Affirmative Action, Scandinavian Style - Norway has lost the plot...

[Famine]

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.

And if jobs weren't given on the basis of skills, you'd have an unskilled workforce.

I'd rather have the best person for the job doing the job, thanks.

 

[Giancarlo]

And if jobs weren't given on the basis of skills, you'd have an unskilled workforce.

I'd rather have the best person for the job doing the job, thanks.

True enough, but what i'm tying to say is that without this law there is too much a chance of corruption. To sit there and tell me women have 100% equal chances as men do in today's society is preposterous.

I'd rather have a world where everyone is free to have the best opportunities available in life, and to do what they want to do to the best of their abilities. I'm not going to be a hypocrite by enjoying my freedoms while others are suffering.

I just don't think any of us understand it because we are not female, and i assume most of you are not minorities in your respective communities.

 

[Famine]

My girlfriend commented that she'd rather get a job based on her ability to do it than because she was a woman - and added that such a policy devalues women who do get where they are through ability, because they'll always have the suspicion that they only got there through gender.


Are women not free to have the best opportunities available in life? Do women not go to the same schools, colleges and universities as men? I don't think so - so why should there be legislation to give them jobs at the expense of as-qualified men?

 

[Giancarlo]

My girlfriend commented that she'd rather get a job based on her ability to do it than because she was a woman - and added that such a policy devalues women who do get where they are through ability, because they'll always have the suspicion that they only got there through gender.

Are women not free to have the best opportunities available in life? Do women not go to the same schools, colleges and universities as men? I don't think so - so why should there be legislation to give them jobs at the expense of as-qualified men?

That's precisely the problem though - over the many years of womens' suffrage and rights movements, there has only been so much acclimation by our male-dominated society. If plenty of women were getting jobs on their own hard work, there would be no need for this law in the first place. But the fact is that many people still actually believe that women are unequal to men.

No, women unfortunately are not free to have the best opportunities in life, because laws like this were not implemented sooner.

I believe you are making somewhat of an assumption that a woman is not going to be as qualified as a man. Don't you think that women are working just as hard in the country to get the job, as men are? I don't think that the difference in the quality of the work put out by the woman would be any worse than the man's. We're talking about selecting women from a pool in which they are ready to do the job, not plucking some "housewife" out of the kitchen if i may be so blunt.

There should absolutely be legislation to give a woman a job at the expense of an as-qualified man, because the man is far more likely to find a job just as well in some other place than the woman is. We need an equal balance in society because it's only fair.

 

[Famine]

That's precisely the problem though - over the many years of womens' suffrage and rights movements, there has only been so much acclimation by our male-dominated society. If plenty of women were getting jobs on their own hard work, there would be no need for this law in the first place. But the fact is that many people still actually believe that women are unequal to men.

And they are - there is no legislation giving men the same opportunities. This in inequality.

No, women unfortunately are not free to have the best opportunities in life, because laws like this were not implemented sooner.

So... women don't go to the same schools, colleges and universities, studying for the same qualifications?

I believe you are making somewhat of an assumption that a woman is not going to be as qualified as a man.

Not at all. Where a woman is the best person for the job, that woman should get the job. Equally, where a man is the best person for the job, that man should get the job.

This legislation ensures that, where a man is the best person for the job, he cannot get the job if the company must fill its quota of women. No similar legislation exists to retard women's careers in the same manner. This is inbuilt inequality.

We're talking about selecting women from a pool in which they are ready to do the job, not plucking some "housewife" out of the kitchen if i may be so blunt.

That's exactly the position that could occur as legislation cascades down levels.


It wouldn't matter what skillset a man had - a completely unqualified woman would get the job over him, or the company gets fined and labelled "sexist" in the press.

There should absolutely be legislation to give a woman a job at the expense of an as-qualified man, because the man is far more likely to find a job just as well in some other place than the woman is.

Not if every company is bound by the same law...

We need an equal balance in society because it's only fair.

So why the unequal balance in legislation?

Ignoring the fact that men and women are not equal anyway. And the fact that we have no business who a company decides to appoint.

 

[Giancarlo]

And they are - there is no legislation giving men the same opportunities. This in inequality.

