Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ten years on from Norway's quota for women on corporate boards

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 60 posts

Re: Ten years on from Norway's quota for women on corporate boards

#21

Post by abusoufiyan »

Chris2048 wrote: post #5
abusoufiyan wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but most of the outright wrong and sexist things our societies allow seem to disadvantage women. This doesn't make it even, but it's a good step.

Which things?

Depends on where you are. Not all of these apply everywhere, but:

- lack of maternity leave

- being judged on personal appearance even in office settings because your appearance is more tied to your worth than it is for men

- when you are harsh as a boss, labelled "bossy" as a negative. I don't hear many men labelled "bossy".

- be chided about "being on your period" in case you say something people don't like

- people confusing you for secretary / non-technical role because you are not man

- people talking about things which may be sensitive to women in the workplace moreso than men and make them uncomfortable / unable to participate (for example, porn, I have seen this in my office)

- after-hours fraternizing at the bar or on the golf course (or other largely men's activity, it's never going to the salon, for example).

- harrassment / dating propositions (imo, it's not okay either way but obviously more likely for men to do to women in office than the other way around)

- late-night meetings, frequent expectation for workers to come in late and stay late (if women mostly take responsibilities of children at home, this affects them more).

- less pay because rather than keeping pays equal, companies only offer raises to those who ask

Surely there are others. Perhaps some of these seem innocuous to you, but altogether they are potent.

Re: Ten years on from Norway's quota for women on corporate boards

#23

Post by abusoufiyan »

Double_a_92 wrote: post #10
abusoufiyan wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even if you are a woman that really deserved to lead some company, people will think that you just got there because of the quota. That's their problem. They want to vocalize it, well you can fire them!

It's not even about vocalizing it. You yourself could also feel that way... Always questioning if you really earned this. Leading to imposter syndrome, insecurity and so on which might really turn you into a bad leader.

Imposter syndrome is real. But if you are literally on the board of a company, I doubt it matters as much. Also, lots of people inherited rather than earned their wealth. Should we outlaw that to save them from imposter syndrome?

Re: Ten years on from Norway's quota for women on corporate boards

#24

Post by abusoufiyan »

thewhitetulip wrote: post #16

> Xavier Fontanet, former chief executive of Essilor, a French eyewear company, quoted Charles de Gaulle as saying “one may not command without having obeyed”—his point being that women often lack the management experience that makes a good board director. who would have thought that we'd hear this argument in 2017!! Personally, I don't think things like this can be mandated. Yes, there is a gender gap between men an…

>What we, as a society need to do is to encourage men to be less sexist, for instance, a manger who can hire a male and a female who are both eligble should not hire a male because he 'doesn't want female', that needs to be fixed.

But there are no managers who will say that. They'll rationalize it a different way that people will buy into.

> I have seen the reservation system in India and it is horrible, to be honest, it only helps the top % people but the bottom of the food chain is exactly where they were since the start, the bottom of the food chain.

I have also, and this is the point of the reservation system, to create wealthy powerhouse families in a society which had very few from those castes. For everyone who complains about it, there are many more who appreciate it for the good it does and who understand that reservations are not meant to eliminate poverty (else they'd be based on financial status) but are meant to build power and concentrated wealth in communities which had no opportunities to have such.

In India, before reservations generational wealth had cemented a very strong hierarchy. Overturning that hierarchy cannot be done solely by providing education equally, there has to be a balance shift somewhere. People are not going to voluntarily give away their inherited wealth and status, so similar wealth and status needs to be built in other communities. The best way to do this is educate some select few in that community, then perhaps they gain wealth from it, now their children get the same education they did, they inherit wealth and build some more, repeat repeat and now you have powerful families in underprivileged communities which could rival the ones in the privileged ones.

Re: Ten years on from Norway's quota for women on corporate boards

#25

Post by louhike »

Rainymood wrote: post #15
robert_foss wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you asking what sexist biases exist within society that are working against the interest of Women? How about: - Income inequality - Unequal domestic workload - Only 22% of elected parliamentarians being female

I kind of like Dr. Peteron's view on these kind of questions, try flipping them around. Don't ask "Why do women earn less?" Try framing it as "What are the reasons men earn more?" Another one, "Why is it that there are so few women in high level management positions?" frame it as "Why are there so much men willing to put up with the stress and pressure of high level management positions?" There are a lot of reasons f…

> "Why is it that there are so few women in high level management positions?" frame it as "Why are there so much men willing to put up with the stress and pressure of high level management positions?"

What does it change if the answer is "It is easier for men because they have to put up with less harassment, less pressure and are more encouraged"?

Re: Ten years on from Norway's quota for women on corporate boards

#26

Post by Chris2048 »

robert_foss wrote: post #9
Chris2048 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which things?

Are you asking what sexist biases exist within society that are working against the interest of Women? How about: - Income inequality - Unequal domestic workload - Only 22% of elected parliamentarians being female

But you are describing "sexist outcomes" which isn't the same sense of the word. It alludes to a sexist mechanism only - whereas the board quotas are the sexist mechanism.

"Income inequality" Has been discussed plenty of time, so I'm not going to reproduce it here. In any case, there is plenty of dispute on whether it is the result of "sexism".

"domestic workload" is something society does criticise, but in any case it is a social convention only - not enforced by law.

Re: Ten years on from Norway's quota for women on corporate boards

#27

Post by Double_a_92 »

abusoufiyan wrote: post #23
Double_a_92 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even about vocalizing it. You yourself could also feel that way... Always questioning if you really earned this. Leading to imposter syndrome, insecurity and so on which might really turn you into a bad leader.

Imposter syndrome is real. But if you are literally on the board of a company, I doubt it matters as much. Also, lots of people inherited rather than earned their wealth. Should we outlaw that to save them from imposter syndrome?

No but we shoulnd't create a law that randomly takes the wealth of every second heir, and gives it to an orphan kid instead.

Technically they are equal, they just happened to be born somewhere different. So it should be fair, right?

That kid when he grows up might indeed feel weird about all the undeserved money...

Re: Ten years on from Norway's quota for women on corporate boards

#28

Post by abusoufiyan »

robert_foss wrote: post #8

It would seem that governments mandating equality works, and that basic equality isn't the end of society or successful corporate-hood as we know it. Who would've thunk.

But according to HN people everyone is censoring them and they can't even go to work and write weird pseudoscientific rationales for why they hate diversity programs and expect their employer, who is promoting heavily and publicly lots of diversity programs, to not like this and fire them and it's all FEMINISM GONE TOO FAR!

Re: Ten years on from Norway's quota for women on corporate boards

#29

Post by abusoufiyan »

mvdwoord wrote: post #11

Equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity... Many things have been said by other, better informed and more eloquent people than me. I noticed this however: “At least ten more years” And that makes me wonder if and when this will turn into something akin the "Communism / Captialism / Whatever concept has never been tried/implemented _properly_" Personally, I don't think striving for equality of outcome will do so…

>Personally, I don't think striving for equality of outcome will do society any good.

Well, isn't it just convenient that if we don't strive for equality of outcome then life will just have to remain tilted in favor of white/asian men

Re: Ten years on from Norway's quota for women on corporate boards

#30

Post by nothrabannosir »

abusoufiyan wrote: post #21
Chris2048 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which things?

Depends on where you are. Not all of these apply everywhere, but: - lack of maternity leave - being judged on personal appearance even in office settings because your appearance is more tied to your worth than it is for men - when you are harsh as a boss, labelled "bossy" as a negative. I don't hear many men labelled "bossy". - be chided about "being on your period" in case you say something people don't like - peopl…

> - lack of maternity leave

Tangential: I heard a wild, but interesting argument the other day about how allowing different maternity leave between men and women, ceteris paribus, would lead to gender discrimination when hiring. The reasoning was: regardless of the reason being "fair", companies would see women as having a higher chance of taking more leave than men, and thus have less value, overall.

It was an interesting argument for prohibiting differences between paternity and maternity leave, i.o.w.: you must give new fathers as much time off as you give new mothers, no more, no less.

It sounded nice so I never researched whether it was experimentally confirmed / disproven :)

Post reply on HN