- 87,629
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Affirmative Action, Scandinavian Style - Norway has lost the plot...
- Thread starter Famine
- 89 comments
- 4,678 views
- 3,323
- GTP_Mark
- Mark T33
I guess they'll come in handy for general cleaning & light snack preparation in the boardroom.
On a more serious note, it's quite insane to make it compulsory. Directors should be chosen on there experience, business skills & ideas. Gender should never be a requirement for employment.
If you have one director vacancy left, and you have to refuse male applications, surely that's discrimination.
On a more serious note, it's quite insane to make it compulsory. Directors should be chosen on there experience, business skills & ideas. Gender should never be a requirement for employment.
If you have one director vacancy left, and you have to refuse male applications, surely that's discrimination.
- 1,202
Having witnessed affirmative action more or less first hand while working in South Africa I can simply say that it really sucks if you're unlucky enough to fall in the unfavoured group.
It's not a fair system, but if you want to artificially accelerate a balance change in the employment stats of your country, I can't think of any otherway except making it harder for the over represented group and easier for the under represented group to get any particular role.
I can see why they had to do it in SA, as they needed to start shifting the earnings into the poor areas as soon as possible, so the affirmative action rules there now favour the previously underprivileged races. At the same time they also favoured women and disabled people. I real bummer if you're a white male in good health (which is why I moved back to england) but I can't see what other choice the government has. It needs to be balanced. In SA, however, lives depended on this policy being introduced. I can't see why it's so important on the terms described in Norway. The article does not attempt to explain why this change was neccessary.
It's not a fair system, but if you want to artificially accelerate a balance change in the employment stats of your country, I can't think of any otherway except making it harder for the over represented group and easier for the under represented group to get any particular role.
I can see why they had to do it in SA, as they needed to start shifting the earnings into the poor areas as soon as possible, so the affirmative action rules there now favour the previously underprivileged races. At the same time they also favoured women and disabled people. I real bummer if you're a white male in good health (which is why I moved back to england) but I can't see what other choice the government has. It needs to be balanced. In SA, however, lives depended on this policy being introduced. I can't see why it's so important on the terms described in Norway. The article does not attempt to explain why this change was neccessary.
- 87,629
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Why does government need to make a choice?
It merely needs to reward merit, nothing else. There's no need for government to get involved at all.
Forcing companies to appoint less capable people from different groupings only serves to devalue those from those groups who have managed to get there by merit - people think that they only got there through their physical characteristics and not abilities. This breeds resentment of that group - the exact opposite of what the legislation sets out to achieve.
- 36,698
- Scotland
- GTP_daan
Sorry, Blake. You're going to have to change your sex to female.
In a new rule here at GTP, 40% of all posters have to be female. Luckily, Famine is female already, which keeps the percentage up, but you're going to have to go under the Swedish chef's cleaver. (Famine performed the snip on Mark T this morning using a specially sharpened hockey puck. It was some shot. you sould have seen it!)
Sorry.
- 15,855
- QLD, Australia
- Small_Fryz
if 40% of the posters were female, id love to see what the single teenage males of GTP would be replying with...
- 12,486
- CCS
- GTP_Diego
with their small fries?
- 87,629
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Probably "OfMG yuor hot!!!", a request for pictures and then a tacky avatar fad.
Or something.
- 24,016
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I was under the impression we only need 40% of the Super-Mods to be female to comply?
- 2,604
- Banbaria.
- GTP_Venari
No, no, no. To be a SuperMod, you have to be 40% female. We know they can gene-splice in their sleep.
And the bit about the meritocracy is easy to explain. If meritocracy is practiced, 99.5% of government would collapse, hence: never gonna happen.
And the bit about the meritocracy is easy to explain. If meritocracy is practiced, 99.5% of government would collapse, hence: never gonna happen.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
These sorts of requirements work well in the minds of people who see all people as equally qualified for all work. They'll say "you can find a woman that's every bit as qualified as a man". Which automatically shifts the prejudice back onto the person who wanted to pick the man. Because, afterall, if there was a woman who was equally qualified, then it just comes down to prejudice.
The truth of the matter is far from that assumption though. Often there really is only one applicant best suited for the job.
The truth of the matter is far from that assumption though. Often there really is only one applicant best suited for the job.
- 8,707
- Utah
- ceiling_fan
I knew this thread wouldn't stay serious for long. 
I think this law can potentially lower businesses productivity. Not because there would be more women to ogle at
but because gender is being prioritized over actual skills.
I think this law can potentially lower businesses productivity. Not because there would be more women to ogle at
but because gender is being prioritized over actual skills.
- 748
I don't see the point in reverse discrimination. I would hate to get a seat at the board table just because of the particular set of genitalia I happen to have. Or worse still, no matter how capable I am and what qualifications I have, everyone thinking that the only reason I am on the board just to meet some random quota. (If I was female - which I'm not)
Also what happens if you only have one director who happens to be a male? Does he need to become a transgender or do you need to hire a token female director to bump the ratio up to 50%?
Also what happens if you only have one director who happens to be a male? Does he need to become a transgender or do you need to hire a token female director to bump the ratio up to 50%?
- 8,707
- Utah
- ceiling_fan
- 6,977
- old-guy64
On a more serious note:
As a person who could potentially be affected by "Affrimative" action, based on race.
I hate the friggin' idea.
Yeah, it may make it compulsory to give a girl a chance, or give the choose race person, a shot.
But I don't want to get the job just because I'm not a WASP or because I don't own a penis.
I want the top job, but dammit, I expect to earn it.
If that means busting my balls in the janitorial pool to get to the mail room, to become someone's assistant, to displacing my boss because I'm better at the job. So be it.
Don't hand it to me just because I'm the right gender or race. That will be a prescription for failure, and will back the assumption that it's not a job for a female or other affirmative action candidate, because "After all, they couldn't handle it."
Don't promote me in order to screw me over later.
As a person who could potentially be affected by "Affrimative" action, based on race.
I hate the friggin' idea.
Yeah, it may make it compulsory to give a girl a chance, or give the choose race person, a shot.
But I don't want to get the job just because I'm not a WASP or because I don't own a penis.
I want the top job, but dammit, I expect to earn it.
If that means busting my balls in the janitorial pool to get to the mail room, to become someone's assistant, to displacing my boss because I'm better at the job. So be it.
Don't hand it to me just because I'm the right gender or race. That will be a prescription for failure, and will back the assumption that it's not a job for a female or other affirmative action candidate, because "After all, they couldn't handle it."
Don't promote me in order to screw me over later.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
Funny story, we "illegalized" affirmative action in Michigan back in 2006. That one didn't go over too well with the rights groups, and it has been challenged several times, but AFAIK, the laws are still in tact and have gone on without much of a problem.
Like Sage said, you create a nanny state, they're doing to do it to everyone.
Like Sage said, you create a nanny state, they're doing to do it to everyone.
- 3,212
Feminism may have a limit, and this would be it...
No doubt a whole new itinerary may come into play soon for the government.
No doubt a whole new itinerary may come into play soon for the government.
- 471
Mike just hasn't been paying attention; the law requires minimum 40% of each gender. This was actually in the newspaper several years ago, about a company where all board members were women (like Mike's), where they weren't sure what they were going to do because they didn't know any men with knowledge within their specialized field. Most smaller/public companies have pulled a simple evasive manouver by reclassifying the company (to private/communal or something else), legally avoiding the law.
Still, I can't defend it. I think it's as retarded and backwards as the last government that put it in place. Companies should be lead by people chosen because of their experience, not because of their gender.
- 9,646
- Minus955
I think it's a good idea, just as it is in the US education system.
If the jobs were given solely on the basis of skills, only men would be in office because they've had the good fortune up to this point. So it would just be a vicious cycle.
If the jobs were given solely on the basis of skills, only men would be in office because they've had the good fortune up to this point. So it would just be a vicious cycle.
