Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Human resources study shows a stunning unintended backlash to the ‘Me Too’ movement

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    12,657
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    I'd like that too but that preference has absolutely nothing to do with the new situation. All mostly introverted people would prefer the business world you describe.

    All mostly extroverted people (male and female) would be irked and feel constrained and angry, either that they had to do it to play by the new rules or that the new rules excluded them from wanted social contact and potential social manipulation efforts.
    When I started out in this field, I was on the other end of the "marketing" transaction. Attorneys competed to take us claims people out to lunch or dinner, complete with alcoholic beverages. The holidays were a constant stream of parties, with fabulous spreads and open bar. Our employers paid for us to attend the monthly claims association luncheons, at which there was a (nominally, at least) educational speaker, but the attorneys, medical/legal physicians' representatives, rehab providers, copy services, private investigators, and structured-settlement vendors bought us drinks. At lunch!

    In the late 80s or early 90s, the legislature decided to clean up the business. Everybody involved in workers' comp had to sign a declaration in each case that they had not taken or given any money or benefit in exchange for making a referral. For a brief time, before it was clarified, the statute was called the "Use a fork, go to jail" law. ALL business-related socializing came to a screeching halt for a while. By the time things got back to more or less normal (the law was aimed at kickbacks between attorneys and doctors or insurance companies and doctors, not ordinary business lunches between people on the same side), the 3-martini lunch was no longer deductible and people had gotten out of the habit of throwing the huge parties. For which I (and perhaps only I) was grateful.

    I am a reasonably sociable person. Certainly not an introvert, but not a total extrovert, either. I like parties, dinners out with friends, potlucks, dancing, evening cruises on the Bay. But I would much prefer to do those things with people of my choosing, not clients or potential clients I'm expected to entertain and then hustle for business. If I had my way, we would mail out our bios and cite some major cases we won, and let clients pick the attorneys who match their style of doing business. It's a nice fantasy. At least my firm treats "marketing" time as equivalent to billable hours. I know other attorneys who are expected to take clients to 2 and 3-hour lunches, speak at educational events for claims people, attend all the holiday stuff, and STILL bill 175 hours/month on top of the marketing time. Screw that. As the sage Robert Zimmerman so lyrically said, "Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift/Look out kid, they keep it all hid...." I didn't go to law school to double-shift.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:40 PM
    Posts
    6,396
    Post Thanks / Like
    To borrow from a familiar poster here,
    We know what you think of that. What about the question I asked?
    the question in question being,

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    Help me out here: What intrinsic difference is there about gender such that every Board must have females on board?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 6:59 AM
    Posts
    8,923
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    Sweden mandated this a few years ago and has had a bad time with it. Now, Sweden is much more progressive and sexually (biologically) egalitarian than we are.

    Enter the Nordic Paradox.

    As women gained all rights and were given favorable quotas in employment, politics, education, strict equal pay, etc., fewer women pursued hard science degrees, tech employment, or indeed - full time employment.

    They preferred and could achieve well paid part-time government jobs that provided ample time off for child care, no travel, and excellent additional benefits. So they did!

    Now, the Nordic countries have fewer women pursuing engineering or tech or other hard sciences, fewer in full time work, and fewer putting in the time in private corporations to rise to the level of 24/7 dedication that their male peers do. They are also more likely to scale back work time for many reasons, not all or most involving child/elder care.

    It turns out that when you give women exactly what most of us want, we really like kids, yoga, gardening, long walks in the rain, and reading fat books about Amish sex triangles.
    Lol. Thats a thing?

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:40 PM
    Posts
    6,396
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    Lol. Thats a thing?

    Mark
    We report. You decide.


    There are no Amish on the Supreme Court. Coincidence?

  5. Likes Gingersnap, 80zephyr liked this post
  6. #25
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 9:09 AM
    Posts
    8,819
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Are you saying no women know anything about business or are you saying that business men should wear high heels?
    It's very simple. Put people on boards because they know something. Not because they're gender determined females. There's enough tokenism already out there.

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 9:09 AM
    Posts
    8,819
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    Do you think that any company would hire a man over a woman that is more talented?


    Mark
    If this "metoo" thikng keeps going, yes. Who would take the chance that some woman will claim some sex something 30 years down the road?

  8. Likes 80zephyr liked this post
  9. #27
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:40 PM
    Posts
    6,396
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Marva View Post
    If this "metoo" thikng keeps going, yes. Who would take the chance that some woman will claim some sex something 30 years down the road?
    The "Nordic Paradox" Gingersnap referred to.

    But a lot of that paradox is just our inclination to sloth, I think. Why stress out if you don't need to?

    The old, wonderful-sounding maxim, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, fell apart like a Hillary Clinton campaign, pretty much for the same reason.

