Hacker News Reader

Comment by native_samples | Hacker News Reader

There's no actual evidence that women on boards yields better outcomes, it's just another false belief propagated by junk studies.

But even if there was, would that be a good reason to act on it? This "logic" never seems to be deployed in men's favour. It's obvious that strong male firefighters will have better outcomes than female firefighters, that's why New York had to make the qualification tests easier in order to hire more women. Yet the rules were changed anyway.

"I honestly don't know how anyone can believe the market will find the optimal outcome."

Because of enormous amounts of history, theory and practice showing that it will? BTW the "confused, reactionary, panicky, racist, sexist, bigoted people" would appear to describe the people breaking the law in order to ban men from powerful positions on the basis of their gender, wouldn't it.

View on HN

As far as I can tell, your argument is: 1. There is no evidence that women on boards yield better outcomes 2. Even if they led to better outcomes, it's wrong to act on it. 3. Markets are efficient and therefore don't allow for discrimination

Re: 1, I don't know Re: 2, I believe that there is a place for affirmative action, especially in places like the boardroom where physical aspects of gender differences have no meaning. Re: 3, There's plenty of evidence showing places where markets are discriminatory in preference to being efficient: https://danluu.com/bad-decisions/

"It's obvious that strong male firefighters will have better outcomes than female firefighters, that's why New York had to make the qualification tests easier in order to hire more women."

Is it obvious, though? Sure, perhaps for a few specific things, but outside of a very limited set of things... probably not. You don't need to be a strong manly man to drive a fire truck nor to use hoses. The test probably didn't actually measure what was necessary before and likely disqualified women not because it was difficult, but because it didn't actually measure how fit for the job women were (example: Measuring upper body strength alone instead of measuring how well they could carry someone out of the fire or hooking up hoses). I mean, somehow women are strong enough to be lifting patients in a nursing home but not helping folks out in a fire? I doubt this.

> You don't need to be a strong manly man to drive a fire truck …

It helps if you’re going to be doing literally anything other than just driving the apparatus.

Also, why should men be relegated to the most dangerous jobs, just so that we can fill a female hiring quota by giving women the safer, less demanding jobs?

> … nor to use hoses.

You absolutely need to be built to man a firehose.

It takes your full weight and strength to keep control of a hose with the diameters and pressures used in firefighting.

With a 2.5”+ hose, it can take two full-grown men to keep control of the line with the nozzle open, especially when advancing.

Nevermind hauling a charged line into a building, up stairs, etc. The weight alone is tremendous.

> I mean, somehow women are strong enough to be lifting patients in a nursing home

Male staffers are generally asked to do the lifting, and sometimes medical services literally call in the fire department for a lift assist.

> … but not helping folks out in a fire?

The structure gear alone weighs about 70 pounds. By the time you find someone in a building, you’ve been using a heavy tools, in the heat, to sound floors and search rooms rapidly in the most exhausting way possible.

It’s so much more difficult than just lifting someone without all the gear on.

There’s also forced entry into doors, etc, which benefits substantially from weight, leverage, and upper body strength.

> I doubt this.

Only because you know nothing about firefighting.

The same is true for military standards, and potentially some police forces (SWAT).

Of course this should have nothing to do with a board position. Perhaps women would actually excel in board positions as those mostly have to do with building/having social networks, something women certainly seem to be better at than men on average.

Most of it is going to be speculation until we see larger numbers and can compare boards with women to boards without (and even boards with only women). It's tough to say, as the 'old boys club' seems to be dying out regardless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com