New EU law on gender balance on corporate boards(ec.europa.eu)
ec.europa.eu
New EU law on gender balance on corporate boards
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_22_7074
118 comments
> Don't like quotas? Come up with something better. Because not doing anything is clearly not fixing the issue, and perpetuating the existing inequalities.
Please apply quotas in hospitals too so that we get 50% of men who are acting as nurses, by all means. And let's also make sure that women are adequately represented at 50% for construction work and car mechanics.
If you want to be silly, we can be two.
Please apply quotas in hospitals too so that we get 50% of men who are acting as nurses, by all means. And let's also make sure that women are adequately represented at 50% for construction work and car mechanics.
If you want to be silly, we can be two.
Even then the quotas here are extremely mild. If you don't meet them you need to show how your selection process isn't biased, and in cases where there's not a clear winner you need to go with the underrepresented gender.
How this then goes into law in the countries is a different thing, but the directive seems like a reasonable nudge.
The linked report talks about the effectiveness of quotas: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_22_...
And the page with more details about the law here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-r...
How this then goes into law in the countries is a different thing, but the directive seems like a reasonable nudge.
The linked report talks about the effectiveness of quotas: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_22_...
And the page with more details about the law here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-r...
> still prefer to hire one gender over the other for some functions, and especially for executive roles
Have you considered maybe they hire based on qualifications only and not gender? There are 2 implications from such thing:
- genders have different preferences in work and do not apply for some jobs (not just CEO, but also coal miners have even larger gender imbalance)
- some people do not want to make the insane effort to become a CEO. Men usually are the one sacrificing a lot for some goals (including life on the battlefields), women tend to be wiser and think if it is worth
Have you considered maybe they hire based on qualifications only and not gender? There are 2 implications from such thing:
- genders have different preferences in work and do not apply for some jobs (not just CEO, but also coal miners have even larger gender imbalance)
- some people do not want to make the insane effort to become a CEO. Men usually are the one sacrificing a lot for some goals (including life on the battlefields), women tend to be wiser and think if it is worth
> Have you considered maybe they hire based on qualifications only and not gender?
If you're only hiring from one specific gender, you're most likely not hiring based on qualifications, or the qualifications you're hiring on include gender.
This at least has been the case with most single-gender boards. Now if you can show that there really are not any qualified women available at all, of course you should hire another man for the job. But I think it's not unreasonable to expect companies to demonstrate that first, and not simply allow them to blindly use it as an excuse for gender discrimination.
> genders have different preferences in work and do not apply for some jobs (not just CEO, but also coal miners have even larger gender imbalance)
True, but there's no shortage of women complaining about a glass ceiling. The women are there for the CEO jobs. I don't see a lot of women complaining nobody will consider them for a coal mining job.
> some people do not want to make the insane effort to become a CEO. Men usually are the one sacrificing a lot for some goals (including life on the battlefields), women tend to be wiser and think if it is worth
This is all baseless assumption to justify gender discrimination. Women sacrifice plenty.
If you're only hiring from one specific gender, you're most likely not hiring based on qualifications, or the qualifications you're hiring on include gender.
This at least has been the case with most single-gender boards. Now if you can show that there really are not any qualified women available at all, of course you should hire another man for the job. But I think it's not unreasonable to expect companies to demonstrate that first, and not simply allow them to blindly use it as an excuse for gender discrimination.
> genders have different preferences in work and do not apply for some jobs (not just CEO, but also coal miners have even larger gender imbalance)
True, but there's no shortage of women complaining about a glass ceiling. The women are there for the CEO jobs. I don't see a lot of women complaining nobody will consider them for a coal mining job.
> some people do not want to make the insane effort to become a CEO. Men usually are the one sacrificing a lot for some goals (including life on the battlefields), women tend to be wiser and think if it is worth
This is all baseless assumption to justify gender discrimination. Women sacrifice plenty.
> I don't see a lot of women complaining nobody will consider them for a coal mining job.
There is an absolutely enormous gender difference in preferences for a coal mining job (unless you think it's due to discrimination). Could preferences also explain the differences in some other jobs, like CEO? How many women vs. how many men want to become CEO? Is it the same number? Saying that some women want to is not an argument, it's about relative numbers.
There is an absolutely enormous gender difference in preferences for a coal mining job (unless you think it's due to discrimination). Could preferences also explain the differences in some other jobs, like CEO? How many women vs. how many men want to become CEO? Is it the same number? Saying that some women want to is not an argument, it's about relative numbers.
Just think a little deeper… How much are these preferences based on the sort of people already working in a career/location/company?
I live in Western Australia and it’s been a rather big thing recently looking into massive systemic sexual and non sexual, harassment and assault throughout the entire industry… because it was a “blokes job” for so long and they are now grappling with the fact women want these sorts of well paid jobs too. Women are even on record by multiple employers as statistically better drivers of the large vehicles throughout the industry, they want women.
But we have been hearing stories of women being warned off by other female staff, of people leaving or deciding not to take promotions not because they don’t want the job… but because of the other people.
Correlation is not causation, just because we see an effect of women not wanting a job does not allow us to attribute it to any one cause without investigation and evidence!
I live in Western Australia and it’s been a rather big thing recently looking into massive systemic sexual and non sexual, harassment and assault throughout the entire industry… because it was a “blokes job” for so long and they are now grappling with the fact women want these sorts of well paid jobs too. Women are even on record by multiple employers as statistically better drivers of the large vehicles throughout the industry, they want women.
But we have been hearing stories of women being warned off by other female staff, of people leaving or deciding not to take promotions not because they don’t want the job… but because of the other people.
Correlation is not causation, just because we see an effect of women not wanting a job does not allow us to attribute it to any one cause without investigation and evidence!
Tiny addendum since I missed the edit window. I was referring to the mining industry.
For extra context… it’s sort of telling that I didn’t notice that word missing. That’s how pervasive the mining industry is in Western Australia, it’s a huge percentage of our economy, and has literally shaped this city (Perth) sociologically speaking.
I will happily argue till I’m out of breath my theory that Perth’s world leading level of suburban sprawl is almost entirely due to the significant percentage of “fly in, fly out” (FIFO) jobs, if you only commute once or twice a month to and from the airport; you give zero fucks about that commute being one two or even three hours drive… not even exaggerating, there are people who take multi hour regional trains or drive 1.5 to 3 hours in slow traffic to the airport on the days they fly out… hours heading to Perth airport to fly out to the farthest reaches of WA to did valuable rocks from the ground. This entire city had been irreparably harmed by the “FIFO lifestyle” and its just such a part of the culture at this point I do not have any expectations that we can turn this ship around … valuable jobs for men and women that in years past paid off houses in under a decade, but required you to spend half to two thirds of your time away from that house have distorted social normal to a ludicrous degree in so many weird ways… it’s sort of reminiscent of the weirdness of several other cities like Phoenix Arizona, and Los Angeles, and middle eastern cities with the migrant workers, but as with every city it’s also entirely it’s own.
But this is just context. Don’t let it distract from my point about how an entire industry full of attractive jobs that women want to work in, has been pushing away women due to systemic culture issues.
For extra context… it’s sort of telling that I didn’t notice that word missing. That’s how pervasive the mining industry is in Western Australia, it’s a huge percentage of our economy, and has literally shaped this city (Perth) sociologically speaking.
I will happily argue till I’m out of breath my theory that Perth’s world leading level of suburban sprawl is almost entirely due to the significant percentage of “fly in, fly out” (FIFO) jobs, if you only commute once or twice a month to and from the airport; you give zero fucks about that commute being one two or even three hours drive… not even exaggerating, there are people who take multi hour regional trains or drive 1.5 to 3 hours in slow traffic to the airport on the days they fly out… hours heading to Perth airport to fly out to the farthest reaches of WA to did valuable rocks from the ground. This entire city had been irreparably harmed by the “FIFO lifestyle” and its just such a part of the culture at this point I do not have any expectations that we can turn this ship around … valuable jobs for men and women that in years past paid off houses in under a decade, but required you to spend half to two thirds of your time away from that house have distorted social normal to a ludicrous degree in so many weird ways… it’s sort of reminiscent of the weirdness of several other cities like Phoenix Arizona, and Los Angeles, and middle eastern cities with the migrant workers, but as with every city it’s also entirely it’s own.
But this is just context. Don’t let it distract from my point about how an entire industry full of attractive jobs that women want to work in, has been pushing away women due to systemic culture issues.
> If you're only hiring from one specific gender, you're most likely not hiring based on qualifications, or the qualifications you're hiring on include gender.
The goal of a corporation is to make profit, that's all the shareholders care about. To suggest that they're hiring sub-optimal candidates, just to hire one gender over another, is a bit far-fetched.
But that's actually very likely to happen if gender discrimination is mandated by law.
But that's actually very likely to happen if gender discrimination is mandated by law.
And yet there's tons of evidence that for example VCs, who also supposedly only care about their ROI, are much more likely to finance white men than women or minorities, to the point that black founders have taken on a white co-founder in order to get financed.
Don't pretend people in charge of financial decisions are completely rational. They quite clearly are not.
There's nothing far-fetched about they idea that they hire people who look the part, rather than people who have been objectively tested to have the best skills.
Don't pretend people in charge of financial decisions are completely rational. They quite clearly are not.
There's nothing far-fetched about they idea that they hire people who look the part, rather than people who have been objectively tested to have the best skills.
> Don't like quotas? Come up with something better.
This assumes quotas are better than what we already have in place, which is equality of opportunity, not of outcome. That assumption is exactly what is being debated here.
This assumes quotas are better than what we already have in place, which is equality of opportunity, not of outcome. That assumption is exactly what is being debated here.
Where do you live that equality of opportunity is already in place? I can't think of anywhere where this is really true. Maybe Scandinavia? Probably not even there.
For example, Romania. Equal opportunity is a reality here.
I think I peed myself a little because I laughed so hard.
You clearly are a male, is my bet. I happen to have a Romanian female roommate (we do not live in Romania) and this is not at all the picture she is painting. I’m not saying Romania is particularly bad. But equality of opportunity is still very far away.
To add some factual information: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2021/country/RO
You clearly are a male, is my bet. I happen to have a Romanian female roommate (we do not live in Romania) and this is not at all the picture she is painting. I’m not saying Romania is particularly bad. But equality of opportunity is still very far away.
To add some factual information: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2021/country/RO
I did IT recruiting for half a decade and hired dozens on women during that time; that is a lot more data points than one roommate.
Did you also hire dozens of men in half a decade?
Yes. There were a bit more women than men hired during that period of time for my department and about 4 females for each male for another department I helped recruiting.
Well I am sure that this will be unpopular on HN, with the usual argument thrown whenever this kinds of laws pop-ups.
