Gender equality

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for posting that; I probably would not have seen it otherwise.

Quote

Tyson said the research shows "a strong correlation between competitiveness and the gender gap scores."

"Countries that do not fully capitalize effectively on one-half of their human resources run the risk of undermining their competitive potential,”

It’s long been observed by economists that decreasing the gender gap/gender inequality has correlated to increases in GDP. And it’s not just applicable to the developing world, e.g., observed in early 20th C Germany.

Hmmm … so in addition to making better lovers, feminism also benefits capitalism. It’s interesting to me to see which ideology trumps the other for some folks: competitiveness & capitalism versus maintaining traditional gender biases/assumptions/sexism.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I think equality is about using individual judgment, not preconceptions.

But if a member of the nonstandard gender wants to give it a try, then equality means that you don't use their gender as an artificial barrier. It's an input, not a single deciding factor.

Once it becomes a big input, or even more so, a deciding factor, then there is not equal access.

Oh -- and equal means equal opportunity to fuck up, too.

*Bravo*

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

That's as maybe, but the fact remains that by objective measures, some 26 other countries have done a better job than the USA in eliminating gender inequity.

The assumption is that it has a positive value for the society.

Let's look at it in real life. Using an example, say... MITs physics professors.

clicky

I counted over 125.

Names that resembled female names? 5.

To implement the Norway policy, 50 of the 127 male professors would need to be replaced by women.
To teach physics at MIT, I suspect there are few slackers on their faculty.

Firing 50 of the best and brightest for no reason other than gender is sexism. Is this the new gender equality?

Those 50 are punished for no crime other than their gender?
Is this new form of discrimination a goal?

It would make MIT physics dept equal to Norway in fashion, but destroy the actual value of a university - teaching.

That is a harsh price to pay for being fashionable.

There are at least three fundamental problems in your scenario that make it perhaps more perpendicular than parallel.

(1) Your assumption that there was no underlying sexism or gender inequality to start – you did not address/selectively ignored the people who are “punished” (your word choice) now - how many of them might have been in the "best" and "brightest" if not for past explicit and tacit sexist policies?

Otoh, multiple studies have shown that women have been assessed more negatively when they can be identified by feminine first names, etc. That is papers are reviewed more positively and success in funding goes up when a woman only uses initials. In response, some journals have gone to double-blind review (neither author nor review knows the others’ identity) and using initials in proposal submission.

Another dramatic example is Prof Ben (nee Barbara) Barnes. Barnes is tenured full professor at Stanford. Barnes had female to male sex re-assignment surgery ~15 years ago. Among the many stories he tells is that he was told by other male scientists that his work was better than ‘his sister.’ (He doesn’t have a sister doing research.)

(2) The motivation - see competiveness and the point above; and

(3) The inaccurate implication that Norway’s policy forces folks to be fired based on sex. It’s a hiring policy. To create a more accurate parallel, no one would be fired from the MIT physics dept within your hypothetical scenario; it would impact future hiring.

Given the declining number of American nationals pursuing postgraduate physical science and engineering, it might be a wiser strategy to co-opt strategies and tactics intended to increase minorities and women in S&T fields for getting young white males interested in the those fields, eh?

It's been my observation that if one goes out looking for ‘jerks’ and assholes, one will usually find them. Of that minority of folks who are ‘jerks’ who inject themselves into my world, I observe that sexism usually isn’t their only ‘jerky-ness.’ One of the best cures for sexism seems to be having a daughter or granddaughter.

Most successful people – male or female; black, white, or other – don’t wait around for someone to open doors for them (literally or metaphorically) … some folks just have to push a lil’ harder, bang on a few more doors, or dance backwards in high heels. The real world isn’t fair. I’m glad there are folks documenting the competitive advantages and successful strategies for reducing gender and racial inequality … & not just because it benefits US competiveness in the long run.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

So is it wrong to assume that each gender might be genetically better to handle certain jobs, or maybe each gender is drawn to different jobs and seek different opportunities? (not talking about the exceptions)

It's no more wrong than assuming the inverse, i.e., that it's all socially constructed.

More correct is probably somewhere in the middle ... and recogizing the variation within the genders and overlap between them. We're much, much, much more alike at the genetic level than we are different (genotype). And while I might find some of those phenotypic differences (outward appearance) absolutely wonderful , using them as a basis for discrimination is not robust science.

VR/Marg

p.s. Just to be explicit: With that last line in mind, and justice, and a lot of other factors, I don't support sex-based affirmative action hiring or promotion.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

(3) The inaccurate implication that Norway’s policy forces folks to be fired based on sex. It’s a hiring policy. To create a more accurate parallel, no one would be fired from the MIT physics dept within your hypothetical scenario; it would impact future hiring.

Inaccurate how? I was applying the scenario requested.
See the direct quote shown below.

clicky

Quote

"It's not going fast enough," said Karita Bekkemellem, Norway's minister for family and children.

"I wish to establish, from January 1 2006, a system of sanctions which makes it possible to break up companies."

Quote

"For a woman to get in a man must get out. It is not difficult to find qualified women."

When no vacancy exists, fire the men and replace them with women.

I like to use examples because people relate to them easier and stay within the general boundaries of the discussion.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Inaccurate how?

Again, innacurate in that it does not demand anyone be fired. It’s a hiring policy ...or more specifically a proposed change to corporate governance policy for determining composition of corporate boards of directors.

Again in a more accurate parallel, no one would be fired from the MIT physics dept within your hypothetical scenario; it would impact subsequent composition of boards of directors of certain companies. It started with state-owned companies (that put in new boards every year) and newly formed companies. E.g., if University of Massachusetts (public school) was to create a new department, the law would apply. Subsequently applied to public limited companies.

The original Norwegian law, which has been in effect since 2003, does not demand anyone be fired.

Quote

I like to use examples because people relate to them easier and stay within the general boundaries of the discussion.

And there's nothing wrong with that. The problems are taking an analogy too far such that it doesn't hold up and not acknowledging starting assumptions.


Curiously, one might wonder if you also object to the actions of the same Norwegian Minister this year to create a Men’s Panel?: “Bekkemellem told Norwegian news outlet Aftenposten (Norwegian newspaper, akin to NY Times), 'This is to put focus on men’s lack of rights. It is about time that men themselves enter the debate.'

“Men are falling behind in the education system, rarely get custody over children after divorce, and face different health risks from women, the minister said.”

Text of that policy from the Norwegian Storting (their version of Congress).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Your position is based on fallacious reasoning.
The situation at MIT (and elsewhere) is just a reflection of the difficulty women face getting tenure in a male dominated profession for reasons having little to do with their ability and a lot to do with their gender

The problem starts much earlier than that. I recall the gender delta just for the basic physics series at Cal (the one for hard science, not the premed types, nor the Physics for Poets version). It's not 50/50 at the undergraduate level, where the notion of discrimination is least supportable.

So presuming that the gender differences are insignificant enough that 40% can choose this path, the only way to get that level of tenured professors is from the bottom up - more math for girls, more interest in science, so that when they get to college they won't find themselves being the only eligible female for 10 males. Forcing equality in tenure instead....seems unlikely to succeed very well.

[kallend 1,654]

Quote

Quote

Your position is based on fallacious reasoning.
The situation at MIT (and elsewhere) is just a reflection of the difficulty women face getting tenure in a male dominated profession for reasons having little to do with their ability and a lot to do with their gender

The problem starts much earlier than that. I recall the gender delta just for the basic physics series at Cal (the one for hard science, not the premed types, nor the Physics for Poets version). It's not 50/50 at the undergraduate level, where the notion of discrimination is least supportable.

So presuming that the gender differences are insignificant enough that 40% can choose this path, the only way to get that level of tenured professors is from the bottom up - more math for girls, more interest in science, so that when they get to college they won't find themselves being the only eligible female for 10 males. Forcing equality in tenure instead....seems unlikely to succeed very well.

My statement reflected the reality that starts somewhere in early life, and was not just directed at the process in the universities (which, on the whole, are trying hard to become egalitarian). As you point out (I think), it is difficult at age 30-35 to compensate for inequalites that have been pernicious and ongoing since age 5.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,654]

Apparently you choose to misinterpret what you read.

Suggest you CAREFULLY read nerdgirl's excellent response.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Inaccurate how?

Again, innacurate in that it does not demand anyone be fired. It’s a hiring policy ...or more specifically a proposed change to corporate governance policy for determining composition of corporate boards of directors.

So, you didn't bother to read the link or quotes at all?

"For a woman to get in a man must get out. It is not difficult to find qualified women."

The person being quoted is the person who is implementing the policy. Karita Bekkemellem. That is part of her plan.

Yes, I read the original policy - two years ago.
I re-read this year for possible revisions.

Her reasoning is that there was discrimination in the past.
Probably. No one has argued that. Sex discrimination is everywhere. Most rampantly in that plan.

The discussion is about the Norway solution.

The question has (again...) been about the stated intentions of the person implementing the plan.

And if you read any of her statements, it is not ONLY a hiring plan.

She speaks of the current composition of existing boards.
Repeatedly. Anywhere that she discusses it. Ignore what you wish.

Quote

Again in a more accurate parallel, no one would be fired from the MIT physics dept within your hypothetical scenario; it would impact subsequent composition of boards of directors of certain companies. It started with state-owned companies (that put in new boards every year) and newly formed companies. E.g., if University of Massachusetts (public school) was to create a new department, the law would apply. Subsequently applied to public limited companies.

No, not at all. It applies to currently existing companies.
If they do not reach the 40% level, their company can be closed. That is how it IS being done.

reuters

Quote

OSLO, July 12 (Reuters) - About 60 percent of Norwegian companies comply with rules designed to get more women into top business jobs six months before firms could be penalised for not meeting the gender quota, a minister said on Thursday.

Companies where women do not make up at least 40 percent of their boards as of Jan. 1, 2008 face the risk of closure, although the government has left open the option to impose fines instead.

Further statements about the plan -

Quote

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Mr Børge Brende:
“The biggest challenge is getting 750 men out of their board positions” (Aftenposten, 28 th January 2005 )

Existing companies. Not new companies, not hiring.

The implementation of the policy is to go to over 500 existing companies and replace men on the boards. That is the implementation.

As the minister stated, the discussion is about the 3600 boards seats occupied by men and their replacement.

I used MIT as an example. Switching the example is a time-wasting bunny trail. The concept is the same.

A tangental discussion of any of her other policies without answering the current question is another avoidance.

I will state that the implementation of the policy is wrong.

It makes a great NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) topic.
People support programs until it happens to them.

Some people are ok with giving away other peoples jobs.
Those people should "walk the walk" and give away THEIR job.
(I never see that happening, that is what makes them dishonest)

No one is required to decide, or state, a position, but that is the eventual point of discussion.

[Lindsey 0]

That's as maybe, but the fact remains that by objective measures, some 26 other countries have done a better job than the USA in eliminating gender inequity. That's as maybe, but the fact remains that by objective measures, some 26 other countries have done a better job than the USA in eliminating gender inequity.

*Some* objective measure. Just not sure that it's measuring what it intends to measure.

Maybe women in the US know how to work the system better than those chicas elsewhere...lol. Nothin' wrong with having a good time while a hard-workin' man earns your keep. :)

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That's as maybe, but the fact remains that by objective measures, some 26 other countries have done a better job than the USA in eliminating gender inequity.

The value of this metric as being "objective" is off here. Seems you consider an objective measure as the willingness of a society to subjectively implement quotas without regard to the level of applicant qualifications.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nerdgirl 0]

Apologies on the delay in responding. Sitting in airport terminals does afford time to respond.

Quote

So, you didn't bother to read the link or quotes at all?

Thank you for asking. Yes, I read the linked BBC story to which you linked. Additionally, I read official Norwegian government statements (i.e., including those for which I provided urls previously) and the primary document: Section 6-11a of the Norwegian Public Limited Liability Companies Act of 1977.

Section 6-11a of the Norwegian Public Limited Liability Companies Act of 1977 (as amended) requires that every two years, state-owned and privately-owned public limited liability companies, i.e., wholly state-owned and those with significant state ownership, with more than 200 employees must elect a corporate board. Corporate boards serve for 2 year terms. It does not apply to private limited liability companies. It is a piece of this law to which you are so objecting.

The rules applying to wholly state owned companies became law on 1 January 2004, and the rules regarding privately owned public limited companies (plc’s) entered into force two years later. There are *no* similar requirements regarding board composition for privately owned companies. Existing companies had a 2-year transitional period (i.e., a corporate board election cycle) to come into compliance. Newly formed public limited liability companies were required to comply with the law from start. No one is getting fired.

Here’s a link from StatOilHydro describing the process for “Corporate assembly and board of directors.”

Quote

Her reasoning is that there was discrimination in the past. Probably. No one has argued that. Sex discrimination is everywhere. Most rampantly in that plan.

Setting aside the “her reasoning” claim for a moment, by what measure or criteria do you determine “most rampant”?

One might hope that someday the scenario you suggest might be the “most rampant” example of sex discrimination in the world. I wish you were right. Honestly. More than you can imagine …

14-yo girl stoned to death for reporting being raped. Male student and journalist sentenced to 20 years in prison, reduced from the original death sentence, for blasphemy. His crime was circulating an article on basic autonomy and human rights for women that he had downloaded from the internet. There is a lot more rampant discrimination than less qualified men on the corporate boards of Norwegian plcs being put into positions over more qualified women.


As far as his reasoning – the Minister at the time the law wa put in place was male – is also not quite what you describe, to put it diplomatically. As I noted before the main reason is to increase competitiveness (e.g., the result noted repeatedly by economists) and getting the most qualified people on boards. The discrimination is not “in the past.” More women than men earn professional degrees in Norway and have for some while. Women have not faced the same discrimination in other areas, e.g., government: Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minsiter; Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen, current defence minister. When 6-12% of plc boards are women (those were the percentages in 2003) and ~60% of the qualified people are women, one has to do some serious cognitive twisting to claim/’hand-wave’ away. The most qualified by objective measures are not getting the opportunity … now.

