Affirmative action regading women in leading positions. Political correctness or a step forward?

[The Lawspeaker]

iOE3deWjE0Q


October 2009

A new law is dividing opinion in Norway, as the private sector must now ensure that 40% of their executives are women. Is this just political correctness, or the key to a strong economy?
Ansgar Gabrielsen, who implemented this controversial act, claims it was common sense behind the move rather than concern for gender equality. "My motivation was first and foremost to use the whole population to use all our resources." Yet not everyone thinks this gender-based legislation will help business. Media entrepreneur Trygve Hegnar fumes, "Should I not control my own business concerns? Must I find a woman?" oDebate away. :)

[Tabiti]

Women were silent for ages male dominance, now men start to whine for decades of arousing female influence.
It's time to accept people as personals, not male and female stereotypes.

[Zyklop]

It's time to accept people as personals
...which has nothing to do with affirmative action and female quotas.

[SwordoftheVistula]

It's completely idiotic, and will destroy the Norwegian economy if they actually follow the law the way it is intentioned. More likely they will just establish extra 'executive' positions with little to no power to place women in or otherwise redesignate existing mid-high level positions held by women as 'executive', which will be a waste of money but not as much.

Women usually don't make good executives for a number of reasons:

Executives tend to be 'workaholics', their life is their work, they don't mind working 16 hour days, 80 hour weeks, answering the phone and coming in on their day off, etc. Men are far more likely than women to fit into this category. Women are far more likely to be on the opposite end of the spectrum, calling in 'sick' because they don't feel like going in to work, quitting jobs because they don't like the boss, etc.

Going along with the above, women are much more likely to allow family to come before work. Taking the day off because a kid is sick, leaving a few hours early to pick a kid up from school, taking themselves out of the workforce for months or even years to care for children, never working late because want to be home for the family, etc. Not saying this is a bad thing, but if a promotion decision between 2 otherwise roughly equally qualified people comes down to "he works overtime all the time and has never missed a day in 3 years, she is out the door right at 5pm every day and has called off 27 days in the past 3 years" then you can guess who will get the promotion.

Women seem much more than men to be unable to balance politeness and firmness when dealing with people. Much more likely to be one of the extremes; 'bitch with a constant chip on her shoulder' or lets people get away with everything.

Women are much more 'social' and more likely to base decisions such as promotions and firing/layoffs of employees on social reasons, networks/friendships, etc rather than the actual competancy of the employee at doing his or her job. Obviously many men have this problem as well, but it seems to be more of a problem with women.

Women are less able to deal with stress, at least of the type experienced in the business realm. This is probably partially responsible for the above reasons.


Obviously we should treat people as individuals and allow capable women to reach high levels, but if there is a disparity, the reason is not 'widespread gender discrimmination' in the private sector economy of Norway, thus to set a 40% quota is an innappropriate 'remedy' and will only cause problems and damage the economy.

Is there even any actual evidence that capable women are/were being discrimminated against in the present system?

[Adalwulf]

I was in a library today. It took four Negro women crowded around a computer about 5 minutes to figure out how long my book was due for return.

The standard policy is 7 and I have known this since the first time I got a book.

Of course Norwegian women are not stupid and can figure this out on their own, but it just shows how this method of employment is faulty.