Germany recently decided to openly legalize sexism in the decision to forcefully introduce a female quota in big companies.
As of 2016, 30% of all CEO positions are to be filled by women regardless of qualification. A female quota is about the most sexist thing you could do in a company. It basically forces you to hire women even if they are less qualified than men solely because they're...women. We immediately declared that we will not follow said quota and if prompted to do so, ask the state to sue us, at the same time declaring that every single € spent on those lawsuits will be hurting the state, not us.
A more sensible approach to the problem would be to favor women applying for a job if they are equally qualified as men (as we already do), but hiring people just because of their gender is ridiculous and out of question for us.
All power to flame shields, this is gonna be a rough one.
If you want to stonewall your goverment, get as many companies based in Germany as you can get together and enter "a discussion of unpredicatable and indefinite length as to which companies will have female CEOs purely because they are women".
I figure you could waste a good 5-10 years on doing that before they lose patience, but by that point you've made your point and won anyway amirite?
Torga_DW wrote: Well, shaisen. Mind you, here we call that sort of thing equality and anti-descrimination, so i guess people's mileage varies (scarily).
Those posts show exactly why it's a problem. A lot of people lack understanding of the entire issue and think that this is about equality whereas in fact, it's not. In the contrary, a female quota is incredibly discriminating towards women as it basically says "You are not good enough to get the job based on your qualifications, but hey, you got a vagina, here you go!". That's about the most sexist thing to say or even do. If you are in favor of a female quota, you're a sexist. Hands down.
As a company that's been actively strifing for more equality and has almost the highest relative amount of female employees at our level, we therefore strongly oppose any female quota in order to keep opposing sexism in the working field.
My wife's getting prepared for a long and tiresome lawsuit right now.
I don't see how wanting competent staff in a company is a bad thing. A job should go to someone qualified. Not to meet some quota. This goes for everyone, not just women.
Sigvatr wrote: In the contrary, a female quota is incredibly discriminating towards women as it basically says "You are not good enough to get the job based on your qualifications, but hey, you got a vagina, here you go!".
No it isn't. What it's actually saying is "it is not plausible that so few women are qualified for the job, therefore the fact that only 11.7% of these positions are occupied by women must be because of sexism". Does this mean that some companies might have to look a bit harder to find a qualified female employee instead of just hiring the first man they encounter? Sure, but I seriously doubt that there will be any problem filling the quota with women who are able to do those jobs just as well as the men they were hired instead of.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I don't see how wanting competent staff in a company is a bad thing.
It isn't. You're just making the mistake of assuming that hiring rates for women are so low because they aren't qualified, rather than because qualified women are being turned down by sexist employers.
A job should go to someone qualified. Not to meet some quota. This goes for everyone, not just women.
And, as the article in the OP points out, this is not working so far. Saying "hire the best person" is apparently not enough to overcome the bias against women (and, in other cases, other minorities), so active pressure to fix the problem is necessary.
BlaxicanX wrote: Why are you speaking for your company (we) on a 40K internet forum?
It's the Off-Topic section and sexism has been an issue for quite a few times in the past. I merely use my company as an example as it's not the only one opposing sexism, but the one I, naturally, am most familiar with.
I don't see how wanting competent staff in a company is a bad thing. A job should go to someone qualified. Not to meet some quota. This goes for everyone, not just women.
Precisely. If politics are interested in overcoming a bias, the "same qualifications, women gets favored" approach wins out by a long shot. By doing so, you actively counter-work any existing bias and still hire a person because of her qualifications, not because of her gender.
Sigvatr wrote: Precisely. If politics are interested in overcoming a bias, the "same qualifications, women gets favored" approach wins out by a long shot. By doing so, you actively counter-work any existing bias and still hire a person because of her qualifications, not because of her gender.
Except that "same qualifications" is impossible to prove, because no two sets of qualifications are ever literally identical. There's always going to be some difference, however slight, that the person making the hiring decision can point to as justification. The only way to force businesses to hire a particular group is to set a specific quota that can't be avoided.
Peregrine wrote: It isn't. You're just making the mistake of assuming that hiring rates for women are so low because they aren't qualified, rather than because qualified women are being turned down by sexist employers.
I'm guessing the evidence that nearly 90% of company boards are sexist morons that hire based on genitalia, rather than merit is just around the corner.
His Master's Voice wrote: I'm guessing the evidence that nearly 90% of company boards are sexist morons that hire based on genitalia, rather than merit is just around the corner.
Obviously there's no evidence, because nobody is going to be stupid enough to say "I admit that I violate hiring laws by favoring men". But which is the more likely scenario:
1) Women are rarely qualified for these jobs, and a 90/10 split is just because men are inherently better.
or
2) Women are qualified at a similar rate as men, but fail to get jobs they are qualified for because of sexism (whether an explicit "women don't belong here and we won't hire them" or unconscious habits and stereotypes).
Peregrine wrote: It isn't. You're just making the mistake of assuming that hiring rates for women are so low because they aren't qualified, rather than because qualified women are being turned down by sexist employers.
I'm guessing the evidence that nearly 90% of company boards are sexist morons that hire based on genitalia, rather than merit is just around the corner.
This should go well, can't see it causing problems at all. No way they won't just make new positions or something to reasonably deal with these quotas.
Germany recently decided to openly legalize sexism in the decision to forcefully introduce a female quota in big companies.
As of 2016, 30% of all CEO positions are to be filled by women regardless of qualification. A female quota is about the most sexist thing you could do in a company. It basically forces you to hire women even if they are less qualified than men solely because they're...women. We immediately declared that we will not follow said quota and if prompted to do so, ask the state to sue us, at the same time declaring that every single € spent on those lawsuits will be hurting the state, not us.
A more sensible approach to the problem would be to favor women applying for a job if they are equally qualified as men (as we already do), but hiring people just because of their gender is ridiculous and out of question for us.
Title needs fixing.
Germany is openly reducing sexism, by preventing men from choosing only men in the boardroom.
Please try to avoid such category errors in future.
Women in high ranking administrative positions in corporate have been nearly unheard of barely 20 years ago. A non secretary desk position for a woman in a large company has been open for barely 50 years, if that.
At the same time, 30% of CEO positions are expected to be taken by women by 2040 and not because of quotas.
The social landscape is changing, as it always does. Most attempts at increasing the rate of change by tinkering with the process from the top down end up not doing anything at all at best and messing up the whole thing at worst.
That, and I have an intense dislike of the state telling anyone how to run their business.
Steelmage99 wrote: It could go hand-in-hand with the evidence of the truth of your own statement.
Germany is openly reducing sexism, by preventing men from choosing only men in the boardroom.
Please try to avoid such category errors in future.
Your misunderstanding is easily understandable as it's a conflict that's most often viewed from an emotional point of view instead of looking at how it really works.
At the same time, 30% of CEO positions are expected to be taken by women by 2040 and not because of quotas?
Exactly. It has already changed a lot in the last few years and it will change more. The main problem is that rationalists and everyone with an actual insight on the matter knows that it's a slow process. Politics are not interested in long-term solutions, they want "solutions" that aim at short-sighted, yet placative results that impress naive / biased people in order to gain favorable votes.
Sigvatr wrote: Your misunderstanding is easily understandable as it's a conflict that's most often viewed from an emotional point of view instead of looking at how it really works.
You could just as easily be talking about yourself there.
If only out of a general distaste for human misery, I certainly hope some of the posters here are old, old men who have already lived most of his years in a world somewhat agreeable to them. Otherwise they've got a great many years of lamenting a world that is escaping further and further beyond them and their ideals.
Women have different life choices from Men. Men and Women are not the same. I'm not saying that Women can't do the jobs that men do, well except for physically demanding jobs where it's much easier for men because of the way we are built. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but I always find it concerning when you need to turn away great potential candidates to meet a quota. Surely it should be based on ability rather than gender, race or belief?
I'm not sure how a Woman can expect to work less hours, get paid the same amount and somehow progress further than their male colleagues.
Surely the costs for getting this established will outweigh the social benefit? How many CEO positions are there compared to the woman workforce?
Shouldn't the state concentrate on helping Woman who want to raise families and take time off work rather than imposing bias on their people for the benefit of a tiny minority?
When Britain declared the end of slavery, most people went, 'Hah!', and kept on with it. It took decades of bullying Spain, the Netherlands and various other smaller countries, thousands of lives of British seamen, a vast amount of diplomatic shennanigans with France and the USA, several wars, and a good century before its been more or less squeezed out.
Female emancipation has been a slow and steady progress over the last fifty years as a similar cultural shift has taken place. Attempting to legislate to speed things up in this particular regard though seems to be a counterproductive sort of thing that introduces far more issues than it overcomes.
Shouldn't the state concentrate on helping Woman who want to raise families and take time off work rather than imposing bias on their people for the benefit of a tiny minority?
The state is worthless in this regard for the reasons I pointed out above - they don't want long-term solutions, they want short-term solutions that work on easily impressable voters (i.e. most). Companies, again, take on that job. We, again, using us as an example, have an own childcare service for all employees. Highly professional educators, 5 languages, free for everyone. The result? A high amount of women who work with us. Women who pursue a brillant professional career and yet still decided to become mothers because they know they don't have to worry about daycare - among many other things. Flexible working times is another important factor - parents (of EITHER gender!) who work at us have more freedom in regards to working times. Your child is sick? We got our own doctors to have a look at. You need to stay at home? No prob. At the same time, make sure that, if you can fully work again, can support your fellow co-workers who covered your working time. Since we have introduced this system a long time ago, the entire working climate is very positive towards parents.
This is exactly what is necessary for diversity and equality at the work place. And the state downright and utterly sucks at it.
A good first step would be to grant tax advantages to companies offering such a service. We can afford providing it, but most companies can't because they lack the financial possibilites. Support those.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I love it when privileged white males complain they're being discriminated against, I enjoy witnessing the self-pity.
Do you have anything to actually contribute to the topic besides your display of blatant sexism / racism?
Germany recently decided to openly legalize sexism in the decision to forcefully introduce a female quota in big companies.
As of 2016, 30% of all CEO positions are to be filled by women regardless of qualification. A female quota is about the most sexist thing you could do in a company. It basically forces you to hire women even if they are less qualified than men solely because they're...women. We immediately declared that we will not follow said quota and if prompted to do so, ask the state to sue us, at the same time declaring that every single € spent on those lawsuits will be hurting the state, not us.
A more sensible approach to the problem would be to favor women applying for a job if they are equally qualified as men (as we already do), but hiring people just because of their gender is ridiculous and out of question for us.
You are correct. This is clearly oppressive aginst women. It should be 50%.
I have little problem with enforcing gender quotas on the boardroom.
Hopefully it will even up the cyclical experience disparity at the top end of management that women tend to suffer from (as there are few women execs, so there is a smaller pool of suitability experienced women who can go for the big positions, which means there are fewer women execs, etc...).
Once a few generations of management turn through the new system, there should be a much larger pool of women with the experience to take on the big posts, and so will have more of an even footing in competing with men, and likely a much wider gender spread on the hiring panel so a much better chance of being selected based on merit rather than gender.
Ashiraya wrote: I think this is sad. That is, it's sad that it's so difficult for women to reach those positions that something like this has become necessary.
That said, I am not certain if a law is the best way to go about it.
That's because men do have one biological factor to their advantage, testosterone, men tend to have more testosterone, which means they are more prone to aggressive and risk taking behaviours, 3 guesses as to what you need to do well in a high pressure corporate position (such as CEO)?
That's of course not to say that women don't exhibit those traits, just that less of them do, less often which means less women succeed less often, compared to male counterparts. Also, comparing the ratio of female to male executives is a meaningless exercise, it tells us nothing useful, what we need to look at is the ratio of people in those executive positions compared to how many people of the same gender work in the field. I would even guess that the number, while still needs to do a bit of climbing is much closer than this 90% of executives are men therefore sexism nonsense.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I love it when privileged white males complain they're being discriminated against, I enjoy witnessing the self-pity.
Oh do clear off. I detest this idea that being white and male grants some sort of privilege.
If you are a woman and even in the position of being considered for an executive role (meaning you would already be an experienced upper/senior manager) then you are already more ‘privileged’ that 99% of white men on the planet.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I love it when privileged white males complain they're being discriminated against, I enjoy witnessing the self-pity.
Oh do clear off. I detest this idea that being white and male grants some sort of privilege.
It's the heroic survival of this self-pitying, victim status, that of the poor oppressed white male contending with 'racism' and 'sexism', even while defending the over-proportion of white males in the boardroom, that's especially entertaining. I salute you!
It's the heroic survival of this self-pitying, victim status, that of the poor oppressed white male contending with 'racism' and 'sexism', even while defending the over-proportion of white males in the boardroom, that's especially entertaining. I salute you!
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I love it when privileged white males complain they're being discriminated against, I enjoy witnessing the self-pity.
Oh do clear off. I detest this idea that being white and male grants some sort of privilege.
It's the heroic survival of this self-pitying, victim status, that of the poor oppressed white male contending with 'racism' and 'sexism', even while defending the over-proportion of white males in the boardroom, that's especially entertaining. I salute you!
Go get 'em Brit! Down with the white male oppressor! For Mother Russia! er...for economic justice!
The vast majority of white males do not enjoy any sort of ‘privilege’, they are just doing their best to get by. They do their best to raise and provide for their kids whilst constantly fearing for their jobs, assuming they even have one. Most of them are only a few bad months away from losing the roofs over their heads and permanently live in worry about the bills getting bigger and bigger whilst their own wages shrink or stagnate.
Tossing around insults about ‘privileged’ white males is just so much racist and sexist nonsense.
LuciusAR wrote: Tossing around insults about ‘privileged’ white males is just so much racist and sexist nonsense.
You consider the list of privileges an insult?
Actually, it should be obvious that it isn't racism or sexism. By saying that white men are privileged I do not say that they are inferior in any way - they are simply better off.
My opinion of business is simple. Best man for the job. And by man I mean person, man or woman. And if two people are tied in qualifications, interview and personality to determine the better candidate. And if that happens to be a man, so be it. If its a woman, so be it. If they'll maximise profits, who cares?
Well, this is an interesting twist in Germany, guess we start off with "The road to hell is paved with good intentions.".
I know many governments have tried to address equalizing perceived "minority" elements in the workforce:
Looking at my better known governments methods, I like the idea of not specifically calling for a particular race or gender to equalize.
So if you have equally qualified applicants the only moral thing to do is flip a coin?
Or is it acceptable to realize there is an "imbalance" at some point and give preference until things equalize? (Love to figure out policy of when things equalize).
Fun stuff. I had the honor of working in a crown corporation, it was like the United Nations: it was diverse in the extreme.
It was a lot of fun, running into all the interesting cultural quirks was worth it in general.
I had also never seen so many female managers anywhere.
I see the need / benefit of a good mix in a company, I think the fear is of people using the ends to justify the means.
But we’re still not close to measuring women “doing the same work as men.” For that, we’d have to adjust for many other factors that go into determining salary. Economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn did that in a recent paper, “The Gender Pay Gap.”.”They first accounted for education and experience. That didn’t shift the gap very much, because women generally have at least as much and usually more education than men, and since the 1980s they have been gaining the experience. The fact that men are more likely to be in unions and have their salaries protected accounts for about 4 percent of the gap. The big differences are in occupation and industry. Women congregate in different professions than men do, and the largely male professions tend to be higher-paying.
Noone who is to be taken seriously considers Gender Gap an issue in Western countries. If you want to discuss the Gender Pay Gap, you need to adress the Adjusted Gender Pay Gap which takes all factors into account. For the latter, iirc, the last value for Germany was 5-7%.
5-7% still is a value, but doesn't say as much given the data source used to calculate it.
Rule of thumb: if people talk about Gender Pay Gap and don't use the Adjusted Gender Pay Gap, they want to abuse the data to make a point.
Actually, it should be obvious that it isn't racism or sexism. By saying that white men are privileged I do not say that they are inferior in any way - they are simply better off.
Perhaps insult was the wrong word, but the whole ‘white male privilege’ trope is clearly a device designed to shut down debate by telling white men that their viewpoints are irrelevant because they are ‘privileged’.
So, why don't we all just stick to addressing the points that are being raised, rather than bandying about loaded statements such as "no one who is to be taken seriously believes..." and arguing about dismissing points with "tropes"?
Once a few generations of management turn through the new system, there should be a much larger pool of women with the experience to take on the big posts, and so will have more of an even footing in competing with men, and likely a much wider gender spread on the hiring panel so a much better chance of being selected based on merit rather than gender.
Precisely. Most people simply don't understand how a business works (qed: this thread). They assume that people go from unemployed to CEO straight without stopping in between. Working at big companies still is a job widely dominated by men. This has both biological and sociological reasons and women who want to rise up the ranks do have to be tougher than an equivalent male counterpart, simply because it's a field mostly filled with the opposite gender. Naturally, there are only very few women who want to take up that journey and it's a really long-winded one, be it man or woman, and being forced to face prejudice doesn't make it any easier. You have to be constantly delivering and demonstrating excellent work and realize that it's a harsh competition, women even moreso than men. Nepotism further adds to the issue - most men have their sons working at the same company.
If people actually looked at the development as a whole, they'd realize that women slowly began to take on more and more jobs they did not use to take on before and that even in big companies, women start to get a hold. It just takes time. Enforcing laws to do so is not only sexist, but extremely counter-productive - what do you think that a woman's colleques will say about her when a woman solely got the job because she's a woman? But alas, as I said: short-sighted decisions greatly work on easily impressable people and most people are because they don't understand the topic and just rely on catchphrases for their definition of understanding. If Germany sticks to their plan, we'll be looking at lawsuits and all cost going directly back to the state.
Actually, it should be obvious that it isn't racism or sexism. By saying that white men are privileged I do not say that they are inferior in any way - they are simply better off.
Perhaps insult was the wrong word, but the whole ‘white male privilege’ trope is clearly a device designed to shut down debate by telling white men that their viewpoints are irrelevant because they are ‘privileged’.
I have not seen that here. What you first responded to was someone pointing out that it was ludicrous to have white men start shoehorning themselves into the victim folder when they are enjoying far more priviliges than other groups. See the immensely provocative thread title and the angled premise, for example.
Sigvatr wrote: Noone who is to be taken seriously considers Gender Gap an issue in Western countries..
Oh really?
Yes, read the entire post
Adjusted Gender Pay Gap is important. Unadjusted Gender Pay Gap is trash information.
The Adjusted Gender Pay Gap tackles the actual issue. The term "Gender Pay Gap" is mostly used in discussions when people try to make a point about women being paid less than men. This conclusion is false based on the Unadjusted Gender Pay Gap.
Sigvatr wrote: Most people simply don't understand how a business works (qed: this thread).
That's a mighty big horse you've got there good sir, you'd best ride it carefully.
Ah, no prob.
I have no idea how a car works from a physics point of view. So I don't go into a thread about car science and brag about what I know.
On the other hand, on this very topic, that's not the case for a lot of people. Not limited to this forum, but in general, everyone seems to be an expert on how businesses work.
Surely the best way to do things would be to provide a CV completely devoid of any identification. No names, no genders and no age. Just a list of your qualifications, work experience and what you can do well. If you write or present a better CV, there is the job and it cannot be biased in either direction from the recruiter. Just reduce people to numbers and be done with it.
Going out of your way to promote diversity is fairly justifiable in the event that applicants are equal, but if there is a superior applicant then they should get the role. It isn't sexist, racist or loaded to expect a company to hire the best person for a job. If it happens that a particular sector is dominated by a particular type of person, then any 'solution' should be to encourage more people to get into that line of work rather than rig the final line to get the wrong people into work for the right reasons.
Speaking as a white male, diversifying the workforce is only ever going to hurt me and I don't appreciate losing out on a job because they had a more exciting surname or different plumbing down under. If they are smarter, more capable or more reliable then sure thing; these qualities are actually relevant to the job. But let's not pretend that possessing bodily bits makes you more qualified to be a CEO.
Mozzamanx wrote: Surely the best way to do things would be to provide a CV completely devoid of any identification. No names, no genders and no age. Just a list of your qualifications, work experience and what you can do well. If you write or present a better CV, there is the job and it cannot be biased in either direction from the recruiter. Just reduce people to numbers and be done with it.
I agree. This isn't a feasible approach, however, as you need to invite people to a job interview in order to test their communication skills and higher tier jobs require further tests with personal presence; furthermore, you need to check the criminal record and the overall background before inviting someone - and the anonymous CV idea falls short again. It's a neat idea, but can't be kept up in reality.
The only correct way to tackle the issue is to positively support women by creating a better working field for them - enforcing it does the exact opposite.
Sigvatr wrote: If people actually looked at the development as a whole, they'd realize that women slowly began to take on more and more jobs they did not use to take on before and that even in big companies, women start to get a hold. It just takes time. Enforcing laws to do so is not only sexist, but extremely counter-productive - what do you think that a woman's colleques will say about her when a woman solely got the job because she's a woman? But alas, as I said: short-sighted decisions greatly work on easily impressable people and most people are because they don't understand the topic and just rely on catchphrases for their definition of understanding. If Germany sticks to their plan, we'll be looking at lawsuits and all cost going directly back to the state.
The point is however that this rate of natural progression can be increased by setting in place requirements for proportions of women in top level positions. Sure, it may be hard in the short term but as time progresses and more women are given the opportunity to get into those kinds of roles, the legislated requirements for proportion of women can likely be relaxed as both the pool of candidates grows, and the culture at the top (and indeed throughout the workplace) becomes more women friendly.
The opportunities are already there. Forcefully speeding the process up will let the car roll over the cliff and crash.
Look 50 years back in the past and you'll see the enormous steps we've taken towards an equal level - almost eliminated the Gender Gap, women being able (and allowed!) to work where they want (mostly, excluding some religious places), being able to both be a mother and having a strong career. There is no sign for this development to stop, in the contrary, it will keep rising strong.
This reminds me of when they ran this test in Sweden, and they had two people make calls to a company to ask about the currently vacant job they were advertising. Both had identical qualifications but the one with an African name was told that the job was taken and the one with a Swedish name was instructed to come to a job interview when he called a minute later.
There's far, far, far more bias - conscious but also subconscious - in the businesses than many think. We naturally tend to prefer those who are reminiscent of ourselves, so a vast majority of men among the top dogs means any change to that tends to be slow.
Sigvatr wrote: If people actually looked at the development as a whole, they'd realize that women slowly began to take on more and more jobs they did not use to take on before and that even in big companies, women start to get a hold. It just takes time. Enforcing laws to do so is not only sexist, but extremely counter-productive - what do you think that a woman's colleques will say about her when a woman solely got the job because she's a woman? But alas, as I said: short-sighted decisions greatly work on easily impressable people and most people are because they don't understand the topic and just rely on catchphrases for their definition of understanding. If Germany sticks to their plan, we'll be looking at lawsuits and all cost going directly back to the state.
The point is however that this rate of natural progression can be increased by setting in place requirements for proportions of women in top level positions. Sure, it may be hard in the short term but as time progresses and more women are given the opportunity to get into those kinds of roles, the legislated requirements for proportion of women can likely be relaxed as both the pool of candidates grows, and the culture at the top (and indeed throughout the workplace) becomes more women friendly.
Uhh...
So gender equality is helped getting achieved by forcing companies to hire women because they're women, rather than for their skills?
Sigvatr wrote: I agree. This isn't a feasible approach, however, as you need to invite people to a job interview in order to test their communication skills and higher tier jobs require further tests with personal presence; furthermore, you need to check the criminal record and the overall background before inviting someone - and the anonymous CV idea falls short again. It's a neat idea, but can't be kept up in reality.
A lot of people will know, or know of, or know the manager/other colleague of the people applying for the position and will be able to find a hell of a lot out about them even with an anonymous CV...
Even if they don't, it is quite easy to look at a CV, see that the person is currently "X" at company "Y", then go look at the company's website to see exactly who that person is...
The only correct way to tackle the issue is to positively support women by creating a better working field for them - enforcing it does the exact opposite.
Opinion stated as incontrovertible fact while simultaneously putting down anyone who would attempt to contradict you?
However, I would suggested that your point that this discourages women in the boardroom is about as far from the truth as it is possible to get
Sigvatr wrote: The opportunities are already there. Forcefully speeding the process up will let the car roll over the cliff and crash.
Dubious. That the highly paid jobs are unpopular with women now is likely far more due to that the women who could get them know it's harder so they go for a job it's easier to have a decent career in. This legislation may be harsh in the short term but as people get used to the idea more and more competent female CEOs will fill the ranks.
There's far, far, far more bias - conscious but also subconscious - in the businesses than many think. We naturally tend to prefer those who are reminiscent of ourselves, so a vast majority of men among the top dogs means any change to that tends to be slow.
