More women on corporate boards needed - just fire men until it's 50-50

[laughing dog]

No. I understood you were referring to the proportion of women in the general population as the basis for your 51%.

What I want to know is, why on earth you'd think that the proportion of women in the general population is some kind of 'fair share' for the proportion of women on boards?

It was a joke. Lighten up.

 

[Axulus]

Tell that to Jennifer Lawrence.

That last sentence wasn't actually a joke. Not totally anyways. I think I'd pay some money to see that. And her response.

You believe that trite?

When it comes to business, Jennifer Lawrence isn’t a woman she is a multi-million dollar enterprise. Lawrence Enterprises is run not by Jennifer alone but also by a bevy of managers, agents, publicists and lawyers. If Lawrence is underpaid each of these people (quite a few of them men, by the way) are also underpaid. In particular, Lawrence is repped by CAA of which the WSJ recently wrote:

Within the entertainment industry, the glass-and-steel headquarters of Creative Artists Agency LLC is called the “Death Star,” a reference to its occupants’ reputation as cold-hearted Hollywood power brokers.

Do you think the cold-hearted Hollywood power brokers of CAA are leaving money on the table? No effing way. Which is one reason why Jennifer Lawrence is number 12 on Forbes Celebrity 100 list, coming in just below Steven Spielberg. By the way, 5 of the top 10 on the Celebrity 100 are women and number 1 on that list? Beyonce.

http://marginalrevolution.com/margi...-lawrence-underpaid.html#sthash.bDMUGQ9L.dpuf

 

[Metaphor]

No. I understood you were referring to the proportion of women in the general population as the basis for your 51%.

What I want to know is, why on earth you'd think that the proportion of women in the general population is some kind of 'fair share' for the proportion of women on boards?

It was a joke. Lighten up.

Since Toni actually does believe that women should make up 50/51% of boards, in what way is what she said a joke?

 

[Toni]

No. I understood you were referring to the proportion of women in the general population as the basis for your 51%.

What I want to know is, why on earth you'd think that the proportion of women in the general population is some kind of 'fair share' for the proportion of women on boards?

Tell that to Jennifer Lawrence.

That last sentence wasn't actually a joke. Not totally anyways. I think I'd pay some money to see that. And her response.

Are you suggesting Jennifer Lawrence is being paid less than the market value for her services?

Why haven't movie studios bid the cost of her services up, then?

My tongue was at least half in my cheek as I posted that.

Please see many stories in popular media with reference to Jennifer Lawrence finding out that she was paid much less than her male costars in the film American Hustle, which I have not seen so I cannot give a recommendation for or against. Just google Jennifer Lawrence. Ignore the link Axulus posted. It's not on point.

 

[Toni]

It was a joke. Lighten up.

Since Toni actually does believe that women should make up 50/51% of boards, in what way is what she said a joke?

In an ideal world, free from any prejudices, I think that over time, the proportion of men and women in various jobs would settle into something near the portion of the population each occupies. I am sure there would be some jobs which would settle into or remain predominately male or predominately female. I don't see why board membership would not.

Which isn't quite the same thing as your belief about my belief.

- - - Updated - - -

No. I understood you were referring to the proportion of women in the general population as the basis for your 51%.

What I want to know is, why on earth you'd think that the proportion of women in the general population is some kind of 'fair share' for the proportion of women on boards?

It was a joke. Lighten up.

At least somebody actually reads my posts! Thank you!

 

[Axulus]

Since Toni actually does believe that women should make up 50/51% of boards, in what way is what she said a joke?

In an ideal world, free from any prejudices, I think that over time, the proportion of men and women in various jobs would settle into something near the portion of the population each occupies. I am sure there would be some jobs which would settle into or remain predominately male or predominately female. I don't see why board membership would not.

Which isn't quite the same thing as your belief about my belief.

Why do you believe that? What if it is the case that women prefer less stress and more work/life balance in their careers compared to men, and thus fewer of them, proportionally, choose to make the sacrifices that it takes to occupy the top positions?

 

[Toni]

In an ideal world, free from any prejudices, I think that over time, the proportion of men and women in various jobs would settle into something near the portion of the population each occupies. I am sure there would be some jobs which would settle into or remain predominately male or predominately female. I don't see why board membership would not.

Which isn't quite the same thing as your belief about my belief.

Why do you believe that? What if it is the case that women prefer less stress and more work/life balance in their careers compared to men, and thus fewer of them, proportionally, choose to make the sacrifices that it takes to occupy the top positions?

Heh. Women who choose to take those 'less demanding' positions to have a 'better work/life balance' are generally balancing raising families and rearing children in addition to their paid jobs. If you think this is choosing a 'less stressful option' than men working at those high paying stressful jobs, clearly you have never been a woman.

I used to know a male oncologist whose kid attended the same daycare as mine. The day care required that all parents spend X number of hours a quarter in the center, working with the kids. He started sending his wife instead as he found half a day with preschoolers to be much more stressful than his work with cancer patients.

When I went back to work after my first child was born, I could hardly believe how much easier my job was compared with being home with a baby. At work, I got potty breaks! And lunch! And adult conversation--or something close to it.

 

[Axulus]

Why do you believe that? What if it is the case that women prefer less stress and more work/life balance in their careers compared to men, and thus fewer of them, proportionally, choose to make the sacrifices that it takes to occupy the top positions?

Heh. Women who choose to take those 'less demanding' positions to have a 'better work/life balance' are generally balancing raising families and rearing children in addition to their paid jobs. If you think this is choosing a 'less stressful option' than men working at those high paying stressful jobs, clearly you have never been a woman.

I used to know a male oncologist whose kid attended the same daycare as mine. The day care required that all parents spend X number of hours a quarter in the center, working with the kids. He started sending his wife instead as he found half a day with preschoolers to be much more stressful than his work with cancer patients.

When I went back to work after my first child was born, I could hardly believe how much easier my job was compared with being home with a baby. At work, I got potty breaks! And lunch! And adult conversation--or something close to it.

But none of that is due to discrimination of those who select the board members or those who make the hiring decisions that allow women the credentials to get board positions. Additionally, if they tend to have more stress at home compared to men and thus tend to choose less stress in their careers, then a silly law like that proposed in the OP won't fix any of that. It is trying to interfere with voluntary preferences and household dynamics. If you don't like the preferences and household dynamics, then change those.

 

[Toni]

Heh. Women who choose to take those 'less demanding' positions to have a 'better work/life balance' are generally balancing raising families and rearing children in addition to their paid jobs. If you think this is choosing a 'less stressful option' than men working at those high paying stressful jobs, clearly you have never been a woman.

I used to know a male oncologist whose kid attended the same daycare as mine. The day care required that all parents spend X number of hours a quarter in the center, working with the kids. He started sending his wife instead as he found half a day with preschoolers to be much more stressful than his work with cancer patients.

When I went back to work after my first child was born, I could hardly believe how much easier my job was compared with being home with a baby. At work, I got potty breaks! And lunch! And adult conversation--or something close to it.

But none of that is due to discrimination of those who select the board members or those who make the hiring decisions that allow women the credentials to get board positions. Additionally, if they tend to have more stress at home compared to men and thus tend to choose less stress in their careers, then a silly law like that proposed in the OP won't fix any of that. It is trying to interfere with voluntary preferences and household dynamics. If you don't like the preferences and household dynamics, then change those.

I was addressing whether women take 'easier' paths than do men because the women aren't up to the stress of high powered jobs.

I didn't even go into how men should man up and start taking on more household duties. EVERYONE would benefit, IMHO.

 

[Axulus]

But none of that is due to discrimination of those who select the board members or those who make the hiring decisions that allow women the credentials to get board positions. Additionally, if they tend to have more stress at home compared to men and thus tend to choose less stress in their careers, then a silly law like that proposed in the OP won't fix any of that. It is trying to interfere with voluntary preferences and household dynamics. If you don't like the preferences and household dynamics, then change those.

I was addressing whether women take 'easier' paths than do men because the women aren't up to the stress of high powered jobs.

I didn't even go into how men should man up and start taking on more household duties. EVERYONE would benefit, IMHO.

I never said they weren't up to the stress. You are twisting my words. I was referring to a potential preference for less stress in their careers, whatever the reason may be (due more household stress, environmental influence, biological influence, or whatever, I'm agnostic as to the underlying source of the preference may be as it isn't relevant to my statements).

IF this preference exists and the disparity on boards is not primarily due to systematic discrimination, then the proposed law in the OP is really stupid. It kicks out more qualified people so that less qualified people may occupy these positions all as a result of some sort of misguided idea of "fairness".

