourbon and a fat disgusting cigar.
Hi,
With Inflation is going to be in defaltion, FED about to make biggest mistake, and even no words in weekend hurting Financial world !!
Strong dollar can anytime make US economy looks vulnerable and in recession phase..and Oil is going to be much lower than what US companies think and make them bankrupt...
--
Thanks
Nikunj
With Inflation is going to be in defaltion, FED about to make biggest mistake, and even no words in weekend hurting Financial world !!
Strong dollar can anytime make US economy looks vulnerable and in recession phase..and Oil is going to be much lower than what US companies think and make them bankrupt...
--
Thanks
Nikunj
Its too bad America lags so fa behind. Religions, also must have these quotas invoked because they are so influential in peoples perceptions of power hierarchy.
3
non-mandatorily appointed female board members v. those appointed voluntarily or through peer pressure—will this change the fact that boards with women are more profitable?
Would such laws be more or less helpful in places like Japan, where only 3.1% of board seats are occupied by women?
Would such laws be more or less helpful in places like Japan, where only 3.1% of board seats are occupied by women?
1
So can a gay, black, muslum, woman from a foreign nation count as five different protected minorities?
1
Keep pushing back on greater representation of women in the boardroom, gentlemen. You will be replaced at some point, and whether they're male, female, or a different color than you, it's not going to feel good. Best get used to the idea now. It's coming, and you can't stop it.
6
It does beg the question. If you agree to the use of quotas to improve diversity does that diversity only apply to gender??
1
They must select the people in mind their professional qualities , not by gender ! State which can not solve such elementary problems can not be together with the US in a role world gendarme!
1
Wunderbar. This is a great step.
To all those commenters complaining this should happen organically... it's NOT happening organically. Okay? That's WHY this legislation is necessary.
Let's make this local for a moment. The WGA (Writers Guild of America) just released a report indicating that hiring of women in film and TV went DOWN in 2014. Read that again. DOWN. For all this hang-wringing and well-meaning platitudes from everyone involved in the industry, change is NOT happening. In fact, things are getting worse.
Blah means nothing. Law is what changes things.
Germany has got it right.
To all those commenters complaining this should happen organically... it's NOT happening organically. Okay? That's WHY this legislation is necessary.
Let's make this local for a moment. The WGA (Writers Guild of America) just released a report indicating that hiring of women in film and TV went DOWN in 2014. Read that again. DOWN. For all this hang-wringing and well-meaning platitudes from everyone involved in the industry, change is NOT happening. In fact, things are getting worse.
Blah means nothing. Law is what changes things.
Germany has got it right.
9
It's also NOT happening organically in industries like snow shoveling in freezing weather or garbage collection.
Care to point out where the law is changing to get more women into those fields? Since I haven't seen a feminist march for equality in those professions yet.
Feminist equality is so wonderfully Orwellian that it'd be humorous if it weren't so tragically a real part of policy.
Care to point out where the law is changing to get more women into those fields? Since I haven't seen a feminist march for equality in those professions yet.
Feminist equality is so wonderfully Orwellian that it'd be humorous if it weren't so tragically a real part of policy.
What the article did not discuss at all was whether countries that increased the representation of women on boards increased or decreased the profits of their firms. To my knowledge, the most recent studies show that the effect on profits has been negative. If so, then Germany is just going to further pave the way for Chinese domination; China has no quotas.
2
That is not true. Studies show that companies with greater diversity on their governing boards do better than those that are all male.
2
The fact of still having such debates on gender equality is a proof that woman are still not complitely taken seriously when it comes to high level responsibilities , and therfore are still partially marginalized .
4
Let´s deliver.
I see this as an astute legal move. Everyone knows that women control the direction of the purchases intended for the beautification and maintenance of the home. As at some point, corporate products end up in the home, it only makes sense to have smart women able to move between development, marketing, and practical application.
The men I know are learning along with the women how to build a sustainable market model. It is a happy joining.
The men I know are learning along with the women how to build a sustainable market model. It is a happy joining.
4
Give people a chance to discriminate, and men will be at the head of the line !
8
Boards and corporations are legal entities, defined by government. There is no 'equality' of legal entities, despite U.S. Supreme court delirium about corporate personage. European governments often mandate 'stake-holder' participation on corporate boards, these can include unions, local educational institutions, etc. The purpose of government is not to protect the capital accrual interests of their elites. Just as markets are never free, profits are not the fiefdom of white males.
3
When board positions are filled by gender quotas rather than merit, it is time to sell tour shares in that cmpany and move on. A shortcut to failure.
2
What makes you think that board positions are not filled by gender quotas. They are not being filled under the law, but rather under the fact that men have and do hire men that are qualified and not qualified.
Quotas have been in place whether or not it was legally mandated - white men hired and promoted white men sometimes without regard to qualifications.
White males have not been doing such a great job of running companies - think financial crisis - banks - fraud. Who was responsible for that? Mainly white males.
Quotas have been in place whether or not it was legally mandated - white men hired and promoted white men sometimes without regard to qualifications.
White males have not been doing such a great job of running companies - think financial crisis - banks - fraud. Who was responsible for that? Mainly white males.
1
Well that is a way to ensure that the best people dont get the best jobs.
What a centrally planned inefficiency.
What about the brilliant men who will be squeezed out by this foolishness? What about their wives who may have decided to take the luxury of staying at home with their kids?
Crazy. Sure more women should be on board but you cant enforce it by law.
What a centrally planned inefficiency.
What about the brilliant men who will be squeezed out by this foolishness? What about their wives who may have decided to take the luxury of staying at home with their kids?
Crazy. Sure more women should be on board but you cant enforce it by law.
3
What makes you think that the best people are getting the jobs now? What makes this planned inefficiency? Why centrally?
What about the brilliant women and minorities that have been squeezed out by what you call foolishness? Do you think men hiring unqualified men is foolish?
The "luxury" of staying home with their kids - those decisions about how to raise one's children is not usually a unilateral decision made by women. Men benefit from that so-called "luxury" - more often than not women who stay at home take care of everything - laundry, cooking, cleaning… It's quite a luxury for men - white men.
Why can't you lawfully enforce women being on boards?
What about the brilliant women and minorities that have been squeezed out by what you call foolishness? Do you think men hiring unqualified men is foolish?
The "luxury" of staying home with their kids - those decisions about how to raise one's children is not usually a unilateral decision made by women. Men benefit from that so-called "luxury" - more often than not women who stay at home take care of everything - laundry, cooking, cleaning… It's quite a luxury for men - white men.
Why can't you lawfully enforce women being on boards?
2
I look forward to the new law which says it is mandatory for all roof tiling, brick laying, ditch digging, truck driving, mining, Fish Trawling companies to have at least 30% of their staff female. The girls would surely welcome this step toward gender equity in the workforce.
3
no, those jobs are for men only. Most women would never degrade themselves to that position. They would consider it degrading. Sexism at its best.
Since when do you speak for women, yoda? Mark, maybe that day will come, but right now the law in Germany is about women in high level jobs.
1
I don't speak for women but many that I know express these views towards these professions. Hence the comment.
I guess it is a bit of schadenfreude on my part. . . but I am really enjoying reading the "outraged" comments over this, and the really ridiculous arguments about why some of the folks commenting think this is wrong.
I'll feel guilty about it later but I am really enjoying the discomfort it seems to be causing, particularly the laments about "feminism."
Men have held power and control for many, many years and with that, a defacto "quota" system whereby men (and in particular white men) benefit over all others. We have seen this changing but all too slowly. I for one am very happy to see Germany giving this a big push. I'd like to see it in America.
I'll feel guilty about it later but I am really enjoying the discomfort it seems to be causing, particularly the laments about "feminism."
Men have held power and control for many, many years and with that, a defacto "quota" system whereby men (and in particular white men) benefit over all others. We have seen this changing but all too slowly. I for one am very happy to see Germany giving this a big push. I'd like to see it in America.
