Comments

In these days, some women have been elected as Presidents in Chile, Liberia and it seems in Finland a woman is going to be re-elected next week. Of course, we can not forget the President of Germany. That means something, isn't it?

Posted by Carlos de la Peña at January 19, 2006 12:39 PM

Don't forget Ireland. Ireland has had female presidents for at least the past 10 years, perhaps more. I'm too lazy to look it up. Then, Ireland would be much more progressive than the US ; )

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 19, 2006 12:47 PM

Sexism and racism to quota place "minorities" and women is just that - such a 20th century concept.

Time then to exclude women from graduating at the 57% USA university rate so that men gain 50% parity.

[A personal jab was edited out of this comment. CM]

Posted by Sean at January 19, 2006 1:36 PM

I've always been fond of Affirmative Action as I've understood it to work...

If there are 2 equally qualified candidates, one who is in an underrepresented minority (whatever that means for that position), hire the minority.

Assuming a typical CEO position represents the peak of a 30 year career (and I know it's not completely accurate), we have to look back to what women starting their careers in 1975 were doing.

30 years after women, on a regular basis, got on the regular executive track, we'll start to see more female CEOs.

Assuming, of course, there was no subtle bias on the way up that tilted the balance. Which Affirmative Action (as I understand it) is supposed to do.

Posted by Chris Bickford at January 19, 2006 2:01 PM

Perhaps the problem is more fundamental. Are Boardrooms paying their way - or merely expensive overhead? Surely it is easy to pad your Board with compliant persons of any required demography.

Posted by Mike Linacre at January 19, 2006 2:21 PM

HAHAHAA....I've always noticed a contradiction with feminists, that they'll never admit - they will constantly criticize the heirarchy when they themselves want to get on top of it! What bullshit!

Posted by tilak at January 19, 2006 7:45 PM

What about results? How do the performance of the companies in Germany compare to the co's in Norway?
Perhaps quotas break the cycle that "women just can't be bothered to pursue" and lead to better performance (short term blunt instrument for long term elegant solution).
just a thought...

Posted by Nick at January 19, 2006 10:40 PM

Quotas deal with symptoms of a problem not the root causes. Sometimes the symptoms do need to be reduced to help the patient improve but it doesn't solve the problem.

I agree with the article - If women are becoming their own bosses they are simply changing the rules to a game they can compete fairly at - Suddenly it will be men in their outmoded structures who look vulnerable and isolated.

In terms of criticising the hierarchy – that seems to be an exercise that is long overdue!

Posted by PaulH at January 20, 2006 3:23 AM

Good stuff Nick! I suspect there may be good data out there that evidences the value of women's greater participation in corporate governance. Any suggestions? Can I also suggest we drop the feminist/datist labeling, and just address the issues?

Posted by Richard King at January 20, 2006 5:28 AM

In my son's school (he's a pre-schooler), there are only female teachers. When I went to pre- school, there were only female teachers. If it's a similar situation in Norway, shouldn't the government have a quota stating that 40% of pre-school teachers must be men? What are pre-schools doing to attract more men to their workforce?

Posted by Chetan Dhruve at January 20, 2006 10:30 AM

I live in Oslo in Norway with my girlfriend (who is Norwegian), where I am studying for an MBA. My girlfriend is a very active member of the SV (Socialist/Feminist Party) so she's always all for these type of policy implementations, obviously!

It is not just the policy law that keeps that kind of statistic so high, it's the education. Education here is very different to what we are accustomed to it being in the United States/United Kingdom (I am English but have lived and attended schools in both the U.S. and U.K.) There is a purposeful movement to educate all youngsters as equals: you will not, for instance, find the 'jock-style' all-male Football teams dominating the sports pages of local/high-school/university newspapers: women's sports are given equal merit.

Children are educated with different perspectives in mind: both men and women from early ages ae educated in domestic and academic matters alike. There are no 'grades' o tests or exams in schools until theh child is about thirteen. To be a male in your twenties, whose typically career-focused but fairly un-domestic (which is pretty much how I am) is not admired here - if anything, lack of domesticity is viewed as almost pathetic. Career and financial success, is not the be-all-end-all - as it is back home.

That is not to say it is lazy, by any means: the success attributes of the population are merely realigned. On the contrary, this has to be one of the most hard-working places in the world. Norway also benefits from being a Protestant country with a strong, unified Protestant culture, dedicated to constructive progression after the country was pretty much flattened by the Nazis and previous Scandinavian rulers for years. She has only been independent for one hundred years (as of last year). THESE attributes create a society much more determined to implement totally equality than others are. I have seent the same kind of thing in Israel, for anyone whose been. Again, small communities, building up their country ... the whole dynamic is focused on 'construction' rather than 'politics'.

Politics and prejudice are, ironically, games for the rich and bored and idle.

Posted by Daniel M. Harrison at January 21, 2006 8:36 AM

What the Equal Oportunities Commission doesn't point out is that many women have different career paths to men.

For starters women have babies, they may not get penalised in salary terms in the short term, but it's bound to affect how quickly they will rise through a company (and hence there salary).

Women also tend to be drawn to more of the low paid jobs either for flexibility or because they're within the caring professions (and men generally aren't drawn to them)

Also are women as 'agressive' and career driven as men or do they see a different picture?

A couple of months ago there was an interesting interview on the radio between the head of the equal opportunities commission and a lady who ran her own business. She wouldn't employ any woman of child bearing age because of the burden it place on her business.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that men and women are in general equal and that if a man and a woman are doing the same job equally well as each other they should be rewarded the same.

I just don't think there is any need for affirmative action - did the woman get there because she was good at what she did or because she's a woman and a law mandated it?

Posted by Andy Davies at January 23, 2006 10:03 AM