<i>How any company can expect to build a sustainable long-term business when not one of their 14 Partners/Advisors is female is beyond me.</i><p>This piece seems... I don't know the right word for it. It's not reverse sexism. But anyway, even if the world was completely un-sexist and genders were perfectly equal, would we not expect simply due to chance to see <i>some</i> boards with 14 members of only one gender? So while it is conspicuous this particular board is all-male, how can we say a business cannot possibly be viable with only one gender on the board?
> This is especially surprising considering that many of their partners are ex-Accenture, a company that in my experience placed a strong emphasis on recruiting and promoting female talent at the highest levels.<p>The minute someone throws out Accenture as a positive example of how to run a business is the minute they lose their own credibility. It turns out it's easy to hire whoever you want if competence is not a requirement. Otherwise, if you hire in a field where most qualified candidiates are men, your employees will be predominantly men.
While I agree that it would be awesome to see more women represented in companies, particularly at higher levels of management, I'm not sure this post makes sense to me.<p>If one of those top management executives were female, what makes them different from the "TOKEN FEMALE" on the other associate-level pages? Is it different if there are two women in C-level positions? Where do you draw the line between women being powerful in their own right vs simply TOKEN FEMALES on a team?<p>(Note: I'm all for hiring women, and I encourage my friends (male and female) to take up programming, and I do my best to help them get jobs in the industry. But this guy's argument just strikes me as a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism and what that means.)
Based on my corporate experience, there is normaly at least one department that is the opposite of IT in terms of gender balance - Human Resources.<p>I wonder if people women in Human Resources are running campaigns to recruit more men into their departments?
By the title I expected a piece of satire.<p>Titling an article about sexism with 'Be a Man' probably is not the best way to go about advocating equality.
This is extremely dangerous and often gives the opposite effect. An example is situation with universities in Sweden. There was a parity for all degrees. As a result, lots of women didn't get to uni because 50% was reserved for male, even though they had higher grades. They filled a law suit and won (European Court of Human Rights).
This is a sexist article, because it tells a company that they should hire people just because they are women, it's also racist because it remarked that the team was white as a problem.
What if I started a company, and all good candidates were male, and the women weren't on par? What if no women applied at all? I don't get this whole gender thing. If statistically less women apply to a STEM degree, or tech related job, how is it the fault of "white males"? White male guilt at it's finest if you ask me.<p>If you actively see discrimination, do something about it. I actually work with a team that is 90% women, it just happened that way. The male applicants sucked, the women were great. My friends teams however, are only male, because they had no female applicants.<p>Why try to force equality? Am I missing something?<p>What if the person doing the hiring silently disregards all female applicants? How would you tackle that problem?<p>OP if you had a company would you hire a less qualified woman than a more qualified man in the name of equality?<p>This movement seems counter-intuitive. If the applicant is good, hire them, male or female, young or old. Our team consists of elder women, young fresh grads, interns, and working class middle aged women as well, all across the spectrum. We all mingle just fine and still shoot the shit.<p>Hiring GOOD people is the only thing that should matter. Throw out all this ideology and affirmative action nonsense.