I do understand the worries about recruiting under qualified personnel due to diversity laws but overall, I support this kinds of laws. There is an objective over representation of man in management and higher management position. We know that people tend to recruit people they "fit" with. Recrutement is incredibly biased. This tend to lead to men recruiting more men and women recruiting more women. In a man dominated field, like higher management, it means that it is very hard for a woman to enter the field, this lead to less woman having experiences in this field which create a vicious circle. This kinds of laws might indeed lead to some less optimal recrutement in the short term, but I would argue that it is better in the long term because it allows to enlarge the worker pool and allow for more diverse profile to get the experience to be a better worker.
Also, maybe it is more cynical of me, but I have seen higher up recrutement in many companies. The actual worker skill is just one of the factor at play, and sometimes it is far from being the biggest factor. We are already doing sub-optimal recrutement right now, we just choose the criteria ...
I do understand the worries about recruiting under qualified personnel due to diversity laws but overall, I support this kinds of laws. There is an objective over representation of man in management and higher management position. We know that people tend to recruit people they "fit" with. Recrutement is incredibly biased. This tend to lead to men recruiting more men and women recruiting more women. In a man dominated field, like higher management, it means that it is very hard for a woman to enter the field, this lead to less woman having experiences in this field which create a vicious circle. This kinds of laws might indeed lead to some less optimal recrutement in the short term, but I would argue that it is better in the long term because it allows to enlarge the worker pool and allow for more diverse profile to get the experience to be a better worker.
Also, maybe it is more cynical of me, but I have seen higher up recrutement in many companies. The actual worker skill is just one of the factor at play, and sometimes it is far from being the biggest factor. We are already doing sub-optimal recrutement right now, we just choose the criteria ...
> We know that people tend to recruit people they "fit" with.
I have a really hard time seeing this as a bad thing. Recruiting people you fit with is a requirement for you to be able to work with them. And there are already laws in place that you can't define "fit with" as not being a woman, a person of color, etc.
Let people hire who they want (discrimination based on sex, race, religion, etc, not included) and if they don't hire optimally their company will be out-competed by another company who does.
I have a really hard time seeing this as a bad thing. Recruiting people you fit with is a requirement for you to be able to work with them. And there are already laws in place that you can't define "fit with" as not being a woman, a person of color, etc.
Let people hire who they want (discrimination based on sex, race, religion, etc, not included) and if they don't hire optimally their company will be out-competed by another company who does.
Honest question - why only on corporate boards?
Why not trashmen (trashwomen)?
Why not miners?
Why all the mundane jobs are OK to be performed only (or mostly) by men?
Why all the mundane jobs are OK to be performed only (or mostly) by men?
They are less likely to result in an unequal distribution of power.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for more diversity in all jobs (as long as people meet the requirements). But more diversity in trash collectors is unlikely to result in more diversity in CEOs. The opposite is much more true.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for more diversity in all jobs (as long as people meet the requirements). But more diversity in trash collectors is unlikely to result in more diversity in CEOs. The opposite is much more true.
>But more diversity in trash collectors is unlikely to result in more diversity in CEOs. The opposite is much more true.
You think more diversity in CEOs will result in more diversity for trash collectors?
You think more diversity in CEOs will result in more diversity for trash collectors?
I think more diversity in positions of power will lead to more diversity across all aspects of society.
Why?
Not being rhetorical, genuinely curious to the reasoning.
Not being rhetorical, genuinely curious to the reasoning.
Why wouldn't it? If the people making the decisions are more diverse, represent more different walks of life, demographic groups, etc, the decisions made will take more situations into account. Less incorrect assumptions will be made about one size fitting all, because that one size doesn't fit the people making the decision.
> If the people making the decisions are more diverse
Sorry for being pessimistic and realistic here, but I honestly don't think that what you get when you mix a white man from an Ivy-league school, a black man from an Ivy-league school and a woman from an Ivy-league school, all from the same closed upper-class social circles, is in any significant way more "diverse" than if it had all white men from those same Ivy-league schools.
Hiring people (men/women/colored/gay/trans/whatever) from actual other social circles probably will though. That will provide real diversity.
But that's not what anyone is mandating or wants to shove down other people's throats.
Sorry for being pessimistic and realistic here, but I honestly don't think that what you get when you mix a white man from an Ivy-league school, a black man from an Ivy-league school and a woman from an Ivy-league school, all from the same closed upper-class social circles, is in any significant way more "diverse" than if it had all white men from those same Ivy-league schools.
Hiring people (men/women/colored/gay/trans/whatever) from actual other social circles probably will though. That will provide real diversity.
But that's not what anyone is mandating or wants to shove down other people's throats.
That is also an excellent point. It's a bit harder to get objective figures on, though. Still, these are goals that lie in the same direction, and breaking up the old old-boys networks is going to be part of both.
Also keep in mind that lots of companies are already doing this, and have been for a while. Lots of companies today have much more diverse boards, in several dimensions, than they had 30 years ago.
Also keep in mind that lots of companies are already doing this, and have been for a while. Lots of companies today have much more diverse boards, in several dimensions, than they had 30 years ago.
This is one law, not a whole policy. The law has only to do with corporate boards and doesn't imply all is OK with the rest.
Great comment. I also don't see the advertisements to push more women to become car mechanics, lol.
Can't wait for an execs board room full of bearded guys who just happen to identify as women to circumvent these laws.
Problem is you presumably care about the company's success, so you don't want to take such risks messing with the intent of the law.
Then create a board for the sake of the law, but make sure that the board does exactly nothing. While having a shadow board to run the company?
Still messing with the intent, so you'd still need the company lawyers to stay on top of this arrangement and double-check regularly that your bases are covered and you can't be slammed in some way. Oh and you'd need to be sure your company lawyers or perhaps a disgruntled board member won't make voicetapes and leak them once they stop working for you. And on and on...