So... women don't go to the same schools, colleges and universities, studying for the same qualifications?

Not at all. Where a woman is the best person for the job, that woman should get the job. Equally, where a man is the best person for the job, that man should get the job.

This legislation ensures that, where a man is the best person for the job, he cannot get the job if the company must fill its quota of women. No similar legislation exists to retard women's careers in the same manner. This is inbuilt inequality.

That's exactly the position that could occur as legislation cascades down levels.

It wouldn't matter what skillset a man had - a completely unqualified woman would get the job over him, or the company gets fined and labelled "sexist" in the press.

Not if every company is bound by the same law...

So why the unequal balance in legislation?

Ignoring the fact that men and women are not equal anyway. And the fact that we have no business who a company decides to appoint.

It is not inequality, it is leveling the playing field in a male-dominated government. They would not have put up this law if there wasn't some sentiment that women are not getting the same chances. It would be inequality if men and women were equal in the first place, but they were not.

No no, i'm not talking about schools. I'm talking about the workforce here. Women are studying just as hard as men in the same schools yet are statically less likely to earn the job.

(BTW - women might only be in the school because of similar "affirmative action" -esque laws, but it's basically the same argument.)

A man may not get the job if he is as equally qualified as a woman going for the same job, but those are the odds. You have to live with them. If they are balanced 50-50, then you have to agree there is no inequality there, just fate.

You misunderstand what i say when you state that an unqualified woman would get the job. I'm saying that it would not happen! There are probably hundreds or thousands of women looking for that job. Surely most of them are quite well qualified for the position. But if an employer wants to - were it not for this legislation - he could just pick a man because he felt like it.

Every company being bound by the same law goes back to what i said about the odds. You have to live with them. Women must have equal chances as men, and some of us will have to make sacrifices to ensure that.

Basically, there is no imbalance with this legislation, but in fact a balancing. And we do have business as to whom a company appoints - as does the government - because if we do not then no changes will come about.

 

[Tornado]

I'm talking about the workforce here. Women are studying just as hard as men in the same schools yet are statically less likely to earn the job.

Then you pass laws that make it so women cannot be turned away from a job based solely on race. You don't force companies to hire women just because they are women. There is a difference between the two. This law is purely the second one.
It is essentially the same as when they used to bus black children away from schools they were close to to make schools have more equal racial makeup.

But if an employer wants to - were it not for this legislation - he could just pick a man because he felt like it.

But he wouldn't. Businesses don't work that way on that level (and the law only deals with that level). You don't put people on a board of directors simply because they are men. There is far too much money at stake. You put them in a position such as that because they are the best at the job. All this law does is hinder a companies ability to elect the people it feels are most qualified for one of the most important roles in a business.

You have to live with them. Women must have equal chances as men, and some of us will have to make sacrifices to ensure that.

This is not giving them equal chances. It is giving them more chances. It is essentially guaranteeing them a job. I see no law that does the same for men.

 

[Giancarlo]

Then you pass laws that make it so women cannot be turned away from a job based solely on race. You don't force companies to hire women just because they are women. There is a difference between the two. This law is purely the second one.

A law so that women cannot be turned away is still forcing the company to do something.

But he wouldn't. Businesses don't work that way on that level (and the law only deals with that level). You don't put people on a board of directors simply because they are men. There is far too much money at stake. You put them in a position such as that because they are the best at the job. All this law does is hinder a companies ability to elect the people it feels are most qualified for one of the most important roles in a business.

But maybe you would put men in the position, because maybe you think the woman would just be a sex tease in the office, go on a fit and ruin some meeting, be on her period, etc. etc.

Uh oh! There are some flaws with that logic, Mr. Shareholder...

This is not giving them equal chances. It is giving them more chances. It is essentially guaranteeing them a job. I see no law that does the same for men.

It is giving them more chances so that there will be equal chances. Do you truly believe that women are equal to men in the world without legislations like this? Have you seen the wage differences?

 

[Tornado]

A law so that women cannot be turned away is still forcing the company to do something.

