\'Gender\' balancing act

Today I feel like we entered a new era.

Thanks to the folks that create our laws,the city of Vinton now has to follow what I think is the most insulting law...the one REQUIRING that every team pick a girl! Well in grown up terms, they are requiring "gender balance" on things like the Board of Adjustment. see story The same applies on the county level.

Now I don't know about you, but I prefer to have people who know a thing or two about what the Board of Adjustments even is, to apply for the position. But because of a law made here in good 'ol Iowa, they need to "balance" the board with women.

Granted, I know most guys, still think women aren't quite as bright, or capable or have baggage like children, so that may hinder them from making a woman their first choice.

But as a woman, I also know that when a woman wants something bad enough, she'll get it.

In some ways REQUIRING these government bodies to put women in these positions to "balance" the power is a slap in the face.

It's like MAKING a nail salon hire an equal amount of guys to apply nail polish before they can operate.

Or requiring a hospital to have the same amount of male nurses as female nurses.

Why? Not because they are good at what they do, or because they are the best of the best, but simply because of their anatomy.

So much for discrimination.

I'd much rather have the BEST candidate be chosen, than have the right body type chosen.

We are now entering an age that says, "Sorry, you might have the knowledge, but we don't want your brain, just your body."

I know, sorry gals, you probably think I'm setting women's lib back a few years. But really. I'm competitive enough that if I want a job, I'd much rather fight my way tooth and nail to get it than to get it JUST because I'm a woman, and they HAVE to give me the job.

Does a lot for the ol' self esteem doesn't it?

Of course, it is pretty dull to serve on these boards, and having some women to liven it up might help a bit. Women are so used to multi-tasking, I'm sure they will be running circles around the guys as soon as they know what needs to be done.

But this will probably end like it always does.

He won't take out the trash, and she won't quit nagging.

So good luck, and let the balancing begin!

Comments

Submit a Comment

MS August 14, 2011, 11:19 am Rosemary - arguable I or anyone could say the same thing about your data references that you have said about Bethany\'s - you cannot tell me that those that collect demographic data for the any public entity - try to simply justify their existence as well - now on the issue you are referring - if a woman is more qualified than a man for a job - give her the job - giving someone a job or position just to meet a quota just doesn\'t seem fair - Personally I would not want anyone to give me a job or position because they had too - that would not make me feel too good about myself - but this is my feeling - I have talked to some local leaders - a lot of the problem with balance on the boards has nothing at all to do with discrimination - many times they have to practically beg people to fill these positions -

BG August 13, 2011, 7:13 pm Rosemary- I take offense to the fact that in your opinion my sources are biased and looking for justification for paying women lower wages, especially when your sources are from www.women.iowa.gov, a site that is obviously biased towards women. Interesting note, did you know that there isn\'t a www.men.iowa.gov website or something similar? The comment section is a place where we can express our thoughts and opinions on the article and discuss our viewpoints. If you can express your opinions, why can\'t I respectfully express mine? Just because I disagree with your points does not mean that I shouldn\'t be conversing with you via the comment section; rather, I am using this forum (as you are) to talk about a topic that I feel passionately about. For the record, you were the first one to give numbers and thoughts, yet after I did the same you immediately accused me of putting my opinions down as facts. And when I did provide my sources you said they\'re biased. I simply wish for the same respect I feel I\'ve shown you in this conversation.

RS August 13, 2011, 11:12 am I think I will put my bet on demographic statisical data rather than analysis who you referred to as an expert, who works with Fortune 500 companies that seek to justify paying women less than men. There are several reasons for the disparity, I addressed a couple in my first reponse. Gender discrimination is one of those factors and to think otherwise is naive. What I don\'t understand is why you want to argue about it?

BG August 12, 2011, 4:19 pm Rosemary, here is the link where I got the men\'s and women\' wages (regarding CEO\'s): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-13/women-ceos-earn-more-than-men-get-pay-raise-in-2009-video.html And here is another interesting link that talks about why there are differences in the salaries between men and women, and it really does a good job at talking about the 77% theory that exists when talking about pay inequality: http://thomasecon.com/attachments/article/120/thomas%20the%20gender%20pay%20gap%20Bloomberg%20law%20report.pdf. As you can see, I did my research before posting a response to this column. I would never falsify statistics and numbers and present them as fact, I much prefer to be able to back up what I say, especially when someone questions what I\'ve said.

RS August 12, 2011, 2:19 pm Another link with 2010 number for Iowa women http://www.women.iowa.gov/about_women/docs/Iowa%20Gender%20Wage%20Equity%20Study_2010.pdf

RS August 12, 2011, 12:51 pm Bethany, Where do you get your information about men and women\'s wages. This link is from 2007 but is the most current. Please do some research before presenting your opinon as fact. http://www.women.iowa.gov/resources_tools/docs/Census_earnings.pdf You will notice that wmen here in Iowa make 74.9 % of men. the national average is 77.5%

EH August 12, 2011, 12:15 am I believe it is misguided to assume that due to the gender balance requirement that the women who will be appointed to these positions are less qualified than a man. I have confidence in our local leaders to choose appropriate women for these positions.

BG August 11, 2011, 10:43 pm If qualifications were the deciding factor, someone else would have won the last presidential election:-) I didn\'t see anything in Valerie\'s article blaming women for not seeking board positions. I think she\'s making a valid point. I would much rather seek a position on a board I want to serve on and be chosen because of my intelligence and qualifications, not my gender. If we had the opposite issue, more women than men sitting on boards, and a law was passed saying we needed to balance the boards I imagine there would be an outcry from women claiming discrimination. I\'m glad women can choose careers if they so desire but I\'m also glad women can stay home with their children. We\'re at the point now where if a woman chooses to stay home with her children instead of working outside the home, people think she\'s lazy, stupid, or has no motivation. I\'m happy women have choices but I think we as a nation are taking it to the point where women are told that they need to seek positions outside the home to be worth something, and I take offense at that. Women shouldn\'t be made to feel guilty for not choosing to seek a career or trying to beat men out of positions. As far as the gender wage gap, in some occupations men DO make more than women doing the same work without the same amount of experience; however, there are occupations in which WOMEN are making more than men with equal experience. Bloomberg News reported in 2009 that the female CEO\'s of companies in the S&P 500 were making 43% more than male CEO\'s. This isn\'t a black and white issue-there are many factors contributing to the so-called inequality and I find it unfair to automatically cry discrimination against women.

RS August 11, 2011, 2:10 pm Valerie, I have to take issue with your gender balance argument. All you have to do is look at corporate and governmental boards that are controlled mostly by men, white men. No one is putting the idea out there that an unqualified woman is to be picked over a qualified man but for hundreds of years women have not been considered “equal” in talents and intelligence to men. While things have dramatically changed over time, inequality still exists. Some at the state level saw the same thing I have, that women are not on these boards, not because we lack intelligence but because ,”it has always been that way”. Most boards are filled with men who when a vacancy comes up think only of filling that position with another man, not even considering that there are qualified women who could do the job, (and probably better than a lot of the men). To be fair, many women do not seek these positions for a variety of reasons including not wanting to upset the norm to they just don’t have the time because they are working full-time and taking care of kids and the house, (which in 2011 is still the norm, while men come home from work eat a meal and watch TV.) I am not saying all men do this but women still disproportionately are the care givers in the family while working full-time, leaving men to have the time for these boards. To state the obvious here, there have been several women over time who have ran for the position of Governor of Iowa or the Federal House and Senate. These women have been qualified, often times more so that the man who gets elected in their place, but Iowa is the only state except for Mississippi that have not elected a woman to a higher office that the State House or Lt. Governor. If qualifications were the deciding factor, this would not be the case Yes in 2011 inequality based on race, sex, and sexual preference is here and if city, county, and state boards are required to change that situation then so be it because white men aren’t going to do it on their own or it would have been done already. History is full of examples of the positive outcomes of equality. A good review of that history may bring to light why it is important that boards be gendered balanced. A couple of examples. It was not until the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 that women could even vote let alone serve on policy making boards at any level. African-Americans were considered, “equal” in the 19th Century but it took another hundred years for the Civil Rights act of 1964 to codify that equality. Women now exceed men going to college but that has only occurred the last 20 years or so because the role of the woman was to get married, have kids and stay at home not become educated or compete equally with men for jobs. I am not sure of the exact amount, but over all women still earn between 75-80% of men across the board many for same types of jobs. The glass ceiling still exists where women’s career are penalized for taking time away from their career to stay at home to care for children or just to be able to be considered the same worth as a man’s career path. So please do not tell me that a woman or a minority can do whatever they want, all they have to do is seek it. Your expose` seeks to blame women for not seeking these positions rather than the institutional inequality that continues to perpetuate the status quo.

Opinion : \'Gender\' balancing act

Comments