As it isn't noted prominently in this announcement, it is worth clarifying that the directive does not apply to small and medium-sized enterprises, and applies only to listed companies.
Thus creating yet another disincentive for companies to list themselves on the market, leaving EU markets further behind their US counterparts.
This is the kind of thing that can break entire economies: forcing you to hire people you don't want to hire, people who may be entirely unoptimal but you have to hire them anyway due to a quota. Of course the consequences will be too gradual to see at first. People will only implement this stuff slowly, fines will probably not appear for a decade and by the time these changes are actually in effect nobody will know why the economy runs X% worse than before. It will be as if it has always been slightly bad and economists will ponder for years and years how to improve the ailing continent.
It’s also the kind of thing that quietly improves economic efficiency by X% per year by expanding the workforce. It unlikely for the most capable people to all come from a tiny percentage of the population rather than some other suboptimal selection criteria rejecting the majority of the most capable people.
People notice the unusually suboptimal but miss more subtle effects.
People notice the unusually suboptimal but miss more subtle effects.
Exactly. The goal is to broaden the hiring pool. Some companies are limiting their hiring pool to people close to the people already on board, their old-boys network, or to people who look like they'd fit in.
There's no reason at all to assume women would be less suitable for these jobs than men. And many companies have shown that a more diverse board is just as effective, if not more so. Limiting their hiring to a smaller pool means companies are holding themselves back.
There's no reason at all to assume women would be less suitable for these jobs than men. And many companies have shown that a more diverse board is just as effective, if not more so. Limiting their hiring to a smaller pool means companies are holding themselves back.
> Exactly. The goal is to broaden the hiring pool. Some companies are limiting their hiring pool to people close to the people already on board, their old-boys network, or to people who look like they'd fit in.
what a weird rationalization. So these companies purposefully hire someone they deem better for whatever reason and the EU decides for them that they are wrong. This has to go badly, the EU via a continent-wide policy does not in fact know better than the individual entrepreneur. To deny this is a wild theory to say the least. Also the hiring pool right now was: Everyone. Now the new mandated policy is actually limiting the pool in specific circumstances depending on who already works there. Weird how casually people choose to distort truth.
what a weird rationalization. So these companies purposefully hire someone they deem better for whatever reason and the EU decides for them that they are wrong. This has to go badly, the EU via a continent-wide policy does not in fact know better than the individual entrepreneur. To deny this is a wild theory to say the least. Also the hiring pool right now was: Everyone. Now the new mandated policy is actually limiting the pool in specific circumstances depending on who already works there. Weird how casually people choose to distort truth.
> So these companies purposefully hire someone they deem better for whatever reason and the EU decides for them that they are wrong.
Quite the opposite. Read again what you quoted. These companies limit their hiring pool, and the EU tells them to broaden it. They will find better candidates that way. They'll be forced to look beyond their old-boys networks and immediate surroundings.
> Also the hiring pool right now was: Everyone.
Sorry, but that is incredibly naive.
Quite the opposite. Read again what you quoted. These companies limit their hiring pool, and the EU tells them to broaden it. They will find better candidates that way. They'll be forced to look beyond their old-boys networks and immediate surroundings.
> Also the hiring pool right now was: Everyone.
Sorry, but that is incredibly naive.
that is not true, the companies have an unlimited hiring pool today and the EU tells them to limit it to specific genders given some conditions. You can't remake reality just by rewording things. Your theory that all these companies are arbitrarily and irrationally limiting their viable hiring pool and hurting themselves in sexist confusion is a wild theory that has no basis in reality beyond just not liking the statistical hiring results.
> The goal is to broaden the hiring pool.
If that was the goal, how about creating a more startup-friendly climate? Stop treating business like the enemy, stop burdening them with red tape and onerous regulation and you'll have more employers. The competition between them will ultimately offer more hiring opportunities, regardless of gender or race.
If that was the goal, how about creating a more startup-friendly climate? Stop treating business like the enemy, stop burdening them with red tape and onerous regulation and you'll have more employers. The competition between them will ultimately offer more hiring opportunities, regardless of gender or race.
> It’s also the kind of thing that quietly improves economic efficiency by X% per year by expanding the workforce.
> forcing you to hire people you don't want to hire
How does this law do that? You can keep 100% one gender if for some weird reason that's who is best.
> Companies with a lower share will be required to make appointments on the basis of a comparative analysis of the qualification of candidates by applying clear, gender-neutral and unambiguous criteria and to ensure that applicants are assessed objectively based on their individual merits, irrespective of gender.
How does this law do that? You can keep 100% one gender if for some weird reason that's who is best.
> Companies with a lower share will be required to make appointments on the basis of a comparative analysis of the qualification of candidates by applying clear, gender-neutral and unambiguous criteria and to ensure that applicants are assessed objectively based on their individual merits, irrespective of gender.
I.e. put themselves in massive legal peril.
varispeed(3)
I believe this is the full text of the law:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/1_1_200090_dir...
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/1_1_200090_dir...
Great. Now do the HR or DEI boards :D
HR and DEI (ironically) are almost 99% female and wield almost absolute power over the corporation. When will we have proper gender-representation there?
HR and DEI (ironically) are almost 99% female and wield almost absolute power over the corporation. When will we have proper gender-representation there?
This is mostly PR and will likely not do any serious damage :) But it might do some good by setting a positive goal.
First off, it doesn't specify how biological men temporarily identifying as female during the hiring process are to be treated, which seems like an obvious loophole to me.
