This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Quota of women on boards

Jump to new
It is funny how she is chasing only equality in the jobs that benefit the worker. That is, nobody except the woman benefits from having a woman over a man on the board.

It's long been shown that boys with male role models - whether that be fathers, uncles, or male school teachers - are far less likely to be convicted of a crime as an adult. So there is immense benefit to the child and to society in general to have men in equal proportions in schools, yet there is no push to incentivise men to become teachers, let alone quotas or anything else.

It appears these days "equality" means giving women unearned privileges.
 
Sunder said:
It appears these days "equality" means giving women unearned privileges.
Click to expand...
Sunder, that's not what most women want at all. There's no satisfaction in being appointed to a position when you know you haven't earned it.

This is just one left wing suggestion from someone whom no one will take any notice of. Well, I hope that's the case.
 
That's all it ever meant. The stated purpose of feminism is to weaken society. Absent father figures are the reason men are shafted in divorce courts & that divorce was made lucrative for women. The results are in. Healthy male role models are not really wanted.

Quotas for women on boards is designed to harm business. Do you think its effect is by accident?

I do not say this as an activist to convince you of anything - it makes no difference whether you believe it or not, the results are in. I accept the rules of our new system & try to get by as best I can, rather than change the system back. Consider this a heads up, to ignore or take note of as you see fit. Call me a crackpot, it is no skin off my nose. We have chosen to slit our collective wrists, so be it. What can one do? No point opposing it now.

Certain enabling fools wanting to sound like "one of the good ones" allow this to happen, incidentally. They enable the changes made from within. A term for them is "useful idiots".
 
You get the best qualified people for the job. If that means hiring all guys then so be it. On the other hand if there is all women who are best for the job then hire all of them.

It should be based on merit in my view.
 
alwaysLearning said:
You get the best qualified people for the job. If that means hiring all guys then so be it. On the other hand if there is all women who are best for the job then hire all of them.

It should be based on merit in my view.
Click to expand...

Thats the nuts of it all really.

Merit should win out, but many boards are chosen by old tired commercial or political fighters. Fairfax is a good example.

gg
 
The idea of having to hire someone based on their sex is so obviously wrong and unfair it's ridiculous. Yet again it seems everything can be changed to disadvantage males, but as long as it benefits females it's not sexist. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with women on boards. They just have to earn the right to be there like any man. It should be the same rules for both sexes, that's equality.
 
From the responses I've seen posted so far, everyone seems to agree that positions should be merit based.

Hopefully when it comes down to the vote, politicians will see sense, rather than passing it through in hopes of being seen as progressive, or winning women votes.
 
This debate is very similar to the pay-gap debate (that women earn 75 cents to a mans dollar). These outcomes are based on the choices that men and women make throughout their lives.

Men are far more likely to choose a job that earns more (to provide for his family) while a woman is more likely to pursue a career that gives her personal fulfillment. Men, by our very nature, are also more driven to get to the top. We work more hours and make more sacrifices.

And obviously women, who interrupt their career due to pregnancy will have less experience than a guy who never took breaks.

Warren Farrell describes the whole thing very well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtjaBQMog0Q
 
Sunder said:
It appears these days "equality" means giving women unearned privileges.
Click to expand...

That sums up equality in a nutshell!

Well done that man!! (or woman )


If anyone here is wondering why women statistically earn less than men, take a trip to a cafe at Bondi, or Mosman, or your local rich area at about 11am on a Monday. You'll see women dressed up in fancy clothes, wearing designer sunglasses and carrying ridiculously expensive handbags to their local cafe to catch up with friends. And Where's hubby you ask? the "poor" bastard is working to fund his wife and kids of course...

Statistically he earns alot, she earns nothing. Feminists are up in arms!! But reality is she spends alot, he spends nothing.

Men have a greater earning power. Women have a greater spending power.

I know which I'd rather have...
 
From the Australian today = Richo

"Women collected their huge cheques and made zero contribution in terms of what diversity was supposed to bring with it"
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

My Whole Life Crisis
Replies
14
Views
736
farmerge
Do we have many women here on ASF?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
October 2025 DDD
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
ducati916
August 2025 DDD
2 3
Replies
54
Views
8K
ducati916
July 2025 DDD
2 3
Replies
45
Views
7K
ducati916
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...