And really that’s it. That’s the law. And the core of the Norway solution to more qualified women being excluded due to discriminations in one specific segment. It’s a targeted hiring plan.

Quote

The discussion is about the Norway solution.

The question has (again...) been about the stated intentions of the person implementing the plan.

What question? There does not appear to have been a question. There was a problematical polemic on firing currently employed MIT physics professors to which I responded. Please go back to my first reply to you: “There are at least three fundamental problems in your scenario [on firing MIT physics profs] that make it perhaps more perpendicular than parallel.” (NB also please note the lack of ad hominems.)

I take no issue with “thread drift” – it’s sometimes more interesting & fun. One might argue that Brazilian drowning statistics and the composition of MIT’s physic’s department represents more significant “thread drift” than additional information on programs from the Norwegian Ministry of Children and Equality and activities on gender & equality, both for women and men, eh?

Quote

She speaks of the current composition of existing boards.
Repeatedly. Anywhere that she discusses it..

Yes, that is the benchmark to which execution of the law compared. One needs to know the composition of the boards currently.

The policy is regarding filling (hiring) boards of directors, which occurs every two years: corporate governance.

Quote

Further statements about the plan -

Quote

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Mr Børge Brende:
“The biggest challenge is getting 750 men out of their board positions” (Aftenposten, 28 th January 2005 )

Existing companies. Not new companies, not hiring.

Do you have a source (e.g., url) for that quote?

Here’s the Aftenposten article from January 2005 quoting Mr. Brende. He does not say what is quoted above. He’s not quoted saying anything like that in Aftenposten in January or February 2005. Albeit, it’s not your fault if someone else is putting false information of the internet (it’s not my fault either).

You are correct that Mr. Brende is not quoted in Aftenposten about new companies; he is quoted on the composition of boards of directors of state-owned companies. He also ’razzs’ on Iceland and Sweden … but that’s almost a Norwegian past-time … especially Sweden.

Snakker du norsk? Jeg snakker litt norsk. Og jeg leser norsk på en mellomliggende evne. Det skrevet omgangsspråk er analog med engelske. (Apologies to any native language speakers for poor translation or mis-spelling/mis-conjugation ... haven’t had a good excuse to read or write Norwegian in a while.
While the American culture emphasizes the individual, individuality, and competition, the Norwegian culture does not. One can see that in the differences in laws w/r/t private property, trespassing, & camping on someone else’s property. In Norway, there’s also a concept called “doog nout” [phonetic, not correct spelling] for which there is no real American equivalent. The best description is that it’s shared responsibility for common space in a tangible form. Where we have “tragedy of the commons” (a concept largely foreign in Norway), they have “doog nout.” Where we emphasize the individual, Norwegian culture emphasizes fairness.

Quote

A tangental discussion of any of her other policies without answering the current question is another avoidance.

As far as I can tell, you’ve haven’t asked a question … hence no answer. Perhaps I missed it. (I did ask a question that was dismissed as “bunny trail.”)

One person’s “tangential” is another person’s contextual information to show how much of an extreme caricature a portrayal is. Is it “tangential” that an apparently false story about Gov Palin not knowing Africa was a continent was falsely disseminated? Or is that “bunny trail”? (I actually like that metaphor: “bunny trail” … & will probably appropriate it.

What is called “tangential” “bunny trail” information illustrates the Norwegian emphasis on fairness: issues of gender inequality that affect men are also subject to equality policies.

How do you reconcile your calling contextual information a “bunny trail” (your description) without similarly extending that characterization to post #25 in this thread, i.e., yours on drowning statistics … NB: to be explicit I’m not stating that I think contextual information on national rankings is irrelevant but am curious how you reconcile that it’s okay when you do it …?

Quote

I will state that the implementation of the policy is wrong.

Kinda ironic: *if* the Norwegian policy was as you describe, I would agree with you that it’s wrong. The case w/r/t the actual policy (law) is less clear. Significantly so … altho’ I’m not sure some would ever acknowledge that. Initially I may have leaned toward not supporting it … but with a lil’ additional investigation – spurred entirely by your replies – and especially with the clear-cut current discrimination, it’s less clear. The policy is narrowly targeted at a very specific segment (public limited liability companies) that has patently demonstrated continued inability to hire the most qualified and practiced discrimination based on sex now (not in the past). The policy does not extend to segments that have not demonstrated discrimination. The policy includes a transitional period for companies to come into compliance with the law, i.e., no one is getting fired. If you had not pressed it, I probably would not have read further and would have not changed my mind. Thanks.
Regardless of all that, the 3 problems initially identified with the false analogy remain valid.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying