Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards • Hacker News Board

Re: Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

#41

Post by slurgfest » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 6:20 PM UTC

kolinko wrote: post #31

einhverfr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some if it ties in with this: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/105013.php at least regarding sex at conception. I am not entirely sure about whether we really have hard direct data regarding sex at conception but that's one possibility regarding that data. On the other hand, it's possible that there are biological differences between sperm carrying X and Y chromosomes and that these might be selected for one…

Well, I think the question is not whether an average woman is more or less risky than an average man, but whether an average woman banker/manager is more or less risky than an average man on that position. Think of that one woman per 50 man on the Wild West. How tolerant to risk must she have been to go to a dangerous land populated mostly by men. All of her family must've told her to stay home, and she had no role m…

I wasn't saying anything about business. I was saying something about biology. It's up to you to find what evidence there is for the claim in business. If you want to know about biology, read a biology textbook instead of downvoting people for things you don't like to hear.

Re: Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

#42

Post by demewmew » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 8:22 PM UTC

JanezStupar wrote: post #33

kolinko wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you assume I'm for mandatory quotas? The only thing I'm saying is that a plenty of people get pushed by society into suboptimal life choices. Mutiple research from various countries says that girls are as good at math/computer skills as boys, up to the graduation from high schools. After high school they don't choose science in universities though. Why could that be? If the distribution of talent is exactly t…

I did not assume that you are for mandatory quotas. It was more of a general remark, since a lot of times the talk of gender equality is thinly veiled advocacy for mandatory gender quotas. And I believe that (honest) gender equality advocates should be hell bent against mandatory quotas and not accepting them as "better state of affairs" or a "temporary compromise".

> It was more of a general remark, since a lot of times the talk of gender equality is thinly veiled advocacy for mandatory gender quotas.

Really? Honestly, the only people I see talking about gender quotas are the people who are fervently against them, which is why I suspect kolinko took your comment about gender quotas the way they did.

Re: Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

#43

Post by bsphil » Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 1:10 AM UTC

kolinko wrote: post #30

einhverfr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, Quakers still give children over a certain age (depending on meeting, maybe 7) full veto power over meeting business. And anarchists might have some helpful insights. I don't know what you have against Inuits though.

I'd say that if you'd bring in an average Inuit into a board meeting, you'd have some language problems, and you'd have to explain a lot of things to him. My argument is that there is such a thing as "too much diversity" - if a group that has to make some kind of a decision is too diverse, it will have communication problems. Therefore it's not as simple as saying "oh, anything that brings in more diversity is better…

There's an awfully large gap between including female business professionals and including anarchists, Inuits, and children in a board meeting.