Well said, Antonios and Yvonne.

The disgruntled boys in this discussion should do some homework to learn something from the research that has been done in this area.
You can start by paying attention to what Kellie Tranter says,
“…the group of companies with the highest representation of women on their top management teams performed better financially than the group with the lowest female representation.”

There is a reason why companies do better when there is a good male-female balance in all functions. Yes, it's all about an even balance, nobody is suggesting that companies should get rid of males altogether.
BOTH sexes are necessary for a company to perform best.
Companies that have a much greater concentration of females would do better to balance their staff out with more males, as well.

A professor at the Swiss Institute for Management Development (IMD) explains why sex diversity works: Males and females behave differently because of their social-cultural, biological and neurological differences.
For example, men are often more task-oriented and competitive and focus on results, while women often have more feeling for context and are especially good at interpersonal relations.

Each individual approach has its own pros and cons, but when both converge, the company has access to superior qualities such as more innovation and creativity, which results in a better performance.

Notice that the women don't deny that they need special treatment or positive discrimination to get the jobs. It follows, with a few exeptions, that they cannot compete.

For starters, Mr Right's argument contradicts HRS's constant bleatings about how hard done by men are. If indeed it's about being able to compete, then HRS, clearly men can't. Mr Right's argument appears to be 'suck it up.' Perhaps you should take his advice.

(Dang, I told myself I wouldn't respond to HRS's hysterical anti-feminism, but I just couldn't help myself this time).

yvonne makes a good argument about the tone of the responses here. Honestly, just calm down and take a few deep breaths.

I'm a bit torn on this issue, and I haven't really decided how supportive I am. I'm not really keen on forcing companies to have women on boards, but I do understand the merit in this argument.

The point is, the male culture is entrenched. Women are less likely to get on boards even when they are more qualified and capable.

Ideally, yes Mr Right, they should get in there on merit and yes, theoretically companies who select the best will perform the best.

But despite all that, it's still entrenched, and many companies aren't selecting women even though they would perhaps perform better. If they're performing reasonably well with a majority of men, why would they decide to take a chance with women, even if they could do better.

I wouldn't mind seeing some experimentation here - if a few companies voluntarily took the lead and put in these policies, and we were able to observe the results.

Anything which does not rely on merit is not going to produce the best outcomes.

Affirmative action, racism and nepotism have a lot in common,

nepotism favours family connections,
racism favours racist connections
affirmative action favours some other “subgroup” connection.

Personally, I believe only in merit.

A joint stock company has its voting rights allotted to the people who own it and who risk their investment funds in it, not the general public nor the state.

The share holders alone should elect the directors they see as being best for the job, based on “Merit” and not on any sense of proportionality of sub-group.

When I go for a job or contract, I expect to get it ONLY because I am the most suited to fulfill it.

Celevia “Companies that have a much greater concentration of females would do better to balance their staff out with more males, as well.”

Then, obviously those companies who adopt such practices will put perform those who do not. However, it is a matter for the owners, the “takers of the commercial risk” (shareholders) to decide, not some third party, regardless of their academic credentials or merit.

In my businesses, I decide on gender mix, racial mix, skills mix, age mix etc. because I own the shares and I bear the risk.

ASymeonakis
“BECAUSE WE ARE IDIOTS AND DO NOT CARE OUR SELVES!” . .
“BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ENOUGH MATURE TO UNDERTAKE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES!”
“BECAUSE WE DO NOT LEARNED TO BE GOOD, RESPONSIBLE FATHERS!
“BECAUSE WE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WOMEN!”

I am not sure exactly why you are so self-deprecating and inferior but let me assure you

You use of the term “WE” is not universally inclusive.

You do not speak for me, you speak only for yourself.

I find it offensive that you presume to speak for more than just yourself. Please desist forthwith.

I live alone,
I “CARE FOR MYSELF”

I pay my taxes, obey the law and ask my daughters,
“I AM MATURE ENOUGH TO SHOULDER MY RESPONSIBILITIES AND BE A GOOD RESPONSIBLE FATHER”

I DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NO ONES "MERIT"

TRTL
Thanks for your balanced view. You made me giggle when you pointed out these contradicting arguments : ) Very entertaining, it complements the good glass of red I’m indulging in.
Your idea of experimentation is an excellent one. Bring it on! The results abroad recommend gender diversity for better results and I have no reason to believe why companies in Australia wouldn’t benefit just as much.

The CEW (Chief Executive Women is an organisation of women leaders in Australia. They developed a kit to encourage and promote the effective use of female talent by Australian businesses, government, and the community.
http://www.cew.org.au/pages/kit/documents/ExecutiveSummaryBrochureMay08_000.pdf

There seems to be a problem with retention of women more than with hiring them, and this is mainly due to the male dominated culture that women feel excluded from.
More gender balance is said to prevent this kind of culture.
I believe that paid parental leave will also help female retention.

Col,
”Affirmative action, racism and nepotism have a lot in common,
nepotism favours family connections,
racism favours racist connections
affirmative action favours some other “subgroup” connection.”
True, but don't forget…
sexism favours male connections.

“Personally, I believe only in merit.”
I find merit of uttermost importance, too- but I believe that nepotism and sexism have something in common in the way that sexism shows favouritism in the workplace towards men.
A lot of female talent -and merit- is being unutilised because of sexism in the workplace.

However, like TRTL, I feel uneasy when there’s talk about actually forcing companies to have women on board. I’m more in favour of (first) educating and encouraging companies to pay attention to the merit of women and the merit of maintaining gender diversity.

If you’ve read my reply to TRTL, and have a look at the link provided, you’ll get the general idea what I mean by ‘encouraging’ companies.

”I DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NO ONES "MERIT" “
That’s too funny :) and I’m glad that you don’t discriminate against anyone’s merit.
Unfortunately, other business owners do.

"You made me giggle when you pointed out these contradicting arguments : )"

Men aren't asking for discriminatory laws. That's a big difference and to pretend otherwise is inaccurate.