French companies get serious about putting women in the boardroom

France has decided that 40% of all directors of listed companies should be women. Will they also require that 40% of those parents who stay home and care for children must be men? Why not?

Clearly men are underrepresented among French "housewives" -- or should one call them "house-spouses"? This seems only fair that such a quota be imposed. French children are clearly suffering from the excess of female-dominated domestic households -- things must be rebalanced!

Yes, housewives of France, you must get to work. Husbands at work in France -- you must desert your jobs and get to home. The future of France is at stake. We must get to equality on every level in France and quotas are the only way to to do it.

Parliament has thus reasoned.

God help France.

Women of France, do you want the largest companies to begin hiring 40% of their board members not on the basis of merit or experience, or even desire to be on a corporate board, but instead on the basis of Gender?

Do you women of France, who constitute the majority of French citizens of voting age, feel this is in your best interests? You did not elect Ms. Royal when you had the chance to put her in charge of France. The Washington Post reported this at that time (March 18, 2007):

"Female critics often say the 53-year-old Royal simply has not measured up to the standards of competence and leadership that are required of a president of France. They say that she plays to her femininity but is not a feminist and that she too frequently blames France's sexist attitudes for hobbling her campaign."

So there are standards to which one must measure up in order to be President of France. Sounds like French women are quite sensible.

Then how is it that France's parliament could or would pass a law which grants 40% of board seats of large companies to women? The dynamic through which this occurs is quite simple, and should be of great concern to all women, be they feminists or otherwise:

1. a legislative "suggestion" occurs and crosses France's (or any country's) parliament in public view;

2. virtually all members of that elected body give the instant positive reaction which one must give to not offend a "group" (in this case women) who constitute the numerical majority of their electorate;

3. no legislator has the courage to put up a stiff resistance due to not wishing to publicly offend the voting majority (women); and therefore

4. the proposed pro-woman law is passed quietly and without protest from those who may fear it is wrong-headed, but who fear even more what could happen to their seats if the dared speak up.

Since I am not a legislator in either chamber of the France's Parliament, I will now speak up on behalf of all women and all men in France, likely many members of France's Parliament, and all the living and future children of these men and women who are going to inherit the country of France in whatever condition its legislators leave it.

It is very clear how a majority-of-voters called "women" keep getting thrown various bones which they may or may not even want, let alone have voted for if they were given a chance. It happens due to random suggestions being raised like dares, and then all survival-minded legislators fearing for their seats if they don't reply "Oui! Bien sur! Absolument!" And so it goes.

If the suggestion sounds reasonably harmless -- like requiring that 40% of all board members, rather than say 40% of all French CEOs, be women -- then it meanders through the system meeting an extraordinary lack of resistance, and eventually passes.

And what does that do to France? And what does it do to the image of women in France?

Does it make it seem that women are making a solid contribution at the boards of these companies? Or does it make a mockery out of women? What about the women who got to board seats or CEO posts on their merits? What does it say of their efforts and merit based successes? It says, these didn't really matter, doesn't it?

The truth about women in France is that most would truly rather have a family-centric life than a business-centric life. Look at any newsstand in Paris and see what magazines women choose to purchase versus their male counterparts. Look at what movies women attend and what novels they read.

"Mais non!" It cannot remain this way!

Nonsense, of course it will remain this way. Meanwhile, that significantly smaller than than 40% group of French women who have pursued serious careers, and were already moving upwards, and to the top, on their merits will have much stolen from them by this "legislation". All the rest of France will have much stolen from them too, as non-merit-based selection of board members becomes the rule for a special majority of France's adults (women) who are now told quite clearly:

"You don't even merit merit-based selection, hiring and promotion. French politicians have decided to use you as a 'prop' on their stage of political correctness."

How exactly does that help women in France? Or anywhere?

Follies of modernity.

Female empowerment has had a very short history and it is only pretty recently that women in developed countries came to be just as well educated as men.

So, does bias play a part in female under-representation in management positions? Probably. But another big part of the phenomenon is natural and legitimate; female dearth of business talent is not yet as big as the male one, due to the shortness of the history of female ascendancy. Not to mention the fact that leaders are usually aggressive and hormone-driven, which in general is biologically a male quality.

