So, according to the New York Times, in several countries there's a requirement for a certain percentage of board members of corporations to be women. 40% in Norway. What do you think of this? Is it required to create equality? Should this be implemented in the United States?

To sum it up: LAWLAWLAWLAWL.
Basically, you're forcing companies to hire women. Even if they're not as qualified as men. It's just illogical.

If there are more women than men in the country, then yes.

A large corporation needs AT MOST 1 woman, and she better be hot.

I have always opposed discrimination of all forms, for and against minorities. While you can probably make an argument for affirmative action in certain circumstances to the point that I will concede an impasse, this is an example where I think it is patently wrong to have such a quota. Equality is when gender is not considered to be a factor in employment decisions, not when the positive results are given in a 1:1 ratio regardless of the input.

I would say that forcing companies to hire a certain percentage of women is in of itself a form of discrimination. I can see this law being useful in certain countries where woman are regarded as lesser due to ethnical//religious beliefs, but here in America.. I'm thinking that America is already making a great stride towards equality in corporations, and that a government supported program forcing companies to higher percentages of women would be more harmful to the goal of equality. I know that if I were forced to higher a certain person, I would have very little respect for that person as an employee.

Men and women are different. As such, treating them the exact same despite gender will be treating one or the other worse. If one person is diabetic, and other a sugar lover, you can't force both to eat candy and then call it equal treatment (assuming you know the one is diabetic). Men and women need to be treated slightly different in order to be treated fairly. An example of this could be shown in the physical labor industries, where hiring a women to physical labor would be, in most cases, inefficient when compared to hiring a man for that same job.

Well, I'm basically with DTBK on it. I think that it's a rather silly way of going about it. I might be fine with it if there was a requirement that 40% of all prison inmates were female, or 40% of all physical laborers were female, or if 40% of all people living to the average age were male (or insert-inherent-inequality-here), but as it is, it seems ridiculous.

This sums up my thoughts on the matter accurately. I strongly oppose affirmative action, much like I find political correctness an appendage of racism.

I don't think most corporations want a brainless salesperson that gets by because they have a great rack. Then again, all the benefits...

Ah yes...beating discrimination by causing discrimination. There is no positive light for affirmative action.

Ah the benefits... :amazing: