Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Brickbat: German Gender Quotas

Charles Oliver | 12.4.2014 6:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | giannisl/Flickr
(giannisl/Flickr)
giannisl/Flickr

A new German law mandates that the nation's largest companies reserve 30 percent of the seats of their supervisory boards for women. Companies have until 2016 to meet the new quotas.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: What We Saw at Tonight's Eric Garner Protest

Charles Oliver is a contributing editor at Reason.

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (50)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   11 years ago

    You know who else mandated a strict quota?

    1. ColonelEngineer   11 years ago

      Staten Island police?

    2. Swiss Servator, Winter kommt!   11 years ago

      University of Michigan?

    3. db   11 years ago

      Frau Bl?cher?

      1. Horse   11 years ago

        Neeeeigh!!

    4. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

      The Hall of Justice?

    5. Adans smith   11 years ago

      Beowulf ?

    6. mr lizard   11 years ago

      King Leonytis?

  2. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

    Let me guess, a company who discriminates at 100% female is a-okay under these rules.

    1. Steve G   11 years ago

      Candidate: Hi, I saw the ad about a hostess?

      HR: Sorry, but that position is no longer available, could we interest you in a COO position?

  3. widget   11 years ago

    30%? Picked that number out of someone's ass. Why not 50.1% to match the Flying Spaghetti Monster's baby production?

    1. db   11 years ago

      Because Progressives need slightly more than half of women to be baby factories to generate new taxpayers and laborers.

      1. Redmanfms   11 years ago

        You jest, but Germany does (well, did, haven't checked the laws lately) effectively pay women to have children. Several Eurotrash nations do.

        I guess they didn't quite figure out that the incredibly high cost of living has made it such that young people who actually want a passably comfortable lifestyle aren't inclined to take on a gigantic financial burden like a kid.

        1. Redmanfms   11 years ago

          Huh, post got clipped.

          It was basically the reason why many Europeans nations started paying women to have kids back in the '70s/'80s, the birthrate was crashing because of the ridiculous cost of living at a time when pension benefits (paid by taxpayers) reached their zenith of lavishness.

          The many programs instituted to encourage women to have kids largely failed, which is why many European nations turned to the Middle East for immigration. That's, shall we say, not turned out too well for them.

      2. widget   11 years ago

        You're telling me that proggies know full well that women cannot be CEOs and baby factories at the same time. Thus, we have to downgrade them to 30% efficiency.

  4. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

    Ladies and gentlemen, we're losing Germany.

    1. Steve G   11 years ago

      You know who else lost Germany?

      1. Malkavian   11 years ago

        Emperor Napoleon III?

      2. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

        Augustus?

      3. Adans smith   11 years ago

        Jack Ryan?

      4. mr lizard   11 years ago

        Gorbachev?

      5. Swiss Servator, Winter kommt!   11 years ago

        Kaiser Franz Joseph?

      6. Ted S.   11 years ago

        Luiz Felipe Scolari?

      7. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

        Gorbachev?

        1. Bean Counter   11 years ago

          Read before posting.

      8. JW   11 years ago

        Bluto?

      9. Riesen   11 years ago

        Argentina in the 2006 World Cup?

  5. Steve G   11 years ago

    And if they can't come up with qualified/interested candidates? The chair just sits empty...like some kind of reminder/memorial or something?

    1. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

      Ever been to a board meeting with nothing but dolls sitting in the chairs?

      Happened to a friend. It got to be he thought he was one of them and began dressing up like them make up and all.

      True story.

      1. Ted S.   11 years ago

        When I was in college, I joined the radio station and for the most part was a news reader. Every Sunday, all the departments would have a meeting to dole out shifts for the week and what not. One term, I was the only guy in the news department. It was then that I realized women are just as shallow and sex-obsessed as men are (often rightly) accused of being.

