goon wrote:

I was opposed to these policies in the past, the idea of getting a role specifically because a company needed to fill it's quota felt backwards to me, you were still judging people based on their race etc. But I've since done a u-turn.

I think the general idea is to gradually change attitudes more than anything. It won't happen overnight, it may actually take decades, but in the mean time you need something to kick the old boys network into get started.

I wouldn't disagree with anything you've said there. The problem is none of it pertains to my criticism which is specifically a quota in executive boards. You get a token woman in there who at best is powerless to change anything and even worse you'll find companies thinking they've done their fair share in Corporate Responsibility ignoring the glaring real issues troubling women who're not in that privileged position

jones wrote:

goon wrote:

I was opposed to these policies in the past, the idea of getting a role specifically because a company needed to fill it's quota felt backwards to me, you were still judging people based on their race etc. But I've since done a u-turn.

I think the general idea is to gradually change attitudes more than anything. It won't happen overnight, it may actually take decades, but in the mean time you need something to kick the old boys network into get started.

I wouldn't disagree with anything you've said there. The problem is none of it pertains to my criticism which is specifically a quota in executive boards. You get a token woman in there who at best is powerless to change anything and even worse you'll find companies thinking they've done their fair share in Corporate Responsibility ignoring the glaring real issues troubling women who're not in that privileged position

In my company there are more than one woman in the executive and they have power to change the culture and even the way they influence their stakeholders and clients. They are not tokens.

Before, the executive in most companies was the reserve of men. Now it's changing more and more. Having women in power and also tackling social immobility is not mutually exclusive. Companies can and should do both.

Women will be more overlooked without quotas imho. In any case companies know their leadership needs to reflect the people they serve and the people that work for them. They're fat more likely to flourish.

“Norway was the first country to introduce quotas, and so far it is the country with the greatest success in reaching the goal of 40 percent female representation on boards.”

One of the main trends we found was that gender quotas for boards are closely tied to the country’s history of institutional awareness of gender equality. The higher the percentage of women in the labour force, and the more state gender equality initiatives the country has implemented, the more likely it is that quotas will be used as a political measure,” says Terjesen.

“Countries with a tradition of more left-wing governments and generally more state intervention in the economy are more likely to introduce gender quotas. This is why it has been easier to introduce quotas in Norway and France than in the UK or the US.”

She points out that in order for quotas to be effective, the idea of gender quotas must have legitimacy in the political culture at large.

“Norway was the first country to introduce quotas, and so far it is the country with the greatest success in reaching the goal of 40 percent female representation on boards.”

“What happens in a boardroom with a higher percentage of women? What difference does it make?”

“We see that female representation makes a difference only when a critical mass is reached,” says Terjesen.

She found that this critical mass is achieved at one-third female representation – that is, 33 percent or more women on a board.

“If the percentage is lower than this, the effect is little more than symbolic. It is when women feel that there are several of them, that they are not sitting alone at the table, that they begin to exercise their power.”

“It’s very difficult to isolate female representation on boards as an individual phenomenon, and based on that draw conclusions about a company’s performance in general, especially in the short term,” explains Terjesen.

“Studies show, however, that boards that meet the quota requirement report having better discussions and more productive conversations. Women often come onto board with more wide-ranging experience and a broader employment background than men, and studies show that they ask tougher questions and are more concerned with challenging the status quo.”

Terjesen also says that female board members report a higher degree of satisfaction after quotas were introduced.

“They also say that they identify more with the board and their role as a board member on both a professional and a personal level.”

http://kjonnsforskning.no/en/2016/10/secret-behind-norways-gender-quota-success

I think the concerns around quotas are valid in so much that the intention is correct but is subsequently abused and sidelining the very people they are trying to help. I'm referring to religious and minority quotas here.

However I think quotas for women run less of a risk of that as there's less need for nuance

Mirth wrote:

I think the concerns around quotas are valid in so much that the intention is correct but is subsequently abused and sidelining the very people they are trying to help. I'm referring to religious and minority quotas here.

However I think quotas for women run less of a risk of that as there's less need for nuance

How does it sideline  the people they are trying to help? How are they abused exactly?

For me, as a minority in Britain, I have become accustomed to white males leading the most important companies and projects because that is the perception in this country for what good leadership looks like. There's a lack of belief or trust that women or ethnic minorities can be as good as white males at leadership in general. 

There's always a different rule for the straight white middle aged male.

Tony Montana wrote:

Mirth wrote:

I think the concerns around quotas are valid in so much that the intention is correct but is subsequently abused and sidelining the very people they are trying to help. I'm referring to religious and minority quotas here.

However I think quotas for women run less of a risk of that as there's less need for nuance

How does it sideline  the people they are trying to help? How are they abused exactly?

For me, as a minority in Britain, I have become accustomed to white males leading the most important companies and projects because that is the perception in this country for what good leadership looks like. There's a lack of belief or trust that women or ethnic minorities can be as good as white males at leadership in general. 

There's always a different rule for the straight white middle aged male.

Full disclosure, I'm a minority in Britain too.

Your point on the need for positive role models for minority groups - whether they are in business, entertainment or politics - is a valid one and more needs to be done in order to address them. For example, ending the whitewashing of Hollywood movies and moving away from regressive stereotypes would be one such way in addressing those concerns.

However, I'm not in favour of creating quotas in the case of race or religion because of my experiences of seeing those quotas in action while living abroad - despite the fact that creating a quota would actually help my career rather than hinder it. A book for reference would be Affirmative Action around the world by Thomas Sowell.

For me, it's when you realise that the overarching goal might be noble, but in practice this comes down to individuals. One person gets favoured over another and there are inevitably going to be instances where the employee that gets left out because they had the wrong skin color actually had a rougher hand dealt them then the minority. Moreover, quotas will inevitably help the rich or middle class members of whatever racial group you're trying to help while not helping the members of the groups that are actually being left behind.

This is particularly true in the UK where class based discrimination is still much more prevalent that the media is willing to focus on. Therefore you're looking at several factors that need to be balanced out and addressed at a core level - and the way to do that should be to remove obstacles rather than creating a quota to fill. By all means, look at minorities in successful leadership positions as something to aspire to but their circumstances are a lot closer to those white, university educated males than a minority who grew up in a deprived region.

I'm not, however, against quotas for women because those concerns are not relevant.

Quotas for religions, I didn't even know that existed. Absolutely ridiculous.

I like the idea of quotes for certain things. In Ireland pitical parties have to have a certain percentage of women standing in elections. I agree with that although it's not perfect and the parties work around it. I do agree with Jones on the women ceos and the like though,i don't think it really helps.

jones wrote:

flobaba wrote:

I saw the furious backlash to affirmative action policies. It will come.

You don't even have to wait for it, just look at the reaction to female board membership quotas. Although ironically that measure to "empower" women is completely farcical and does sweet fuck all to help those who it alleges to support

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/affirmative-action-still-matters_us_5981d9b6e4b0353fbb33e1bb

I think point number 3 in that article may be part of the issue with "more female ceos"

I find myself believing her as i think it's telling that the man sued the company.

For Big Willie...

Metropolitan Police review of rape cases evidence - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42417553

What a knob Matt Damon has been.

No it's about him complaining that we aren't talking enough about the men who don't engage in inappropriate/illegal behaviour.

arsedoc md wrote:

is that about his statement about degrees of sexual assault and scale of punishments? If so, he said nothing wrong. I hope you've read the whole thing Daz?

First, Damon waded in to say that sexual harassment exists on a spectrum, and that “there’s a difference between patting someone on the butt … and rape”. On the face of it, this is clearly true (and something that women have also said), but Damon is too ignorant (HOW? STILL?) to realise that being patted on the butt a thousand times by bosses, male friends, colleagues, and strangers, is an insidious invasion of personal space and an exhausting erasure of individuality. Death by a thousand cuts. As Driver put it, “[men] cannot understand what abuse is like on a daily level”.
He also doesn’t seem to realise that literally nobody is crying out for Matt Damon’s Opinion On This. As Driver also said, “it’s galling when a powerful man steps up and starts dictating the terms”. In total, he has spoken about this topic no fewer than three times. Forgive me, Matt, but I think not being harassed should be a baseline expectation, and not something to be deified for. I don’t offer a round of applause to the man at the bus stop who doesn’t comment on my ass. And I am not about to start.

Damon is also guilty of the trope of men declaring themselves feminists after having daughters, as if the wellbeing of human women otherwise didn’t matter. Good one, guys. Super grateful. It’s good to know that someone being called a whore doesn’t raise hackles if it isn’t your mother, daughter, aunt or sister who is the target.

This leads me to a simple truth: if one is from a group that has never been oppressed for reasons of identity, it is almost impossible to understand what that feels like. This often isn’t their individual fault, which is where defensiveness comes in, but it is true. Women know, people of colour know, LGBT+ people know, people with disabilities know, those persecuted for their religion know. To an extent, perhaps straight white men know, if, say, they come from a state school, have a thick northern accent, and attempt to enter the media. Or Oxbridge. But if you’ve never been on the receiving end of a punching down, then of course it is possible to sympathise – but you ain’t ever gonna feel the blow.

It’s not that the effort of others to understand is not appreciated. That needs to happen for things to change and improve, and Damon seems to have good intentions. But he is never going to know what it is like to walk home with keys between knuckles. I am never, for instance, going to know what it is like to have a job application sidelined because apparently some people think, as a friend was told recently, “African names have too many vowels”. I don’t know what it is like to have someone talk to me like a child because I use a wheelchair. 
....................certain people should recognise when their voice carries less authority, should know when to shut up, and realise that their voice is not needed, wanted, or helpful at a particular time. As a motormouth, I am sure I have screwed up here before. Damon doesn’t seem to care, and continues, relentlessly, to #damonsplain.

He really does seem to be making far too much of his "case" that not all men are bad. I think we all know that Matt, but it's not the conversation that needs to be had. He really should just be supportive of the real case, and then let people who understand the issue have carriage of it.

"African names have too many vowels"

He comes across as incredibly dense. How does he not realise how this will play out? It’s one thing saying something that won’t play well because it needs to be said, but it really, really doesn’t.

Yeah. Looks to lack a bit of EQ. The best thing he can do right now is just listen. I sat and listened to a few of my female colleagues in the airport the other day. I thought I had an idea how much bullshit they go through everyday, but when you actually listen fully and freely, it makes you realize how hard it can be to be a woman at almost every moment of everyday. And it’s not just men. Even women are coopted into just holding you back and keeping men comfortable in doing the small things that Driver describes above. It was eye-opening for me because I typically kept my attention on protecting teams from lechercous clients but never realized that they need as much protection from ourselves as well.

This is why I mentioned also a few weeks ago that sometimes we focus the movement too much on the entertainment industry and forget the vast majority - the office and retail workers. Makes sense for now given that this is where the connections are. But If these women are going through so much in a Hollywood, think about how much absolutely helpless women with no mouthpiece are going through in minimum wage jobs everywhere.

Don’t know if we can ever truly get it, Flobaba

I don’t think so either, but we must try to empathize. My wife has come home frustrated a few times with the whole situation. In her words: "May you never know what it’s like to be a black woman in America”

I just shut up, listen to her, hold her.

Hearing Damon essentially say it’s okay to hit a woman’s backside? That’s groping, no less. The sense of entitlement is appalling. Long way to go, but I’m glad these conversations are being had and being heard. About damn time.

arsedoc md wrote:

Daz wrote:

No it's about him complaining that we aren't talking enough about the men who don't engage in inappropriate/illegal behaviour.

just checked the whole 16 min interview-which I hadn't before and only got the paragraph about the spectrum and scale- and I agree it was an unnecessary mention.  He was probably trying to bat for the movie industry a bit more than complaining as you say.
I don't see anything wrong with what he said before that.

It's unnecessary to explain to a women that touching her ass is not the equivalent of rape, or on a par with rape.
We f****** know that.

It is necessary to explain to Damon that touching a woman's ass is still a big deal.
I'm going to keep repeating this in relation to the relative seriousness of groping,.

"When people talk about a sliding scale consider that the acts that are being classified all involve the infliction of physical or emotional pain, most times both, these acts then provoke feelings of fear, hurt, humiliation, shame, doubt, revulsion and loathing in the person on the receiving end."

flobaba wrote:

Tony Montana wrote:

"African names have too many vowels"

I have actually heard that it’s a common joke /truism in recruiting circles.

Side bar: True story, I have had to amend my name (twice) into one more convenient for the European / American palate - and even then it still often gets miscalled and misspelled.

You mean amending the pronunciation or the spelling? I can understand the former (doing it myself to accommodate these less eloquent pale heathen tongues) but fuck changing my name for others' convenience, might as well call myself Toby and be done with it. Not attacking you or anything btw, it's just the first time I'm hearing someone go to these lengths

arsedoc md wrote:

flobaba wrote:

Hearing Damon essentially say it’s okay to hit a woman’s backside? That’s groping, no less. 

He categorically said they're both terrible.  And should be condemned and rooted out.  

What he said was that groping and rape should not be conflated, he did not categorically say that groping should be "condemned"  or that it was "terrible" - not according to this quote anyway.

"I do believe that there’s a spectrum of behaviour,” he said. “And we’re going to have to figure — you know, there’s a difference between, you know, patting someone on the butt and rape or child molestation, right? Both of those behaviours need to be confronted and eradicated without question, but they shouldn’t be conflated, right?”

Again, no woman in her right mind is going to conflate rape and groping.
No woman needs Damon to explain that there's a difference.
Saying that they should not be conflated is his backhanded way of lessening the seriousness of serial groping, sure it's not rape so don't get so get up about it girls.

I'm going to keep repeating this in relation to the relative seriousness of groping as it appears that it is being ignored in your exchanges.

"When people talk about a sliding scale consider that the acts that are being classified all involve the infliction of physical or emotional pain, most times both, these acts then provoke feelings of fear, hurt, humiliation, shame, doubt, revulsion and loathing in the person on the receiving end."

It's a bit typical for these blokes that they can't just shut up and listen. They really think their opinion is that important. Damon is probably the worst person to muse about the subject too. Not only has he allegedly killed stories about Harvey Weinstein in the past, he and Ben Affleck made sure to discredit and silence any questions about Casey Affleck last award season.

y va marquer wrote:

arsedoc md wrote:

just checked the whole 16 min interview-which I hadn't before and only got the paragraph about the spectrum and scale- and I agree it was an unnecessary mention.  He was probably trying to bat for the movie industry a bit more than complaining as you say.
I don't see anything wrong with what he said before that.

It's unnecessary to explain to a women that touching her ass is not the equivalent of rape, or on a par with rape.
We f****** know that.

It is necessary to explain to Damon that touching a woman's ass is still a big deal.
I'm going to keep repeating this in relation to the relative seriousness of groping,.

"When people talk about a sliding scale consider that the acts that are being classified all involve the infliction of physical or emotional pain, most times both, these acts then provoke feelings of fear, hurt, humiliation, shame, doubt, revulsion and loathing in the person on the receiving end."

It's a very big deal! It's essentially the first step - thinking you can go ahead and invade another person's personal space willy nilly. What nonsense. What do you think that kind of man or person will think they can get away with next? 

The world's kinda full of guys who deeply feel like "they're one of the good guys" even though they're not, really. Damon sounds like another one of them.

I think I might be one of them myself. Without saying every guy should permanently don a hair shirt, there is a level of critical self-examination and vigilance against rationalising poor conduct that you have to work at over time.

Talking to ex-girlfriends and other women in your life about how they felt about particular moments is a worthwhile exercise.

Considered rational comment on where we are and how to move forward 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/18/this-website-names-and-shames-companies-with-all-male-boards/

Didn't realise Ireland and the US are that far behind.

Burnwinter wrote:

The world's kinda full of guys who deeply feel like "they're one of the good guys" even though they're not, really. Damon sounds like another one of them.

I think I might be one of them myself. Without saying every guy should permanently don a hair shirt, there is a level of critical self-examination and vigilance against rationalising poor conduct that you have to work at over time.

Talking to ex-girlfriends and other women in your life about how they felt about particular moments is a worthwhile exercise.

Pretty much why I choose to read this thread rather than contribute my opinion as I feel that my lack of experience just doesn't give me the perspective to give an informed opinion

I don't think Matt Damon is trying to do any harm, I just don't think he gets it

Which when he is speaking as if he does know what he's talking about, could be seen as harmful.

I think the debate about what he's saying might be productive, though. The way these things play out is complex.

Y, may I ask this. If the people or person who wronged you wanted to reconcile or apologize and have that conversation with you, would you be open to talking with them? Or is it still too painful - which is understandable of course.

y va marquer wrote:

Considered rational comment on where we are and how to move forward 

This was interesting, thanks. It's always good to see arguments like the one Perel makes here about corporal punishment—the best reason to be optimistic about social change is that it's always happened in the past. Things can get better.

flobaba wrote:

Y, may I ask this. If the people or person who wronged you wanted to reconcile or apologize and have that conversation with you, would you be open to talking with them? Or is it still too painful - which is understandable of course.

I would be open to talking to them, yes.
I admit, that in the case of the guy who molested me when I was 12, I would be nautious in his presence.
It would be a struggle not to throw up.
I'm pretty sure that conversation will never happen.

That’s awfully gracious of you. Thank you