It appears that this thought does not occur to Norwegian and French legislators. Why don't they set up a gender quota for political positions as well? Oh, but that would affect their own turf. Sorry, forgot about that.

I suggest the French take another page from the Norwegian book while they're at it. While not happy with the legislation, the Norwegian Federation of Employers apppointed a person to put in place a rigorous training program that was offered to women interested in being considered for board appointments. As a result, while they didn't have the same experience, they didn't join their middle-aged white male board colleagues totally unqualified.

I am glad that board members are not chosen from the ranks of the male chauvinist, narcissistic commenters to the Economist; what a mess the world would be in then?

I think it is unfortunate that the legacy of discrimination against women and lack of responsibility many men take for being engaged fathers to their children has resulted in this move of forcing quotas.

Women have been progressing steadily for the last 50 years in education and experience (and in numbers of women who have these qualifications), but, alas, the status-preoccupied, sexual predator-type men who often rise to the top in these corporations simply do not have the wherewithal or interest to get this fixed. It is no wonder they are angry, their privilege and abuse of our world is no longer unquestioned. And the silly arguments made by the male chauvinists here who presume to know what women want (who the H*** do you think you are?), seem more and more ridiculous, I suspect, all the time, and reveal these men's inadequacies.

Yet another silly french law.

Another reason while men tend to occupy top positions:

"Studies consistently show greater variance in the performance of men compared to that of women (i.e., men are more represented at the extremes of performance), and that men and women have statistically significant differences in average scores on tests of particular abilities."

IE even if intelligence is the same on average (it`s weighted to be), there are more extremely smart (and extremely stupid) men than women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

We also need a quota for homelessness!

Well, first I should thank J Kemp for telling us all what women want and Uncle Clive for noting that attractive alpha females are wives and mothers who don't clutter up the office.
I'm female and make a point of cluttering up my office, where I'm respected for the job that I do and, happily, encouraged to progress through the ranks to the very highest levels. I have a first from Oxford and am damned if anyone else is going to tell me either what I want or how I should live my life. Both of you should be utterly ashamed at the patronising way in which you presume to treat half the world's population. I do not care whether you find women like me attractive - personally I prefer men whose heads are wider than their necks... to each their own I guess.
The reaction from French Boards to this legislation is extraordinarily depressing. The point about quotas like this is that they should force companies to look outside their existing channels, by which I mean their golf clubs and old boys' networks, for new Board members. Women struggle for many reasons, including the fact that childcare is still viewed as their problem to resolve, but a significant part of the problem is a lack of role models and networks in the work environment. So for the highest post, why not draw from Law, Academia, Sciences etc? The new perspective may *even* add value to the companies involved!

Why not 40% of taxi drivers should be women? Why not 40% of construction workers should be women? Why should 40% of safe high-paid physically non-demanding jobs go to women but not 40% of dangerous low-paid physically-demanding jobs?

Because the bosses want to appoint their floozies to the board! rather than disadvantaged minority men who have a right to the jobs.

The solution is a homemaker allowance. http://homemakerallowance.blogspot.com

As J.Kemp wrote: 'The truth about women...is that most would truly rather have a family-centric life than a business-centric life.' And we should be looking at making homemaking a viable option for the maximum number of women, and a policy of part-time work for homemakers.

The attractive alpha females are wives and mothers with only a limited interest in careers. There is a problem with unqualified loser females cluttering up the office.

How in God's name is anyone supposed to access this thread. I got here via a comment I posted on another blog. It only took me an hour to fathom it out. This article prompted some interesting comments, and then it got lost. Clean up your act, guys! Repost this article in a visible location, Please!

What does the Economist say is the NWO?

What is the now emergent NEW World Order-NWO? The OECD claims it's the NEW Humanomics(sm) East West post collapse "convergence model."

Thank you, Yehoshua Ya'acov

The French AGAIN lead herein below:

WHAT is "Receiving, to give(sm)?" And what does it have to do with economics? And why does Jean Sarkozy endorese the Humanomics(sm) NEW economic paradigm the 'Integration of Labor(sm)," while Brown's Labor slept on this water shed SOLUTION'S development.

