Commissar Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Heard this on my drive home this morning from BBC World Service: Apparently, Norway has a law going into effect shortly that requires all corporations to find themselves with an executive board comprised of at least 46% women within the next two years or be shut down by the government. I'm particularly interested in hearing a Scandinavian take on this, since I know that most Americans, save for feminist Goths (or Goth feminists) will think it ludicrous. God knows where the Brits stand, but wherever it is, rest assured they're doing it politely.
Lucius Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 You want it to be 50%? Not sure what the problem is. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Commissar Posted January 12, 2006 Author Posted January 12, 2006 You want it to be 50%? Not sure what the problem is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You don't see a problem with a government telling a private company what the composition of its executive board must be?
Lucius Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Oh right, I thought you wanted to talk about womens rights or something. Well, I'm not sure if this would be a good idea, we don't have laws like this here but if there was, there would probably be public outcry since we have quite a powerful center-right wing flank. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Atreides Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 "or be shut down by the government" sounds a bit drastic. Spreading beauty with my katana.
Commissar Posted January 12, 2006 Author Posted January 12, 2006 (edited) "or be shut down by the government" sounds a bit drastic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. It's essentially mandatory firing of what are presumably qualified men, or the end of the company. Edit: And I don't believe in women's rights, Lucius. Edited January 12, 2006 by Commissar
Child of Flame Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Don't we have basically the same thing in the US in the form of Affirmative Action laws? And Commisar, when you say you don't believe in women's rights, do you mean you don't believe in phony feminists who more or less want to be treated better than they're male counterparts or are you saying women voting is a bad thing. I think you meant the former, but you're going to get flamed pretty hard for throwing statements like that around if you don't clarify.
Kaftan Barlast Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 There are other areas where this type of heavy-handed regulation would do more good but this is a step in the right direction. Corporate boards have been "boys clubs" for as long as the idea of a corporation has existed and if they refuse to adhere to policies of equality legislated by the democraticly elected goverment, then they must be punished. DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "
Child of Flame Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 I am trying to think of a way to put into words the blinding idiocy of the statement Kaftan just made.
Oerwinde Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 its lame, but not as lame as feminist groups whining that there aren't enough female elected representatives and that if 52% of the population is female, 52% of the elected representatives should be female. I laughed when I read that. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Commissar Posted January 12, 2006 Author Posted January 12, 2006 Don't we have basically the same thing in the US in the form of Affirmative Action laws? And Commisar, when you say you don't believe in women's rights, do you mean you don't believe in phony feminists who more or less want to be treated better than they're male counterparts or are you saying women voting is a bad thing. I think you meant the former, but you're going to get flamed pretty hard for throwing statements like that around if you don't clarify. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We do, and I also do not remotely approve of affirmative action. Give resumes and applications file numbers, without information concerning sex, race, or disabilities if we have to, but enforcing quotas is just a horrible, horrible idea. I don't believe in giving Group Y special rights compared with Group Z. There's Group A, and that's it. It's one of the reasons that, despite my support for issues like the right for homosexuals to engage in civil unions and so on and so forth, I actually don't approve of hate crime legislation, either; murder's murder, no matter the motivation. Women should have (and do, in every Western democracy I can think of) the exact same rights as men; no more, no less.
Commissar Posted January 12, 2006 Author Posted January 12, 2006 (edited) There are other areas where this type of heavy-handed regulation would do more good but this is a step in the right direction. Corporate boards have been "boys clubs" for as long as the idea of a corporation has existed and if they refuse to adhere to policies of equality legislated by the democraticly elected goverment, then they must be punished. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Let's look at the Google example. Basically just two guys working out of their basement who managed to take over the world, right? Their sweat, their tears, their brains and muscle went into building themselves one hell of a company. What you're saying is that they should arbitrarily be given two female counterparts at the top, simply for the sake of equality? Successful corporations don't emerge out of thin air; someone starts them up, builds them, and they either rise or fall. There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone, of any gender or race, from doing such if they so choose. Whether or not a company of any sort, with a proven record of success, chooses to hire someone ought to be completely up to that company. Edited January 12, 2006 by Commissar
Child of Flame Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Commisar is clearly the winner of this topic thus far. It'll be fun to see the rebuttals from the European communists socialists wannabe socialists morons in the morning. Goodnight everyone.
Surreptishus Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Government intervention is always bad, except when its to prtect the consumer.
Lucius Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 (edited) Commisar is clearly the winner of this topic thus far. It'll be fun to see the rebuttals from the European communists socialists wannabe socialists morons in the morning. Goodnight everyone. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You forgot National Socialists, fool. Edited January 12, 2006 by Lucius DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Meshugger Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 What a silly idea. What if the company only has a workforce of 20% women as a whole due to lack of interest in that perticular area? Take those oil-drilling-platforms for example... "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy
Kaftan Barlast Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Let's look at the Google example. Basically just two guys working out of their basement who managed to take over the world, right? Their sweat, their tears, their brains and muscle went into building themselves one hell of a company. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And those kinds of companies make up about 0.01% of the corporate world. In fact thats a company, not a corporation. A corporation is an econimical unity started by a group of rich guys so they wont be held personally accountable if it goes down the tube. Id advise you to look at real corporations like Enron, Shell, Hasbro, Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing and so on. These companies were started, or bought up by rich people to make themselves even more money. DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "
kirottu Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 (edited) Heard this on my drive home this morning from BBC World Service: Apparently, Norway has a law going into effect shortly that requires all corporations to find themselves with an executive board comprised of at least 46% women within the next two years or be shut down by the government. I'm particularly interested in hearing a Scandinavian take on this, since I know that most Americans, save for feminist Goths (or Goth feminists) will think it ludicrous. God knows where the Brits stand, but wherever it is, rest assured they're doing it politely. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think it Edited January 12, 2006 by kirottu This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time.
Darth_Schmarth Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 The Swedish left-wing party V ^Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum
Junai Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 The socialist wing now in charge has come up with a lot of silly initiatives. 75% of the ideas are rejected when they see how people and "stortinget" reacts. And don't blame me. I didn't vote for them..
213374U Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 It's stupid alright. As things are right now, it's just a matter of qualification for the job. If I'm not mistaken, women usually earn less than men, in the same job. Which is another reason companies have to hire women instead of men, provided the qualification is the same. Not that I approve, but that's the way it is. You forgot National Socialists, fool. Yeah. I felt so... so excluded. :'( - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Child of Flame Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 The reason women are generally paid less than men is because they take more days off statistically and men don't take maternity leave. Give all men paternity leave and I'll start feeling more sympathy for the cause.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now