Hacker News Reader

Comment by Double_a_92 | Hacker News Reader

It's sexist both ways too. Even if you are a woman that really deserved to lead some company, people will think that you just got there because of the quota. Every error you do would count tenfolds against you... That can't be good.

And those negative views don't entirely come from sexism. I assume similar things would happen if there was a quota for e.g. short people. People are just jealous and claim that others don't deserve things.

Edit: If you feel the urge to dislike could you at least state what you didn't like? Or are discussions frowned upon nowadays?

View on HN

Maybe better than not being elected in the first place? To my understanding, quotas are only a transition solution.

Yeah... I guess it's needed once to kinda break the resistance / bias against women. But in the long term it should definitely not exists.

I would propose slowly ramping it up to 50% over a range of maybe 20 years? Then hold it for 10, and drop it.

From there on it should be fair game. If the imbalance should happen again, then I guess it's just how it is...

(The slow ramp-up is so you don't fill up with the first best women available, which maybe might not necessarily be the best candidates... Which would lead to more bias if they fail the job, instead of the opposite.)

>Even if you are a woman that really deserved to lead some company, people will think that you just got there because of the quota.

That's their problem. They want to vocalize it, well you can fire them!

It's not even about vocalizing it. You yourself could also feel that way... Always questioning if you really earned this. Leading to imposter syndrome, insecurity and so on which might really turn you into a bad leader.

Imposter syndrome is real. But if you are literally on the board of a company, I doubt it matters as much. Also, lots of people inherited rather than earned their wealth. Should we outlaw that to save them from imposter syndrome?

No but we shoulnd't create a law that randomly takes the wealth of every second heir, and gives it to an orphan kid instead.

Technically they are equal, they just happened to be born somewhere different. So it should be fair, right?

That kid when he grows up might indeed feel weird about all the undeserved money...

>That kid when he grows up might indeed feel weird about all the undeserved money...

Are you serious? How is taking money from one person who never worked for it and giving it to another person who never worked for it going to make one feel self-conscious and sympathetic to the other?

There are people who refused lottery winnings... Minds are different and weird.

Edit: To directly answer your question, It's not about being sympathetic to the other. They just didn't deserve the money. You "feel" they envy of other people and ask yourself why you and not somebody else. At least if you were the legitimate heir you knew that your family earned it somehow...

Okay, can you answer what I asked?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com