 

[Toni]

I was addressing whether women take 'easier' paths than do men because the women aren't up to the stress of high powered jobs.

I didn't even go into how men should man up and start taking on more household duties. EVERYONE would benefit, IMHO.

I never said they weren't up to the stress. You are twisting my words. I was referring to a potential preference for less stress in their careers, whatever the reason may be (due more household stress, environmental influence, biological influence, or whatever, I'm agnostic as to the underlying source of the preference may be as it isn't relevant to my statements).

IF this preference exists and the disparity on boards is not primarily due to systematic discrimination, then the proposed law in the OP is really stupid. It kicks out more qualified people so that less qualified people may occupy these positions all as a result of some sort of misguided idea of "fairness".

Without commenting on the stupidity/viability/justice--if any-- of the proposed law, consider:

Men need to take on more active roles in responsibilities at home. Yes, I know that there are and always have been exceptions to the rule that men are working out in the world and women are home on their tuffets minding house and children. There have always been single fathers; there have always been terrible mothers who did nothing re: kids OR home, and every other combination anyone can think of except men carrying pregnancies and giving birth. I believe there are some cultures where some men even breastfeed. I am quite aware that today more men are taking on a more equal role at home-and appreciate that in my own home as well in society as a whole.

But it's not close to 50/50 at home for most families, even averaged over 20 years or so. A single woman still faces the assumption that she will want fewer responsibilities once she 'settles down and gets married and has children,' while men face the opposite assumption: he'll want more responsibilities to help support his family. I've heard it at my pretty darn good place of employment from men and women--and my employer is consistently in the top 100 places to work. I've been told directly, to my face, back when I was single, that I needed less money than a single man because I was female. By an awful employer, yes. But I never think my experiences are unique. Employers still place obstacles in front of women, consciously or not.

BTW, I know plenty of men who look at advancement within the company and decide: who needs the extra stress? Not necessarily men who do much or anything at home. But that's not recognized as a 'thing that men do.' Although they clearly do it.

 

[laughing dog]

It was a joke. Lighten up.

Since Toni actually does believe that women should make up 50/51% of boards, in what way is what she said a joke?

In the way Toni wrote in post 16 of this thread

I believe that the population is more accurately expressed as 51% female, 49% male*, which was the basis for my joke. I could be wrong about the proportions but it's not 50/50 exactly. I certainly was wrong about how obvious the joke was.

 

[Tigers!]

Oh, bollocks. I was looking at Austria and not Australia. In Australia, it's 1.0. So she was right: 50:50, then.

I could say "Änother Yank who can't tell the difference between and Austria and Australia".

But it happens so often it must be taught in your schools over there.

 

[bilby]

Oh, bollocks. I was looking at Austria and not Australia. In Australia, it's 1.0. So she was right: 50:50, then.

I could say "Änother Yank who can't tell the difference between and Austria and Australia".

But it happens so often it must be taught in your schools over there.

Bloody Armenians. They have no idea.

 

[Tigers!]

Just looking at some of the boards in Australia and their performance I say let's have more women. They couldn't do any worse.

I always believed that incompetence is not gender specific. So let the women on board and enjoy the spectacle of them falling over along with the men.

 

[Toni]

Oh, bollocks. I was looking at Austria and not Australia. In Australia, it's 1.0. So she was right: 50:50, then.

I could say "Änother Yank who can't tell the difference between and Austria and Australia".

But it happens so often it must be taught in your schools over there.

In my case, it happened that my eyes didn't track as well as they should have when looking at long columns of numbers and Australia and Austria were next to each other.

I am pretty much shit at geography though.

 

[ksen]

I am pretty much shit at geography though.

#wymmynproblems

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If the geography is giving you trouble, just try to remember that Austria is the one just to the north of Slovenia. That should give you a geographic context for the place.

 

[thebeave]

Mixing up two similarly sounding countries is understandable. Just don't mix up two similarly looking black guys...like Samuel L. Jackson and Laurence Fishburne. That's racist.

 

[Toni]

If the geography is giving you trouble, just try to remember that Austria is the one just to the north of Slovenia. That should give you a geographic context for the place.

Usually I just keep them straight by remembering that Adolph Hitler was born in Austria and Rupert Murdoch is from Australia.