Yabby,

What an earth is wrong with Business Ethics? If another business was not playing from the same script, don't you think a woman executive would pick it up immediately and act accordingly. The whole problem is that you can't see, or refuse to see, that women are as capable as men.

Can you point to an area in executive administration where women can't be effective as men?

I can't. As I have repeated before, there is no justifiable reason for the male mystique at the top end of town.

What about those little old ladies who play the stock-market so well.

As billie has pointed out women were mobilised the workforce for the war effort. Shock and horror! The were building bombers and spit-fires and mustangs; indeed most of the armaments used by the allies. Oh! What a the disaster ... wings were falling off, not to mention propellors ... and this was before they even left the ground ... How many pilots refused to fly the planes knowing they were made by women?

I have just read an Australian document that states most jobs are not advertised, but filled by friends, family members, or some sort of old chum network - not by a system of the best person for the job. Furthermore, this practice could be as high as 80% but there is no reliable data. If this is true, than businesses are hobbling themselves.

Nepotism in the US is rife, and undoubtedly occurs in this country. So common, that :

“To discover whether or not the state or municipality in which you work has enacted nepotism or anti-nepotism laws, contact the state legislature or the municipal equivalent (such as the city council), or consult an attorney.”
http://employeeissues.com/

This does not apply to husband/wife businesses.

As society is ageing, big business better get a handle on this, and realistically look at the employment of women. Big business should not be a men’s club where men seek refuge from women, “rhubarbing” away. This is not sound business practice.

Danielle: "The whole problem is that you can't see, or refuse to see, that women are as capable as men."

Do you have evidence that in spite of differences in brain structure, chemistry and function (see link) that there are no differences in cognitive capabilities?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229171609.htm

"I have just read an Australian document that states most jobs are not advertised, but filled by friends, family members, or some sort of old chum network - not by a system of the best person for the job."

You're assuming that the preexisting relationship provides no value to the business. Taking on a new employee posses significant risks; while a potential employee may look good on paper or do well in an interview there are many important attributes that are not easily measurable with such methods. One of the best ways to find a good employee is a reference from someone you trust and respect, and often these will be friends and family but will generally be people you've come to respect from your own experiences. Additionally these preexisting relationships provide some level of social pressure to ensure the employee works hard at the job.

Obviously from the outside this can seem like some sort of exclusive club, and certainly employer discretion can be used in a corrupt fashion, but there is no way to clearly determine the 'best person for the job'. I think in this globally competitive world there is already plenty of incentive to at least try to chose the best person.

Billie “"Rosie the Riveter" to see how Democracy has manipulated women to achieve societal goals,”

Oh your mind works in such funny little ways billie (emphasis on ‘little’).

I guess we should confront despotism using people only in their traditional roles, because that is what “Democracy” is all about, maintaining a environment in which people can go about their daily activity in safety and free from government interference or external duress.

As dear of Will said “He must needs go that the Devil drives.”

Or as it is usually expressed “Needs must when the Devil Drives”

So billie, coming along and pretending “democracy” manipulated women to suit its ends is bunkum, when considering the alternative to such a strategy(annihilation of the democratic process which protects us all, you included).

However, since your posts seem to consistently lack reasoning, it is no surprise that the inane flows so readily from your pen.

As for those complaining about nepotism. You can go on and on about that until the cows come home. Of course nepotism exists. However, it disadvantages men as much as women.

The point with “nepotism” is, it favours relatives and friends of the employer.

I would challenge such when it happens in public office because it can be presumed to adversely effect the tax payer who has elected a public official to act in their name, fairly and without prejudice.

Since employment in most commerce these days is with a company owned by share holders and not a government owned entity involving tax payers, it should remain a private matter for the directors to oversee their managers in applying appropriate standards in staff selection.

Depisis I agree with you,

The benefit with employing someone who is already known is precisely that they are ”already known”,

That is the benefit, that the prospective employer is dealing with a known quantity rather than the unknown stranger. As such, it becomes a material consideration and thus, worthy of merit.

Desipis

"Do you have evidence that in spite of differences in brain structure, chemistry and function (see link) that there are no differences in cognitive capabilities?"

This does not provide evidence that men are better at business than women. If you really want to go down that path, it could well be that women are better at business than men.

Anyone who has been in business has seen the results of the "network" system. Yes, more comraderie in the office, and jokes about the weekend fishing in the lunch-room, but how effective is this really. An employer finds themselves in a very difficult situation when the person turns out to be a dud, despite the glowing references from a chum.

An employer, employing a friend/relative, even a friend's relative, can be a recipe for disaster; and also morale breaking for those who have to prop him up. How many people have witnessed a firm paying a salary to someone not contributing in any way; or even taking advantage of the situation (this is not unheard of) - the boss being caught between the rock and the hard place.

Danielle
“This does not provide evidence that men are better at business than women.”

And it does not prove the opposite either.

Men and women are individuals and each unique. Assess them objectively, it will produce the best outcomes, far better than relying on some old-boys club or affirmative action.

“An employer, employing a friend/relative, even a friend's relative, can be a recipe for disaster; and also morale breaking for those who have to prop him up. How many people have witnessed a firm paying a salary to someone not contributing in any way; or even taking advantage of the situation (this is not unheard of) - the boss being caught between the rock and the hard place.”

To save me rewriting it, see my previous post
The employer bears the cost for is poor judgment.

I agree with you, the world is not a perfect place.

I could write a book on bad business mistakes. HIA, Enron, Cambridge Credit, Estate Mortgages, the South Sea Bubble, San Francisco DART etc.

Just look at the listing in the bankruptcy courts. Examples are legion, plenty of evidence of poor management and bad mistakes.

But people make mistake, errors of judgment, voting for the Krudd government for instance.

None of that makes any difference to the fact, men and women are all individuals, some talented and others less so.

Poor employment selection is the start of many problems but just because you and I may recognize it and even promote such notions to employers, it does not mean those employers will change, they are after all, human and subject to human error.

Fractelle
I’m not a feminist. I don’t denigrate a gender, male or female.

There have been a number of highly abusive feminist posters who keep saying that I hate women, or that I am a misogynist. And yet you can look back through my posts, and you will not find one negative word said about women.

I challenge you to find that single negative word.

You have mentioned some abuses of women occurring in some parts of the world, but the greatest abuses of both men and women are normally occurring in countries with the least amount of democracy. Many of those countries are also being run by people who call themselves some type of “ist”, but this is a reality I have never heard mentioned by a feminist.

Men are women’s greatest friend, and not their enemy. In a natural state, 50% of children will die before the age of 5, and of those people that live, 50% will die before the age of 60. Those are the natural statistics. But I have never heard a feminist thank men for improving on those statistics.

Instead, I have heard just about every type of negative, maligning and discriminatory comment made by feminists about the male gender. So exactly who are the abusers?

I challenge you to answer that as well.