Norway

[Darth_Schmarth]

I do not unleash my powers just for the sake of it, you know.

[alanschu]

The Guardian has an article on this If the Norwegian government has evidence that more diverse boards result in more profitable companies, and they've tried and failed to get companies to do this voluntarily, then I think the new law is valid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but since in the past there was no law, that would mean boards that were equal had women that were qualified to be there. the new law forces companies to hire people, women, regardless of their qualifications. this will not create wealth, but it will create resent.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It will also knock down systemic, sociological barriers.

[Sargoth]

strange, I haven't heard about that law......

 

 

but there is law that went into effect this year that gives a man/woman the right to view the papers of the person that aquired the job and see if he met the requirements.

 

this is based on the UN law against racisme, ethnics and womans right.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Sargoth

[Walsingham]

What I think is interesting is that even if one were to accept the notion that companies should be representative of the population norm, I fail to grasp why an individual company should be the norm. I mean, simple stats would say that some variation would be natural. Say, firms have to be between 40-50% female. But 46%? That's just insane.

 

I feel that to a certain extent affirmative action can be useful in helping break up redundant behaviour. Diversity is a positive thing in a company. But trying to set precisely how large that number should be is ridiculous! Once a modicum of diversity is ensured, and there are laws against negative discrimination, hiring and advancement should be purely on hard work and potential.

[taks]

It will also knock down systemic, sociological barriers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, i don't think so. it will make them worse. that's what i meant by the resent. anybody that poured his life (specifically his) into an equal position alongside a woman that is there simply because the law requires it will harbor great resent. further, opinions of said women will be ignored more often than not and they will have accomplished little other than an increase in pay.

 

taks

[kirottu]

Every nightclub should have 46%(atleast) women of people inside the bar. Really. Nothing worse than sausage fest. I shall patiently wait that feminist will find this drastic point of unequality and fix it.

[Lucius]

Every nightclub should have 46%(atleast) women of people inside the bar. Really. Nothing worse than sausage fest. I shall patiently wait that feminist will find this drastic point of unequality and fix it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sausage fest hater. :angry:

[Fairplay]

Forget ethics. I don't understand how this is even supposed to work. Don't share-holders elect the officers of a corporation? Are they threatening the shareholders for voting poorly? Are they going to hold foreign based corporations to the same standards? The idea just seems strange. Can anyone explain it?

[taks]

Don't share-holders elect the officers of a corporation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

usually only the board, not necessarily the executives. if the law regards board members, then it becomes even more ridiculous. you'll see wealth transfer out of norway quickly when shareholders are no longer allowed to vote as they please.

 

taks

[alanschu]

It will also knock down systemic, sociological barriers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, i don't think so. it will make them worse. that's what i meant by the resent. anybody that poured his life (specifically his) into an equal position alongside a woman that is there simply because the law requires it will harbor great resent. further, opinions of said women will be ignored more often than not and they will have accomplished little other than an increase in pay.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Except that it has been working.

 

The resent is a short-term cost. It's not going to have immediate results, and those that implement it don't expect it to.

Edited January 22, 2006 by alanschu

[Musopticon?]

Black metal, decent chicks, homo cod rock, smoked fish and good local mead.

 

Yesh, Norway is ay-okay.

[Gorgon]

Norway doesen't need a free market with all that oil money.

[taks]

Except that it has been working.

affirmative action? you're joking, right? it's a mess. a travesty. it doesn't work at all. the people pushed into positions or schools they aren't qualified to be in get more money, but do terribly. i've watched it happen, professionally and as a student.

 

The resent is a short-term cost.  It's not going to have immediate results, and those that implement it don't expect it to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it's not short term, either. it lasts as long as there are people benefiting from a situation they haven't earned.

 

taks

[random evil guy]

Except that it has been working.

affirmative action? you're joking, right? it's a mess. a travesty. it doesn't work at all. the people pushed into positions or schools they aren't qualified to be in get more money, but do terribly. i've watched it happen, professionally and as a student.

 

 

 

anecdotal evidence and, hence, useless. can you provide some evidence for your claim, other than your own 'experience'...? something a bit more objective.

 

btw, what do you mean by working? what is the goal of affirmative action and how has it failed...?

[Hell Kitty]

The problem people have with affirmative action programs, that qualified people are passed over for less qualified people, is exactly the reason such programs exist. The difference is that those who are anti affirmative action fear white males losing out to less qualified women and ethnic minorities, while those who are pro anti affirmative action fear women and ethnic minorities losing out to less qualified white males.

 

The problem with such programs I think is that ultimately they preach to the choir.

[Meshugger]

The problem people have with affirmative action programs, that qualified people are passed over for less qualified people, is exactly the reason such programs exist. The difference is that those who are anti affirmative action fear white males losing out to less qualified women and ethnic minorities, while those who are pro anti affirmative action fear women and ethnic minorities losing out to less qualified white males.

 

The problem with such programs I think is that ultimately they preach to the choir.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pretty presumtious IMO. I wouldn't care if everyone at my job where gay eskimos as long they're competent for the job. My angst isn't fear, it's injustice.

[taks]

anecdotal evidence and, hence, useless. can you provide some evidence for your claim, other than your own 'experience'...? something a bit more objective.

what difference does it make as either a) you refuse to read my evidence or b) you are incapable of reading and understanding my evidence.

 

in either case, you've never offered anything backs your position in any argument i've participated in (the last time you posted some links they actually supported my position, hehe), so i'm not sure why you harp that bandwagon as often as you do.

 

my "anecdotal" evidence is actually a response to alanschu's anecdotal evidence. his claim is that it breaks down certain barriers, offered without proof. the fact that there is even ONE case counter to that claim is positive affirmation of my position.

 

in other words, you're plain wrong.

 

btw, what do you mean by working? what is the goal of affirmative action and how has it failed...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the goal of affirmative action is to "level" the playing field. it has not done that. it has created reverse discrimination, and continues to do just that. it allows students into schools that would not otherwise meet the minimum qualifications. it requires companies to hire based on quotas. it does not level the playing field, it creates the opposite.

 

taks

[Blank]

Okay, so reading through this thread i saw a lot of ideas i formulated had already been made by others, which is fine by me, but i am here to combine what i think in one post.

 

LadyCrimson and Di (and some others) were right in saying that this problem will phase itself out in 50 years or so as the next generation and its ideals become the head of corporations.

 

Pointing and screaming and legislating that it is unfair and has to change NOW is unrealistic:

1. as others have said, women currently are not encouraged to get the education to be qualified for the heads of corporations, since they currently see a discriminatory firewall for that hiring process.

2. Like Taks said, because of this legislation resentment may come for any number of reasons. "i am more qualified than her", "they can't put restrictions on our company like that!", "i am sexist and won't allow women to be hired"

3. Change in power may cause instability and internal conflict in the corporations because of differing opinion, ideas, and/or viewpoints.

 

It is unfair now, but having a coarse law that addresses situations that should be handled in a fine manner doesn't sound good to me. how can you make a satisfying solution? should there be a certified non-discriminatory overseer of who gets hired? have the government arbitrarily intervene?

 

nothing will change because of what i just wrote. oh well...

[Rosbjerg]

the idea and ideal of it is fine .. but if this leads to (and it probably will) companies being forced to fire off some of their male workers to make room for a bigger percentage females, it's wrong.. I can see why we need a bigger focus on this, but forcing some one to do something (and like this) has to bring along some negative sideeffects!

 

if this law applies to every field:

then how about fields were women are currently the majority? in Denmark pedagoges, social workers and nurses are mostly female, I would guess this is similar in Norway, shouldn't they be forced to hire males then as well?

(I know it's because almost no males study these respective lines of work, but still laws should not be made to favor one group in society no matter what)

[~Di]

the idea and ideal of it is fine .. but if this leads to (and it probably will) companies being forced to fire off some of their male workers to make room for a bigger percentage females, it's wrong.. I can see why we need a bigger focus on this, but forcing some one to do something (and like this) has to bring along some negative sideeffects!

 

Exactly. That in a nutshell is why discrimination cannot be fixed simply by changing the target of discrimination from Race/Gender A to Race/Gender B. For a society to achieve true equality, the root of discrimination must be poisoned through education, through scocialogical evolution, and through the fair implementation of justice for all citizens, not just a few based upon either past grievances or fear of future grievances.

 

Any time good people are deliberately abused so that others may unfairly prosper, the seeds of resentment and hatred thrust roots even deeper into the combined psyche of society as a whole.

[Blank]

Any time good people are deliberately abused so that others may unfairly prosper, the seeds of resentment and hatred thrust roots even deeper into the combined psyche of society as a whole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that was so beautiful :'(

[Atreides]

I like reading Terry Goodkind too

[Walsingham]

My experience of business tells me they chase the dollar. The best way for this legislator cretin to enforce his view that boards need to be more diverse to be more effective would be to put his ideas into play in a firm, and demonstrate it. This is how the market usually works.

 

I also feel that simply outlawing something does not change the people's views. It has to be an expression of those views. Viz prohibition in the United States.

[random evil guy]

anecdotal evidence and, hence, useless. can you provide some evidence for your claim, other than your own 'experience'...? something a bit more objective.

what difference does it make as either a) you refuse to read my evidence or b) you are incapable of reading and understanding my evidence.

 

in either case, you've never offered anything backs your position in any argument i've participated in (the last time you posted some links they actually supported my position, hehe), so i'm not sure why you harp that bandwagon as often as you do.

 

my "anecdotal" evidence is actually a response to alanschu's anecdotal evidence. his claim is that it breaks down certain barriers, offered without proof. the fact that there is even ONE case counter to that claim is positive affirmation of my position.

 

in other words, you're plain wrong.

 

 

 

1. how am i wrong? are you saying your argument was not a 'personal experience' and hence anecdotal evidence?

 

2. what *is* my position here?

[Jorian Drake]

Norway?

 

Hmm...

 

See this: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/147559 => Kenya :D

Edited January 25, 2006 by jorian