  10. #28
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 5:38 PM
    Posts
    15,309
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    The "Nordic Paradox" Gingersnap referred to.

    But a lot of that paradox is just our inclination to sloth, I think. Why stress out if you don't need to?

    The old, wonderful-sounding maxim, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, fell apart like a Hillary Clinton campaign, pretty much for the same reason.
    I think the Nordic Paradox speaks more to natural sex-related interests than to sloth. There are some women who wholly invest their entire focus and energy in their paid work and they love it! They derive much or all of their self-esteem from being at the top of their field and excelling there. You go, girl!

    But most people and most women aren't like that. Just as most men are unwilling to work 80 hours a week and spend their little free time networking and researching their field, neither are most women. Those who do are exactly the people you want on boards - the obsessed.

    When women have options and financial security, a large majority prefer to focus on their children and relationships, their homes, their unpaid interests in charity or other things. When men have options and financial security, a larger number prefer to compete in business or in other professional/trades areas (or athletic areas when possible).

    So, you have a much larger pool of extremely dedicated and experienced men to chose from when appointing board members. If you have 200 qualified men and 13 qualified women for the same position, you are naturally going to end up with more men than women. It would be unlikely that all 13 women were equally matched to the top 13 men out of the 200.
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  11. #29
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:40 PM
    Posts
    6,396
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    I think the Nordic Paradox speaks more to natural sex-related interests than to sloth. There are some women who wholly invest their entire focus and energy in their paid work and they love it! They derive much or all of their self-esteem from being at the top of their field and excelling there. You go, girl!

    But most people and most women aren't like that. Just as most men are unwilling to work 80 hours a week and spend their little free time networking and researching their field, neither are most women. Those who do are exactly the people you want on boards - the obsessed.

    When women have options and financial security, a large majority prefer to focus on their children and relationships, their homes, their unpaid interests in charity or other things. When men have options and financial security, a larger number prefer to compete in business or in other professional/trades areas (or athletic areas when possible).
    Sloth is a bit much, perhaps. I shouldn't suggest focus on non-remunerative domestic affairs is lazy and self-indulgent.

    Re your last paragraph:
    So, you have a much larger pool of extremely dedicated and experienced men to chose from when appointing board members. If you have 200 qualified men and 13 qualified women for the same position, you are naturally going to end up with more men than women. It would be unlikely that all 13 women were equally matched to the top 13 men out of the 200.
    a close relative of mine runs his own very successful engineering company. But it wasn't always easy (if it is now, I don't know). I think it was after the 2008 crash he was taking a second mortgage to pay employees, and his biggest client(s?) went belly up and defaulted on their payables.

    And one other thing. I think it was then that federal contracts were restricted such that at least one of the outfits bidding on federal projects must be minority owned. All of the companies in his neck of the industry were white-owned—architects, builders, various engineers—except for one. So of course every federal project included that firm, and unfortunately it was a direct competitor. My relative was completely frozen out of all federal contracts, and is to this day, except that as the business has grown it has ventured into broader pastures.

    But for this thread the relevance is that the minority businessman made a killing; he was everywhere. So it will be too with a few high qualified women.

  12. #30
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 5:38 PM
    Posts
    15,309
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    Sloth is a bit much, perhaps. I shouldn't suggest focus on non-remunerative domestic affairs is lazy and self-indulgent.

    Re your last paragraph: a close relative of mine runs his own very successful engineering company. But it wasn't always easy (if it is now, I don't know). I think it was after the 2008 crash he was taking a second mortgage to pay employees, and his biggest client(s?) went belly up and defaulted on their payables.

    And one other thing. I think it was then that federal contracts were restricted such that at least one of the outfits bidding on federal projects must be minority owned. All of the companies in his neck of the industry were white-owned—architects, builders, various engineers—except for one. So of course every federal project included that firm, and unfortunately it was a direct competitor. My relative was completely frozen out of all federal contracts, and is to this day, except that as the business has grown it has ventured into broader pastures.

    But for this thread the relevance is that the minority businessman made a killing; he was everywhere. So it will be too with a few high qualified women.
    I benefited greatly from female-friendly quotas but this was when performance was a big issue. This was also during the era where everybody had to take objective tests, demonstrate work, and have brutal peer review. I got in the door because I was genetically female. I didn't end up running a division and publishing because I had ovaries.

    That happened because I was objectively smart compared to others (of either sex) and my stuff made tons of money. My stuff made money. Not that my stuff vaguely contributed to something that incrementally pushed science forward (some of my stuff did that) but I designed, implemented, and deployed stuff that made money.

    Any similarly inclined genetic female can do that - more now than when I started.

    I benefited but I didn't make it rain because I am female. I made it rain because I understood my field and profited.

    Everybody likes money and fame.
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •