~ archived since 2018 ~

The British 30% Club is sexist

Skimmington

July 7, 2011

7 upvotes

http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2011/07/why-does-no-one-say-the-obvious-the-30-club-is-sexist.html

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	The British 30% Club is sexist
Author	Skimmington
Upvotes	7
Comments	23
Date	July 7, 2011 10:17 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ijgj8/the_british_30_club_is_sexist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-british-30-club-is-sexist.1037646 https://theredarchive.com/post/1037646

Comments

[+]barbadosslim -9 points-8 points-7 points 15 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]barbadosslim -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]barbadosslim -6 points-5 points-4 points 15 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

So combating alleged sexism (your 70% argument) with actual sexism (promote a woman regardless of her qualifications instead of a man regardless of his qualifications) is "a good thing" . . . . you do see the problem with your argument, right?

It's just the same old argument as "Affirmative action is just racism against white people." Fighting systemic sexism by putting programs in to ensure that women get appointed is not itself sexism.

Also you are being intellectually dishonest by saying "regardles of qualifications." No one is saying that women should be hired regardless of their qualifications.

2) You ask that question as if in and of itself a gender disparity in the board of directors is an inherently bad situation. Why do you claim that this is the case?

because systemic sexism is bad

3) Why should any outside organization have the power to impose upon companies strict gender ratio rules for their boards of directors?

because the companies themselves are doing a bad thing that they don't seem to be able to self-regulate

[–]AllNamesAreGone 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]barbadosslim -6 points-5 points-4 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AllNamesAreGone 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]barbadosslim -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I shall take your failure as a concession that you are unable to defend the point and have therefore conceded it to being factually untrue.

Sorry I failed to provide a citation that women and men are equal and that gender disparities and systemic sexism are bad. I guess I have to concede the point :(

This is factually untrue. This entire 30% proposition is promoting women to the board of directors until at least 30% of its members is female even when there are better qualified men for the job. When a woman is less qualified than a man for the job, the 30%-ers contend that she should be promoted in order to appease the monster of gender disparity.

You're still misrepresenting the idea, and I have already explained the difference between what you're saying and what the idea is.

There are well qualified women out there. The "good old boy's" club members are getting older and dying off and their replacements are becoming fewer in number. Women are making significant inroads into management, executive positions, and board membership. I contend that within 40 - 50 years a significant percentage of women holding these positions will be seen as normal without needing the programs and privileges that the 30% Club is proposing. Your position seems to be that without these programs and privileges women are incapable of making any significant advances.

Good point.

[–]PhysicsPhil 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Also you are being intellectually dishonest by saying "regardles of qualifications." No one is saying that women should be hired regardless of their qualifications.

What if less than 30% of the top however many candidates are women?

2) You ask that question as if in and of itself a gender disparity in the board of directors is an inherently bad situation. Why do you claim that this is the case?

because systemic sexism is bad

Now prove that the imbalance is caused by sexism now and not 40+ years ago when today's top directors were beginning their careers, or some other cause entirely.

3) Why should any outside organization have the power to impose upon companies strict gender ratio rules for their boards of directors?

because the companies themselves are doing a bad thing that they don't seem to be able to self-regulate

Directors of companies are there to promote the interests of the shareholders, not to promote social reform.

[–]barbadosslim -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PhysicsPhil 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Now prove that the imbalance is caused by sexism now and not 40+ years ago when today's top directors were beginning their careers, or some other cause entirely.

I do not need to.

If you claim that we need a discriminatory law to overcome allegedly discriminatory practices, you need to show that the discrimination is ongoing and cannot be removed by using existing mechanisms. Remember that you are introducing a new restriction on people's property rights, so the burden of proof is on you to show that it is necessary for the good of the rest of society.

Directors of companies are there to promote the interests of the shareholders, not to promote social reform.

Ok, maybe that's why laws like this are needed.

The shareholders are the owners of the business, so they have an obvious right to oversee the operation of their business. Now, there are usually hundreds if not thousands of shareholders, especially of the companies this organisation is targeting, so it is impractical for them all to conduct this oversight themselves, even if they are capable of it. Thus, they elect a board of directors to do that for them. They are chosen to be the best representatives of the shareholders. On what other bias do you think that people (and companies) should choose people to manage their interests?

[–]barbadosslim -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PhysicsPhil 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The 30% rule would only apply if a company has less than 30% women in its board. I.e. it only applies if there is ongoing discrimination which has not been removed by existing mechanisms.

No, the reason for the disparity may not be discrimination, it may be something else. Inequality of outcome does not prove inequality of opportunity, in and of itself.

restriction on people's property rights

oh, you're a libertarian

Not entirely. I support reasonable restrictions for the good of society, but the burden of proof for any regulation has to be on those who want to create it. Every law is a restriction on someone, but most of them do more good than harm and so are justified.

I just don't think that forcing people to follow arbitrary quotas when selecting people to manage their assets is a good idea.

[–]solinv 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bbeard 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link