Not even sure where to start addressing this thread.
Okay so I'll summarise the main points of argument from what I can understand and have a go at answering them
1. working with kids is "fun & rewarding" and there are no deadlines
lol, seriously? raimo addressed this and do you even know anyone who works as a teacher morel? i doubt they'd say they do it because it's fun and there are no deadlines. rewarding, perhaps yes.
the whole set of kids posts is just so dumb and should really show how underdeveloped your understanding of society that isn't computing is
as an aside,
Quote:
have useless degrees (eg, arts, social science stuff)
arts degrees are useless i am an engineer/programmer and LOGIC
lmao
2.
Quote:
way to completely misrepresent what the article says, spastic
this article actually backs up my argument - people have certain stereotypes about which gender should play which role. in the case of boardroom quotas, it's because most people think of CEOs and execs as men, and about teachers and nurses as women
this sort of social stigmatisation is what we need to get rid of wholly, from the top down
instead of that, the argument being made here is that because there are few male nurses, it's fine that there are few female CEOs. that equivalence is patently retarded. seriously.
3.
Quote:
also if serious looking pdf-s instead of theoretical constructs have more gravitas, here are two n1:
* On Norway boardroom diversity quotas: "we also find significant decreases in operating performance and higher costs as a result of the imposition of the quota. these results are consistent with boards of directors that lack sufficient experience to act as capable advisors" (from the conclusion of
http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/adittmar/N ... .05.20.pdf ; skim the abstract as well while you're at it), also p 32 "the gender quota imposed large enough costs on firms that those most affected avoided the law by changing their legal status" lolol harmful quotas evaded 0wn3d.
"On the days around the announcement, we find that the average industry-adjusted stock return for firms with no female directors was −3.54%, compared to −0.02% for firms with at least one female director"
it was only harmful to a statistically significant degree to companies which were totally male dominated
this would have meant that they faced large board reshuffles, which would have an impact on the business regardless of whether or not they were bringing women onboard
"Interestingly, we do not find that board size changed as a result of the quota. We
interpret this to mean that though firms could have met the quota by simply adding new female
directors, it was optimal to maintain the size of the board at the cost of replacing male directors."
your argument for male directors is that they have the extra experience and knowledge which women do not - in other words, they are better qualified. this clearly shows that this is not the case, if it were, then companies surely would have kept these captains of industry onboard rather than lose them?
i could go on, but i have uni in the morning and i don't really feel like trawling through a paper which you yourself probably didn't even read apart from the abstract
moreover i'd add that it states in both this paper and the link that posts back there that the women directors are by and large much more educated than the male directors, but have less experience - hardly suprising considering that the percentage of women directors before this change was < 5%
if it's actually experience and not just media hype combined with the "old boys' club" pressure on the markets then surely this lowering will alleviate itself and the companies will normalise once the experience levels become closer to parity. it's too soon to call it either way imo.
Quote:
* German example of numbers being a shitty, useless goal: "gender quotas have succeeded in bringing more women into elective office in Germany not by raising women's political ambition or interest, but by forcing parties to recruit unambitious women to run for elective office while limiting opportunities for more politically ambitious men", p 26 of
http://moya.bus.miami.edu/~ldavidson-schmi/Midwest.pdffascinating paper, but doesn't address the next question: why aren't women interested in running for office?
hint: thinly veiled sexism in the form of ~biotruths~ will not be accepted as an answer
4. women don't get hired because they aren't experienced enough!!
can't you see how fucking circular this argument is? follow it through to its conclusion:
1. women aren't experienced enough for the job
2. women don't get the job
3. women can't get any experience for the job
4. women aren't experienced enough for the job
5. women don't get the job
6. women can't get any experience for the job
7. women aren't experienced enough for the job
FOREVER
how the fuck will this cycle break without some external impact? please tell me this.
bonus kicker:
Shiroi_Okami wrote:
- The world is full of inequality.
- Feminist extremists, much like any other kind of extremist, should be ignored.
- Race/sex quotas are stupid.
These are facts. They are not going to go away, so why bother arguing about it
fuck you shiroi this post is stupid and so are you
a. other arguments in this vein include: people are always going to die, why bother with doctors/hospitals
b. black civil rights activists were at one point considered extremists, you're dumb as fucking shit kill yourself
c. yes this is a fact because an australian who was dropped on his head as a child a few times said so on LITHEYE.COM and that's why it's a fact
Quote:
hey guys teachers are not paid enough so we should have 40% fixed women quota in company boards :derpdown:
the only person to make this argument is you, fuck you
--------------------------------------
i would end by arguing that a lot of people ITT are confusing two different concepts, namely:
equality of opportunity
&
equality of outcome
of course everyone (even feminists!) that if you do better, you should be rewarded. however, the question is whether or not people are actually competing under the same conditions as one another.
as a really simple example, think of two kids. one kid comes from an normal (not rich!) family and the other comes from a poor family.
they both go to the same school, are in the same classes, same natural intelligence, etc etc whatever
if the poor kid goes into school hungry and therefore cannot perform up to the same standard as the other kid, then it cannot be fairly said that he is inherently less capable than the other kid or incapable of doing the same as the other kid, it's just that his circumstances did not allow it.
both of them had equality of opportunity, but due to their different situations, they did differently.
unless there is some kind of equality of outcomes (free school meals, minimum level of income for all parents, whatever), then the competition between the two of them is not truly fair.
this manifests itself in what our argument stemmed from, which was preferential places in uni.
pre-apartheid south africa only allowed black people to go to underfunded and shitty unis, meaning that despite their "education", they'd only get shitty jobs
post-apartheid south africa, black people were suddenly allowed to go to the these super awesome unis, but due to the shitty and generationally underfunded schools, they were not actually even fully capable of doing so thanks to schools in the black areas being terrible and making it much harder for black people to get in.
in addition to this, their parents might not be smart enough/might not have the time off work to help them out with homework/can't afford tutors like people with nice wellpaying jobs with regular hours would be able to
only extremely hardworking or intelligent black people are able to get in and white people of less intelligent or more academic support (via the richer parents who had gone to the n1 unis or the better schools) are able to get in in much greater numbers
in this context, we can obviously say it's not actually entirely their fault that they couldn't get into the good unis, since their parents had shit jobs, they go to shit schools and it's a cycle which just doesn't end for most families
... until some bright spark saw that perhaps we could break the cycle with some affirmative action??
(ps. pls do not apply this example directly to the argument at hand about board quotas, if u do, ur literally fucking retarded and incapable of understanding two different strands of argument in one post)
(pps. this example does actually still stands for women in the workplace, but to a much lesser extent and therefore is not directly applicable, hence my earlier ps)