And was why Humanomics(sm) clear to the French and not in the UK? And why are there 40 million SE links on Google, and hndreds of millions more globally? Though NOT this much in the French SEs...

Tky, Yehoshua Ya'acov

S.Holloway: You didn't answer my question. Why should 40% of safe well-paid jobs go to women but not 40% of dangerous physically demanding jobs?

You are upset because some of us said that women want nice homes more than careers. Well, let's find out! Let's have a HOMEMAKER ALLOWANCE and part-time jobs for homemakers. And if that's what women want, Fine! But if women want careers, they forfeit their husbands' pensions. They can't have both! And let's see how many women really want full-time jobs.

Let me make a suggestion. The quota approach is valid for racial and religious minorities but not for women. Every board should have one or two women, never more or less. A team of ten men and one woman is as effective as a team of eleven men. The woman acts as a mascot and has a galvanising effect: like Margaret Thatcher. But a 50:50 mixed team is constrained artificial denatured neutered sterile unproductive etc. See 'castration'. The boy/ girl/ boy/ girl format is strictly for formal occasions like dinner parties and royal events.

http://homemakerallowance.blogspot.com

And talking of cluttered offices: It took me an hour to find this thread in The Economist's labyrinthine entrails.

France is again atacking individual rights. How there can be a law that LIMITS the access of MALE professionals to the top position? This seems the US on the 18th century when too many Jews and blacks couldn't access some associations and universities. Now France wants to limit the access of a minority (males) to top jobs. That's an absurd!!!
It seems that forbiding burka, limiting religous liberty in state schools (no religious symbols) and treating differently men and women is all about French culture.
This law just shows how better off America is in comparison to continental Europe. Here we don't try to make fake social designs (such as imposing quotas for underperformers)!!!!

This has to be one of the most shallow pieces of legislation yet to be written. I cannot think of a worse instance of social meddling or a case where the negative consequences of the of idea of forcing "equality" indicates greater thoughtlessness. In the Western world's blind pursuit of equality, we seem to forget that the differences between us all are not always:

A.) Any one group's fault
B.) Easily rectified with quotas, force, or overnight policies

I also don't buy the argument that such legislation raises the the issue for further debate and actual progress by simply changing the injustices present in the system. Are that many women really clamoring for this?. Oddly enough, this principle of forcing equality does not seem to apply groups which are perceived as being different, or who might be offended. I bet the same forces behind this legislation would also be reluctant to mandate that any other potentially repressed groups, such as Muslim women, be forced into conditions of greater strength or freedom from their men. Whereas western women surely have not chosen their underrepresented position, Muslim women, by asserting their own cultural norms which they are not really free to disagree with, somehow have. When dealing with groups under the shield of religion and false tolerance, these same principles fail to apply where they might actually do some good.

A nice thought, but like so many, this legislation fails to be grounded in reality.

If they have a approved husband, ex-husband or father, I don't understand the fuss.

1. Bringing more women into high position is a good idea

2. quotas are a very bad and inefficient idea

There only is one possibility:
1. Give women an excellent education
2. Give women the same possibility to combine a career with a family
3. Force companies to take the best (male bosses actually prefer male successors, even when a woman has the same qualifications)

As a woman who has pursued her education and career I find the law in question offensive and just plain wrong-headed.

But to Ultra Conservative below - America did have affirmative action (which I also disagree with)
Regards
Yvonne

Our Blessed Brothers & Sisters, in France:

Better late than never, it's a good idea. And it's one that will bless your economy's correct trajectory, health and growth; as women are on a higher spiritual level, than are men, and as such they have often better vision(s) or appreciation(s) for the NEW and original.

It was a French woman who first recognized the uniqueness of the NEW economic paradigm, as the eventual SOLUTION to the world economic collapse that's the "Integration of Labor(sm)." And even before the economist, from listening to David Rockefeller, Sr.

Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov

J. Kemp wrote: May 8th 2010 6:18 GMT .Women of France, do you want the largest companies to begin hiring 40% of their board members not on the basis of merit or experience, or even desire to be on a corporate board, but instead on the basis of Gender?

Kemp, since when are male board members selected on the basis of their experience and merit? No man or woman believes that.