7
You can also phrase that as the men having had the burdens of providing security, governance, and prosperity put upon them throughout history.
I see no sign that women look at their new roles in this way. They just look at it as a "gimme" and I think that is why some folks lack faith in a positive social outcome with these quotas.
I see no sign that women look at their new roles in this way. They just look at it as a "gimme" and I think that is why some folks lack faith in a positive social outcome with these quotas.
1
This law is a shame,
it is a shame that we have no better way to handle this,
and it is a shame that we need something like this at all.
There was a lot of discussion, statistics and everything here in germany,
and - yes there is a bias, but also, it is very complicated.
In some professions there are simply much less women enganged,
to some job offers there are much less female applicants.
And than again in some professions like health care it's all female workers.
So this law obeys one another rule - simplicity over perfection.
Despite all flaws, i can not imagine how to tackle this issue otherwise.
Especially given the fact, that our politicians are always acting short-sighted.
it is a shame that we have no better way to handle this,
and it is a shame that we need something like this at all.
There was a lot of discussion, statistics and everything here in germany,
and - yes there is a bias, but also, it is very complicated.
In some professions there are simply much less women enganged,
to some job offers there are much less female applicants.
And than again in some professions like health care it's all female workers.
So this law obeys one another rule - simplicity over perfection.
Despite all flaws, i can not imagine how to tackle this issue otherwise.
Especially given the fact, that our politicians are always acting short-sighted.
4
Scary and depressing so many commenters are endorsing Germany's mandating sexual discrimination. What's next racial discrimination? Don't people realize quotas under mind the very people who are supposed to be helped by them?
Everyone will know the new female board members have their positions because it's a law. If you have to have 30% female by law - competence is immaterial. People will know the women are tokens needed to comply with the law.
Everyone will know the new female board members have their positions because it's a law. If you have to have 30% female by law - competence is immaterial. People will know the women are tokens needed to comply with the law.
25
White men have been doling out their own quota system for many, many years. It has been the "unwritten law." So now there is a new law, and it is written.
6
That you think there are not enough qualified and competent women to fill the quota is sexism. People will know, finally, that qualified women have been admitted - full stop.
8
And women have always known that men have positions of power because of the good ole boys networks and keeping the status quo. Please. More than half the population is female. This doesn't even begin to approach true equality.
4
How would you feel if you knew the only reason you are on the board is because of a mandate by the government? I would not want to be a "token" anything.
24
I think that white males have not minded being what you referred to as being a "token". If qualified women benefit from this governmental mandate what makes you think that they will care? Maybe they will think that it's just find because they wouldn't have gotten the job without the mandate although they were qualified.
Men are tokens, and they don't seem to mind.
Men are tokens, and they don't seem to mind.
23
Indeed, being on a board is generally not a "job", but a sinecure.
The main qualifications are being already rich and/or famous, dressing appropriately, and being able to wine and dine without making a spectacle of oneself (last maybe optional). The only duties are (very occasionally) dismissing management when it proves criminally incompetent. Why shouldn't women have the right to be equally useless and overpaid?
The main qualifications are being already rich and/or famous, dressing appropriately, and being able to wine and dine without making a spectacle of oneself (last maybe optional). The only duties are (very occasionally) dismissing management when it proves criminally incompetent. Why shouldn't women have the right to be equally useless and overpaid?
4
In what way are men tokens? No business appoints anyone who they don't believe will contribute to the success of the business. I suppose you are a believer in the mythical reasons for the Gender Pay gap too. Hilarious.
Will you be pushing for a higher representation of women in the truck driving, ditch digging, road mending, roof tiling, brick laying, mining, fishing industries?
Will you be pushing for a higher representation of women in the truck driving, ditch digging, road mending, roof tiling, brick laying, mining, fishing industries?
2
we should look at where the real "old girls network" is alive and well.
they have been using employment equity program policy here in Canada since the 90`s and use it to exclude men from Gov jobs here even tho 90% of the workers are already women.
this is literally a direct power grab by feminists putting law in place to ensure that less men will accell thru a company, women are already 60% of uni grads and still there is a demand for preferential treatment at the top? the natural effect would be for more women to represent as more women move their way thru a company than men because more women will be qualified than men, why do they need a law enforcing this?
and doesnt this law actually give an opportunity for reverse discrimination while no discrimination has been proven in the first place?
they have been using employment equity program policy here in Canada since the 90`s and use it to exclude men from Gov jobs here even tho 90% of the workers are already women.
this is literally a direct power grab by feminists putting law in place to ensure that less men will accell thru a company, women are already 60% of uni grads and still there is a demand for preferential treatment at the top? the natural effect would be for more women to represent as more women move their way thru a company than men because more women will be qualified than men, why do they need a law enforcing this?
and doesnt this law actually give an opportunity for reverse discrimination while no discrimination has been proven in the first place?
10
90% of the workers are already women - in what industries? Are you referring to governmental positions in Canada? What does worker mean? What type of jobs do these women hold? Are they the higher ups or just workers.
If the women are doing a power grab, what's wrong with that? Men have done that for centuries. Feminists, who what equality for all under the law, are the one's grabbling the power - women will have 30% of the those jobs, which means 70% of those jobs will be filled by men - it hardly sounds like a female power grab.
Women making up 60% on the university graduates does not equate to the same percent of women running companies. Natural??? What makes you think that anything about hiring practices is natural. Is it natural for men to pick men over women? Will it be natural if women only hold 30% of the higher up jobs at companies and men will hold 70%?
They need laws like this because women have not been getting promoted despite their being qualified. The law will give an opportunity to qualified women to move up, and if you want to term it, reverse discrimination, then that's okay with me. But remember 70% of the higher up jobs will be held by men…doesn't sound like there really will be discriminating unless of course you mean women…because the quota for women will only be 30%
I don't know if discrimination has been proven in Germany, but you do?
If the women are doing a power grab, what's wrong with that? Men have done that for centuries. Feminists, who what equality for all under the law, are the one's grabbling the power - women will have 30% of the those jobs, which means 70% of those jobs will be filled by men - it hardly sounds like a female power grab.
Women making up 60% on the university graduates does not equate to the same percent of women running companies. Natural??? What makes you think that anything about hiring practices is natural. Is it natural for men to pick men over women? Will it be natural if women only hold 30% of the higher up jobs at companies and men will hold 70%?
They need laws like this because women have not been getting promoted despite their being qualified. The law will give an opportunity to qualified women to move up, and if you want to term it, reverse discrimination, then that's okay with me. But remember 70% of the higher up jobs will be held by men…doesn't sound like there really will be discriminating unless of course you mean women…because the quota for women will only be 30%
I don't know if discrimination has been proven in Germany, but you do?
4
@gcb:"If the women are doing a power grab, what's wrong with that? Men have done that for centuries"
Interesting logic! So what is this in fact? Social justice, as officially purported, or revenge? It's hard to hear the argument that all this is to instate some kind of justice, if the subtext says in fact that today's men are made to pay for yesterday's men's "power grab" (in fact, centuries of a natural order, in its traditional, patriarchal form).
As for your claim that "70% of the higher up jobs will be held by men (…) because the quota for women will only be 30%", it seems you haven't understood that the quotas are for a minimum of 30% female representation, not a fixed 30%. I hope you see the difference. Companies where women hold over 30% seats in supervision will be fine. There's nothing about firing women to hire men in industries where women are overrepresented.
I see you fall into the common canard that only takes account of selected ideas on paper, and doesn't bother with facts. You seem to think that HR positions are all held by men, and they are bent on picking men instead of the best candidates (pretty much the concept of this law: sex over merit). Hmm. In the companies I've worked in, DHRs were mostly women, and they mostly hired men. I guess they were misogynists too, then? Or maybe they just hire the best candidates, who happen to be mostly men. Interestingly enough, the performance evaluations (based on actual measurable figures) seem to confirm the trend.
Interesting logic! So what is this in fact? Social justice, as officially purported, or revenge? It's hard to hear the argument that all this is to instate some kind of justice, if the subtext says in fact that today's men are made to pay for yesterday's men's "power grab" (in fact, centuries of a natural order, in its traditional, patriarchal form).
As for your claim that "70% of the higher up jobs will be held by men (…) because the quota for women will only be 30%", it seems you haven't understood that the quotas are for a minimum of 30% female representation, not a fixed 30%. I hope you see the difference. Companies where women hold over 30% seats in supervision will be fine. There's nothing about firing women to hire men in industries where women are overrepresented.
I see you fall into the common canard that only takes account of selected ideas on paper, and doesn't bother with facts. You seem to think that HR positions are all held by men, and they are bent on picking men instead of the best candidates (pretty much the concept of this law: sex over merit). Hmm. In the companies I've worked in, DHRs were mostly women, and they mostly hired men. I guess they were misogynists too, then? Or maybe they just hire the best candidates, who happen to be mostly men. Interestingly enough, the performance evaluations (based on actual measurable figures) seem to confirm the trend.
3
First of all, I am very happy that more women have the chance to move up, have power they can wield in the rarefied air of corporate boards. The concern is that of assigning quotas, which sounds a bit forced, especially if the culture up there is such that women do not get the tools to be effective, efficient and convincing to their shareholders. Competitiveness is essential but it needs cooperation by the powers to be. How to prepare for it without a specific number (30%) is the question. And if the women out there, if prepared and ready and willing, why not 50% or higher? This must be, by force, a gradual move, so to accommodate those potential men and women waiting in line to succeed the current 'bosses', women preferentially, to fulfill the mandate. Sure hope it won't backfire.
2
It sounded a bit forced, too when men benefited at jobs and women were kept down, which is still going on. Why don't you think that women get the tools to reach those levels?
5
Diversity in the common parlance is used more often to describe a palette of acceptable skin tones and the right mix of XX, and XY chromosomes. While is praiseworthy to provide equal access to all, I fear the status quo (which most agree needs to go) will be replaced by something very much the same. In pictures you might notice some differences but in the boardroom it will be business as usual.
What people fail to understand is that the type of person who would drop 2000 workers but keep their own big dollar perks and sleeps very well at night is who makes it to the top. They are rewarded very generously for not doing all the things we hope will happen when someone who looks like us is at the top.
Yes, real diversity includes gender, race, religion and LGBT issues. But far more important than being able to say, "hey awesome, Bill who is gay like me got the big job", is to find the right "Bill" who can bring all that he experienced developing as a gay man to how important corporate decision are made, that affect real people. If we simply promote the same corporate paper dolls and only change the color of the crayons we will have failed
What people fail to understand is that the type of person who would drop 2000 workers but keep their own big dollar perks and sleeps very well at night is who makes it to the top. They are rewarded very generously for not doing all the things we hope will happen when someone who looks like us is at the top.
Yes, real diversity includes gender, race, religion and LGBT issues. But far more important than being able to say, "hey awesome, Bill who is gay like me got the big job", is to find the right "Bill" who can bring all that he experienced developing as a gay man to how important corporate decision are made, that affect real people. If we simply promote the same corporate paper dolls and only change the color of the crayons we will have failed
9
manfred marcus, your comment reminds me of orchestra auctions: women made up a very small percentage of professional orchestras until fairy recently -- until the recommendation was made to do "blind" auditions (the applicant played behind a screen, and was judged without knowing the gender). Suddenly, the percentage of women in professional orchestras increased dramatically. What does this mean? That talented women existed, but weren't being hired, because they were women, and thus perceived as not being talented. Trust me, talented women abound for board seats, but unfortunately, you can't have blind auditions for prospective members. Maybe a quota is a good proxy for blind auditions.
3
Bravo Mrs. Merkel!!!! In a world of rapidly increasing "revanchist" sexism, you represent enlightened and balanced leadership. The "anglo-saxon" countries take note!!!
14
You mean brava.
5
Nothing will drive moderates to the right better than mandated gender percentages. Would you set the percentage of woman as scientists or engineers in a company or doctors in a hospital? Well, what makes a company board of directors any different? There are countries that mandate the percentage of women as legislators. Doesn't that diminish a voter's freedom to choose their own candidate? Gender percentage mandating is soft-core sexual fascism.
2
you ask "would you set the percentage of woman as scientists or engineers in a company or doctors in a hospital?" Yes, I would.
You list out three careers and imply are male dominated and should remain that way. The same bias that keeps women out of the board rooms often keeps top women from the resources needed to be successful scientists and doctors.
You list out three careers and imply are male dominated and should remain that way. The same bias that keeps women out of the board rooms often keeps top women from the resources needed to be successful scientists and doctors.
1
Why only 30% and why only supervisory seats?
9
30% is considered the tipping point where real change can occur. Anything below that is not as effective. Simply Google something like "percentage of women tipping point" and lots of articles discussing the issue will pop up. Here's one from way back in 2012: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1231579
1
What people miss is that the gender representation on boards stems directly from the genders of the people who start companies. When men start companies, they're more likely to seek out other men to join their boards. Women can rebalance the equation by starting more companies. It's that simple.
14
Thanks, Don, for telling us how simple it is.
34
"It's that simple"
My daughter calls that "mansplaining" – she had to explain that to me . . . heh
And then I understood – it's that simple.
My daughter calls that "mansplaining" – she had to explain that to me . . . heh
And then I understood – it's that simple.
4
It really is, Madeline. I've started five myself. No connections, no wealth.
3
American corporations seem to have institutionalized their gender-bias within the "Good Ole Boy" system. Also, it is even more prevalent when the normal combination of the roles of CEO and Chairman entrusted to just one person. And then, there is the interlocking of Boards in that, if I name you to my Board, then you name me to yours. Deal!
By reducing the separation of the two roles--the CEO, who should act on behalf of the corporation, and the Chairman should represent the shareholders. But, they are really not serving the best interests of either. And, that leads to tenure for Management and short-changing the company of an alternative voice--a female one. That would also insure an on-going supply of new blood.
And you thought that the revolving door--between corporations, regulators, and the Administration was bad. Oh, and let's not forget to include Congress and the Pentagon, as well.
Wall Street is in bed with the Government, and Main Street is totally left-out of the love-fest. Well, that's because we just cannot afford the lobbyists.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
By reducing the separation of the two roles--the CEO, who should act on behalf of the corporation, and the Chairman should represent the shareholders. But, they are really not serving the best interests of either. And, that leads to tenure for Management and short-changing the company of an alternative voice--a female one. That would also insure an on-going supply of new blood.
And you thought that the revolving door--between corporations, regulators, and the Administration was bad. Oh, and let's not forget to include Congress and the Pentagon, as well.
Wall Street is in bed with the Government, and Main Street is totally left-out of the love-fest. Well, that's because we just cannot afford the lobbyists.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
4
I don't believe that this comment is a digression from the topic. But. If we take a cursory look at the Pioneers that Settled the West we have a romantic notion that it was the Daniel Boone types who with their manliness were the undisputed leaders who without them the expansion could have never happened.
But when we get down to the real facts, the stories told by the people of the times we get a different picture. We have account after account that it was the women who held everything together. It was the women who were the glue of those communities. That without the strength and perseverance of the women their men would have high tailed it back to their Mothers back out East.
Too many comments here folks are completely unaware the prejudice they harbor when they consider the abilities of women.
Well, too bad! I say - Lead, Follow or Get Out of The Way!
But when we get down to the real facts, the stories told by the people of the times we get a different picture. We have account after account that it was the women who held everything together. It was the women who were the glue of those communities. That without the strength and perseverance of the women their men would have high tailed it back to their Mothers back out East.
Too many comments here folks are completely unaware the prejudice they harbor when they consider the abilities of women.
Well, too bad! I say - Lead, Follow or Get Out of The Way!
48
Excellent point! Einstein's first wife was well educated, and it's believed that his wife played a significant role in his work. His papers are kept at Princeton University, and I believe reveal such information. Einstein discussed theories with his wife and she gave input that he used.
1
Exactly! You know too well how many women in science had to have a man front their accomplishments. The list is very, very long. Not opinion, fact.
12
First, no it wasn't an "excellent point" it was a histrionic, apocryphal, and sexist rant on sexism. Second, the desperate need to grasp for conspiracies about the REAL brains behind the man such as Einstein or Shakespeare (what others have there been?) is pitiable. I'll not waste energy pointing out the innumerable holes in your theory except to say he wrote important papers before they were involved and, as an academic myself I can tell you if she were responsible for the insights that lead to some key results he would not have been able to "fake" those insights in lecture after lecture, talk after talk, collaboration after collaboration. Wait, maybe he wore an ear-piece and she told him what to say. I think I saw an episode of Seinfeld or Friends that took similar lines so maybe you're on to something.
5
this gender quota is literally a women in a position of power abusing her power to give other women positions of power through unnecessary gender quotas. people should be hired based on their skills not because of their gender. merkel has thrown a spear into the belly of freedom and democracy by punishing men for not having a womens body part
7
So a law that will probably effectively allow men to retain 70% of board seats, even as women make up the majority of the population, would be punishing men? In any case, Chancellor Merkel did not enact this law by executive fiat. A clear majority of the German parliament, presumably both women and men, voted for the measure, and those who abstained in opposition did so because they thought that the law did not go far enough. In other words, the idea of mandating that at least 30% of supervisory seats be occupied by women was overwhelmingly popular.
11
actually you sound like a woman, being told by a man what to say...
1
How is "this gender quota literally [or otherwise] a woman in position abusing her power…? What are getting more women in higher positions unnecessary? Yes, people should be hired based on their skills, education, knowledge, and experience, but not employees are hired bases on them - even men are not alway qualified for the jobs they get hired for or are promoted. Men have been abusing their power for thousands of years. Do you have a problem that men helped men get jobs, keep jobs, and promote them?
4
The photo accompanying the article suggests that you need not apply for recognition under this new law if you are not a blond Germanic beauty.
Does the law require provide for Muslim women? Women of color? Why don't the requirements of this law reflect the demographics of the nation's female population?
Height of hypocrisy!
Does the law require provide for Muslim women? Women of color? Why don't the requirements of this law reflect the demographics of the nation's female population?
Height of hypocrisy!
5
Read the caption. It's not an illustration, as you seem to see believe. It's a photograph of Merkel and Schwesig.
1
That's your perception. I don't believe that both these women are "Germanic beauties". Did you read the article? The law talks about women, not "white" women. What makes you think that the law does not "reflects the demographics of the nation's female population?"
Height of hypocrisy - LOL!
Height of hypocrisy - LOL!
11
German businesses will choose directors that can help their business succeed. It's country of pragmatists. Under the law they will find directors who can help them reach global markets, that would indicate to me an interest in a broad range of people. Not necessarily Germanic beauties.
3
How about looking at the real issues instead of pursuing self serving political moves? The root of women lacking in higher positions is mostly due to a lack of support for mothers juggling multiple tasks, those of a demanding career and providing love and support for a child. I live in a country that does not offer paid maternity leave, is it one of three worldwide at this point in time? Since the Germans pursue equality in form of signing a law, I can only hope a very well functioning child care infrastructure (state run?) will support the many women who will be making up the 30%. Leaves me to contemplate, what should come first, child care or forced affirmative action?
22
As I know, Berlin offers free nursery care after babies turn one year old. Parents have one year of paid maternity leave. Germans believe in investing in their young early as the cost of not caring for their young outweighs the costs of care and education. German mothers do not have to juggle child care and work. They really believe early childhood education is critical to their future success.
12
I think that they are looking at real issues. It seems to me that you maybe "pursuing a self serving moves". The root of women lacking in higher positions is not mosty due to a lack of support of mothers… - there are plenty of women who didn't get promotions when qualified when they didn't have children. What about women who remained childless throughout their careers?
The real issue for me isn't about the "mommy track", it's about men holding women back, not promoting them to higher positions because they are women.
I am not against maternity leave or paternity leave. Who do you think picks up the work of the people who take leave? The people that are not on maternity or paternity leave pick up the slack, and it can create resentment at work because those that maternity and paternity leave don't always cover for others when those other people are out for reasons other than leave relating to child birth. You want to have children - it's a choice. When you make choices there are consequences - why should the "state" pick up the tab for your choices? I don't want to pay for your children…I already do that with the taxes I pay. I don't want to bear that burden at with a state run system and have to cover for people on maternity and paternity leave, too. You make a choice, you figure out how you're going to manage it. Don't look to your coworkers because it's simply not fear.
You don't know what kind child care infrastructure Germany has.
The real issue for me isn't about the "mommy track", it's about men holding women back, not promoting them to higher positions because they are women.
I am not against maternity leave or paternity leave. Who do you think picks up the work of the people who take leave? The people that are not on maternity or paternity leave pick up the slack, and it can create resentment at work because those that maternity and paternity leave don't always cover for others when those other people are out for reasons other than leave relating to child birth. You want to have children - it's a choice. When you make choices there are consequences - why should the "state" pick up the tab for your choices? I don't want to pay for your children…I already do that with the taxes I pay. I don't want to bear that burden at with a state run system and have to cover for people on maternity and paternity leave, too. You make a choice, you figure out how you're going to manage it. Don't look to your coworkers because it's simply not fear.
You don't know what kind child care infrastructure Germany has.
6
Stay home and raise your kids. It's more important than the corporate treadmill and more valuable to your kids.
1
The data are overwhelming that women have not reached the top in large numbers due to largely unconscious gender bias against them.
Germany's quota is not "affirmative action" for women, but the beginning of the end of centuries of affirmative action for men.
Go Angela - this is what leadership looks like.
Germany's quota is not "affirmative action" for women, but the beginning of the end of centuries of affirmative action for men.
Go Angela - this is what leadership looks like.
158
I agree. A lot of comments to this article seem to assume that there are no competent women who could easily be elected to boards, and now Germany is going to promote women just to fill a quota. This seems absurd. Of course there are women who are just as qualified if not more qualified than male board candidates. They are not on boards now because male board members will select candidates just like themselves, namely, other males. Kudos to German female legislators for pushing this issue.
20
What makes you think that the bias is largely unconscious?
4
Bias because they want to take time out to raise their kids or to have 40 hour weeks. They are not willing, for the most part, to spend 70 hour weeks and weekends like the men do. Therefore they are less valuable to business.
3
As a female shareholder, I think this is long overdue, and I hope that we will see more women on U.S. corporate boards. The pity is not that a quota might be imposed, but that one might be necessary.
81
I agree with your post, but I would change one thing - I think that it's more like "The pity is not that a quota might be imposed, but that one is" necessary.
4
Government has no business imposing those kid of decisions on private enterprise.
4
Why not 50%?
31
Why not! I would like to know the answer to that question, too.
4
its just 30% because we need just a door opener,
it is stupid to have quotas at all,
but some companies are indeed medieval, even in germany.
We need a thrust, that will become a sustainable fact.
In time we need no quotas at all.
It was the same with homosexuality, 30 years ago it was a crime in germany, than we did everything to ensure equal status, today nobody cares about sexual orientation, and a lot of these efforts for ensuring equality look like antics.
This law is just a game changer, as soon as the game is changed, it will become a curiosity.
it is stupid to have quotas at all,
but some companies are indeed medieval, even in germany.
We need a thrust, that will become a sustainable fact.
In time we need no quotas at all.
It was the same with homosexuality, 30 years ago it was a crime in germany, than we did everything to ensure equal status, today nobody cares about sexual orientation, and a lot of these efforts for ensuring equality look like antics.
This law is just a game changer, as soon as the game is changed, it will become a curiosity.
4
Why not 75%?
When do you think they'll establish similar quotas for, say, the way more numerous and far more male-dominated industries like snow shoveling in freezing weather?
Eh, I'm guessing those sorts of jobs are fine being male-dominated by our feminist friends.
Ah equality.
Eh, I'm guessing those sorts of jobs are fine being male-dominated by our feminist friends.
Ah equality.
12
Why are you looking at this so narrow-mindedly - one type of job? Investment banking is male dominated. V.C. companies are male-dominated. Higher education is run by men. You pick one job that requires labor…no surprise there. That's your big example of what exactly? This article is about getting women moved up in their jobs. How many men do you know that snow shovel for a living, not too many I bet compared to those men who are in male-dominated investment banking jobs.
Look up the word feminism - it has to do with equality under the law for all, not just women. I like have feminist friends - why don't you…oh, that's right you don't think that all people should be treated equally under the law.
Look up the word feminism - it has to do with equality under the law for all, not just women. I like have feminist friends - why don't you…oh, that's right you don't think that all people should be treated equally under the law.
4
"I like have feminist friends - why don't you…oh, that's right you don't think that all people should be treated equally under the law"
if you support gender quotas then you don't either
if you support gender quotas then you don't either
2
I am a woman, I shovel, I shoveled 8 inches of snow just yesterday. Yes, I have a husband. My neighbor is a woman, she shovels too, and yes she has a husband too. And guess what? I also have a Ph.D., Mr. Buster, and I work full-time. I do it all. I am sick and tired of hearing close-minded people berate women; I am willing and capable of doing the work but have to fight stereotypes EVERY DAY. Do you know how that feels? Women do. Thank you Chancellor Merkel.
13
This is seriously going to compromise the work of those hard working women to get where they are because of their hardwork and ability and not because of their gender.
It will devalue women in Germany who will be looked on as weak and incapable and any positions attained will be viewed as having gotten there because of quotas.
Are they also going to force mining companies and garbage collectors to hire quotas of women as well??
It will devalue women in Germany who will be looked on as weak and incapable and any positions attained will be viewed as having gotten there because of quotas.
Are they also going to force mining companies and garbage collectors to hire quotas of women as well??
9
No it's not ! It will only open the door to talented women who would have been blocked at the threshold just because of their gender. Merkel should demand 50 %. Let's the old privileged dogs bark as loud as they want, Affirmative action is a wonderful tool to rectify endemic discrimination
22
How is this "seriously [or otherwise] going to compromise the work of those hard working women to get where they are…"? Just because 30% will be the requirement, it does not mean that these women didn't also get the job because of their handwork and ability. That's what goes on for men - some are qualified and some are not, but they still have their jobs.
You and other males in this discussion are so concerned about how women will be perceived as weak and incapable. Why don't you do something about that by not presuming that every women in Germany and these other countries that have comparable laws got the job just because of the law. Do you and did you perceive men as weak when they got jobs because they were men whether they were qualified or not?
I don't know - are they going to force mining companies and garbage collectors to hire women, too? Are they going to mandate that investment banks like Deutsche Bank hire women?
You and other males in this discussion are so concerned about how women will be perceived as weak and incapable. Why don't you do something about that by not presuming that every women in Germany and these other countries that have comparable laws got the job just because of the law. Do you and did you perceive men as weak when they got jobs because they were men whether they were qualified or not?
I don't know - are they going to force mining companies and garbage collectors to hire women, too? Are they going to mandate that investment banks like Deutsche Bank hire women?
4
or we could just hire based on skill instead of stupid gender quotas.
4
There are more men named John at the head of major companies than there are women. Can anyone seriously argue that there are so few women qualified to fill these positions?
We need CEO quotas as well before we come close to gender equality at work.
We need CEO quotas as well before we come close to gender equality at work.
18
Apparently "Affirmative Action" is acceptable even mandatory as long as the arbitrarily mandated quotas exclusively privilege white women.
7
Where do you get the notion that this law in Germany covers only white women? Also, don't you think that men (majority, not minorities) have benefited from the something very similar to "Affirmative Action" when they hired only people like themselves - white, Anglican men - no Jewish men. Is it really okay when the white guys do it, but not when laws are enacted to protect women? Men have kept women down for thousands of years - they were property; they couldn't vote; they don't always get equal pay...
6
As the writer suggests men have kept men of different social classes from access to wealth for centuries. Are you sure this discussion isn't confusing gender with class??
5
I don't think that this article is confusing gender and class.
2
Quotas are quick fixes that have far too many unintended consequences in my experience and result in many poor selection decisions as people go for numbers.
Quotas don't address the underlying issue which is the failure of the search process to find qualified candidates whether it is a gender or other issue of diversity involved.
What should be required in organizations is a policy and process driven solution that requires the search to not conclude without presenting the list of qualified candidates that include women to the board committee or whoever is senior. In other words you can't just say we hired Bill as no women applied.
This must be an organization wide policy for all management positions to ensure women and other diversity targets are given equal opportunities.
This will ensure that standards are met and if women don't apply - that you find out what is wrong with your organization that is not attracting qualified women and fix it.
Quotas don't address the underlying issue which is the failure of the search process to find qualified candidates whether it is a gender or other issue of diversity involved.
What should be required in organizations is a policy and process driven solution that requires the search to not conclude without presenting the list of qualified candidates that include women to the board committee or whoever is senior. In other words you can't just say we hired Bill as no women applied.
This must be an organization wide policy for all management positions to ensure women and other diversity targets are given equal opportunities.
This will ensure that standards are met and if women don't apply - that you find out what is wrong with your organization that is not attracting qualified women and fix it.
2
Too slow and corruptible. This will fix things much faster. Once a fair number of well-qualified women are on those boards -- we don't have to quibble over "best" -- things will change throughout those companies, and between them as well.
6
How much more evidence do we need that the meritocracy myth is an effort by powerful men to maintain power by pretending that the system is fair? But no, the Ron Paul acolytes and their assorted libertarian cronies will continue their dissembling and this country will fall further and further behind. It's becoming increasingly clear that the U.S. is no place for a sane person with a sense of compassion.
10
We don't need any more evidence - we have enough to show that it's not a myth. Why was it okay for white males to benefit from laws that gave them the upper hand, but not women or minorities?
3
Yes, there were no barriers of entry before for women to reach CEO's positions, so now we ENFORCE it! lol
Women are just generaly not as inclined to pursue these positions as men are, you know this and it's eating you from the inside hehe
I do hope we're going to place quotas for women on the dangerous jobs too that are causing men to be 97% of work place deaths... oh it's only the cushy well paying, high prestige jobs? Well I never... lol
You crazy people :)
Women are just generaly not as inclined to pursue these positions as men are, you know this and it's eating you from the inside hehe
I do hope we're going to place quotas for women on the dangerous jobs too that are causing men to be 97% of work place deaths... oh it's only the cushy well paying, high prestige jobs? Well I never... lol
You crazy people :)
7
This German law benefits females, the nation's demographic majority.
It does not seem to do anything for minorities.
It does not seem to do anything for minorities.
1
Germany sticks the spear of democracy into the belly of capitalism and the board rooms.
I like it. Yin Yang capitalism is what we need. Capitalism, left to its own accord, is boring and often regressive. Look at what Wall Street banks, full of men, did to our nation in 2008.
It's time for a change, even if it has to be legislated. Like John F. Kennedy said, do we want to be a nation of lost golf balls or a nation that takes bold risks in the service of progress? The answer is obvious to me. Let's head for the new frontier of democratic capitalism. We have nothing to lose except increasing gaps between rich and poor, and billionaire oligarchs running our economy. We can stand to lose that.
I like it. Yin Yang capitalism is what we need. Capitalism, left to its own accord, is boring and often regressive. Look at what Wall Street banks, full of men, did to our nation in 2008.
It's time for a change, even if it has to be legislated. Like John F. Kennedy said, do we want to be a nation of lost golf balls or a nation that takes bold risks in the service of progress? The answer is obvious to me. Let's head for the new frontier of democratic capitalism. We have nothing to lose except increasing gaps between rich and poor, and billionaire oligarchs running our economy. We can stand to lose that.
60
It's the fraud that created the financial crisis, not capitalism. I agree with the rest of what you said, "It's time for a change".
4
Yeah, like a managed economy did so well in the Soviet bloc. What exactly makes you think that having more female 1 percenters will change any thing at all for the 99%?
On so many issues, the environment, nuclear power, worker-friendly industrial policy, education policy, gender issues etc, the Germans are leading the way into the 21st century while half of our politicians are mired in a pre-Enlightenment mentality and the other half are too timid to point that out.
I saw a poll a few weeks ago in which 60% of Germans agree that capitalism is at odds with democracy. Meanwhile, much of our public has been dumbed-down by the 1%'s media to the point where they routinely vote against their own economic interests.
I saw a poll a few weeks ago in which 60% of Germans agree that capitalism is at odds with democracy. Meanwhile, much of our public has been dumbed-down by the 1%'s media to the point where they routinely vote against their own economic interests.
117
A woman's gotta do, what a woman's gotta do ... it may not be be perfect, but what a bold and fabulous move. Men might learn something;) In this situation they are definitely forced to listen a bit more to woman's perspective.
30
Forced being the operative word. I can see plenty of love coming out of this one.
1
It would be interesting if Germany's laws require companies like T-Mobile (partially owned by the German Government) to adhere to the same laws.
They need some manners on the T-Mobile USA board of directors. Maybe a woman can help teach that.
They need some manners on the T-Mobile USA board of directors. Maybe a woman can help teach that.
4
This is great.
The next step towards equality is ensuring that 30% of people who work in high risk jobs where the majority of fatalities occur are women (over 90% of workplace fatalities are men). Then we look to 30% of bodies coming home in body bags from conflicts on foreign soil are women also. 30% of the physically tough jobs should also be done by women.
Then we'll start working towards true equality.
The next step towards equality is ensuring that 30% of people who work in high risk jobs where the majority of fatalities occur are women (over 90% of workplace fatalities are men). Then we look to 30% of bodies coming home in body bags from conflicts on foreign soil are women also. 30% of the physically tough jobs should also be done by women.
Then we'll start working towards true equality.
30
Women already do 100% of one physically tough job, giving birth, so perhaps it is men who have a long way to go before they can claim to have done more.
Maybe we'll use machinery to do other physically tough jobs, and fewer body bags will be needed because women, here and in other countries, won't start as many wars. Is it a coincidence that the most aggressive and repressive culture in the world, Radical Islam, also happens to be the most male-centered and misogynistic? I think not.
This article, however, speaks of equality in a realm in which women have worked for decades, often in supporting roles and without rewards commensurate with those offered to men with similar intellect and abilities, where physical strength is not relevant, and where board members should reasonably represent the shareholders.
Maybe we'll use machinery to do other physically tough jobs, and fewer body bags will be needed because women, here and in other countries, won't start as many wars. Is it a coincidence that the most aggressive and repressive culture in the world, Radical Islam, also happens to be the most male-centered and misogynistic? I think not.
This article, however, speaks of equality in a realm in which women have worked for decades, often in supporting roles and without rewards commensurate with those offered to men with similar intellect and abilities, where physical strength is not relevant, and where board members should reasonably represent the shareholders.
3
The truly tough job of pushing an 8lb baby through a hole the size of a golf ball has been done exclusively by women for eternity and a significant number used to die doing it.
10
In the U.S., we can't look at the bodies coming home in bags - men or women - thanks to the Bush administration.
4
Worse thing the world that could happen to women. Women who get these jobs will be viewed suspiciously. Are they competent? Or just selected because they're women? No one will take any women in a such a position seriously.
I work for a professional services company which for years has had a "diversity" push. So many of the women and black or Hispanic men are not up to snuff that everyone avoids all the women and non white men.
I work for a professional services company which for years has had a "diversity" push. So many of the women and black or Hispanic men are not up to snuff that everyone avoids all the women and non white men.
7
Nope - not the worst thing to happen to women - that's already happened. Besides women and minorities are already viewed with suspicion. Just like men, some women are competent and some are not. Men will start taking women seriously when they starting firing people who don't take them seriously. What you describe - avoidance of women and minorities - has been going on for years and years. It's not right. You sound as if every minority and woman that holds a position of authority is incompetent. There are plenty of white males that are incompetent…just look around your professional services company…did they get a bail out; have they been sued because of fraud; have they settled with the government because of fraud; have they been sued and found liable in discrimination suits; what's the sexual harassment landscape look like…?
Tell me what so professional about the services company you work?
Tell me what so professional about the services company you work?
12
You're the one who gets to decide how you view these women. It sounds like you've already made up your mind.
6
Are you really equal when your position must be imposed by the government and is not connected to merit or the right of people to run their own affairs?
8
Well, Maxine…that seems to have worked for white males in the U.S. Laws that were in place to keep women and minorities from voting, no equal pay…
What makes you think that things are equal now - men through legislation or otherwise have gotten their position without regard to merit in many cases?
If men are not going to level the playing field, then I believe it has to be government mandated.
What makes you think that things are equal now - men through legislation or otherwise have gotten their position without regard to merit in many cases?
If men are not going to level the playing field, then I believe it has to be government mandated.
5
Yes, I'm sure every private sector company hires men "without regard to merit", because they just love to throw away their money.
2
Who is stating that "every private sector company hires men 'without regard to merit."?
1
How about earn positions on boards, and not be 'given' them?
7
That's a bit difficult to do when the people voting for or against you are overwhelmingly men who want to defend their position of power. Add to that the social networks that develop among powerful men and it sure ain't an easy club to break into.
18
Scott, what makes you think all of the board positions are earned? Do you think that O.J. Simpson earned his board positions? Read about who runs corporate boards, and you will be surprised about who they are and how they are connected.
14
Women need to be represented on corporate boards. it's a matter of discrimination that there aren't more women on corporate boards already. Thank you Germany for showing the leadership that the United States cannot.
53
its discrimination to put women on boards simply because of their gender.
in reality we should be valued based on our skills but that would be sexist against women
in reality we should be valued based on our skills but that would be sexist against women
1
Dead wrong, while discrimination probably has a small part to play in the small numbers of women at the top.
The biggest reason is that many fewer women than men are willing to comitt to the rat-race and grind it takes to climb up the corporate ladder. All the more so, is the fact that FOR ANYBODY, hard work, dedication, & competence will not guarantee success at climbing up the wrungs of those ladders.
Many, many more women that men, simply choose a "whatever" career and focus the largest part of their attention on a family.
Honestly, in the past, there WAS massive overt discrimination against women in high-end employment, while right now, there is probably a strong bias in favor of females, and against males.
The overt discrimination 'MOSTLY' ended a decade or 2 ago, and the cohort that came into the jobmarket at that time, haven't yet advanced to the upper levels in full force yet.
End the end, unless we install some kind of sick, mandatory quota system, we will never reach the liberal goal of equating equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, because of the lack of all-out desire to go for the brass ring in the same ratio as their simple population-percentages
The biggest reason is that many fewer women than men are willing to comitt to the rat-race and grind it takes to climb up the corporate ladder. All the more so, is the fact that FOR ANYBODY, hard work, dedication, & competence will not guarantee success at climbing up the wrungs of those ladders.
Many, many more women that men, simply choose a "whatever" career and focus the largest part of their attention on a family.
Honestly, in the past, there WAS massive overt discrimination against women in high-end employment, while right now, there is probably a strong bias in favor of females, and against males.
The overt discrimination 'MOSTLY' ended a decade or 2 ago, and the cohort that came into the jobmarket at that time, haven't yet advanced to the upper levels in full force yet.
End the end, unless we install some kind of sick, mandatory quota system, we will never reach the liberal goal of equating equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, because of the lack of all-out desire to go for the brass ring in the same ratio as their simple population-percentages
2
angry, is it discrimination to put men on boards simply because of their gender? That's been going on. Not all women in the workplace are valued because of their skills. It already is sexist - men run most of the companies - both competent and incompetent men do so - men have kept women out of higher positions and out of the board room because of gender. Do you call that discrimination or do only do so when it's women?
3
Then again, I've heard that there are countries run by a god that require their women to live their life in bags and be bought by men as chattel. Seems like a waste of talent to me, but different strokes for different folks. Why can't a woman be more like a man!
2
Social attitudes, ingrained believes and privileges generate the kind of people who would never surrender their position of authority and power. Most of the changes occur through confrontations. revolutions or through legislative action. Why would anyone with power and influence want to give it up voluntarily? It is not likely to happen without a major struggle.
32
My understanding is that these idealistic statutes largely turn into full-employment acts for the wives and daughters of the men who run the company; or for the Euro versions of Condi Rice or Carly Fiorina--co-opted conservative females that are deemed to be acceptable non-boat-rockers by the corporate leadership--who will just add even more salaried directorships to their already cushy portfolios.
The example of Norway shows that very little is likely to change for most women in the workplace because some mandated minority of women get seats on the board.
Anyway, I despise quota systems and this is another one.
The example of Norway shows that very little is likely to change for most women in the workplace because some mandated minority of women get seats on the board.
Anyway, I despise quota systems and this is another one.
14
But, what about the "unofficially quota" system that has benefited white men? Are you okay with that?
12
I suppose women should have never gotten the vote or be allowed to drive. And shouldn't blacks have been kept in their place as slaves. It's all about freedom, respect, equality and correcting the wrongs of the past. Or doesn't it really matter that we stole our land from the natives who first lived here because we could? It seems to me that an "Enemy of Crime" might have a more acute sense of justice, but no, it doesn't appear that's the case.
9
Take off your blinders. There has existed for far too long a male privilege system that has systematically excluded women. And we have all been worse off because of that. That blindness would be a detriment to your daughter if you had one.
8
I am a minority myself and I would like to see more representation of people like me across all spectrum. I am very much left leaning, I support gender equality, universal healthcare, and even separation of church and state. However, affirmative action is the worst way to go about fixing the gender issue.
What needs to be addressed is why women have lower representation in certain jobs (and vice versa for men as well). It could be public perception in industries like gaming, (gaming was only considered a nerdy men things since the 80s), nursing (overwhelmingly female dominant). These perceptions has serious impact on career decisions of many individuals and the effects have decades long lasting impact. To artificially fix the proportion of male and female is an absurd as it ignores the gender differences and the overall career choices. A "just to make yourselves feel good" number will not fix the problem, it merely favor women over men rather than focus on competency.
Who is holding the position should be based on who is competent, not what gender, race, age, or any other irrelevant criteria that are purely baseless. Do more to encourage women to take on gaming, head into political careers, and encourage men to join nursing or become flight attendant. It's not about gender.
If you see the world in the gender lens, you will find gender disparity everywhere you go. Let's be gender equalist or in fact, "agenderist".
What needs to be addressed is why women have lower representation in certain jobs (and vice versa for men as well). It could be public perception in industries like gaming, (gaming was only considered a nerdy men things since the 80s), nursing (overwhelmingly female dominant). These perceptions has serious impact on career decisions of many individuals and the effects have decades long lasting impact. To artificially fix the proportion of male and female is an absurd as it ignores the gender differences and the overall career choices. A "just to make yourselves feel good" number will not fix the problem, it merely favor women over men rather than focus on competency.
Who is holding the position should be based on who is competent, not what gender, race, age, or any other irrelevant criteria that are purely baseless. Do more to encourage women to take on gaming, head into political careers, and encourage men to join nursing or become flight attendant. It's not about gender.
If you see the world in the gender lens, you will find gender disparity everywhere you go. Let's be gender equalist or in fact, "agenderist".
33
It's absolutely about gender. Men have runs things for centuries.
7
The thing is, do we need leaders all that much?
Do we need nurses or game designers all that much?
We are forcing people into unnecessary positions, that's the truth.
When we stop doing it, equality won't be an issue.
Do we need nurses or game designers all that much?
We are forcing people into unnecessary positions, that's the truth.
When we stop doing it, equality won't be an issue.
"What needs to be addressed is why women have lower representation in certain jobs."
It's called discrimination. When those in power don't hire or promote people who are different because of invalid assumptions regarding competence.
It's called discrimination. When those in power don't hire or promote people who are different because of invalid assumptions regarding competence.
4
European conservatives think women should care for "children, the kitchen and church." Nice 17th century goals.
The rest of the world's women live - or want to live - in the 21st Century where they can be a vital part of solving the world's problems by offering solutions from a different perspective.
As Einstein once said, "We cannot solve the problems of the world using the same thinking we used when we created them." Women at the top is one very obvious solution. Bravo and thank you, Ms. Merkel, for having Germany join the rest of the intelligent nations in Europe on this issue.
The rest of the world's women live - or want to live - in the 21st Century where they can be a vital part of solving the world's problems by offering solutions from a different perspective.
As Einstein once said, "We cannot solve the problems of the world using the same thinking we used when we created them." Women at the top is one very obvious solution. Bravo and thank you, Ms. Merkel, for having Germany join the rest of the intelligent nations in Europe on this issue.
37
"European conservatives think women should care for "children, the kitchen and church."
lol who in Europe things this? Aren't you a little old to have imaginary boogeymen?
But then again, without that, how are you going to proclaim yourself a victim huh?
lol who in Europe things this? Aren't you a little old to have imaginary boogeymen?
But then again, without that, how are you going to proclaim yourself a victim huh?
3
It may take a decade (or two) but the U.S. will follow.
6
Oh most certainly.
But the traditionally male dominated industries like shoveling our snow in freezing weather will likely remain utterly male dominated. Because, you know, equality is necessary in the boardroom, but not for jobs like that.
The feminist notions of equality are so wonderfully Orwellian.
But the traditionally male dominated industries like shoveling our snow in freezing weather will likely remain utterly male dominated. Because, you know, equality is necessary in the boardroom, but not for jobs like that.
The feminist notions of equality are so wonderfully Orwellian.
4
We have a higher percentage of women in top positions already. Check your facts before you speak.
1
Really, where are your facts?
1
A big mistake. This means that unqualified women will be promoted at the expense of hard-working and qualified men. This will destroy the moral as promotion will become a gender-based spoils system, as in universities today (a big reason why colleges are so bloated is because of incompetent administrators who were hired based on race and gender).
Many studies have shown that companies in the Netherlands have under-performed after imposing the quota. The stocks of companies declined. Whenever such a quote is enacted the shareholders lose.
Many studies have shown that companies in the Netherlands have under-performed after imposing the quota. The stocks of companies declined. Whenever such a quote is enacted the shareholders lose.
30
Yes, some unqualified women will be promoted just like unqualified men get promoted and have gotten promoted. Being male in the business world doesn't mean your always qualified for the job you hold. The gender-based system did spoil it for women and minorities, so I know what you mean when you said, "…a gender-based spoils system…". BTW - higher education is predominantly run by men, so if "colleges are so bloated" look to men for the answers.
Many lawsuits and governmental actions have shown that many companies run by white males commit fraud - think banks.
I know what you mean when you said, "Whenever such as quot[a] is enacted the shareholders lose" - I've seen it time and time again with men who ran and run companies due to unofficially mandated quotas - "old boys club" - males commit fraud, shareholders lose. You write as if no male-run companies have had shareholders who have lost.
It's interesting how you make no mention of the "unofficially white male quota" and how white males - qualified or not - benefited from it.
Many lawsuits and governmental actions have shown that many companies run by white males commit fraud - think banks.
I know what you mean when you said, "Whenever such as quot[a] is enacted the shareholders lose" - I've seen it time and time again with men who ran and run companies due to unofficially mandated quotas - "old boys club" - males commit fraud, shareholders lose. You write as if no male-run companies have had shareholders who have lost.
It's interesting how you make no mention of the "unofficially white male quota" and how white males - qualified or not - benefited from it.
11
That's not the problem. We have qualified women, but this won't bring them to the market.
It will bring lousy women over qualified ones.
It will bring lousy women over qualified ones.
3
What nonsense as if a high percentage of males were outstanding performers. Get real, or should I say man up and take a clear eyed look at the wreckage strewn across the corporate landscape over the last ten, twenty, and thirty years.
5
Why did they stop there? What about military generals? Movie starts? Nurses? School teachers? Sushi chefs? I have never in my life seen a female sushi chef.
45
You have to start somewhere - and why not start with corporations?
7
He was being sarcastic, duh.
2
Garbage collectors, Coal miners, deep sea divers, Derrick men, Alaskan Crab fisher ... persons.
6
legislation cannot overturn resentment ... if competent women are not voluntarily sought for board membership, mandating their presence will not change their collegial social position
29
It's neither a matter of competency nor resentment. It's not about "chang[ing] their collegial social position" - it's about trying to make things equitable. The "boy's club" has used laws to keep women and minorities down. Women and some minorities were property at one time - under the law, so why are you resistant to legislation that helps women move?
7
GCB, it seems to me that this just replaces one form of discrimination with another.
8
That maybe true - men have benefited by discriminating against women for centuries and now things maybe shifting - men still control most of what goes on in the world. So, yes - discrimination is alive and well.
Josh, do you think that you may have benefited from being male in your job?
Laws mandate so many aspects of the business world. I am not opposed to this type of law in the U.S. because if men who run the majority of the companies, congress, and education won't always voluntarily promote the most qualified person, which may be a women or minority, then maybe it should be mandated.
Josh, do you think that you may have benefited from being male in your job?
Laws mandate so many aspects of the business world. I am not opposed to this type of law in the U.S. because if men who run the majority of the companies, congress, and education won't always voluntarily promote the most qualified person, which may be a women or minority, then maybe it should be mandated.
8
Why not 31% or 56%? Nanny state nonsense!
40
I was wondering why the percentage was set at 30, and how they got to that percentage. I am all for legislation that mandates this. If companies don't stop discriminating and paying women less (minorities, too), then it's time for the governments to step in and take actions. There were laws that kept women from voting. There were laws that made women property. Those type of laws allowed men to excel in the business world, so why is it nonsense when it comes to legislation to help women move up in business? After all, in the U.S., the E.R.A. never passed. Women still get paid less than men in similarly situated jobs. How convenient it must be to be the beneficiary of laws that benefit males only to oppose laws that help women? It has to be a two way street. Males, predominantly white males, kept women and minorities out of all sorts of stuff - employment, education, home ownership, equal pay...
3
Actually women get paid about as much as men, that's a myth, like we only use 10% of our brain.
3
No, the issue of pay is not a myth. What does "women get paid 'about' as much as men mean?" Sounds like to me that you are admitting that women don't get paid as much as men. "about"?
1
Affirmative Action at its best. Thank you Ms Merkel ! While the US are backtracking on the old path of Jim Crow and sexism, you show to the world what it means to lead.
97
Didn't white males enjoy a sort of affirmative actions at its best? Men set up things, so they could control them. Don't let women vote; don't let blacks vote. Pass laws that make women and blacks property although maybe not in the same sense. Pass laws that make rape of your wife impossible (I know that has changed). Don't let blacks buy homes - example, - in the deeds when Levittown, Long Island was being developed - post WWII.
If the people who still remain in control - white males - won't give others equal access - then why not mandate it by law? It worked for white males, so why not for women and minorities? What's wrong with sexism when it works the other way? Plenty of white males enjoyed the benefits of sexism.
If the people who still remain in control - white males - won't give others equal access - then why not mandate it by law? It worked for white males, so why not for women and minorities? What's wrong with sexism when it works the other way? Plenty of white males enjoyed the benefits of sexism.
9
This is political correctness gone wild. You can't force companies to drastically change their structures in a short timespan to appease ideology. I wouldn't be surprised if some German companies move to neighboring countries to avoid the ramifications.
This law will ultimately hurt the image of working women more than help them because people will now think that women get on the corporate board because of laws (positive discrimination/affirmative action) rather than merit.
This law will ultimately hurt the image of working women more than help them because people will now think that women get on the corporate board because of laws (positive discrimination/affirmative action) rather than merit.
92
Short time span? Seems German companies have had 14 years to voluntarily correct for systemic sexism.
23
What's wrong with the law mandating "correctness" or otherwise? What's wrong with appeasing ideology as you put it if the purpose of the the law is to make things equitable?
I don't think "this law will ultimately hurt the image of working women more than help them because people" already "think that women get on corporate board[s] due to their gender.
Even if you are right - it hurts the image of women….So what? Who are going to be the one's who tarnish the image of women? Oh, that's right…white males…women are used to having males tarnishing their image…unfortunately.
It's funny how white males don't mind when the law or non-enforcement of laws benefits them, but when there's talk of mandating a law to help women, men are opposed to it. How do you think males got to the top? Merit? Women and minorities were and are kept out of the higher-level jobs, so by virtue of doing so, men were not necessarily getting these jobs on merit because a whole bunch of folks were kept off the playing field.
I don't think "this law will ultimately hurt the image of working women more than help them because people" already "think that women get on corporate board[s] due to their gender.
Even if you are right - it hurts the image of women….So what? Who are going to be the one's who tarnish the image of women? Oh, that's right…white males…women are used to having males tarnishing their image…unfortunately.
It's funny how white males don't mind when the law or non-enforcement of laws benefits them, but when there's talk of mandating a law to help women, men are opposed to it. How do you think males got to the top? Merit? Women and minorities were and are kept out of the higher-level jobs, so by virtue of doing so, men were not necessarily getting these jobs on merit because a whole bunch of folks were kept off the playing field.
7
How do you think males got to the top?
Ummm by being the ones that founded the companies. There's a bunch of this PC nonsense going on in Silicon Valley. Maybe women and minority men out to start pulling their weight in the tech world if they want the rewards.
Ummm by being the ones that founded the companies. There's a bunch of this PC nonsense going on in Silicon Valley. Maybe women and minority men out to start pulling their weight in the tech world if they want the rewards.
12
And America falls even further behind.
80
Our backwards politicians are making us the laughingstock of the world.
5
We're already ahead of Europe when it comes to having women and minorities in management, especially upper management. Your bias is showing.
3
What, quotas that will nevitanly result n window dressing board members is progress? Seriously, these guys are going to pick a couple of compliant women who are easy on the eyes to have around and trot out for PR events.
1
"Heute Berliner Mauer, morgen die gläserne Wand!"
Pardon my Google German.
Pardon my Google German.
6
I like your post, but tearing down the Berlin Wall was 26 years ago! (1989).
It's "die gläserne Decke" (the glass ceiling). Otherwise not badly done!
This should start with support for females not just by the state, but by males in households. The lack of women on boards of directors is the result of a caste system that cannot be resolved by fiat at the top. This should be thought through and then strongly implemented.