Yeah. It is forcing them to base their applications based on how qualified the person is for the job. Which is the way it should be, and is completely different from what this law does. This forces companies to hire women over potentially high-qualified men. It is essentially saying "Women are always better, and thus deserve jobs more."

But maybe you would put men in the position, because maybe you think the woman would just be a sex tease in the office, go on a fit and ruin some meeting, be on her period, etc. etc.

People who have enough money and power to influence who is on the board of directors for a company is not stupid enough to base their decision on anything but qualifications. Maybe in the 50's that was the case, but it isn't anymore.

It is giving them more chances so that there will be equal chances.

It does not give them equal chances. All it actually does is give them handouts. The fact that those same handouts are not given out to men means that they are not legislatively equal.
Regardless of whether or not women are discriminated against, this legislation does nothing about that. All it does is promote discrimination against men, because they are not getting the same benefits that the women get with this law.

 

[Famine]

It is not inequality

A law says you must have "n" women in your company.
No law says you must have "n" men in your company.

How is that not inequality?

it is leveling the playing field in a male-dominated government

There is no law about the proportion of women MPs.

They would not have put up this law if there wasn't some sentiment that women are not getting the same chances. It would be inequality if men and women were equal in the first place, but they were not.

Men and women are not equal - but they deserve to be treated equally. Legislature is the number 1 place they ought to be treated equally - we all vote for and pay for our governments, so they should treat all citizens equally - and the fact that a law exists that favours women and no such law exists to favour men shows that they are not being treated equally.

No no, i'm not talking about schools. I'm talking about the workforce here.

It all starts in schools.

A boy and a girl attend the same school and achieve the same grades in the same subjects. They are accepted to the same university and acquire the same degrees at the same level. They both apply for the same job - the woman gets it because the company needs to fill its women quota.

How is that an equal playing field, and not inequality?

A man may not get the job if he is as equally qualified as a woman going for the same job, but those are the odds.

If the law says the company must have "n" women and they do not, they will hire the woman. Odds do not come into it.

You have to live with them.

Apparently not - you can just lobby to have the law changed to favour you.

You misunderstand what i say when you state that an unqualified woman would get the job. I'm saying that it would not happen!

Why not?

Assume 100 men apply and 3 women do - and the company must appoint a woman. The 3 women would get the interview, regardless of their experience or qualifications.

There are probably hundreds or thousands of women looking for that job. Surely most of them are quite well qualified for the position. But if an employer wants to - were it not for this legislation - he could just pick a man because he felt like it.

Yes, "he" could (the employer could easily be a woman... Interesting that you assume not).

Why does that need a law against it? Why can't an employer appoint who they want? It's them who pay the wages of the employee - not the government or the electorate...

 

[Giancarlo]

Yeah. It is forcing them to base their applications based on how qualified the person is for the job. Which is the way it should be, and is completely different from what this law does. This forces companies to hire women over potentially high-qualified men. It is essentially saying "Women are always better, and thus deserve jobs more."

So you agree with me that many times a woman would not be hired over a man even if they are just as qualified! That's why this law was put up. It is not saying "Women are always better", it's saying that "Women are just as good, yet do not get the jobs...that's strange. We should make a law requiring that companies hire x% of women because, from a stastistical and moral standpoint, they should be anyway."

People who have enough money and power to influence who is on the board of directors for a company is not stupid enough to base their decision on anything but qualifications. Maybe in the 50's that was the case, but it isn't anymore.

Again, we really don't know. We can't put ourselves on the level of women because we've never experienced the prejudices that they have. Sure, since the '50s it has gotten better, but it has not been eradicated. A 2005 Census shows that men earned 48% more than women did. 48%! Not only is that due to wage inequality, but it is also due to the fact that CEOs and various high ranking jobs are going to men rather than women.

It does not give them equal chances. All it actually does is give them handouts. The fact that those same handouts are not given out to men means that they are not legislatively equal.
Regardless of whether or not women are discriminated against, this legislation does nothing about that. All it does is promote discrimination against men, because they are not getting the same benefits that the women get with this law.

I can't explain this any more thoroughly, and i apologize for repeating myself so many times, but men still have the benefit in today's times. By giving women more chances of getting a job, it evens out. Take, for example, the equation 3>7. How would you solve that?

