Hate to burst your bubbles, folks, but France recently learned the hard way what can happen when you put people in charge solely on the basis of gender: http://www.economist.com/node/16064321[]The nation passed a law stating that the boards of publicly-traded corporations must have a minimum number of female members to ensure “equal representation”. []Thing is, France didn’t have enough women with the type of education and/or work experience one would expect for such a post.[]So rather than try to compete to get the women on the boards, a lot of companies just took whatever warm bodies that they could find… a list that just so happened to include more than a few wives, mistresses, and girlfriends. []Instead of encouraging gender equality, all France did was encourage crony capitalism and “sleeping one’s way to the top”. []Let’s look at a person’s track record people, not their reproductive organs.
Okay, now I am horrified— what this boils down to is broad support without qualifications, an interesting turn on the days where the white kid got the job, then anyone other than the white kid got the job— and both systems failed as much or more than they worked.
Darren, interesting article. But I don’t think we know the outcome yet. I do agree with Sketch that boards are not always composed of the competent. I’ve worked for companies where the children of board members were added and produced nothing of value. If after some time a follow up story has data to show the companies ran into the ground due to bad leadership I’ll willingly say “You were right” For now I think we don’t know. Its arbitrary and I can’t say its merit based. But corporate America isn’t merit based either
If the cartoon is implying that sex requires “equity” in representative numbers, I think i need to disagree. The saying, May the best man win is not a very good statement. It really needs to be, May the best person win. Representation should be based on who best represents the needs and hopes of a constituency. Sadly, that decision has too often been left up to those who could afford to put the faces of those they wante elected in front of our own faces. We have a too small pool of inadequate, small minded people to choose from. It is a sad state of affairs for a nation of so many very good people.Sadlly,C..
OK, this is going to get me in trouble, but I don’t think we’ll ever have equal representation of men and women in positions of power, if only because the desire to reach and hold those positions is so often testosterone-driven. Mind you, this has nothing to do with comparative ability, and certainly there is no reason why a given woman cannot be as driven as a given man, but sheer “competitiveness for the sake of competitiveness” is (I believe) always going to be more of a “guy thing.”
Thank goodness elections DO have consequences. Ladies, your reproductive rights are safe for another four years. America, never forget what Christian Dominionists want to do to your freedoms.
OmqR-IV.0 over 11 years ago
Most of Europe, but not in the UK.
Ironhold over 11 years ago
Hate to burst your bubbles, folks, but France recently learned the hard way what can happen when you put people in charge solely on the basis of gender: http://www.economist.com/node/16064321[]The nation passed a law stating that the boards of publicly-traded corporations must have a minimum number of female members to ensure “equal representation”. []Thing is, France didn’t have enough women with the type of education and/or work experience one would expect for such a post.[]So rather than try to compete to get the women on the boards, a lot of companies just took whatever warm bodies that they could find… a list that just so happened to include more than a few wives, mistresses, and girlfriends. []Instead of encouraging gender equality, all France did was encourage crony capitalism and “sleeping one’s way to the top”. []Let’s look at a person’s track record people, not their reproductive organs.
larryrhoades over 11 years ago
“Palin”? Are we still picking on her children?
zekedog55 over 11 years ago
Cross-hairs? No, no, no….
Ya see, they were uh-uh-um…. SURVEYOR’S symbols! Yeah, thats it…
You insist on “libs”, Ima? Y’all got “cons” perfected.
Try waking up and looking at America in the 21st century…
Comic Minister Premium Member over 11 years ago
You ladies look pretty!
colcam over 11 years ago
Okay, now I am horrified— what this boils down to is broad support without qualifications, an interesting turn on the days where the white kid got the job, then anyone other than the white kid got the job— and both systems failed as much or more than they worked.
Kylop over 11 years ago
Darren, interesting article. But I don’t think we know the outcome yet. I do agree with Sketch that boards are not always composed of the competent. I’ve worked for companies where the children of board members were added and produced nothing of value. If after some time a follow up story has data to show the companies ran into the ground due to bad leadership I’ll willingly say “You were right” For now I think we don’t know. Its arbitrary and I can’t say its merit based. But corporate America isn’t merit based either
chazandru over 11 years ago
If the cartoon is implying that sex requires “equity” in representative numbers, I think i need to disagree. The saying, May the best man win is not a very good statement. It really needs to be, May the best person win. Representation should be based on who best represents the needs and hopes of a constituency. Sadly, that decision has too often been left up to those who could afford to put the faces of those they wante elected in front of our own faces. We have a too small pool of inadequate, small minded people to choose from. It is a sad state of affairs for a nation of so many very good people.Sadlly,C..
Ironhold over 11 years ago
Might want to cut back on the coffee there.[]I didn’t say anything along the lines of what you’re accusing me of.
fritzoid Premium Member over 11 years ago
OK, this is going to get me in trouble, but I don’t think we’ll ever have equal representation of men and women in positions of power, if only because the desire to reach and hold those positions is so often testosterone-driven. Mind you, this has nothing to do with comparative ability, and certainly there is no reason why a given woman cannot be as driven as a given man, but sheer “competitiveness for the sake of competitiveness” is (I believe) always going to be more of a “guy thing.”
kamwick over 11 years ago
Spoken like a guy who knows these ladies are out of his league…
kamwick over 11 years ago
Thank goodness elections DO have consequences. Ladies, your reproductive rights are safe for another four years. America, never forget what Christian Dominionists want to do to your freedoms.