    2. Steve G   11 years ago

      Don't know why, but it reminds me of the POW/MIA tables at military functions:
      As you entered the banquet hall conference room this evening morning, you may have noticed a small table chair in a place of honor equality. It is set for one slightly elevated since they're typically shorter. This table chair is our way of symbolizing the fact that members of our profession of arms are missing from our midst reminding you of the patriarchy. They are commonly called POWs or MIAs eye candy, but we call them "Brothers" 'the Oppressed'. They are unable to be with us this evening morning and so we remember them guilt trip you bastards.

  6. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

    A female doctor here is advocating women doctors get paid equal to a male doctor even if they work less (which according to stats is 70% less than males).

    It's almost as if 'hours worked' mean nothing anymore. Just pay me even if I work less. At this rate, let's pay people to stay at home.

    I swear, we need someone or something to come and nip this mental state of being in the bud fast or else...

    1. Adans smith   11 years ago

      I am women hear me bitch

    2. Ted S.   11 years ago

      Single payer will solve this.

      [/sarcasm]

    3. Bean Counter   11 years ago

      Never mind that this woman never passed Economics 101, she doesn't even grasp the "Empty Bag" theory of economics. Stated succinctly, the Empty Bag Theory states that, when the bat is empty, you have to stop eating the candy.

      1. Bean Counter   11 years ago

        "bat" = "bag".
        Dammit.

        1. Bean Counter   11 years ago

          Oh...That's what the "Preview" button is for!

      2. db   11 years ago

        Someone else's bag always has some left in it.

        1. Bean Counter   11 years ago

          yeah, but the smart ones figure out how to hide their candy and leave the empty bag out for the thieves to see.

  7. Rebel Scum   11 years ago

    "Merit". What is it?

    Also, how is a policy, such as this, not the textbook definition of sexism?

    1. ColonelEngineer   11 years ago

      Cause women can't be sexist. Duh.

      Now surrender your patriarchy membership card. You're obviously unfit to carry one.

  8. Coeus   11 years ago

    So far, all results have been negative or neutral.

    But diversity is strength!!!

    1. Doctor Whom   11 years ago

      comment doubleplusungood refs the forbidden concept of "results" revise fullwise upsub antefiling

  9. Coeus   11 years ago

    Columnist for the atlantic proposes US political quotas.

    1. Doctor Whom   11 years ago

      Let's follow that splended example of human rights, Rwanda.

      1. Rebel Scum   11 years ago

        I thought of that, as well. If Rwanda is your shining example, I think you're doing it wrong.

    2. Rebel Scum   11 years ago

      Murray argues, men have an "enlightened self-interest" in supporting quotas for men.

      MOAR GOVERNMENT ENFORCED DISCRIMINATION.

      qualified women often opt not to run

      What are "personal choices"?

      previous research has demonstrated that women undergo a more difficult selection process

      Clearly this is how we got the enlightened grace of Nancy Pelosi & Sheila Jackson-Lee.

      I couldn't finish reading it. It's fucking retarded.

    3. Bean Counter   11 years ago

      Hell, just skip all the BS and put in a female dictator, castrate all men and outlaw all forms of reproduction except artificial insemination.

    4. Suthenboy   11 years ago

      In all fairness it would be difficult to downgrade the political system with quotas. Nearly every other system/industry can be downgraded by reducing it from a meritocracy, but the political system....randomly choosing people front the voter rolls would probably improve it. But the political system really has nowhere to go but up.

      1. jmomls   11 years ago

        *But the political system really has nowhere to go but up.*

        LOL

        "Just when you think things are never ever going to get any better, they get worse."

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Quebec's Dairy Farmers Are Blocking Free Trade in Canada

Stuart J. Smyth | 6.21.2025 7:00 AM

The Criminal Justice System Was Found Guilty in the Karen Read Trial

Billy Binion | 6.21.2025 6:30 AM

Obama Adviser Jason Furman on Biden, Neoliberalism, and Keynesian Economics

Nick Gillespie | From the July 2025 issue

The Federal Government Owns Too Much Land. Selling It Helps Rural Communities.

Jack Nicastro | 6.20.2025 5:37 PM

A Judge's Order Freeing Mahmoud Khalil Is Yet Another Loss for the Trump Administration's Immigration Agenda

C.J. Ciaramella | 6.20.2025 4:41 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!