Second, the actual resolution says: "Where two candidates of different sexes are equally qualified, preference shall be given to the candidate of the underrepresented sex" and that "equally qualified" is another huge loophole. The average male candidate will have a lot more experience, simply because it's been a male-dominated field.
Thirdly, it is up to the member states to come up with appropriate punishment for failing to meet this and "could include fines" doesn't sound that strict to me.
First off, it doesn't specify how biological men temporarily identifying as female during the hiring process are to be treated, which seems like an obvious loophole to me.
Second, the actual resolution says: "Where two candidates of different sexes are equally qualified, preference shall be given to the candidate of the underrepresented sex" and that "equally qualified" is another huge loophole. The average male candidate will have a lot more experience, simply because it's been a male-dominated field.
Thirdly, it is up to the member states to come up with appropriate punishment for failing to meet this and "could include fines" doesn't sound that strict to me.
> biological men temporarily identifying as female
That is a discussion of gender, not sex.
That is a discussion of gender, not sex.
By 2026, companies will need to have 40% of the underrepresented sex among non-executive directors or 33% among all directors.
Identity quotas do little but foster distrust of the members of the assisted category. How does this even work as more and more peoples' gender identities deviate from the classical male and female? Does a non-binary person count toward the quota? Do they count only if they were assigned female at birth? Can executives change their legal gender to manipulate their stats? Are companies similarly required to have at least 33% males on their boards? How does telling a company who they must hire, as opposed to who they're not allowed to discriminate against, not violate the right of freedom of association?
This is a whole damn mess.
Identity quotas do little but foster distrust of the members of the assisted category. How does this even work as more and more peoples' gender identities deviate from the classical male and female? Does a non-binary person count toward the quota? Do they count only if they were assigned female at birth? Can executives change their legal gender to manipulate their stats? Are companies similarly required to have at least 33% males on their boards? How does telling a company who they must hire, as opposed to who they're not allowed to discriminate against, not violate the right of freedom of association?
This is a whole damn mess.
In my country, we have a concept of "employee for tax purposes", where someone is not an employee, but pays employer and employee taxes on their invoices.
I can imagine we could arrive at "gender for quota purposes", where someone may declare themselves as female, but for quota purpose they'll still be regarded as male.
I can imagine we could arrive at "gender for quota purposes", where someone may declare themselves as female, but for quota purpose they'll still be regarded as male.
> This is a whole damn mess.
Agreed.
> How does this even work as more and more peoples' gender identities deviate from the classical male and female?
Well. Colour me plain, but I don’t think allowing people to select a gender disparate from their biology is useful, nor is going to help in this regard.
Kids these are getting more confused than ever before, because we as adults are afraid to draw clear lines and put up simple, reliable structures they can relate to.
Being handwavey about something as fundamental as gender is doing our kids a gross disservice.
Agreed.
> How does this even work as more and more peoples' gender identities deviate from the classical male and female?
Well. Colour me plain, but I don’t think allowing people to select a gender disparate from their biology is useful, nor is going to help in this regard.
Kids these are getting more confused than ever before, because we as adults are afraid to draw clear lines and put up simple, reliable structures they can relate to.
Being handwavey about something as fundamental as gender is doing our kids a gross disservice.
> Identity quotas do little but foster distrust of the members of the assisted category.
Only for a while. After a while it will become normal and the distrust will fall away.
And what else do you propose? Because we've tried doing nothing for decades and the results aren't great.
Only for a while. After a while it will become normal and the distrust will fall away.
And what else do you propose? Because we've tried doing nothing for decades and the results aren't great.
> Only for a while. After a while it will become normal and the distrust will fall away.
Really? What do you base this on? From my understanding of race-based affirmative action in the United States, that distrust hasn't gone away after many, many decades. I've heard African-Americans complain it's more difficult to be taken seriously when quotas are in place, but it's hard to say how common that experience is.
Really? What do you base this on? From my understanding of race-based affirmative action in the United States, that distrust hasn't gone away after many, many decades. I've heard African-Americans complain it's more difficult to be taken seriously when quotas are in place, but it's hard to say how common that experience is.
My company started this policy internally for more than 10 years. What is the situation 10 years later:
- the last 4 senior directors of my department were all females, the last 2 were fired for incompetence, the previous 2 moved out with different golden parachutes (one in an extended maternity leave of several years, one in retirement)
- we are no longer allowed to do technical interviews in IT with very few exceptions for key positions. The reason: the ratio of people passing tech interviews were ~ 10:1 male to female, not enough to hire 60% women (that was the quota for new hires)
- we are losing Application Managers at rapid fire. They either leave the company, get fired or move to other functions (HR, sales). They are all females, only a few developers are males.
- the last 2 cafeteria managers were promoted to IT directors (Facility Management is technically part of IT function for some historical reason). Both females.
- the last 4 senior directors of my department were all females, the last 2 were fired for incompetence, the previous 2 moved out with different golden parachutes (one in an extended maternity leave of several years, one in retirement)
- we are no longer allowed to do technical interviews in IT with very few exceptions for key positions. The reason: the ratio of people passing tech interviews were ~ 10:1 male to female, not enough to hire 60% women (that was the quota for new hires)
- we are losing Application Managers at rapid fire. They either leave the company, get fired or move to other functions (HR, sales). They are all females, only a few developers are males.
- the last 2 cafeteria managers were promoted to IT directors (Facility Management is technically part of IT function for some historical reason). Both females.
Because we've tried doing nothing for decades and the results aren't great.
Why do you say that? The proportion of female executives is increasing at a phenomenal rate. Look at, for instance, the number of female CEOs in the Fortune 500. In 1998 it was one. In 2008 it was twelve. In 2019 it was thirty-three.
