With regards to a quota system I do believe at the senior levels in particular directorships and board appointees they are essential.
Why only there? The fact that there are more people in board appointees is a result of men being more prominent at both ends of distribution of psychological properties.
- more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution
- males are generally more likely to display aggression than females and when any endeavour is successful, aggression is likely to enhance success, and when it is unsuccessful, it is likely to aggravate failure
- men may have evolved to be more risk taking and socially dominant and sometimes taking risks pays off, sometimes not
- etc - the general idea is that there are more men at both ends of the distribution in various things.
This results men in being entrepreneurs, executives and board members more often than women, but it also results in men being homeless, sick and dying prematurely more often than women.
It also has the result that men pay more taxes, and contribute more pension payments, but use less public services and are paid much less in pensions.
Therefore, if we set quotas for senior levels in particular directorships and board appointees, shouldn't we also set quotas for the homeless, jobless and poor?
I.e. if we apply quotas in some areas to disadvantage men, shouldn't we apply quotas in other areas to disadvantage women? For instance, reduce pensions to women after the age where men on average don't get any (i.e. are dead), and make a suitable percentage of old women homeless?
(You must realise I'm intentionally quite provocative and not entirely serious, but I think these are valid points to discuss before setting gender quotas.)
Comments
Why only there? The fact that there are more people in board appointees is a result of men being more prominent at both ends of distribution of psychological properties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology :
- more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution
- males are generally more likely to display aggression than females and when any endeavour is successful, aggression is likely to enhance success, and when it is unsuccessful, it is likely to aggravate failure
- men may have evolved to be more risk taking and socially dominant and sometimes taking risks pays off, sometimes not
- etc - the general idea is that there are more men at both ends of the distribution in various things.
This results men in being entrepreneurs, executives and board members more often than women, but it also results in men being homeless, sick and dying prematurely more often than women.
It also has the result that men pay more taxes, and contribute more pension payments, but use less public services and are paid much less in pensions.
Therefore, if we set quotas for senior levels in particular directorships and board appointees, shouldn't we also set quotas for the homeless, jobless and poor?
I.e. if we apply quotas in some areas to disadvantage men, shouldn't we apply quotas in other areas to disadvantage women? For instance, reduce pensions to women after the age where men on average don't get any (i.e. are dead), and make a suitable percentage of old women homeless?
(You must realise I'm intentionally quite provocative and not entirely serious, but I think these are valid points to discuss before setting gender quotas.)