You take 2 away from 7 and add it to 3. That makes 5=5.

 

[Tornado]

It is not saying "Women are always better", it's saying that "Women are just as good, yet do not get the jobs...that's strange. We should make a law requiring that companies hire x% of women because, from a stastistical and moral standpoint, they should be anyway."

The problem with that (and indeed, with this whole law) is that it implies that women are always just as good, and therefore should always be hired over men if they need to balance out statistics. That is not always the case in practice. That is why this law is stupid, and that laws that prevent you from hiring someone based on sex is not. The first one implies that women will always be just as capable and qualified as men, and the second one merely requires that you look at their actual qualifications. Furthermore, if a company feels a man is right for the job over a women, and can base that on their qualifications, who cares whether or not the statistics are equal?
This law makes it so a man who was a better candidate for a job than a women who also applied will not get the job if the company is required to hire women. There is no law that does the same for men, and therefore it is unequal (what if you are trying to get into the board of a company run by females? There is no law saying that hey need to let you in because you are a man and they have none). There will not always be a women candidate who is just as able as a man candidate (or vice versa). The world simply does not work that way.

By giving women more chances of getting a job, it evens out.

There are far better ways to get companies to hire women than forcing companies to do it regardless of if there are better male candidates.

 

[Giancarlo]

A law says you must have "n" women in your company.
No law says you must have "n" men in your company.

How is that not inequality?

It is not inequality because the company was predominantly male to begin with. That was the true inequality.

There is no law about the proportion of women MPs.

I guess many women don't want to have that job. I know i don't.

Men and women are not equal - but they deserve to be treated equally. Legislature is the number 1 place they ought to be treated equally - we all vote for and pay for our governments, so they should treat all citizens equally - and the fact that a law exists that favours women and no such law exists to favour men shows that they are not being treated equally.

I'm a little unclear. Do you mean that women are not equal to men from a...let's say...biological standpoint? Or a religious standpoint? What do you mean?

The law is there, favoring women, because otherwise they would not be favored over men.

It all starts in schools.

A boy and a girl attend the same school and achieve the same grades in the same subjects. They are accepted to the same university and acquire the same degrees at the same level. They both apply for the same job - the woman gets it because the company needs to fill its women quota.

How is that an equal playing field, and not inequality?

It is not inequality because sexism towards women exists in our world.

If the law says the company must have "n" women and they do not, they will hire the woman. Odds do not come into it.

I'm talking about the odds that the company does not have enough women employed. If they don't, the man should understand that the women deserved the job over him.

Apparently not - you can just lobby to have the law changed to favour you.

It's different when the aforementioned odds are based off a government structure designed to make society a better place, and when the odds are based off sexism and prejudice based on some foolish notions.

Why not?

Assume 100 men apply and 3 women do - and the company must appoint a woman. The 3 women would get the interview, regardless of their experience or qualifications.

I meant before that i don't believe it would only be 3 women. And if the women get the job because that company has 6% female employment, so be it. It makes sense to hire them.

Yes, "he" could (the employer could easily be a woman... Interesting that you assume not).

Alright now i think you're just trying to force holes into my argument, but fair enough.

Why does that need a law against it? Why can't an employer appoint who they want? It's them who pay the wages of the employee - not the government or the electorate...

An employer must choose a woman over a man if there are few women in his or her company. If it were only left up to them, the prejudice would still exist. The government or electorate must step in to prevent that, because it is their job to maintain order and the freedoms outlined in their constitution.

 

[Tornado]

It is not inequality because the company was predominantly male to begin with. That was the true inequality.

But it was not necessarily unequal because the company prefers men. It may have been unequal because the men who made up the majority were more qualified than the women who applied. This is the thing you are having trouble seeing. Just because a company has more men then women now doesn't mean they are sexist. Maybe they are, but that is not something anyone here can determine. The company may have more men than women because the men who applied against the women were better.
That is why a law forcing a company to be equal is silly, because it goes by the assumptions that:

1. There were women who were just as capable at the job as the men who got the job.
2. It implies that a company that is made up of mostly men is only made up of mostly men because the company is sexist.

 

[Giancarlo]

The problem with that (and indeed, with this whole law) is that it implies that women are always just as good, and therefore should always be hired over men if they need to balance out statistics. That is not always the case in practice. That is why this law is stupid, and that laws that prevent you from hiring someone based on sex is not. The first one implies that women will always be just as capable and qualified as men, and the second one merely requires that you look at their actual qualifications. Furthermore, if a company feels a man is right for the job over a women, and can base that on their qualifications, who cares whether or not the statistics are equal?
This law makes it so a man who was a better candidate for a job than a women who also applied will not get the job if the company is required to hire women. There is no law that does the same for men, and therefore it is unequal (what if you are trying to get into the board of a company run by females? There is no law saying that hey need to let you in because you are a man and they have none). There will not always be a women candidate who is just as able as a man candidate (or vice versa). The world simply does not work that way.

I disagree, but i'm sure you saw that coming.

If companies already appointed jobs based on merit, fairly, then why would there be so few women in that company if there were actually many lining up to apply for the job? I guess you would say that "The men who also applied were probably just better skilled for the position." Yeah...but, is that really so overwhelmingly the case today? I mean, in the US for example, women make up 46% of the workforce (http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm). But that's so close to 50%, so why do they earn 48% fewer wages than men? It's because the really good-paying jobs are going to men for no reason.

I'm going back again...women are not equal to men yet. You cannot claim reverse-prejudice is being put on the heads of men when a company needs to hire women to make up 40% of their workforce, like in this case with Scandinavia. There are still more men getting and having jobs there.

If you're a man who happens to be overlooked because of the law, well too bad. The world doesn't revolve around you, though.

There are far better ways to get companies to hire women than forcing companies to do it regardless of if there are better male candidates.

Sure, but forcing is the most effective way to do it. And there couldn't be many loopholes around it, either.

 

[Tornado]

If companies already appointed jobs based on merit, fairly, then why would there be so few women in that company if there were actually many lining up to apply for the job?

Because the company chose the male candidate over the women candidate. Just because they chose more men then women does not mean that you can say it is because of sexism, and this law is designed purely around the idea that you can.

It's because the really good-paying jobs are going to men for no reason.

Which is something that quite frankly is pure baseless conjecture. In a perfect world there would be just as many women in high positions as men. But there are far too many unknowns to simply say that men are in high positions due to discrimination.
If I live in Harlem and 90% of the kids in school are black, that is not because the school was christened and all-black school. Its is simply the way things happened. You can't prove that they only allow men into high paying jobs simply because most high paying jobs are held by men.

You cannot claim reverse-prejudice is being put on the heads of men when a company needs to hire women to make up 40% of their workforce, like in this case with Scandinavia.

To the contrary. You can very easily say that if the companies that have more men in their workforce are that way because they hired on merit. If they hired men because they were men, then I agree with you. But you cannot say that is always the case, which is what this laws makes it out to be.

If you're a man who happens to be overlooked because of the law, well too bad. The world doesn't revolve around you, though.

Which is a huge double standard. You can't complain about women getting treated unfairly in hiring and then turn around and say "too bad" if a man gets passed over because a company is forced to fill a quota. That is not equality. That is preferential treatment to women.

Sure, but forcing is the most effective way to do it. And there couldn't be many loopholes around it, either.

Forcing the issue is also immoral and pointless. Not to mention sexist. And, there have already shown to be loopholes around it.

 

[Giancarlo]

But it was not necessarily unequal because the company prefers men. It may have been unequal because the men who made up the majority were more qualified than the women who applied. This is the thing you are having trouble seeing. Just because a company has more men then women now doesn't mean they are sexist. Maybe they are, but that is not something anyone here can determine. The company may have more men than women because the men who applied against the women were better.
That is why a law forcing a company to be equal is silly, because it goes by the assumptions that:

1. There were women who were just as capable at the job as the men who got the job.
2. It implies that a company that is made up of mostly men is only made up of mostly men because the company is sexist.

The company was sexist, however, simply because there were few women. Even if you perform accidental or indirect sexism, racism, etc., it still counts. A company should hire an equal or at least nearly equal number of women as they do men. If a law has to be made to force them to, then there's a reason for it.

And even stepping aside from all that...there was probably sexism before that too, if the man happened to be more qualified than the woman. Maybe she couldn't get a better grade in a certain class because a male teacher of hers, seeing as how many of them grew up in a different time, is a misogynist. Maybe she couldn't get a raise during her first job at McDonald's because some simple-minded fool once went off and demanded to speak to the manager after she forgot to take out the pickles in his double cheeseburger.

 

[Tornado]

The company was sexist, however, simply because there were few women. Even if you perform accidental or indirect sexism, racism, etc., it still counts.

Not legally, it doesn't. And it shouldn't, unless you have proof that it is the way it was because of intended sexism. If they got in the position they were in based on merit, the fact that they are mostly men should be of no consequence. Why should a company be punished for hiring the best person for the job and ignoring gender altogether? I'm sure women want important positions because they are qualified. Not because they are women. This law gives women jobs because they are women, and is an insult to women's rights.
Schools aren't forced to integrate if they are naturally segregated. Why should companies be held to a different standard?

And even stepping aside from all that...there was probably sexism before that too, if the man happened to be more qualified than the woman. Maybe she couldn't get a better grade in a certain class because a male teacher of hers, seeing as how many of them grew up in a different time, is a misogynist. Maybe she couldn't get a raise during her first job at McDonald's because some simple-minded fool once went off and demanded to speak to the manager after she forgot to take out the pickles in his double cheeseburger.

And then again, maybe she didn't. You can't say "it may have happened, so it might as well have happened" and force things to go along because of it. My cousin nearly failed a college course because he had a blazingly pro-feminist-movement women professor. Where is his law that forces companies to hire him?

 

[Giancarlo]

Because the company chose the male candidate over the women candidate. Just because they chose more men then women does not mean that you can say it is because of sexism, and this law is designed purely around the idea that you can.

It's like i said in my post before this one; it's indirect sexism. There are more likely than not many women applying for a job at your office, but you choose more men.

Whether or not the men were more qualified is beyond the point in my opinion, because we're not talking about a huge difference. Today, woman are just as smart and hard-working as men.

If you had a situation where your company has 0 female employees,and then two applicants come along...Frank who can increase profits by 5%, and Elizabeth who could increase profits by 4%. What is 1% of profits? That's nothing. You're supposed to take the woman because she most likely (and when i say most likely i mean most likely...just look at the statistics) worked harder to get to the same point as Frank, because the world we live in is still full of prejudice.

Which is something that quite frankly is pure baseless conjecture. In a perfect world there would be just as many women in high positions as men. But there are far too many unknowns to simply say that men are in high positions due to discrimination.
If I live in Harlem and 90% of the kids in school are black, that is not because the school was christened and all-black school. Its is simply the way things happened. You can't prove that they only allow men into high paying jobs simply because most high paying jobs are held by men.

What unknowns? If you really think about it, there are none that morally make sense.

You're right, the school was probably not christened all-black. But the neighborhood is probably economically segregated by what jobs those people can get, and crazy old white ladies who think the "separate but equal" policy was doing a bang-up job before those got rid of it.

To the contrary. You can very easily say that if the companies that have more men in their workforce are that way because they hired on merit. If they hired men because they were men, then I agree with you. But you cannot say that is always the case, which is what this laws makes it out to be.

No you really couldn't, because the company would probably state some privacy violation or plead the Fifth when approached about it.

What i'm trying to say is that it almost can be taken as fact that men are hired more often only because they are men, because the statistics show it. The workforce is split almost 50-50, so there are very few chances that one company would be predominantly male for no reason.

Which is a huge double standard. You can't complain about women getting treated unfairly in hiring and then turn around and say "too bad" if a man gets passed over because a company is forced to fill a quota. That is not equality. That is preferential treatment to women.

Yes you can because like i said before, one is based on government policy for the greater good (the greater good) and the other is based on mindless prejudice.

Forcing the issue is also immoral and pointless. Not to mention sexist.

It's not immoral, pointless, or sexist. Not yet. More men still hold more jobs.

 

[Giancarlo]

Not legally, it doesn't. And it shouldn't, unless you have proof that it is the way it was because of intended sexism. If they got in the position they were in based on merit, the fact that they are mostly men should be of no consequence. Why should a company be punished for hiring the best person for the job and ignoring gender altogether?

I'm sure women want important positions because they are qualified. Not because they are women. This law gives women jobs because they are women, and is an insult to women's rights.
Schools aren't forced to integrate if they are naturally segregated. Why should companies be held to a different standard?

Who cares about legality? I'm talking about this because it's messed up that women don't get equal chances; the legality of it is simply a consequence. The company should be punished for ignoring gender because that continues the process of inequality.

Well until the mindset changes, this law is what will have to do. If not for it, it might take years and years for sexist men to view women as equals. Or they might never.

And you cannot tell me i wrongfully assume that most companies are sexist, because the numbers are there and they prove my point. Again, indirect sexism is the same thing as regular sexism. If you avoid black people at your school you're not necessarily racist, because you're not doing anything. But, at the same time, yes you are racist because you have no reason for it.

Natural segregation is completely different. There is no prejudice in that.

And then again, maybe she didn't. You can't say "it may have happened, so it might as well have happened" and force things to go along because of it. My cousin nearly failed a college course because he had a blazingly pro-feminist-movement women professor. Where is his law that forces companies to hire him?

I was just trying to show examples of how this society is preferable for men; that it still exists on many levels.

 

[Famine]

I guess many women don't want to have that job.

So it's NOT okay for private companies to employ who they want to (bearing in mind that private companies pay their employees) in order to maintain a fair gender balance, but it IS okay for elected officials, employed by the state and paid by the electorate to not represent the gender balance of the populace?

 

[Giancarlo]

So it's NOT okay for private companies to employ who they want to (bearing in mind that private companies pay their employees) in order to maintain a fair gender balance, but it IS okay for elected officials, employed by the state and paid by the electorate to not represent the gender balance of the populace?

No, i just don't think as many women apply for that job. But that's also due to the sexism that we're instilled with that women can't do manual labor or whatnot. I don't even really know what MP do, are they a sort of police branch of the military?

Also, you really don't need to be pompous about it by inserting those "lol" smilies. I thought you of all people would be better than that.

 

[Famine]

No, i just don't think as many women apply for that job. But that's also due to the sexism that we're instilled with that women can't do manual labor or whatnot. I don't even really know what MP do, are they a sort of police branch of the military?

MP = Member of Parliament. You'd call them Representatives, I think - the lower house of a parliamentary body, with elected officials.

That notwithstanding, you think it's fine not to have a representative proportion of women in jobs where women don't really want the jobs. Surely that in itself is sexism? If you're going to apply a law which says companies must hire a representative proportion of women, you can't exclude certain vocations because you think women don't want the jobs!


Even so, why do we get to say who somebody else employs when we aren't paying their wages?

 

[Giancarlo]

MP = Member of Parliament. You'd call them Representatives, I think - the lower house of a parliamentary body, with elected officials.

Oh, alright. Well isn't that a bit different? Voted by the people?

That notwithstanding, you think it's fine not to have a representative proportion of women in jobs where women don't really want the jobs. Surely that in itself is sexism? If you're going to apply a law which says companies must hire a representative proportion of women, you can't exclude certain vocations because you think women don't want the jobs!

Even so, why do we get to say who somebody else employs when we aren't paying their wages?

Well, yeah. If somebody does not want something then there are no real moral issues with it. If the men were being forced into that certain unappealing job, then it would be sexism. That's kind of like the natural segregation in schools i was talking about before.

Bottom line is that if a woman, or a minority for instance, is trying to get a job, i do think they should get more chances in order to even everything out. Not to the point where it is uneven, statistically speaking.

Things get really tricky in a place like Miami, where the minority is the majority. But that's the way legislation is; hard. You can't please everybody.

 

[superberkut]

If I live in Harlem and 90% of the kids in school are black, that is not because the school was christened an all-black school. It is simply the way things happened. You can't prove that they only allow men into high paying jobs simply because most high paying jobs are held by men.

I have to agree. The lack of qualifications, however, are a glaring issue that only brings a weak point to surface in the Norwegeian business atmosphere. The corporate world is tough, a real survival of the fittest, and now otherwise-unknown women, among them recently-purged candidates as a possibility, are at the helm of international business matters? The Japanese sent kamikazes because no other qualified pilots were still alive. Norway has many competent figures in the corporate world, but are eliminated in a futile bid to increase gender-equality. That does sound like sexism, albeit in a subtler form than domestic violence and insolent stereotypes. In the aggressive business world, the men have succeeded mostly in part to aggressive tactics in turn, and now many are departing for the women, whom are still intelligent and perhaps more inclined to be rational than men, but their lack of experience is still going to show. Most of all, though, unless a board average of 50% or more is obtained in the members being women, the business atmosphere may not change, and the women, being INCLINED to be less passionate in such matters- It is a given that intelligence plays a part in the corporate world, but one must want it more than the others to get it.

However, in bitterness for past racism, it is still possible that the Harlem school was all-black, but that would be an otherwise irrational decision on the part of its founder.

My argument has been outmoded.

 

[Famine]

Oh, alright. Well isn't that a bit different? Voted by the people?

So - where people DO get the chance to have their voices heard, they generally don't choose women, even though about half of them are women (and think how these people get chosen to stand for election in the first place).

So why must private businesses be constrained?

Remember - YOU pay the wages of elected officials. The OWNER pays the wages of their employees. YOU have a say in one, but not the other.

 

[Giancarlo]

So - where people DO get the chance to have their voices heard, they generally don't choose women, even though about half of them are women (and think how these people get chosen to stand for election in the first place).

So why must private businesses be constrained?

Remember - YOU pay the wages of elected officials. The OWNER pays the wages of their employees. YOU have a say in one, but not the other.

Not necessarily. You can't regulate someone against from voting for a man over a woman. That's just their choice, a matter of opinion. No sense in arguing that, for the most part.

 

[Famine]

Not necessarily. You can't regulate someone against from voting for a man over a woman. That's just their choice, a matter of opinion. No sense in arguing that, for the most part.

But that's exactly what you're arguing for - regulating private business owners to vote for (by giving a job to) a woman, regardless of their choice or opinion... And when it's them that are paying the salary, no other opinion or choice should matter.


In any case, elected officials are put up for election after party selection. Why wouldn't you argue for forcing parties to select 50% of their candidates from each gender?

 

[Giancarlo]

But that's exactly what you're arguing for - regulating private business owners to vote for (by giving a job to) a woman, regardless of their choice or opinion... And when it's them that are paying the salary, no other opinion or choice should matter.

Oh perhaps, but we vote for representatives to lead us, and company owners have far more interests in mind. Some good, some bad.

In any case, elected officials are put up for election after party selection. Why wouldn't you argue for forcing parties to select 50% of their candidates from each gender?

It all comes down to choosing one candidate, however, so it is a little different. It will either be a man or a woman. In that case you can choose solely on experience and merit. But such is not the case for a company who has many, many employees.

 

[Famine]

Oh perhaps, but we vote for representatives to lead us, and company owners have far more interests in mind. Some good, some bad.

Companies like to make money. They like to do this because it enables them to continue to exist.

In order to make money, they need to utilise the skillsets of their employees. This means they tend to hire people with the skillsets that match or exceed the brief, and don't commonly hire people based on the location of their genitalia... Though they can do this too, it's not in the company's best interests to do this, but it's their choice. To stop them from having this freedom of choice is fundamentally immoral. They pay the wages of their employees. The government does not. They should have the freedom to choose their employees. The government should not.

It all comes down to choosing one candidate, however, so it is a little different. It will either be a man or a woman. In that case you can choose solely on experience and merit. But such is not the case for a company who has many, many employees.

Political parties are largely made up of men. So you have mainly men voting for mainly men, and then you, the population, choose mainly men.

Why are you not clamouring for this inequality to be redressed through legislation? After all, Representatives earn $161,000 a year and you are paying them. How can a mainly male House represent the interests of the 50% of your population who are female?