Latest Lists

Should women be given top jobs in businesses just because they are women?

France is very close to passing a new law "to force big companies to appoint women to 40 per cent of their boardroom seats" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6995911.ece If feminism is about promoting equality, why don't they want women to be given an equal opportunity to get top jobs, instead of a free ride?

Public Comments

1. I always find it weird how the same people who say "oh discrimination is terrible" go on to support "positive discrimination" and can't even comprehend the fact that it's still discrimination - It really makes my blood boil.
2. Judging by the way many feminist groups behave, it would seem their answer to your topic question is a big, fat "YES". I, however, believe top jobs in businesses should be awarded on merit - not gender.
3. No. I am not sure why anyone would agree with the not wanting the best. Man or woman, the best should be hired.
4. Of course they shouldn't. It's a recipe for disaster. The French will end up with a lot of mediocre women in top jobs while more talented and more able men are passed over because of their sex. I think all this sort of nonsense is going to be disastrous for women in the long run, because nobody will believe that a woman can get anywhere on her own initiative.
5. These kind of measures trample on the rights of individuals (men in this case). If this is considered okay then we might as well just let the government tell us which jobs we are allowed to do based upon our sex, race, age etc. France will then join some of the Nordic countries in embracing feminist socialism. They obviously don't care about where this leaves talented men who will be denied opportunities simply because they are men.
6. No way, it should be best person for the job.
7. NO! NO! NO! People should only be given top jobs if they are qualified, experienced and suitable for the role. It should go on their merits, and nothing else. It should NEVER go on their sex, their race, their disabilities, their sexual orientation, their religion, their age, nothing else. Affirmative action is one of the worst forms of discrimination ever.
8. Women DO have "equal" opportunity. Where they make their tragic mistake is in assuming just because she has "equal opportunity" ... does NOT mean she automatically gets guaranteed equal RESULTS. Their are 9 horses in a race and they all have equal opportunity to run. But they don't get to whine about not winning, placing, showing. When a woman doesn't get a job.... its NOT because she is "female". She didn't get it ---->> for exactly the same reason another unworthy MAN didn't get it. Women conveniently forget this.
9. Hell. No. That defeats the purpose of equality.
10. Because feminists are not content with equal opportunity anymore, they want equal outcome.
11. No, they should not. Feminism IS supposed to be about equality, but we know that ended a long time ago.
12. I don't see it that way.If a woman wants a job in businesses she will have to work for it.
13. Feminism is about promoting equality; that doesn't mean France is. Indeed, most things that make feminists look worse originate in Western Europe.
14. How do such ridiculous things get proposed and even considered? More and more proof that feminists love positive discrimination.
15. They are going to destroy productivity by taking competition and reward out of the equation, bad news for the private sector. Charlotte, women tend not to put in the hours and sacrifice their emotional lives in the same way men do after 30. This is why there is a shortage of suitable women for "the board". Its not sexism, its whoever is of most value, these laws dont open positions to women, they make them mandatory, whats more if 25% of women make it to the board through suitability and talent anyway having a mandatory 40% fem quota will guarantee that men are in the minority, I dont mind them being in the minority, I just dont agree with it being mandated.
16. I agree with this completely. Women should be given the top jobs because they are women. Women are discriminated against in the workplace and that is why we are heavily outnumbered in top positions, despite the fact that we are usually better qualified than the men.
17. I generally don't approve of affirmative action type policies for employment. But these aren't jobs. You do understand that a board of directors is different than the senior management of a corporation. Boards of directors are appointed positions and the good ole boys generally appoint more good ole boys. They aren't employees. This makes them open these positions to women.
18. I bet feminist's wouldn't mind if a companies top jobs was all women though, typical female supremacy hate ideology.
19. For close on two decades I have opposed mandating gender ratios in the work force. One national supermarket chain I was then working for (1990 -- 1992) stated the intention to have 52% women in all levels of the company by 1995. This was based on 52% of the population being female, therefore their corporate image as responsive, caring, community-aware business citizens was established/ maintained. On expressing my dismay at such policy, I was labelled out of step with community trends and values, a male chauvinist pig and a social dinosaur. I then asked: -- If women are the most appropriate staff for any level of position, shouldn't they occupy 100% of positions instead of 52% ? (This concept apparently hadn't been contemplated.) -- If 1995 came and the positions hadn't been filled due to lack of qualified applicants or simply women didn't WANT to occupy some positions what was the "B" plan ? ( I was confidently informed that WOULDN'T happen -- without explanation why.) -- If the 52% ratio was intended to reflect community make-up, since then in Australia 2% of the population identified as Aboriginal, 15% as homosexual and 37% as Roman Catholic, would black catholic lesbians be targeted as employees ? ( Apparently I was being ridiculous. It seems equality did not extend to racial, sexual or religious persuasions.) Later I found why together with 4 other "movers and shakers" we'd been hired with no females amongst us. At the never mentioned conclusion of the strategy for which we'd been hired we would be readily disposable: females couldn't be as easily fired. During the 1992 recession 8000 male employees nationally were mandatory made redundant over 3 months: 200 females took voluntary retrenchment packages. Being voluntary departures, retrenchment packages were not legally mandated but were provided anyway. The ratio WASN'T met until well after target date, not all positions had competent occupants, and circa 2002 the company was hived off for sale from its parent company as a potential earnings basket case. The point of the above is many "feel good" policies can be readily entered without sufficient forethought for ramifications or consideration for realities.
20. It should be based on merit.