Norway: 40% of Corporate Board Seats Must Be Female

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by obeygiant, Jan 14, 2008.

  1. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #1
    Bloomberg

    Is this affirmative action in action?

    I have nothing against women holding any position, even president, but hopefully people won't view those women on the board of directors as being there just due to a law.
     
  2. astrostu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #2
    I have mixed feelings about the whole affirmative action thing. While on the one hand I think that people are more likely to "stick with what they know" and basically vote for white men to fill positions and this should be discouraged, I think that a quota system does raise the question of, "Am I in this position because I'm a minority or because of my talents?" What a complicated world!
     
  3. mcarnes macrumors 68000

    mcarnes

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Location:
    USA! USA!
    #3
    I'd be better if the law was: "40% of board seats occupied by hot females".

    [/8th grader in me]
     
  4. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #4
    Does this only affects public companies? I'm curious to know what the standard for meeting the quota requirement is.

    Reading the article, it touched upon something else that concerns me even more than having a given percentage of a certain class of person on the board - why on earth would you want someone who is on 10 other boards on your board? It just seems like when people are stretched that far, they can't govern as effectively as they could if they were only on 5 total (for example), and this is how oversight is quickly lost.
     
  5. AoWolf macrumors 6502a

    AoWolf

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Daytona Beach
    #5
    Only if all meetings are held in public.
     
  6. Leareth macrumors 68000

    Leareth

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #6
    I am getting a little peeved by the affirmative action crap that hires based on whether a person has tits rather than skills.

    My university just turned down two excellent instructors/researchers because they were white males and the school has to hire females and minorities first.
    so instead of getting the best possible person, the school is getting the most politically correct person.

    While I would like to see more women in "non-traditional" fields, let them earn their place, so they do not make the rest of women look bad.

    enough of these ridiculous quotas. 40%? why not make it truly equal and demand 50% women. :rolleyes:
     
  7. QuantumLo0p macrumors 6502a

    QuantumLo0p

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    #7
    I believe it's called Affirmative Discrimination.

    And, under Affirmative Discrimination, you're right to assume it's common to be hired on the basis of gender and/or skin color rather than your qualifications.

    Based on that premise it is also correct to assume you may NOT be hired because of your gender or skin color.

    Hey, hold on! I thought that NOT being hired because of your gender or skin color was discrimination!!!

    In case anyone is confused about Affirmative Action, yes, it definitely is a discriminatory practice. It was a bad idea when it was drafted. It's a bad idea now. It will always be a bad idea. What an idiotic way to look at people.
     
  8. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #8
    If you were a Norwegian woman, wouldn't it make you feel all warm and tingly inside knowing that you're just a part of the requisite quota?

    And on my lap. I'd enjoy 40% of the meetings, although the remaining 60% of the meeting would be awkward for me.
     
  9. cmcbridejr macrumors 6502a

    cmcbridejr

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA
    #9
    Yeah! Bring the white man down!

    What good did they ever do for us?
     
  10. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #10
    I hate laws like this. It is discrimination and it is not hard to prove. It is illeagel in many places not to higher because of one sex or race but this is EXACTLY that. I want to see some law suits over that from the normal majority in those spots and the funny part they can win.

    In the state of Texas the reason we have the 10% rule (which is busted in and of it self) is because 2 white guys sued UT because they did not get into UT law school because they where white males and they won. It cheer cases like that.

    Also this law will hurt a lot of companies. Some fields are a majority men. Not because women are scared of those fields but because it is the nature of the work. It is a proven fact men and women general go to different fields. Want proof of this just go look at some college majors. College of engineering is a good place to start. Look at the break down in the different deparments. You have EE ME and the construction side that has next to no women in them. While others have a fairly large number. Do not try to tell me for a 2nd that it because those fields push women away. Just they do not go to them. I no saying engineering as a whole (which is mainly men) but using just the seperation in the field which should help prove it. Generally women going in to engineering are not going to have an issue going into a "man world" of a field so it should not be an issue.


    Sorry for the rant I just hate laws like this because I am among the group who gets screwed by them and I promise everyone if I get screwed because I am a while male I will sue on the grounds of discrimination
     
  11. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #11
    Question: what percentage of Scandanavian residents and/or citizens are NOT white?
     
  12. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #12
    I've no problem with affirmative action as long as it's only in place for just long enough to kickstart the trend towards equality (rather than wanting equality itself). When it becomes a permanent quota it effectively turns into a gravy train and offers no benefit to anyone.
     
  13. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #13
    Do they also require that at least 40 percent are *male*?
     
  14. MrSmith macrumors 68040

    MrSmith

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    #14
    Does it say how many of the 40% must be lesbian single mothers?
     
  15. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #15
    Of course not. You're thinking of Denmark ;)
     
  16. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #16
    I don't really like quotas either and I think people should get positions based on skill, but getting a seat on a board has more to do with social network than skill and competence. Some claim that there's a boy's club culture dominating such boards, and I'm inclined to believe there's something to that claim.

    A quota can be used to initially break an unwanted tradition and after that competition will be more fair.
     
  17. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #17
    Ahh, that would be nice. But, when has it ever been politically and socially feasible to derail the train? Unfortunately, programs like this turn into entitlements, which people begin to believe that they have an absolute right to. Any attempt to end the program will be met with claims of misogyny, sexism, etc.

    At least it would in the US.
     
  18. Henri Gaudier macrumors 6502a

    Henri Gaudier

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Location:
    France
    #18
    I normally rate the Scandinavians and their ideas very highly but this is daft. It's sexist and that's wrong. Remove the hindrances and prejudices that stop all people from opportunity.
     
  19. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #19
    And 5-10% of board members should be gay. What percentage should be black? Hispanic? Asian?
     
  20. MrSmith macrumors 68040

    MrSmith

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
  21. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #21
    Only hire hermaphrodites.


    There you go, Norway. Problem solved.
     
  22. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #22
    I asked that earlier. What percentage of Scandinavian citizens/residents are NOT white?
    Are you sure there are enough?
     
  23. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #23
    I'm OK with affirmative action, though I would prefer that we confront and remedy the real structural issues that create racial and gender disparities in our societies. Affirmative action, with soft preference, seems reasonable as a stop gap, if nothing else. But hard quotas seem arbitrary and counter-productive to me.
     
  24. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #24
    That's the ultimate goal. Unfortunately, that takes time. Old grudges (and unsupported prejudices) die hard.
     
  25. whooleytoo macrumors 603

    whooleytoo

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Location:
    Cork, Ireland.
    #25
    A potential problem is - if you're working with a member of a minority who only achieved the position due to quotas, that's not likely to dispel any prejudices.
     

Share This Page