Why do you say that? The proportion of female executives is increasing at a phenomenal rate. Look at, for instance, the number of female CEOs in the Fortune 500. In 1998 it was one. In 2008 it was twelve. In 2019 it was thirty-three.
Sex is not assigned at birth, it's observed.
You must know this claim of yours can trigger a huge discussion. If you want to discuss it in good faith, you must write more, not toss in a one-sentence slogan like a grenade and hope it gets people to spend a ton of effort in response. And I'd advise replying to a post more directly related to the point.
Dumb or not, assigned female at birth and assigned male at birth, AFAB and AMAB, are the contemporary terminology.
That's unscientific, against medicine. If you see a penis and a pair of testicles, but for some reason the parents are ultra-liberals who wonder if it's still a girl, just test to see if there's a Y chromosome.
Why not have at least one woman and one man in combination with one being old, one being young, one being black, asian, etc, one being gay, one having a disability, etc
I always got upset that my eye colour is not common among the ultra-rich. What can I do about it? Presumably I'm be unfairly kept in my low social stratum as a result and would like to leave these other peasants behind please.
I don't know a single person who is for gender quotas. Do I live in a bubble or are policymakers bringing laws that are highly unpopular and go against a will of the people they serve? How could that be?
Silly question: aren't directors in listed companies elected (at least nominally) by the share holders? What happens if they keep picking too many of the same sex candidates? Can the CEO overrule them? Are members of the majority sex not allowed to stand anymore if to many are elected?
Also, since this is a Directive it just tells member nations governments to do it right? If it did it itself, it would be a Regulation. Like MiFID (told nations to do X) vs MIFIR (did it at the EU level directly). Similar to a US "unfunded mandate".
Also, since this is a Directive it just tells member nations governments to do it right? If it did it itself, it would be a Regulation. Like MiFID (told nations to do X) vs MIFIR (did it at the EU level directly). Similar to a US "unfunded mandate".
Not a big thing. Most European corporations already have a board for politicians and "sauna-board" for real issues.
I believe it occurs, but how did you come to believe it occurs for "most"?
Because all have politicians on board.
Most famous was Finnish Labor Minister, who was on board of a company hiring "temporary workers" permanently, thus bypassing labor laws.
When asked, she basically said "I was there for coffee and pastries, I was not responsible for their day-to-day operations".
Most famous was Finnish Labor Minister, who was on board of a company hiring "temporary workers" permanently, thus bypassing labor laws.
When asked, she basically said "I was there for coffee and pastries, I was not responsible for their day-to-day operations".
It sounds like you're content letting anecdotes stand in for data. I'm not.
See, a policy can have the intended effect on society as a whole even if there are plenty of anecdotes about situations where it doesn't. So the existence of such cases as your Finnish Labor Minister doesn't mean the policy doesn't work in the long run. To answer that, you need data.
See, a policy can have the intended effect on society as a whole even if there are plenty of anecdotes about situations where it doesn't. So the existence of such cases as your Finnish Labor Minister doesn't mean the policy doesn't work in the long run. To answer that, you need data.
Genuine question: Are there ways to "organically" promote gender balance without having to rely on gender quotas?
Investment in education and social welfare, combined with time.
My university is growing into having a more balanced faculty mainly because it is now seeing an increasing number of female candidates. This is a result of the study (economics and finance) becoming more popular in the past two decades with women, and we are seeing the results only now. There will always be lagged effects in this.
Granted, there are quotas in place too.
My university is growing into having a more balanced faculty mainly because it is now seeing an increasing number of female candidates. This is a result of the study (economics and finance) becoming more popular in the past two decades with women, and we are seeing the results only now. There will always be lagged effects in this.
Granted, there are quotas in place too.
Except that poorer countries that invest less in social welfare tend to feature more gender balance than advanced countries. Because preference and aptitude matters a lot; male and female folks simply tend to care about different things.
This is the big question. You may dislike quotas, but what alternative is there?
Well, there is some alternative of course, because a lot of companies and organisations already do meet these quotas. But what about those that don't? What about those that steadfastly refuse? Allow them to continue their gender discrimination (technically illegal, but easily excused)? Or require them more strongly to change?
Well, there is some alternative of course, because a lot of companies and organisations already do meet these quotas. But what about those that don't? What about those that steadfastly refuse? Allow them to continue their gender discrimination (technically illegal, but easily excused)? Or require them more strongly to change?
This happens already. I'd love to add some more women to my dev team, as that has shown great benefits in earlier teams i hired for.
Of course there is. You just have to improve the demand side of the employment equation: make starting companies so easy and profitable that the competition for hires will make them get over any gender prejudice they may have.
Takes a little longer but in the end you have a much healthier economy.
Takes a little longer but in the end you have a much healthier economy.
One simple method: You start the search with a 50%/50% split, in this case half men and half women, then hire the best candidate from that cohort
The problem in this approach is that even people who think they judge only on merits rarely do. If it was that easy, our laws would all be this sort of thing. It's easy to trust people to counter biases they know they have. Quotas exist to counter biases people don't know they have.
There are some people easy to find on Internet pretending* that if you leave the people to do what they like most, gender inequality per roles is increasing because of different preferences. In that context, gender balance means forcing people to do something they don't like for the sake of a target that has no clear benefit.
* They say they have good and relevant studies about this, but I never bothered to dig.
* They say they have good and relevant studies about this, but I never bothered to dig.
The scope of EU laws is growing. Do member countries enjoy having social-economical policies dictated from above? This is meddling in what should be internal matters of sovereign states. Then they are surprised anti-EU sentiment is growing.
EU is leaning towards German-style management of regulating everything in excess. Most people in my country don't realize what is going on, there is only a minority that is making a bit of noise, but they are too few to be believed (we have a culture where the majority opinion is considered to be "right").
It is not the amount of regulation I take issue with[1], but the scope. While I am strongly pro-EU, I am also strongly in favor of it being made up of countries that are more than just nominally sovereign and independent. Power is slowly being moved from national governments and to the EU, and I don't like this slow subversion of nations one bit.
[1] Not saying over-regulation isn't a problem, merely not my main concern.
[1] Not saying over-regulation isn't a problem, merely not my main concern.
Why don't you like it? Do you perceive rights being lost, or...?
Yes, I believe a government that is more local, and representing a community that has more in common, will be more reflective of the wishes of that community, and more responsive (and vulnerable!) to its criticism.
I find it somewhat insulting I even have to argue for this - this move of power further away is a change. It should be justified, instead of happening by default, while the former status quo of sovereign nations has to argue for its continued existence.
I find it somewhat insulting I even have to argue for this - this move of power further away is a change. It should be justified, instead of happening by default, while the former status quo of sovereign nations has to argue for its continued existence.
I buy that smaller democracies could work better in many ways, provided they enjoy a stable peace with their neighbors. If a nation of 10M people lets a decision be made by the EU, that means the electorate for that decision goes from 10M people to suddenly 500M people. Thus the decision is "further away", with the pitfalls you mention.
However, if you believe this, you must equally believe that growing a single nation's population from 10M to 500M has the exact same problems. So if you were from Belgium and it grew to 500M, you'd have to support a move to partition Belgium into 50 separate nations, for the same reason you're against the EU. Right?
However, if you believe this, you must equally believe that growing a single nation's population from 10M to 500M has the exact same problems. So if you were from Belgium and it grew to 500M, you'd have to support a move to partition Belgium into 50 separate nations, for the same reason you're against the EU. Right?
> So if you were from Belgium and it grew to 500M, you'd have to support a move to partition Belgium into 50 separate nations, for the same reason you're against the EU [1]. Right?
Such as how the British empire partitioned into the US, Canada, Australia.., or how China and Japan became distinct countries despite a common origin? Yes. A shared identity can support a larger country (the inverse can be seen in the breakup of Yugoslavia), but not without limit.
> I buy that smaller democracies could work better in many ways
It's not just about size. It's about the simple and intuitively obvious idea that it matters who chooses your rulers. I find it both fascinating and frightening that people have been so trained into ignoring their instincts (evolved through millions of years of inter-group competition, but now casually dismissed as "irrational"), that this basic notion now needs arguing.
[1] A small correction: I am not against the EU - the opposite, I am strongly in favor of it, for the simple pragmatic reasons that it safeguards peace among the member states, and because the relatively small European countries would otherwise be picked off individually by larger geopolitical rivals. What I am against is the expansion of EU law into areas of law and life that can be perfectly adequately addressed by individual states themselves.
Such as how the British empire partitioned into the US, Canada, Australia.., or how China and Japan became distinct countries despite a common origin? Yes. A shared identity can support a larger country (the inverse can be seen in the breakup of Yugoslavia), but not without limit.
> I buy that smaller democracies could work better in many ways
It's not just about size. It's about the simple and intuitively obvious idea that it matters who chooses your rulers. I find it both fascinating and frightening that people have been so trained into ignoring their instincts (evolved through millions of years of inter-group competition, but now casually dismissed as "irrational"), that this basic notion now needs arguing.
[1] A small correction: I am not against the EU - the opposite, I am strongly in favor of it, for the simple pragmatic reasons that it safeguards peace among the member states, and because the relatively small European countries would otherwise be picked off individually by larger geopolitical rivals. What I am against is the expansion of EU law into areas of law and life that can be perfectly adequately addressed by individual states themselves.
Not sure why you're getting downvotes, most of what you say makes sense. Although I'm not following that "it matters who chooses your rulers". To be very naive, as long as the set of voters includes me, my wishes will be at least proportionally represented, right? Is it just a matter of scale (i.e. 500M Europeans vs 10M Belgians) or is there something else at play for you? I was thinking that if it's just that Europeans as a whole are less tuned-in to Belgian issues, well, you could make the same argument for a given Belgian city like Antwerp or Charleroi, cities for which the majority of Belgian people aren't attuned into. Yet it's okay for the Belgian government to make decisions that affect Antwerp? Then why not let the EU make decisions that affect Belgium?
> To be very naive, as long as the set of voters includes me, my wishes will be at least proportionally represented, right?
How this fails is difficult to arrive at through theory. "Fortunately" we have examples from practice: Tibetan, Uyghur, and Hong Kong voters in China, Kurdish voters in Turkey, Kashmir voters in India [1], or Ukrainian voters under the Soviet union, to name a few.
People don't behave as atomic individuals, but as members of groups.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/08/kashmirs-new...
How this fails is difficult to arrive at through theory. "Fortunately" we have examples from practice: Tibetan, Uyghur, and Hong Kong voters in China, Kurdish voters in Turkey, Kashmir voters in India [1], or Ukrainian voters under the Soviet union, to name a few.
People don't behave as atomic individuals, but as members of groups.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/08/kashmirs-new...
The problem with power is that you never get enough of it, and having a massive machine like the EU populated with people elected by no other merit other than nepotism was always doomed to become a tyranny or a failure. It just takes a few decades until it becomes noticeable (like the growing anti-EU sentiment amongst member states).
Unless I set all the laws myself, policy is always "dictated from above". Why would I care whether that's done in Brussels or Paris or my neighbors house? That's the way societies work and pretending that my country is someone "on side" and the EU is not is just silly...
> Why would I care whether that's done in Brussels or Paris or my neighbors house?
Because if you disagree with the law or want to change it, it’s a lot easier to go over to your neighbors house than it is to travel to Brussels. That’s the entire point of small / local government.
Because if you disagree with the law or want to change it, it’s a lot easier to go over to your neighbors house than it is to travel to Brussels. That’s the entire point of small / local government.
[deleted]
Of course, if we pretend nations don't exist and their people have no common interest, it doesn't matter if laws come from your national government, from Brussels, or from a distant capital like Washington or Beijing. So long as you get a vote, even if diluted by millions or billions of new fellow citizens, it's all the same.
I think without meaning to, your making my point for me?
My vote is diluted with 60mil others. Does diluting it with 500m others in the eu actually cost me any say? I think not in practical terms...
And nations might exist. But that doesn't have much to do with governments these days. I like in the UK, 4 countries (plus other bits)under one government. A whole bunch of different nations under those countries. I have a lot more in common with people in other big cities like (say) Paris or Berlin since I am from London. I have very little in common with someone from the Welsh valleys or the rural england. Yet we're all under the same UK government.
The point here is that moving power from Westminster to Brussels has no real effect on my representation. Nor does it harm "common interest". Both of those are basically gone when you have more than 100 people in your sovereign entity.
My vote is diluted with 60mil others. Does diluting it with 500m others in the eu actually cost me any say? I think not in practical terms...
And nations might exist. But that doesn't have much to do with governments these days. I like in the UK, 4 countries (plus other bits)under one government. A whole bunch of different nations under those countries. I have a lot more in common with people in other big cities like (say) Paris or Berlin since I am from London. I have very little in common with someone from the Welsh valleys or the rural england. Yet we're all under the same UK government.
The point here is that moving power from Westminster to Brussels has no real effect on my representation. Nor does it harm "common interest". Both of those are basically gone when you have more than 100 people in your sovereign entity.
What about focusing on solving why parts of the EU have regressed to 3rd world economic status, capital cities that mostly look like ghettos, lack of energy supplies, and poor administration? The EU is gradually becoming a joke. Not that gender issues shouldn't be taken care of, but this is not the way to solve them.
They're well on their way to de-industrialization due to their ill advised attempt at an economic war that has completely backfired. And it happened by and large due to moral incontinence and unnecessary virtue signalling. There are after all still a couple of NATO members bombing or occupying various countries without much uproar.
Adenauer and de Gaulle must be turning in their grave seeing the current generation of European leaders destroying everything generations of hardworking Europeans have built up in record speed.
Adenauer and de Gaulle must be turning in their grave seeing the current generation of European leaders destroying everything generations of hardworking Europeans have built up in record speed.
Horrible. I'm convinced that EU is being sabotaged.
throwboi123(1)
This is meaningless when you've destroyed the meaning of the word 'gender'.
Any company not meeting quotas could simply have half the men start identifying as women.
Any company not meeting quotas could simply have half the men start identifying as women.
How about balancing HR? Teachers? Or jobs regarded as dangerous and/or unpleasant, like miners or garbage collectors? What about prisoners? I heard there are huge gender balance issues too.
Why not let businesses decide? I'm pretty sure that higher positions are being hired mostly based on effectiveness and not just because they're male?
Like if women mostly get smaller salary for same work (as media claim), everyone would jump and hire them over man because its more efficient lol
Like if women mostly get smaller salary for same work (as media claim), everyone would jump and hire them over man because its more efficient lol
My opinion:
If you support free market companies, you should not tell them how to hire (put quotas like the one now mandated in the EU).
A govt can put quotas on it's own organizations. Sure. No problem there, as it is not a market-force company to begin with.
Next up the C-family invents some new Cs (CWO, CQO, CJO, CYO) and puts some women on it just so the CTO/CFO/CEO can be men. In Nigeria foreign companies have to hire locals: they sit all day on "the locals bench" waiting for their shift to be over. I wait for this to happen on EU company boards with women.
Great move EU! /s
If you support free market companies, you should not tell them how to hire (put quotas like the one now mandated in the EU).
A govt can put quotas on it's own organizations. Sure. No problem there, as it is not a market-force company to begin with.
Next up the C-family invents some new Cs (CWO, CQO, CJO, CYO) and puts some women on it just so the CTO/CFO/CEO can be men. In Nigeria foreign companies have to hire locals: they sit all day on "the locals bench" waiting for their shift to be over. I wait for this to happen on EU company boards with women.
Great move EU! /s
The point of these quotas is that some companies, even after decades of society striving for more gender equality, banning sex discrimination, etc, still prefer to hire one gender over the other for some functions, and especially for executive roles, this often happens through old-boys networks that exclude women. They may claim that they can't find women suitable for the role, but that's because the networks they hire from tend to exclude them.
It's also been known that people tend to hire people who look like the people already working in that particular role. Even when the people doing the hiring do not look like that. Even when they are aware of this effect.
If we want people to be hired for their ability and not their gender, we need a way to rid ourselves of these effects. For men and women to have the same opportunities to get hired, they already both need to be represented in the pool of people that have already been hired. And they need to be equally represented in the pool that people are hired from.
These sort of quotas are an ugly way to accomplish that, but so far, nobody has been able to come up with a better way of reaching that goal. Don't like quotas? Come up with something better. Because not doing anything is clearly not fixing the issue, and perpetuating the existing inequalities.