National - FFS!

[Panda-NZ-]

They will be voting on issues unique to women like healthcare and family leave. it doesn't help when there aren't many around the table when these decisions are made.

[fungus pudding]

They will be voting on issues unique to women like healthcare and family leave. it doesn't help when there aren't many around the table when these decisions are made.

By 'they' I assume you mean women. I suggest you should reply to the quote.

[tim23]

National need to stop their propensity to run a dirty campaign.
They are a shambles (to use Muller's favourite word).
At the moment they couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag let alone manage the country.

Quite right - his other favourite word is perspective he used it so many times when being grilled by journos over the Walker issue, twice in the same short sentence!

[Blue Skies]

There is something seriously stupid about picking candidates based on gender.

Not at all, its absolutely undeniable women especially women with young children have a different perspective on things from say elderly white males which tend to dominate many boardrooms & political parties.
A good example is during the GFC banks with strong women representation on their boards tended to fair miles better due to being more secure.
Males tend to be more selfish, have bigger egos, take higher risks, look shorter term, & be more competitive with each other.
Women tend to be more collaborative, look longer term, less ego driven etc.

So a good mix often provides the best outcomes. You need risk takers with some risk aversion, & it's unacceptable in this day and age for older men to be solely making decisions around issues which strongly affect women.

[fungus pudding]

Not at all, its absolutely undeniable women especially women with young children have a different perspective on things from say elderly white males which tend to dominate many boardrooms & political parties.
A good example is during the GFC banks with strong women representation on their boards tended to fair miles better due to being more secure.
Males tend to be more selfish, have bigger egos, take higher risks, look shorter term, & be more competitive with each other.
Women tend to be more collaborative, look longer term, less ego driven etc.

So a good mix often provides the best outcomes. You need risk takers with some risk aversion, & it's unacceptable in this day and age for older men to be solely making decisions around issues which strongly affect women.

I don't doubt that a mix is desirable, but I have huge reservations about quotas. I can't see anything good in selecting a mediocre man (or woman) over a particularly bright woman (or man).

[Panda-NZ-]

I don't doubt that a mix is desirable, but I have huge reservations about quotas. I can't see anything good in selecting a mediocre man (or woman) over a particularly bright woman (or man).

It's not entirely based on that though esp in politics. Those who can effectively "play the game or system" will rise to the top more often. unfortunately the reality of this can sometimes lend itself more to male characteristics.

This is why it can be a small part of the solution. It's easy to say things are merit based from the perspective of an NZ white elderly male.

[fungus pudding]

It's not entirely based on that though esp in politics. Those who can effectively "play the game or system" rise to the top more often. unfortunately the reality of this can sometimes lend itself more to male characteristics.

This is why it can be a small part of the solution. It's easy to say things are merit based from the perspective of a white elderly male.

Not a hint of objective thinking in that post.

[Zaphod]

Not at all, its absolutely undeniable women especially women with young children have a different perspective on things from say elderly white males which tend to dominate many boardrooms & political parties.
A good example is during the GFC banks with strong women representation on their boards tended to fair miles better due to being more secure.
Males tend to be more selfish, have bigger egos, take higher risks, look shorter term, & be more competitive with each other.
Women tend to be more collaborative, look longer term, less ego driven etc.

So a good mix often provides the best outcomes. You need risk takers with some risk aversion, & it's unacceptable in this day and age for older men to be solely making decisions around issues which strongly affect women.

The differences you've outlined above appear to be generalised extrapolations of the results of the psychological study of gender differences. The results of such studies paint a fairly clear picture of similarities and differences along the major axis of neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion and openness, from an intra-cultural perspective, but I would be extremely cautious attributing many of those lower level generalised behaviours (e.g. looking longer-term) with gender as the outcomes of research is not clear. The interplay between the axis on actual organisational performance further complicates the results.

I would agree that generally speaking, diversity does provide benefits.

[Zaphod]

I don't doubt that a mix is desirable, but I have huge reservations about quotas. I can't see anything good in selecting a mediocre man (or woman) over a particularly bright woman (or man).

You're right, quotas can introduce even more problems. One of the primary issues lies in the availability of talent. There's a strong correlation between gender, ethnicity, etc. and the selection of specific professions. This can reduce the overall number of candidates available to select, and thereby increase the likelihood of drawing an average or below average candidate from the pool.

Getting a bit off topic I suppose, so I shouldn't go on about this in the National thread.

[Blue Skies]

I don't doubt that a mix is desirable, but I have huge reservations about quotas. I can't see anything good in selecting a mediocre man (or woman) over a particularly bright woman (or man).

Yes fair enough, while desirable, no one wants to lose an outstanding candidate for the sake of imposing an inflexible quota system.