Yes. People hate changes. A lot. And keep in mind that a lot of people in higher positions are older people, 50+, who like changes even less. Give me a few more years and when I'm at their place, we'll talk again
Sigvatr wrote: If people actually looked at the development as a whole, they'd realize that women slowly began to take on more and more jobs they did not use to take on before and that even in big companies, women start to get a hold. It just takes time. Enforcing laws to do so is not only sexist, but extremely counter-productive - what do you think that a woman's colleques will say about her when a woman solely got the job because she's a woman? But alas, as I said: short-sighted decisions greatly work on easily impressable people and most people are because they don't understand the topic and just rely on catchphrases for their definition of understanding. If Germany sticks to their plan, we'll be looking at lawsuits and all cost going directly back to the state.
The point is however that this rate of natural progression can be increased by setting in place requirements for proportions of women in top level positions. Sure, it may be hard in the short term but as time progresses and more women are given the opportunity to get into those kinds of roles, the legislated requirements for proportion of women can likely be relaxed as both the pool of candidates grows, and the culture at the top (and indeed throughout the workplace) becomes more women friendly.
Uhh...
So gender equality is helped getting achieved by forcing companies to hire women because they're women, rather than for their skills?
Not quite true - they won't hire the incompetent, and it's highly unlikely that insufficient competent candidates exist. They are likely held back just as much if not more by stigma and passive resistance than questions of competence.
Ashiraya wrote: So who here brags about how much they know about businesses?
I can only see one person doing so.
I am not specialised in business but I am certainly capable of debating the subject.
You're 17. I don't care how intelligent you may be, you simply haven't had the time to learn anything meaningful about the subject. There are undoubtedly MBAs and others much more qualified posting on Dakka (if not in this very thread) who are much more qualified to give a professional opinion than someone who has yet to even go to university.
The law is a bad idea. If you want to pass laws and regulations that make it easier for women to become CEOs then do so, but a strict quota isn't the way to go.
Yes. Displaying the most brutal form of sexism and angering the people that feed your citizens isn't the correct way to do it, however. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
How many times has any politican asked US how we think that women could get promoted to CEO? Or how one could make their way easier?
Correct, 0 times. Zero.
Politics have no internal interest in improving the situation. They want to talk big and convince their fellow sheep. Their course will not end well and the issue will be fought upon the backs of tax payers. If they stick to their course, ask everyone fired in order to make up for cost what they think about enforcing laws without consent. I'm sure they'll be excited.
Sigvatr wrote: If people actually looked at the development as a whole, they'd realize that women slowly began to take on more and more jobs they did not use to take on before and that even in big companies, women start to get a hold. It just takes time. Enforcing laws to do so is not only sexist, but extremely counter-productive - what do you think that a woman's colleques will say about her when a woman solely got the job because she's a woman? But alas, as I said: short-sighted decisions greatly work on easily impressable people and most people are because they don't understand the topic and just rely on catchphrases for their definition of understanding. If Germany sticks to their plan, we'll be looking at lawsuits and all cost going directly back to the state.
The point is however that this rate of natural progression can be increased by setting in place requirements for proportions of women in top level positions. Sure, it may be hard in the short term but as time progresses and more women are given the opportunity to get into those kinds of roles, the legislated requirements for proportion of women can likely be relaxed as both the pool of candidates grows, and the culture at the top (and indeed throughout the workplace) becomes more women friendly.
Uhh...
So gender equality is helped getting achieved by forcing companies to hire women because they're women, rather than for their skills?
Not quite true - they won't hire the incompetent, and it's highly unlikely that insufficient competent candidates exist. They are likely held back just as much if not more by stigma and passive resistance than questions of competence.
Quite true, though!
After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.
thenoobbomb wrote: So gender equality is helped getting achieved by forcing companies to hire women because they're women, rather than for their skills?
No, it is getting women a fair crack at the top spots that would otherwise go to the old boys club that currently runs everything
When you are mandated at having a certain percentage of your management structure as women you look for the best women - surprisingly a lot of them will be on par or better than the kind of men who would otherwise be on track to get the job, simply because of the inherent policy of hiring people like yourself... which in this case would be more men.
And as mentioned repeatedly, giving more women the opportunity to gain this kind of experience means more women with the experience - you are automatically increasing the skill pool for the future as well as helping break down the male-centric hiring policy of many companies from the inside by introducing more women into the kinds of places which make hiring choices.
After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.
Precisely. That's the problem. That's sexism in its most devious form. It's sexism LEGALIZED by the government. That's wrong in so many ways.
Yes. Displaying the most brutal form of sexism and angering the people that feed your citizens isn't the correct way to do it, however. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
How many times has any politican asked US how we think that women could get promoted to CEO? Or how one could make their way easier?
Correct, 0 times. Zero.
Politics have no internal interest in improving the situation. They want to talk big and convince their fellow sheep.
Of course they won't ask you, it's the same reason no companies ask their customers what they'd like to see next. Sweeping questions won't yield much that is reliable. And if they should only ask the competent, who decides who is competent? Who has a degree in correct gender quota solutions?
You're making a lot of assumptions and your heavy personal investment in the matter doesn't help.
And calling this the most brutal form of sexism is utterly absurd. You think something like this
is better than being stuck with a few girls in the manclub?
trexmeyer wrote: You're 17. I don't care how intelligent you may be, you simply haven't had the time to learn anything meaningful about the subject.
This isn't rocket science, you know.
I strongly doubt I need to be so heavily invested as to be biased myself in order to contribute to the debate. Little I have seen so far suggests it to be the case.
And calling this the most brutal form of sexism is utterly absurd.
It's the most brutal form for us because it's legalized sexism. Most forms of sexism you encounter are illegal. A crime that gets legalized is the worst thing that can happen as it automatically makes people think that it's a right thing.
...not making any nazi comparisons, don't get your hopes up.
I only want to talk about Western culture, though, as the topic is about it. Feel free to create another topic about sexism in other parts of the world.
And calling this the most brutal form of sexism is utterly absurd.
It's the most brutal form for us because it's legalized sexism. Most forms of sexism you encounter are illegal. A crime that gets legalized is the worst thing that can happen as it automatically makes people think that it's a right thing.
...not making any nazi comparisons, don't get your hopes up.
I only want to talk about Western culture, though, as the topic is about it. Feel free to create another topic about sexism in other parts of the world.
It isn't actually sexism though.
Do you feel only having 70% instead of 90% men be CEOs is discriminating against men?
And calling this the most brutal form of sexism is utterly absurd.
It's the most brutal form for us because it's legalized sexism. Most forms of sexism you encounter are illegal. A crime that gets legalized is the worst thing that can happen as it automatically makes people think that it's a right thing.
...not making any nazi comparisons, don't get your hopes up.
I only want to talk about Western culture, though, as the topic is about it. Feel free to create another topic about sexism in other parts of the world.
It isn't actually sexism though.
Do you feel only having 70% instead of 90% men be CEOs is discriminating against men?
It definitely is sexism.
This law forces companies to put women into high positions because they are women. It assumes that it is necessary for women to have this kind of a law to get these positions. That is sexists to both men and women, isn't it?
You get a job because you're a man: that's sexism.
You don't get a job because you're a woman: that's sexism.
It works the other way round, too.
thenoobbomb wrote: It assumes that it is necessary for women to have this kind of a law to get these positions.
Obviously it is, but not for the reason you think. It has nothing to do with innate capability (and thus isn't actually misogyny/andry) but instead it's necessary to have a law for the capable women to get the job despite the resistance to having them there.
What is outrageous here is not the law, it's that the situation is so bad so the law has become necessary.
Do you feel only having 70% instead of 90% men be CEOs is discriminating against men?
I feel it is definitely sexist against the 20% of men who lost out, if the reason they lost out is because they are men and their competition are women. As I said there is nothing wrong with using diversity as a tiebreaker, but it is not as important a quality as proficiency or competence. By all means put women at the top if they belong there, but to lose a job you are more qualified to take because you have the wrong plumbing is grossly unfair in my eyes.
The issue that I have with this, is basically the same issue that I have with the South African Rugby "quota"
For those who don't know, RSA has instituted a quota system for their national level rugby programs, starting with the U-19 teams. By a certain year, there MUST be a certain percentage of black/indian and minority players. A few years after that quota is established, it moves up to the U-23 programs, and soon after that to the "actual" Springboks/Blitz Bokkes, "Lady Boks" (or whatever the various women's teams are called), etc.
The problem that I have with these quota systems is that it artificially creates tension where there doesn't need to be tension. People will begin to wonder if they got selected/hired because of their status vs. their qualifications, those who aren't selected/hired may begin to become disgruntled and angry at the system.... The whole thing becomes a toxic pit, and nobody wins.
Do you feel only having 70% instead of 90% men be CEOs is discriminating against men?
I feel it is definitely sexist against the 20% of men who lost out, if the reason they lost out is because they are men and their competition are women. As I said there is nothing wrong with using diversity as a tiebreaker, but it is not as important a quality as proficiency or competence. By all means put women at the top if they belong there, but to lose a job you are more qualified to take because you have the wrong plumbing is grossly unfair in my eyes.
Indeed, but that is not what the law is counteracting. By forcing in women, it's letting the women who are more capable get the jobs despite the resistance to having female top dogs.
It is highly unlikely that incompetent women will be put in charge - there's more than enough competent ones available and any profit-driven company will naturally take the best.
You can consider it compensating for the resistance to having women there. It's not a crutch for getting incompetent women into high places.
I can't have an opinion on any racial or gender issues, because I'm a white male, (sad face) and despite being a bad month or two away from being homeless or foodless, I'm told I have some kind of "male privilege?" Where do I sign up to cash some of those puppies in? I believe I'm owed some back-pay on some of them.
thenoobbomb wrote: It assumes that it is necessary for women to have this kind of a law to get these positions.
Obviously it is, but not for the reason you think. It has nothing to do with innate capability (and thus isn't actually misogyny/andry) but instead it's necessary to have a law for the capable women to get the job despite the resistance to having them there.
What is outrageous here is not the law, it's that the situation is so bad so the law has become necessary.
Tell me more about this resistance capable women have to get to higher positions that men do not have. Bullying and such happens to men in corporations too, surprisingly!
This law is outrageous, because it is sexist. Capable men may not get a position because companies need to reach this quote. People should be hired based on skill, not on sex - and this law will only force companies to hire based on sex.
After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.
I am going to ponder something here. Should a company always higher the person they see at the most accomplished?
After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.
I am going to ponder something here. Should a company always higher the person they see at the most accomplished?
The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.
Tell me more about this resistance capable women have to get to higher positions that men do not have.
Do you think the 9:1 ratio is there because women do not want careers? I am pretty sure we talked about the CEOs not wanting change on the last page.
niv-mizzet wrote: I can't have an opinion on any racial or gender issues, because I'm a white male, (sad face) and despite being a bad month or two away from being homeless or foodless, I'm told I have some kind of "male privilege?" Where do I sign up to cash some of those puppies in? I believe I'm owed some back-pay on some of them.
Compare to women in the same social and economic situation as you and watch as the privileges reappear.
Naturally, sometimes there is less space for them to exist, but privileges are a rather general thing anyway.
Sigvatr wrote: Precisely. If politics are interested in overcoming a bias, the "same qualifications, women gets favored" approach wins out by a long shot. By doing so, you actively counter-work any existing bias and still hire a person because of her qualifications, not because of her gender.
Please help me to understand how the above proposal in bold is any better than an enforced quota? At least once the quota is filled everything can go back to a possible equality, with your proposal it would not be long before men become the descriminated party.
I do understand the problem, and from a business perspective an employee should only ever be employed if they can positively influence the effectiveness of the organisation. That said, it's obvious that descrimination is happening across all sectors. But again, the proposal in bold above really only works if you have a 100% match between a male and a female, and then, even in that most unlikely scenario, why should the male be set back because of his gender?
Men and women are not equal in every way. A man can not give birth (arguably one of the most important aspects of the human condition) to further human life forms, but equally Women can not (yet) impregnate another woman (yes, I know there are artificial means, but you still need sperm!). While this doesn't have any bearing on the board room, one can assume that, unless the female is willing to give birth at the boardroom table, there is likely a planned absence for this to take place. Should a woman be descriminated against because she wants to further the human race? No, of course not, but equally, should the company have to put on extra effort to ensure productivity because a certain individual chooses to be absent? Maybe.
The way in which we do business must orbit around the organisations people (they are important) so working conditions and technoology (such as it is) should be employed to support the individuals lifestyle choices, plus it's the only way to get the best out of your team.
A woman can be a mother and still make organisational choices, in the same way that a man can be a father and make those same choices.
I dunno, I guess I don't really see the point of this law... I mean, Germans clearly don't have issues with having women in the top positions of leadership, I mean, Angela Merkel has been the leader of the country for some time now, and unless I'm hugely wrong on this, that isn't going to change anytime soon.
Tell me more about this resistance capable women have to get to higher positions that men do not have.
Do you think the 9:1 ratio is there because women do not want careers? I am pretty sure we talked about the CEOs not wanting change on the last page.
Tell me more about how this means that laws must force corporations to replace parts of their boards with women, because they're women.
niv-mizzet wrote: I can't have an opinion on any racial or gender issues, because I'm a white male, (sad face) and despite being a bad month or two away from being homeless or foodless, I'm told I have some kind of "male privilege?" Where do I sign up to cash some of those puppies in? I believe I'm owed some back-pay on some of them.
Compare to women in the same social and economic situation as you and watch as the privileges reappear.
Naturally, sometimes there is less space for them to exist, but privileges are a rather general thing anyway.
Tell me more about these privileges, and how I can use them.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I dunno, I guess I don't really see the point of this law... I mean, Germans clearly don't have issues with having women in the top positions of leadership, I mean, Angela Merkel has been the leader of the country for some time now, and unless I'm hugely wrong on this, that isn't going to change anytime soon.
Sigvatr wrote: Precisely. If politics are interested in overcoming a bias, the "same qualifications, women gets favored" approach wins out by a long shot. By doing so, you actively counter-work any existing bias and still hire a person because of her qualifications, not because of her gender.
Please help me to understand how the above proposal in bold is any better than an enforced quota? At least once the quota is filled everything can go back to a possible equality, with your proposal it would not be long before men become the descriminated party.
Proposal in bold: two people are equally qualified. Woman gets the job to overcome / compensate the bias.
Quota: A women is less skilled than a man. The woman gets the job.
Big fethin whoop..
Norway has a 40% min. quota of females in EVERY board of directors. Simply put.there aren't enough females to go around anymore in the higher business echelons domestically.. :p
Sigvatr wrote: Noone who is to be taken seriously considers Gender Gap an issue in Western countries..
Oh really?
Yes, read the entire post
Adjusted Gender Pay Gap is important. Unadjusted Gender Pay Gap is trash information.
The Adjusted Gender Pay Gap tackles the actual issue. The term "Gender Pay Gap" is mostly used in discussions when people try to make a point about women being paid less than men. This conclusion is false based on the Unadjusted Gender Pay Gap.
So everyone arguing equal pay for equal work (like the US Democratic Party, which means even the Neo Nazis in germany ya wussies) can't be taken seriously?
After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.
I am going to ponder something here. Should a company always higher the person they see at the most accomplished?
The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.
I know form my experience picking teams, you want to avoid stacking the deck with just the people who look the most accomplished. You end up with a lot of the same people and that leads a brittle team and small verity of options. It's very hard to qualify best because best is well it's literally a nonsense word best for one might not be best for another.
After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.
I am going to ponder something here. Should a company always higher the person they see at the most accomplished?
The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.
I know form my experience picking teams, you want to avoid stacking the deck with just the people who look the most accomplished. You end up with a lot of the same people and that leads a brittle team and small verity of options. It's very hard to qualify best because best is well it's literally a nonsense word best for one might not be best for another.
The one that has the best education, best results, most experience, and whom is the most highly regarded by the staff seems like a pretty accomplished guy and an obvious choice to me.
Quota: A women is less skilled than a man. The woman gets the job.
Not going to happen. There's enough competent women out there to fill the quota.
Don't you think there's enough competent women out there for the 'very best' category to be at least 30% female?
Within some companies there most definitely won't be.
Yep. Fortunately, any damage that will do - if at all - will be minor in comparison to all the highly competent women the law will allow to become CEOs.
After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.
I am going to ponder something here. Should a company always higher the person they see at the most accomplished?
The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.
I know form my experience picking teams, you want to avoid stacking the deck with just the people who look the most accomplished. You end up with a lot of the same people and that leads a brittle team and small verity of options. It's very hard to qualify best because best is well it's literally a nonsense word best for one might not be best for another.
The one that has the most education, highest results, most experience, and whom is the most highly regarded by the staff seems like a pretty accomplished guy and an obvious choice to me.
Quota: A women is less skilled than a man. The woman gets the job.
Not going to happen. There's enough competent women out there to fill the quota.
Don't you think there's enough competent women out there for the 'very best' category to be at least 30% female?
Within some companies there most definitely won't be.
Yep. Fortunately, any damage that will do - if at all - will be minor in comparison to all the highly competent women the law will allow to become CEOs.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
niv-mizzet wrote: I can't have an opinion on any racial or gender issues, because I'm a white male, (sad face) and despite being a bad month or two away from being homeless or foodless, I'm told I have some kind of "male privilege?" Where do I sign up to cash some of those puppies in? I believe I'm owed some back-pay on some of them.
Compare to women in the same social and economic situation as you and watch as the privileges reappear.
Naturally, sometimes there is less space for them to exist, but privileges are a rather general thing anyway.
Well I don't socialize much, so I just know the women at work.
You mean the one who's older -married- boyfriend is covering her bills and getting her a new car for Christmas?
Or maybe the one who got promoted when she claimed sexual harassment against our boss that no one else saw, and he was fired and replaced with her without an investigation?
Or the one that went out on a date with a cop to get out of a speeding ticket?
Or if we go a little into the past, the ones who would have two men duel for their amusement by claiming to each that the other impugned their honor.
I realize you're going to make the assumption that it really is exactly like you think it is here, but until you move here and study it for a decade or two, you can't know for sure.
The world is not exactly the same everywhere else as it is around you. It is also not like it is here everywhere else. Any blanket solution will be flawed, and any blanket viewpoint is flawed.
After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.
I am going to ponder something here. Should a company always higher the person they see at the most accomplished?
The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.
I know form my experience picking teams, you want to avoid stacking the deck with just the people who look the most accomplished. You end up with a lot of the same people and that leads a brittle team and small verity of options. It's very hard to qualify best because best is well it's literally a nonsense word best for one might not be best for another.
The one that has the most education, highest results, most experience, and whom is the most highly regarded by the staff seems like a pretty accomplished guy and an obvious choice to me.
After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.
I am going to ponder something here. Should a company always higher the person they see at the most accomplished?
The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.
I know form my experience picking teams, you want to avoid stacking the deck with just the people who look the most accomplished. You end up with a lot of the same people and that leads a brittle team and small verity of options. It's very hard to qualify best because best is well it's literally a nonsense word best for one might not be best for another.
The one that has the most education, highest results, most experience, and whom is the most highly regarded by the staff seems like a pretty accomplished guy and an obvious choice to me.
What if you already got that one?
You go for the next best one, naturally.
My thinking is that you want to fill your tool box with a verity of tools and that once you have a hammer you don't get a second hammer. You know you pick up a screw driver because some times you need to use a screw driver to pull up a nail.
After all, if a Company gets to choose between a more accomplished male, and a less accomplished female, they might have to choose for the female, to reach this quota.
I am going to ponder something here. Should a company always higher the person they see at the most accomplished?
The person that is most accomplished for the job, and can do his/her work the best, should always get hired, rather than someone who is worse than him or her.
I know form my experience picking teams, you want to avoid stacking the deck with just the people who look the most accomplished. You end up with a lot of the same people and that leads a brittle team and small verity of options. It's very hard to qualify best because best is well it's literally a nonsense word best for one might not be best for another.
The one that has the most education, highest results, most experience, and whom is the most highly regarded by the staff seems like a pretty accomplished guy and an obvious choice to me.
What if you already got that one?
You go for the next best one, naturally.
My thinking is that you want to fill your tool box with a verity of tools and that once you have a hammer you don't get a second hammer. You know you pick up a screw driver because some times you need to use a screw driver to pull up a nail.
Those are used for different jobs.
If I need two people to put nails in wood, I'd need two hammers - the two best hammers, preferably.
If I'd need one to put nails in, and one to pull them out, I'd get the best hammer and the best screwdriver.
My thinking is that you want to fill your tool box with a verity of tools and that once you have a hammer you don't get a second hammer. You know you pick up a screw driver because some times you need to use a screw driver to pull up a nail.
Those are used for different jobs.
If I need two people to put nails in wood, I'd need two hammers - the two best hammers, preferably.
If I'd need one to put nails in, and one to pull them out, I'd get the best hammer and the best screwdriver.
And then you will run into problems when you need a screw driver, but you only have hammers. Made sense at the time I mean we hammer nails, but now the market says screws are the new cool thing and we can't even find a proper screw driver because all our hammer just know what makes a good hammer and they keep saying all the screw drivers are too small and pointed... This metaphor might be kind of strange, but I hope I am at least making my point.
My thinking is that you want to fill your tool box with a verity of tools and that once you have a hammer you don't get a second hammer. You know you pick up a screw driver because some times you need to use a screw driver to pull up a nail.
Those are used for different jobs.
If I need two people to put nails in wood, I'd need two hammers - the two best hammers, preferably.
If I'd need one to put nails in, and one to pull them out, I'd get the best hammer and the best screwdriver.
And then you will run into problems when you need a screw driver, but you only have hammers. Made sense at the time I mean we hammer nails, but now the market says screws are the new cool thing and we can't even find a proper screw driver because all our hammer just know what makes a good hammer and they keep saying all the screw drivers are too small and pointed... This metaphor might be kind of strange, but I hope I am at least making my point.
From a business perspective, it makes no sense to hire someone that is good at something your company doesn't do/need, just because there's a chance that it will happen in the future.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
You're assuming no gender bias is present when selecting a CEO, something I find implausible.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
You're assuming no gender bias is present when selecting a CEO, something I find implausible.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
You're assuming no gender bias is present when selecting a CEO, something I find implausible.
This law forces gender bias when selecting a CEO.
I am not talking about the law, I am talking about the preferences of those who select the CEO.
I don't know if this is the answer to it, but I know that the idea that people only get a job based on their own gumption and skills when every reliable bit of research says who you know far outweighs what you know as well as things like the 9:1 ratio shows a disconnect. If we want a system that is actually merit based, instead of pretending that it is, then a better place to start would be arguing that it should be merit based. Until we have an actual meritocracy we may have to figure out ways to create a bit of parity.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
Which is exactly why laws lile this are in place; to break the cycle of sexist hiring which means men are taken on ahead of women, meaning that the entire system remains skewed against women.
Fewer women are taken on into snr management means fewer women with experience for the board. Fewer women on the board and snr management means more chance of a man picking someone like him (ie a man) ahead of an equally qualified woman, reinforcing the cycle.
Oh, wait... you meant it is somehow more sexist towards men... never mind
So, seeing "quota" and "favoring" in the mix of responses.
So, if deciding between two equally worthy applicants, would it be acceptable to choose based on increasing diversity in the workplace?
Or are we back to flipping a coin and recording that as the means of selection to be "fair"?
Specifically naming the "minority" group of the time seems to be short-term law making.
This is conjecture by me but I could swear that in North America in general, more women are gaining higher learning than men.
So by statistics alone, the population of upper management "should" become more women than men.
This short-sighted law in Germany could then promote one group over another even when it no-longer needs the benefit.
Even if my premise is completely incorrect of present conditions it potentially could become an unfair law even if intent was otherwise.
OTOH, a significant factor seems to be that men are more likely to 'seek the spotlight', but I do not think that makes for a more competent CEO. It does appear that the problem would be smaller if women too would seek more attention for their work, but it is far from enough to even the gap.
Implying women simply have less potential for competence is plainly false. It is possible that slightly more men desire the top position, but that disparity is hardly large enough to matter when there's numbers like 9:1 going around.
Talizvar wrote: So, seeing "quota" and "favoring" in the mix of responses.
So, if deciding between two equally worthy applicants, would it be acceptable to choose based on increasing diversity in the workplace?
Or are we back to flipping a coin and recording that as the means of selection to be "fair"?
Specifically naming the "minority" group of the time seems to be short-term law making.
This is conjecture by me but I could swear that in North America in general, more women are gaining higher learning than men.
So by statistics alone, the population of upper management "should" become more women than men.
This short-sighted law in Germany could then promote one group over another even when it no-longer needs the benefit.
Even if my premise is completely incorrect of present conditions it potentially could become an unfair law even if intent was otherwise.
Diversity for Diversity's sake isn't a good thing though. Its just a thing that gains you nothing.
Ashiraya wrote: I think this is sad. That is, it's sad that it's so difficult for women to reach those positions that something like this has become necessary.
That said, I am not certain if a law is the best way to go about it.
If they are going to claim women are discriminated in CEO positions "because there are so few women" in those jobs, then you might as well argue that the NBA or olympic track sports dont have enough white guys and need a quota for that too.
what this is, is not a solution to anything, but indentured and systematic sexism.
its also a slap in the face to every woman who wants to get the job based on her merits, as opposed to filling a quota.
instead, what should be done is putting "sleeper applicants" or spy applicants into areas of business (ie fake applicants that represent minorities in race, sex, religion, ect) and seeing if companies still hire lesser qualified majorities
its hugely sexist to do this, its indicative of the "sexism against women, even imagined, is awful. sexism against men doesnt exist" tropes that gets pushed around to bar any discussion on the matter. Didnt take long for "white privilege" to get used to shut down conversation as well.
I may as well just use the same tactics,
this is just another example of female privilege,
Spoiler:
1. From an early age the opposite sex will be instructed never to hit me but I may not be given the same instructions. However, should I strike males I can expect not to be hit back and any social penalties that occur from my actions will actually fall on the male.
2. If I’m not smart, but pretty, I can marry and achieve the social and financial level of my husband without ever working.
3. I can produce offspring. A status which grants me an “essential” status in our species that men can never have and which can never be taken away from me even in old age.
4. Regardless of my mate value society has organized fertility clinics and social welfare programs that will allow me to have children and provide for them should I choose to reproduce without a mate or marriage.
5. I not only have the more valuable and sought after sexual identity, but I also have complete control over my reproductive choice and in many ways over the reproductive choice of the opposite sex.
6. At any time I can abandon my parental responsibilities with little or no social stigma and hand the child over to the state or abort the pregnancy. A male could never relieve himself of this burden unless I allow him to.
7. I am granted all the rights of a democracy without any of the burdens of military service.
8. At age 18 I lose the protective status of the child but retain the protective status of the female. Boys at age 18 lose the protected status of the child and become targets if they fail to gain status after that point.
9. When I marry a man with status I can take his name and become whoever he has spent years becoming. I need not do anything special to be worthy of receiving the reputation he has built. However, if I wish to keep my own name I can do so. Should my husband feel the sting of this insult I can simply call him a sexist for it.
10. People will help me more when I’m in need and I will receive no social penalty or stigma for it.
11. When I’m on a date things will be paid for me.
12. When I search for employment I can choose jobs which I think are fulfilling without concern of whether they provide a “family” wage.
13. I can discriminate against the opposite sex ruthlessly without social penalty.
14. If I marry and quit my job and enjoy a leisurely life with light housework and then later divorce I will be given half of the marital assets.
15. If I commit a crime and am convicted I will get a sentencing “discount” because of my gender. If I am very pretty it will increase my discount.
16. If I am a partner in crime with a man I will likely be charged with lesser crimes even though I committed the same crimes even if I was the ringleader.
17. I have the option to be outraged if my husband asks me if my behavior is due to PMS and later on use PMS as a successful legal defense for murdering that same husband.
18. At age 18 I will not be forced to register for Selective Service and will not be penalized for failing to do so.
19. At a time of war I will never be drafted and ripped from my employment, home, and family and forced to become a military slave.
20. My feelings are more important than men’s lives. Every precaution will be made to protect me from harassment at work. However, males will make up nearly %100 of workplace fatalities.
21. My gender controls 80% of domestic spending. We get to spend our money if we have any and we get to spend men’s money.
22. The majority of luxury apparel is designed, marketed to, and consumed by women.
23. Seven times as much jewelry will be purchased by or for me than by or for men.
24. I have a department of women’s health whereas men have no such department.
25. My gender enjoys more government spending on health than males do.
26. My gender consumes the lioness’ share of entitlement programs while men contribute the lion’s share of taxes.
27. If I rape or molest a child I can expect lighter treatment in court and afterwards receive less social stigma. What’s more, should I become pregnant, I can sue my victim for child support when he finally turns 18.
28. When I divorce my husband I will be guaranteed custody of my children unless I am deemed to be unfit. Even if my husband is “Parent of the Year” 10 years running it is unlikely he will get custody over me even if I am a mediocre parent.
29. When I divorce I can use false accusations of domestic violence, sexual molestation of the children or abuse of the children to gain advantage during court proceedings. If I am found out to be a liar I can expect to get away with it.
30. If a man calls me a slut it will probably hurt his reputation more than it hurts mine, but at any rate the damage will be small and localized. However, if I call him a child molester or claim that he raped me I can destroy him completely and the damage may be nationwide.
31. If I fail at my career I can blame the male dominated society.
32. I may have the luxury of staying home and being a housewife but if my sister’s husband does the same thing I’m likely to call him a deadbeat loser and tell her to leave him.
33. If I “choose” to join the military; the best military occupations providing the most lucrative civilian training will be reserved for me. I will be kept away from the fighting as much as possible to the point that I will be thirty times less likely to be killed in a war zone than my male counterparts. I will be given equal pay for less risk. I will never have to consider the fact that by joining the military and getting a plumb assignment I automatically forced a male out of that position and into a combat role that may cost him his life.
34. If a male soldier injures himself before a deployment he can be arrested and court marshaled for it. If I deliberately get pregnant before a deployment or even during a deployment I will be reassigned and or taken out of a war zone and I will receive no penalty for it.
35. My gender watches more television in every hour of every day than any other group. This along with the fact that women control %80 of domestic spending means that most television shows and advertisement are designed to appeal to me.
36. I can wear masculine clothing if it pleases me however men cannot wear feminine clothing without social penalty.
37. Not only is there a wealth of clothing choices designed for me but it is likely that I will be able to afford or have them provided for me.
38. I can claim that a wage gap exists and that it is the fault of sexism while simultaneously seeking employment without considering income as a priority. I will probably choose my job based on satisfaction, flexibility of hours, and working conditions and then expect to make as much as the males working nights, out in the rain and cold or working overtime.
39. I can be bigoted or sexist against males without social penalty.
40. If I make a false claim of rape against a male in an act of revenge or in order to cover up my own scandalous behavior I may well succeed at both and he may spend years in prison. If I am found out it is unlikely I will be charged, convicted, or serve any time at all.
41. If I abuse my husband and physically assault him and the police arrive it is almost guaranteed he will go to jail.
42. If I am in an abusive relationship there are a multitude of social organizations to help me get away from him. There are few for men in the same position even though women initiate the majority of DV and even though men are hospitalized %30 of the time.
43. In the event of a natural disaster or other emergency that requires evacuation I can expect to be evacuated before males. This includes male doctors, humanitarians, politicians, captains of industry, billionaires, and religious leaders. I will receive no social penalty if all of those people died because I was evacuated first. However, should they manage to get evacuated before women and those women died they will all suffer a social penalty.
44. If someone is attacking a person on the street I have no obligation to assist them and I will receive no social penalty if I do nothing.
45. If someone is harming my children and I run away and ask someone else to help I will receive no social penalty for my cowardice.
46. I’m immune to cognitive dissonance.
47. I may denounce the concept of a dowry, however, I still expect a man to give me an engagement ring when he asks me to marry him.
48. I expect a man to ask me to marry me and suffer the potential risk of rejection.
49. If I lie it’s because I’m a victim of a male dominated society forced into difficult circumstances and not because I’m a bad person.
50. If my boyfriend sabotages a condom he can pay me child support for the next 20 years. If I secretly don’t take my birth control my boyfriend can pay me child support for the next 20 years.
51. If I’m uncomfortable exercising around men I can demand a female only gym be made for women. If any male only gyms exist I can demand membership under threat of lawsuit.
52. If my female only gym at the university decides to close early for safety reasons I can scream sexism and force them to keep it open as long as the main gym.
53. If I succeed at keeping the female gym open and I leave late at night and I don’t feel safe I can demand that the university spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for more lighting and police presence.
54. If after getting new lighting and police protection I decide I don’t want to go to the gym anymore well that’s just my prerogative.
55. I’m likely to believe that if a woman is intoxicated she is not capable of giving consent and if sex occurs it is rape. However, if her male partner is also intoxicated he is capable of consenting.
56. If a man is promoted over me at work I have a right to suspect sexism even though I also believe that under adverse circumstances men are more capable than women of making good decisions. (see #55)
57. I can cry and get my husband to do something for me that he might not have done otherwise.
58. I expect people (especially men) to be sensitive to my feelings.
59. I can deny a man’s feelings or disregard them or ridicule him for having them without social penalty.
60. If I lose my job it’s because of sexism or the economy. If a man loses his job it’s because he’s a loser.
61. If I go to a club or bar with my girlfriends and I look my sexy best I have a right to be perturbed when men approach me and hit on me in this public place.
62. Even though men die more from prostate cancer than women die from breast cancer I can expect that twice as much funding is given for breast cancer. The same will apply to any female specific disease or malady.
63. If for some reason I do not get custody of my children I will be expected to pay less child support than another man in my exact same position.
64. If I kidnap my children and I am eventually caught I can successfully defend myself by claiming I was protecting them from my husband–even if my children were given to him to protect them from me.
65. My gender makes up %53 of the voting population yet when I see more men in political office I will call that sexism.
66. If I am married with children and I want to stay home with the kids I’m likely to blame my husband for not making enough to allow me to do that.
67. I think it is my right to work and I am unconcerned if the influx of women into the workforce has reduced overall wages to the point that it’s hard to support a family on just one income, or affirmative action has kept men from being promoted even though they deserved it.
68. I can get student financial aid without signing up for Selective Service (the Draft).
69. I can get employment with a federal agency without signing up for Selective Service.
70. Restrooms for my gender will be cleaner and are more likely to have flowers or other decorations.
71. If I’m caring for a child restrooms for my gender will more likely have a changing table for my convenience.
72. People I’ve never met before are more likely to open doors for me.
73. People I’ve never met before are more likely to talk to me in public.
74. If I go to a bar I can expect that members of the opposite sex will purchase drinks for me.
75. Anytime I find an organization just for men I can denounce it as sexism.
76. I believe that women should have organizations just for women.
77. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he doesn’t call I have a right to think of him as an donkey-cave.
78. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he calls me I have a right to blow him off or act like I don’t know him.
79. I believe I have a right to live in an orderly and safe society but I feel no obligation to risk my safety to secure or maintain that society.
80. I like it when bars and clubs have drinks specials just for women.
81. I think that organizations that offer any discounts or privileges just for men is a clear sign of sexism.
82. If I’m white I will live 6 years longer than white males and 14 years longer than black males.
83. If I’m encouraged to get medical care it’s because I owe it to myself.
84. When my husband is encouraged to get medical help it’s because he owes to to me and the kids.
85. If something bad happens to me or just one woman I believe it is an offense against all women.
86. I believe that if something bad happens to a man it’s because he’s a loser.
87. I think that alimony is fair when paid to a woman but not fair when paid by a woman.
88. I’m more likely to believe that women who commit crimes are sick and need treatment or understanding whereas men who commit crimes are evil and should be locked up forever.
89. I can criticize the opposite sex without social penalty, but woe be to the man who attempts to criticize me or other women.
90. I can throw a fit and act like a two year old to get what I want without damaging my mate value.
91. I have the luxury of not being the filter for natural selection.
92. I can sleep with my boss if I want and afterwards I can sue him for sexual harassment.
93. I can wear seductive clothing and perfume to attract a man at work but no one will accuse me of sexual harassment.
94. If I hear a story about Darfur and how men who leave the refugee camps to gather wood are hacked to death to prevent their wives from being raped I am likely to think that is proper but not likely to send money.
95. If I hear a story about Darfur and how women are leaving the refugee camps to gather wood are being raped I’m likely to be outraged. I’m also likely to wonder why these women’s husbands aren’t protecting them.
96. If I ever heard these stories about Darfur it is my privilege not to care or even consider that the reason the second story exists is because all the men in the first have already been killed.
97. It is my right to maintain the belief that men oppress women despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
Grey Templar wrote: Diversity for Diversity's sake isn't a good thing though. Its just a thing that gains you nothing.
I would reply that if it does not hurt to do so, adding different ways of looking at things to the business is worth pursuing.
Combatting "groupthink" is helpful for the flexibility of a business.
Like these forums, I have never learned anything from those who agree with me.
Just like hiring any new member of staff, it takes time to learn the company and the role. A well put together team is always on the lookout for new talent to take on and shape. Here a less experienced candidate may prove a better fit.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
You're assuming no gender bias is present when selecting a CEO, something I find implausible.
This law forces gender bias when selecting a CEO.
I am not talking about the law, I am talking about the preferences of those who select the CEO.
I know.
What you are talking about is a group of people that personally have preferences about who they select as a CEO.
What I'm talking about is the law forcing a group of people to prefer certain people to select as a CEO.
Grey Templar wrote: Diversity for Diversity's sake isn't a good thing though. Its just a thing that gains you nothing.
I would reply that if it does not hurt to do so, adding different ways of looking at things to the business is worth pursuing.
Combatting "groupthink" is helpful for the flexibility of a business.
Like these forums, I have never learned anything from those who agree with me.
But that is something that only the business can decide for itself. The government shouldn't be involved. They might as well just hire people for you at that point.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
You're assuming no gender bias is present when selecting a CEO, something I find implausible.
This law forces gender bias when selecting a CEO.
I am not talking about the law, I am talking about the preferences of those who select the CEO.
I know.
What you are talking about is a group of people that personally have preferences about who they select as a CEO.
What I'm talking about is the law forcing a group of people to prefer certain people to select as a CEO.
It doesn't force them to prefer, it forces them to include a certain amount of people of a certain group at all.
What I am talking about is a group of people who'd rather have few to none of that group.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
You're assuming no gender bias is present when selecting a CEO, something I find implausible.
This law forces gender bias when selecting a CEO.
I am not talking about the law, I am talking about the preferences of those who select the CEO.
I know.
What you are talking about is a group of people that personally have preferences about who they select as a CEO.
What I'm talking about is the law forcing a group of people to prefer certain people to select as a CEO.
It doesn't force them to prefer, it forces them to include a certain amount of people of a certain group at all.
What I am talking about is a group of people who'd rather have few to none of that group.
So, because of this group of people, everyone should be forced to include a certain amount of people from a certain group, whether there's people more fit for the job or not?
Again, you are assuming there is active descrimination. When the more likely explaination is that there are way way less qualified female applicants.
That ''problem'' is making more qualified female applicants. But we know for a fact that women lead men in education level. Thus women clearly choose to favor certain fields over others. That's not a problem at all.
What I am talking about is a group of people who'd rather have few to none of that group.
which is based on the assumption that its still a "good ole boys club" and that the HR people are all sexist.
just because a lot more men are CEOs, does not in fact mean its sexist. The facts are, that fewer women apply, and there are fewer qualified women. TO get a legit surge in female CEOs, females to have a legit surge in applying for those positions and being educated for them, not to have the positions earmarked for them and given to them, regardless of qualifications, simply because they are women.
Immediately playing the sexist card just because the #'s are not what you personally want is what is sexist, so is legalizing discriminatory, sexist, hiring practices such as quotas.
You wouldnt be ok with a "white" quota in black dominated sports, or a male quota in female dominated professions, or a male quota for stay at home parenting, yet you are totally fine applying the exact same sexism in reverse.
its sexist and an affront to women to even contemplate giving them jobs because they are women as opposed the them getting them based on merit as they currently do.
or, to use your male/white privileged shaming tactics ,
its due to female privilege that the #'s are so skewed,
namely these female privileges, many of which you are enjoying in this very thread!
12. When I search for employment I can choose jobs which I think are fulfilling without concern of whether they provide a “family” wage.
31. If I fail at my career I can blame the male dominated society.
32. I may have the luxury of staying home and being a housewife but if my sister’s husband does the same thing I’m likely to call him a deadbeat loser and tell her to leave him.
39. I can be bigoted or sexist against males without social penalty.
55. I’m likely to believe that if a woman is intoxicated she is not capable of giving consent and if sex occurs it is rape. However, if her male partner is also intoxicated he is capable of consenting.
56. If a man is promoted over me at work I have a right to suspect sexism even though I also believe that under adverse circumstances men are more capable than women of making good decisions. (see #55)
60. If I lose my job it’s because of sexism or the economy. If a man loses his job it’s because he’s a loser.
65. My gender makes up %53 of the voting population yet when I see more men in political office I will call that sexism.
75. Anytime I find an organization just for men I can denounce it as sexism.
76. I believe that women should have organizations just for women.
Why are people talking about this as if it was somehow dubious or unclear? It may be partially subconscious, passive and/or without even noticing it, but of course there is discrimination.
I am getting a bit worried by people still questioning this by now. How many more sources must I find? Two? Five? Fifty?
Why are people talking about this as if it was somehow dubious or unclear? It may be partially subconscious, passive and/or without even noticing it, but of course there is discrimination.
I am getting a bit worried by people still questioning this by now. How many more sources must I find? Two? Five? Fifty?
those "sources" are anecdotal at best, and again, dont even address simple facts like there are far fewer female qualified applicants
They contain links to various studies and references. I mean, I wouldn't go to court with this, but come on, you guys haven't even produced fanfiction as your own sources yet.
easysauce wrote: there are far fewer female qualified applicants
Source?
I provided those earlier, from much more legitimate sources than those articles you provided.
Fewer women pursuing degrees in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> Fewer women qualified in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> fewer women hired in fields that traditionally earn a higher income.
easysauce wrote: there are far fewer female qualified applicants
Source?
I provided those earlier, from much more legitimate sources than those articles you provided.
Fewer women pursuing degrees in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> Fewer women qualified in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> fewer women hired in fields that traditionally earn a higher income.
Pretty simple, really.
Yours are equally legitimate but they do not refute anything said by mine. Yes, women tend to choose different professions - but this disparity is nowhere near enough to explain the extreme CEO ratio.
easysauce wrote: there are far fewer female qualified applicants
Source?
I provided those earlier, from much more legitimate sources than those articles you provided.
Fewer women pursuing degrees in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> Fewer women qualified in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> fewer women hired in fields that traditionally earn a higher income.
Pretty simple, really.
Yours are equally legitimate but they do not refute anything said by mine. Yes, women tend to choose different professions - but this disparity is nowhere near enough to explain the extreme CEO ratio.
Actually it is. The extreme narrowing of the field exaggerates differences.
easysauce wrote: there are far fewer female qualified applicants
Source?
I provided those earlier, from much more legitimate sources than those articles you provided.
Fewer women pursuing degrees in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> Fewer women qualified in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> fewer women hired in fields that traditionally earn a higher income.
Pretty simple, really.
Yours are equally legitimate but they do not refute anything said by mine. Yes, women tend to choose different professions - but this disparity is nowhere near enough to explain the extreme CEO ratio.
Actually it is. The extreme narrowing of the field exaggerates differences.
The gap in perception is the same across all age groups. While older men acknowledge that there are some inequalities, only 68 percent “strongly agree” or “agree” that despite equal skills and qualifications, women face more challenges when progressing to top management roles. This compares to a response rate of 93 percent from their female counterparts.
easysauce wrote: there are far fewer female qualified applicants
Source?
in general, woman apply to certain jobs more then others, keep in mind, fewer women participate in the workforce at all as well.
here are % of women in professions,
notice that women make up the vast majority in some professions, and the minority in others?
either certain industries are super sexist towards men and woman, and evil HR reps in blue sectors are discriminating against women, while pink sector HR reps discriminate against men, or men and women apply for different jobs in general.
Spoiler:
this is tech specific, outlining actual qualifications earned by gender in the tech specific sector.
Spoiler:
and here is applications, again, look at computer sciences, only ~16% of applicants for post secondary were women, and women simply do not apply for any the engineering professions as much as men do.
Spoiler:
notice how womens interest in, and training is significantly less in these areas, in accordance with them holding less top positions in these areas?
I am 100% behind more women in "blue" jobs, but women have to actually want these jobs, apply for them, and train for them to get them, and they simply are choosing not to do that and go for other "pink" jobs instead.
but when women in general simply dont choose to go for certain jobs, sexist laws wont help that.
Passing a quota is lazy, sexist, and a step back for women everywhere.
men and woman apply for very different types of job in general, to complain that only 14% of ceos are women in a feild where its mostly men applying themselves to that feild, and that a 30% mandatory minimum should be put on women in CEo positions
Is just as ludicrous as if someone stated "only 8% of workplace fatalities are women? ok, 30% of all dangerous deadly work *HAS* to be done by women now, obviously sexism is why women are not getting hired for these dangerous jobs"
Jobs should be selected on qualifications, I know you'd say its flawed or such but this runs a risk somewhat. But done right its fair, regardless of race or sex, the best candidate wins.
Some less happy companies may hire them as per law and just give then minor token roles compared to other board members in practice of every day running of things. People find loopholes.
Putting them on the board to some may not change as much as they think.
If over one-third of the world’s potential female leaders have no desire to be a leader within the organisation, surely something needs to change.
My immediate response is, why?
Why does that mean something needs to change? I mean, that basically says, "feth their choice, lets make them do something they don't want to."
You're trying to fix a "problem" that isn't actually a problem, but rather a choice. I suppose next you'll tell me my wife's choice to become a teacher and stay a teacher (despite her district wanting her to enter into their administration training program) is wrong?
And from your other article's incredibly misleading Exhibit 1, the overall male positive response to desire to reach a top level management position is 10% higher than the female response. Again, despite the articles attempt to use a misleading graphic.
If over one-third of the world’s potential female leaders have no desire to be a leader within the organisation, surely something needs to change.
My immediate response is, why?
Why does that mean something needs to change? I mean, that basically says, "feth their choice, lets make them do something they don't want to."
You're trying to fix a "problem" that isn't actually a problem, but rather a choice. I suppose next you'll tell me my wife's choice to become a teacher and stay a teacher (despite her district wanting her to enter into their administration training program) is wrong?
And from your other article's incredibly misleading Exhibit 1, the overall male positive response to desire to reach a top level management position is 10% higher than the female response. Again, despite the articles attempt to use a misleading graphic.
You are appealing to emotion and dragging in anecdotes with your wife time and time again ITT. Was that not what you demonised me for doing in the gun thread?
Also, I interpret the article speaking of change as referring to the women who don't want to seek a high position because there is no point trying.
Ashiraya wrote: How come the ratio is 35-65 in terms of interest and 11-89 in terms of executive, then?
Some of that is down to parenting.
Often times, you'll see a girl watching Lions, or Bill Nye or whatever other awesome science show, and express an interest in digging in the dirt for worms, etc. Parents will say, "wouldn't you rather do [this]??" where the [this] is some socially acceptable for girls activity that involves no grease, tools, dirt or other "dirty" things. Girls must be pretty princesses is still a thing for many people out there.
It is a bit disparaging of you to attempt to compare young children's interest with actual professional numbers, as in the interim there is a TON of gak in between those two places in life that happen to young girls, and even young boys.
Of all the things you were interested in as a kid, how many of them are you STILL interested in? Of those interests, how many of those do you pursue professionally or as a hobby?
You are appealing to emotion and dragging in anecdotes with your wife time and time again ITT. Was that not what you demonised me for doing in the gun thread?
Well, no. I'm not. I've provided multiple examples through the links I've posted, and I used my wife as an example to your articles thesis that there is a problem with women not wanting to move higher up.
Then I followed that up using YOUR OWN ARTICLE to state that, FROM YOUR OWN ARTICLE, men are 10% more likely to provide an affirmative response to wanting to advance to a top level.
Also, I interpret the article speaking of change as referring to the women who don't want to seek a high position because there is no point trying.
That interpretation is literally founded on nothing. Again, refer to the sample list of CEOs I provided you as a shining example that there is clearly some point in trying.
Ashiraya wrote: How come the ratio is 35-65 in terms of interest and 11-89 in terms of executive, then?
and the ratio of women who actually get training (ie to become qualified applicants by actually putting in the work to get tech degrees, not just warm bodies to fill chairs) the ratio is 12-88, very comparable to the employment rate.
IE education/qualifications are more important to the hiring process then checking off a box that says you are interested in something, as it should be.
answer this,
why is it, that when 85% of one industry is male, thats a gender bias?
but when we see 85% + of other industries dominated by women, that is not gender bias?
if you are going to use % of gender in any given industry as proof of gender bias, you best apply that same methodology across the board. It obs doesnt work, and its been shown that women/men do in fact apply more to certain jobs in hugely disproportionate ways.
The entire schtick with "companies will pick the most suitable candidate so they can make the most money" assumes perfect knowledge on the part of the recruiter as to what constitutes competence. I would posit that the reason that there apparently aren't enough qualified women is that the competence isn't in a form recognisable by the largely homogenous group doing the recruiting. Last I looked, Norway hasn't ceased existing just because they've had a 40% quota since 2003 (IIRC).
easysauce wrote: why is it, that when 85% of one industry is male, thats a gender bias?
but when we see 85% + of other industries dominated by women, that is not gender bias?
Because the latter is a lower position with less pay.
cincydooley wrote: Well, no. I'm not. I've provided multiple examples through the links I've posted
Yes, and as have I. Nothing special there.
cincydooley wrote: and I used my wife as an example to your articles thesis that there is a problem with women not wanting to move higher up.
Which again is more than anecdotal - a single case says nothing.
That interpretation is literally founded on nothing. Again, refer to the sample list of CEOs I provided you as a shining example that there is clearly some point in trying.
No it's not. The article I linked shows that 75% of the surveyed group of female millenials feel things must change - which, I might add, is a significant amount.
Linking lists of female CEOs is like linking lists of games with female main characters. Yes, they exist, but they are in disproportional minority.
With all that said, I am pulling out of the thread (which I should have done long ago) as a thread with such an incredibly flammable premise is not something I'd prefer to debate in.
If you want to consider it a concession, feel free to.
Which again is more than anecdotal - a single case says nothing.
It does when the premise of the article is that there's a problem with women NOT wanting to move up the chain, a fact which is SUPPORTED BY the article you linked.
easysauce wrote: why is it, that when 85% of one industry is male, thats a gender bias?
but when we see 85% + of other industries dominated by women, that is not gender bias?
Because the latter is a lower position with less pay.
if there were a true, active gender bias for the "crappy" or lower paying jobs, then men wouldnt be working all the dangerous jobs to the extent where they are 88% of workplace fatalities.
also, charts like this wouldnt exist
Spoiler:
Heck, I may as well claim there is a "height bias" as the numbers do support taller people getting better jobs,
Your theory would also rely on women being forced to apply for the training to get the jobs in the fields they dominate, for some reason these women are *choosing* to train to be nurses, dentists, and so on, well before the supposed "gender biased" job interview takes place.
its cause, and effect, women's interest in these fields is lower, they choose to be trained in other fields instead, and then get jobs in the fields the trained in.
another theory
If you want to talk about the wage gap, its actually a jobs gap, and if women showed more interest, more importantly got the specific training in being a CEO as opposed to being a nurse, there would be more female CEOs
The real gap isn't between men and women doing the same job. It's between the different jobs that men and women take.
I like how easysauce presents this as a largely statistical problem.
What is that saying?:
"Luck is where opportunity meets preparation."- Denzel Washington
So, still trying to be practical, should the selection method be changed?
Say you receive 100 applicants.
75 who applied were male.
25 who applied were female.
The company policy would be to interview 1 applicant for every 25% of applicants from every "type" so one female and three males are interviewed.
All these discussions should still be around what is the most fair means of ensuring "bias" based on gender or race (human rights) does not enter the hiring process.
It's the new way of shutting down debate by smearing your opponent through guilt via association. Whereas the reaction from most when you go "You're a racist/sexist/MRA" is to go "No I'm not!", doing the same thing to an SJW will usually elicit cries of sexism/racism/ableism/whatever-ism, no denails, and further bluster.
MRA's exist, just as SJW's exist. The difference is twofold:
1. The two are not opposites (ie. the opposite of an SJW is not an MRA - SJW's cover a far greater range of perceived transgressions, MRA's just cover men's rights issues (nominally)). 2. You don't call someone an SJW to shut down debate, because doing so never shuts down the debate. Guilt via association doesn't work on SJW's as they're proud of their utter insanity/inanity. I mean, just look at Tumblr. Just lookup Tumblr in Action, or any of the crazy nutbar SJW sites that whine about cultural appropriation, trigger warnings and God-knows what else.
But, we're diving away from the topic at hand. This policy is tokenism + affirmative action, and it's sad that rather discussing the inherent sexism of this new law (both in the way it gaks on men and by the way it assumes that women cannot earn these positions themselves and need help from the government to do so) can be so casualy dismissed by someone calling someone else a fething MRA.
With all that said, I am pulling out of the thread (which I should have done long ago) as a thread with such an incredibly flammable premise is not something I'd prefer to debate in.
If you want to consider it a concession, feel free to.
This is really a shame.
I was really looking forward to you pulling out some totally unbiased and worthwhile articles from jezebel, too!
But, we're diving away from the topic at hand. This policy is tokenism + affirmative action, and it's sad that rather discussing the inherent sexism of this new law (both in the way it gaks on men and by the way it assumes that women cannot earn these positions themselves and need help from the government to do so) can be so casualy dismissed by someone calling someone else a fething MRA.
If it makes any difference, I had to look up what MRA meant. Now I'm just rolling my eyes even more.
I cant believe people are paid ungodly amounts of money to make these rules.
Seriously the people who sat around having meetings for months in various areas and the catering involved for these people along with their salaries and travel to make laws as dumb and pointless as this is extraordinary.
If it were my way they would be sacked and billed for their stupid waste of time and the money would go to feeding some poor people for a week.
Of all the issues in the world this is one of the things that gets done.
I need to get richer so I can be a politician and get paid to do useless stuff like this.
My thinking is that you want to fill your tool box with a verity of tools and that once you have a hammer you don't get a second hammer. You know you pick up a screw driver because some times you need to use a screw driver to pull up a nail.
Those are used for different jobs.
If I need two people to put nails in wood, I'd need two hammers - the two best hammers, preferably. If I'd need one to put nails in, and one to pull them out, I'd get the best hammer and the best screwdriver.
And then you will run into problems when you need a screw driver, but you only have hammers. Made sense at the time I mean we hammer nails, but now the market says screws are the new cool thing and we can't even find a proper screw driver because all our hammer just know what makes a good hammer and they keep saying all the screw drivers are too small and pointed... This metaphor might be kind of strange, but I hope I am at least making my point.
From a business perspective, it makes no sense to hire someone that is good at something your company doesn't do/need, just because there's a chance that it will happen in the future.
Also, thanks for fixing the spoiler cascade!
It is something I would do. I mean I wouldn't higher someone who couldn't do the job at all, but assuming I have peoplw who all fit the requirements I would try to bring in a diverse set of talent. Even if I end up picking numbers 2 4 5 over numbers 1 2 3. You have a wider selection of options and you end up mote adaptable to change.
1. From an early age the opposite sex will be instructed never to hit me but I may not be given the same instructions. However, should I strike males I can expect not to be hit back and any social penalties that occur from my actions will actually fall on the male.
2. If I’m not smart, but pretty, I can marry and achieve the social and financial level of my husband without ever working.
3. I can produce offspring. A status which grants me an “essential” status in our species that men can never have and which can never be taken away from me even in old age.
4. Regardless of my mate value society has organized fertility clinics and social welfare programs that will allow me to have children and provide for them should I choose to reproduce without a mate or marriage.
5. I not only have the more valuable and sought after sexual identity, but I also have complete control over my reproductive choice and in many ways over the reproductive choice of the opposite sex.
6. At any time I can abandon my parental responsibilities with little or no social stigma and hand the child over to the state or abort the pregnancy. A male could never relieve himself of this burden unless I allow him to.
7. I am granted all the rights of a democracy without any of the burdens of military service.
8. At age 18 I lose the protective status of the child but retain the protective status of the female. Boys at age 18 lose the protected status of the child and become targets if they fail to gain status after that point.
9. When I marry a man with status I can take his name and become whoever he has spent years becoming. I need not do anything special to be worthy of receiving the reputation he has built. However, if I wish to keep my own name I can do so. Should my husband feel the sting of this insult I can simply call him a sexist for it.
10. People will help me more when I’m in need and I will receive no social penalty or stigma for it.
11. When I’m on a date things will be paid for me.
12. When I search for employment I can choose jobs which I think are fulfilling without concern of whether they provide a “family” wage.
13. I can discriminate against the opposite sex ruthlessly without social penalty.
14. If I marry and quit my job and enjoy a leisurely life with light housework and then later divorce I will be given half of the marital assets.
15. If I commit a crime and am convicted I will get a sentencing “discount” because of my gender. If I am very pretty it will increase my discount.
16. If I am a partner in crime with a man I will likely be charged with lesser crimes even though I committed the same crimes even if I was the ringleader.
17. I have the option to be outraged if my husband asks me if my behavior is due to PMS and later on use PMS as a successful legal defense for murdering that same husband.
18. At age 18 I will not be forced to register for Selective Service and will not be penalized for failing to do so.
19. At a time of war I will never be drafted and ripped from my employment, home, and family and forced to become a military slave.
20. My feelings are more important than men’s lives. Every precaution will be made to protect me from harassment at work. However, males will make up nearly %100 of workplace fatalities.
21. My gender controls 80% of domestic spending. We get to spend our money if we have any and we get to spend men’s money.
22. The majority of luxury apparel is designed, marketed to, and consumed by women.
23. Seven times as much jewelry will be purchased by or for me than by or for men.
24. I have a department of women’s health whereas men have no such department.
25. My gender enjoys more government spending on health than males do.
26. My gender consumes the lioness’ share of entitlement programs while men contribute the lion’s share of taxes.
27. If I rape or molest a child I can expect lighter treatment in court and afterwards receive less social stigma. What’s more, should I become pregnant, I can sue my victim for child support when he finally turns 18.
28. When I divorce my husband I will be guaranteed custody of my children unless I am deemed to be unfit. Even if my husband is “Parent of the Year” 10 years running it is unlikely he will get custody over me even if I am a mediocre parent.
29. When I divorce I can use false accusations of domestic violence, sexual molestation of the children or abuse of the children to gain advantage during court proceedings. If I am found out to be a liar I can expect to get away with it.
30. If a man calls me a slut it will probably hurt his reputation more than it hurts mine, but at any rate the damage will be small and localized. However, if I call him a child molester or claim that he raped me I can destroy him completely and the damage may be nationwide.
31. If I fail at my career I can blame the male dominated society.
32. I may have the luxury of staying home and being a housewife but if my sister’s husband does the same thing I’m likely to call him a deadbeat loser and tell her to leave him.
33. If I “choose” to join the military; the best military occupations providing the most lucrative civilian training will be reserved for me. I will be kept away from the fighting as much as possible to the point that I will be thirty times less likely to be killed in a war zone than my male counterparts. I will be given equal pay for less risk. I will never have to consider the fact that by joining the military and getting a plumb assignment I automatically forced a male out of that position and into a combat role that may cost him his life.
34. If a male soldier injures himself before a deployment he can be arrested and court marshaled for it. If I deliberately get pregnant before a deployment or even during a deployment I will be reassigned and or taken out of a war zone and I will receive no penalty for it.
35. My gender watches more television in every hour of every day than any other group. This along with the fact that women control %80 of domestic spending means that most television shows and advertisement are designed to appeal to me.
36. I can wear masculine clothing if it pleases me however men cannot wear feminine clothing without social penalty.
37. Not only is there a wealth of clothing choices designed for me but it is likely that I will be able to afford or have them provided for me.
38. I can claim that a wage gap exists and that it is the fault of sexism while simultaneously seeking employment without considering income as a priority. I will probably choose my job based on satisfaction, flexibility of hours, and working conditions and then expect to make as much as the males working nights, out in the rain and cold or working overtime.
39. I can be bigoted or sexist against males without social penalty.
40. If I make a false claim of rape against a male in an act of revenge or in order to cover up my own scandalous behavior I may well succeed at both and he may spend years in prison. If I am found out it is unlikely I will be charged, convicted, or serve any time at all.
41. If I abuse my husband and physically assault him and the police arrive it is almost guaranteed he will go to jail.
42. If I am in an abusive relationship there are a multitude of social organizations to help me get away from him. There are few for men in the same position even though women initiate the majority of DV and even though men are hospitalized %30 of the time.
43. In the event of a natural disaster or other emergency that requires evacuation I can expect to be evacuated before males. This includes male doctors, humanitarians, politicians, captains of industry, billionaires, and religious leaders. I will receive no social penalty if all of those people died because I was evacuated first. However, should they manage to get evacuated before women and those women died they will all suffer a social penalty.
44. If someone is attacking a person on the street I have no obligation to assist them and I will receive no social penalty if I do nothing.
45. If someone is harming my children and I run away and ask someone else to help I will receive no social penalty for my cowardice.
46. I’m immune to cognitive dissonance.
47. I may denounce the concept of a dowry, however, I still expect a man to give me an engagement ring when he asks me to marry him.
48. I expect a man to ask me to marry me and suffer the potential risk of rejection.
49. If I lie it’s because I’m a victim of a male dominated society forced into difficult circumstances and not because I’m a bad person.
50. If my boyfriend sabotages a condom he can pay me child support for the next 20 years. If I secretly don’t take my birth control my boyfriend can pay me child support for the next 20 years.
51. If I’m uncomfortable exercising around men I can demand a female only gym be made for women. If any male only gyms exist I can demand membership under threat of lawsuit.
52. If my female only gym at the university decides to close early for safety reasons I can scream sexism and force them to keep it open as long as the main gym.
53. If I succeed at keeping the female gym open and I leave late at night and I don’t feel safe I can demand that the university spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for more lighting and police presence.
54. If after getting new lighting and police protection I decide I don’t want to go to the gym anymore well that’s just my prerogative.
55. I’m likely to believe that if a woman is intoxicated she is not capable of giving consent and if sex occurs it is rape. However, if her male partner is also intoxicated he is capable of consenting.
56. If a man is promoted over me at work I have a right to suspect sexism even though I also believe that under adverse circumstances men are more capable than women of making good decisions. (see #55)
57. I can cry and get my husband to do something for me that he might not have done otherwise.
58. I expect people (especially men) to be sensitive to my feelings.
59. I can deny a man’s feelings or disregard them or ridicule him for having them without social penalty.
60. If I lose my job it’s because of sexism or the economy. If a man loses his job it’s because he’s a loser.
61. If I go to a club or bar with my girlfriends and I look my sexy best I have a right to be perturbed when men approach me and hit on me in this public place.
62. Even though men die more from prostate cancer than women die from breast cancer I can expect that twice as much funding is given for breast cancer. The same will apply to any female specific disease or malady.
63. If for some reason I do not get custody of my children I will be expected to pay less child support than another man in my exact same position.
64. If I kidnap my children and I am eventually caught I can successfully defend myself by claiming I was protecting them from my husband–even if my children were given to him to protect them from me.
65. My gender makes up %53 of the voting population yet when I see more men in political office I will call that sexism.
66. If I am married with children and I want to stay home with the kids I’m likely to blame my husband for not making enough to allow me to do that.
67. I think it is my right to work and I am unconcerned if the influx of women into the workforce has reduced overall wages to the point that it’s hard to support a family on just one income, or affirmative action has kept men from being promoted even though they deserved it.
68. I can get student financial aid without signing up for Selective Service (the Draft).
69. I can get employment with a federal agency without signing up for Selective Service.
70. Restrooms for my gender will be cleaner and are more likely to have flowers or other decorations.
71. If I’m caring for a child restrooms for my gender will more likely have a changing table for my convenience.
72. People I’ve never met before are more likely to open doors for me.
73. People I’ve never met before are more likely to talk to me in public.
74. If I go to a bar I can expect that members of the opposite sex will purchase drinks for me.
75. Anytime I find an organization just for men I can denounce it as sexism.
76. I believe that women should have organizations just for women.
77. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he doesn’t call I have a right to think of him as an donkey-cave.
78. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he calls me I have a right to blow him off or act like I don’t know him.
79. I believe I have a right to live in an orderly and safe society but I feel no obligation to risk my safety to secure or maintain that society.
80. I like it when bars and clubs have drinks specials just for women.
81. I think that organizations that offer any discounts or privileges just for men is a clear sign of sexism.
82. If I’m white I will live 6 years longer than white males and 14 years longer than black males.
83. If I’m encouraged to get medical care it’s because I owe it to myself.
84. When my husband is encouraged to get medical help it’s because he owes to to me and the kids.
85. If something bad happens to me or just one woman I believe it is an offense against all women.
86. I believe that if something bad happens to a man it’s because he’s a loser.
87. I think that alimony is fair when paid to a woman but not fair when paid by a woman.
88. I’m more likely to believe that women who commit crimes are sick and need treatment or understanding whereas men who commit crimes are evil and should be locked up forever.
89. I can criticize the opposite sex without social penalty, but woe be to the man who attempts to criticize me or other women.
90. I can throw a fit and act like a two year old to get what I want without damaging my mate value.
91. I have the luxury of not being the filter for natural selection.
92. I can sleep with my boss if I want and afterwards I can sue him for sexual harassment.
93. I can wear seductive clothing and perfume to attract a man at work but no one will accuse me of sexual harassment.
94. If I hear a story about Darfur and how men who leave the refugee camps to gather wood are hacked to death to prevent their wives from being raped I am likely to think that is proper but not likely to send money.
95. If I hear a story about Darfur and how women are leaving the refugee camps to gather wood are being raped I’m likely to be outraged. I’m also likely to wonder why these women’s husbands aren’t protecting them.
96. If I ever heard these stories about Darfur it is my privilege not to care or even consider that the reason the second story exists is because all the men in the first have already been killed.
97. It is my right to maintain the belief that men oppress women despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
That is a odd read. Some parts I question the accuracy, some parts I question the relvency. Some parts I actually agree with. There is like too much to actually have a conversation about them though.
But racism also exists as well as mountains of research showing gender bias. Pretending it doesn't exist won't make it disappear either.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You don't call someone an SJW to shut down debate, because doing so never shuts down the debate.
Calling someone a racist or an idiotic MRA never shuts down a conversation either. If it did half the threads on Dakka OT, and lately Video Games, would already be locked. In the end they are all used to try and paint the other person as irrational, having an agenda, or both.
Of course some people are SJWs, some are MRAs, and some are racists, which just makes it that much more annoying to decipher.
I kind of wish MRA were a real thing. The concept is a fare one. There are some problems with how society treats men that I would like to see addressed, but most MRAs I have meet care more about insulting femminism and then reinforcing some of the very things I want to see changed.
nomotog wrote: I kind of wish MRA were a real thing. The concept is a fare one. There are some problems with how society treats men that I would like to see addressed, but most MRAs I have meet care more about insulting femminism and then reinforcing some of the very things I want to see changed.
In the US there are legitimate gripes in regards to men's parental rights. Very legitimate.
There are very few feminists that have any interest in acknowledging those facts.
nomotog wrote: I kind of wish MRA were a real thing. The concept is a fare one. There are some problems with how society treats men that I would like to see addressed, but most MRAs I have meet care more about insulting femminism and then reinforcing some of the very things I want to see changed.
In the US there are legitimate gripes in regards to men's parental rights. Very legitimate.
There are very few feminists that have any interest in acknowledging those facts.
Do you have a example? Generally I find that feminist are addressing my male problems better then MRAs are. I might just be seeing the wrong MRAs.
nomotog wrote: I kind of wish MRA were a real thing. The concept is a fare one. There are some problems with how society treats men that I would like to see addressed, but most MRAs I have meet care more about insulting femminism and then reinforcing some of the very things I want to see changed.
In the US there are legitimate gripes in regards to men's parental rights. Very legitimate.
There are very few feminists that have any interest in acknowledging those facts.
Do you have a example? Generally I find that feminist are addressing my male problems better then MRAs are. I might just be seeing the wrong MRAs.
Talizvar wrote: So, still trying to be practical, should the selection method be changed?
Say you receive 100 applicants.
75 who applied were male.
25 who applied were female.
The company policy would be to interview 1 applicant for every 25% of applicants from every "type" so one female and three males are interviewed.
All these discussions should still be around what is the most fair means of ensuring "bias" based on gender or race (human rights) does not enter the hiring process.
From what I've been made to understand (and I could be wrong on this), and we'll go with your example here... Basically, Company X receives 100 applications for a position at the company. If it's a modern company, it will probably have an electronic system that can scan all incoming applications for keywords. Depending on how the company wants this set up, that can eliminate 50% or more applications, just based on a single key word. So, we'll say that there remains 13 female applicants and 37 male applicants (rounding male apps down just because). Then, depending on the size of the company, the remainder will be sent to some intern, or low level person in HR, where they will look at them for about 10 seconds each. This brief look is looking for anything the electronic system missed: glaring typos, terrible formatting (seriously, resumes that are hard to look at tend to be thrown out), or really "any" excuse to toss out an application. Let's just say for argument's sake that 5 women and 20 male applications were thrown out. So now, you're looking at 8 women, and 17 men for 1 job. At this point, someone paid to give a feth will look at the applications (sometimes, as I've been told, this is HR, sometimes it is actually the department in question's manager), and depending on the strength/weakness of the remaining applications, the company will decide who to interview, as well as how many to interview for the job. Now, 25 job apps may not sound like a lot, but, who really wants to do 25 first interviews for 1 job? I can see interviewing 25 if there's 2 or 3 jobs, but not one.
It's at the interview stage that many people foul up their own chances, whether they realize it or not. Perhaps "you" wore a red tie, and the interviewer positively hates the color red (this sort of thing is more common than you think. I have a friend who regularly hires people for other companies, and after 5 years with the company, realized that certain colors stand out to him, making him more likely to toss them out with no job if worn. Since he realized this, he has to make a conscious effort to NOT fall into that habit). Perhaps you were "bouncing" your heel in that nervous tick/too much caffeine sort of way. Perhaps you smoked before going in for the interview, and were unable to completely get rid of the smell of cigarettes, etc. All of these things are ways in which people, male or female doom themselves. Really, the only way to be rid of these biases, is to have no interview process, keep it in a computer system with more and more variables to limit and find that "perfect match" on paper, and hire them sight unseen and untested.
One could quite easily create a law enforcing a minimum quote of women in a non-sexist way. You simply have to apply the same percentage quote to men as well.
In other words, if a registered company above a certain value/net turnover is required to have a minimum of 30% females on the board, it should be law that a minimum of 30% of the board must also be comprised of men. That way, everyone gets their quotas, and in an even, fairhanded sort of way.
Simply instituting the quote for women alone is blatant sexism in the most traditional form of the word. But a little ingenuity can stop this being the case. I believe it to be unneeded in view of current societal shift, and unwarranted interference by the government. But it could definitely be handled in a less cackhanded way if this is a nettle that they have decided must be grabbed.
Ketara wrote: One could quite easily create a law enforcing a minimum quote of women in a non-sexist way. You simply have to apply the same percentage quote to men as well.
In other words, if a registered company above a certain value/net turnover is required to have a minimum of 30% females on the board, it should be law that a minimum of 30% of the board must also be comprised of men. That way, everyone gets their quotas, and in an even, fairhanded sort of way.
Simply instituting the quote for women alone is blatant sexism in the most traditional form of the word. But a little ingenuity can stop this being the case. I believe it to be unneeded in view of current societal shift, and unwarranted interference by the government. But it could definitely be handled in a less cackhanded way if this is a nettle that they have decided must be grabbed.
thats a really good idea!
Though its something that would have to be applied across all fields, otherwise selective application of it to "blue" only jobs isnt far off from the original problem with being one sided.
The good thing is that it applies across all jobs in all fields, just as male dominated groups like fortune 500 CEOs could do with female perspective, and so could nursing/teaching/ect for example be required to hire more men, 30% of miners/engineers/rig workers/soldiers/ect should also be 30% female.
Ketara wrote: Simply instituting the quote for women alone is blatant sexism in the most traditional form of the word.
Or just a recognition of the obvious fact that there is no current problem with having too few men in high-level jobs. Adding new laws that have no meaningful effect just so you can prove that you're "fair" is just bad government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: The good thing is that it applies across all jobs in all fields, just as male dominated groups like fortune 500 CEOs could do with female perspective, and so could nursing/teaching/ect for example be required to hire more men, 30% of miners/engineers/rig workers/soldiers/ect should also be 30% female.
That sounds nice in theory, but only if you don't think about it very much. The equality issue here is an issue of access, not outcomes. Having 10% of CEOs be men wouldn't be a problem if very few women were interested in those jobs, but the reality is that women are interested but are being rejected (or turned away earlier in their careers) at disproportionate rates compared to equally-qualified men. Is there a similar problem in nursing, where qualified men who want the jobs are being rejected because of sexist attitudes?
It's somewhat skewed by the number of women who self-select out of certain fields for any number of reasons. There aren't a lot of women engineers because not many women choose to pursue a career in engineering. Whether that's pure coincidence or because society pressures women to choose more feminine jobs or because women perceive the engineering field as being unfriendly to women or if it's some other factor isn't entirely clear, particularly since it's probably some combination thereof. A lot of women also drop out of their careers, or choose to hold back their careers, in order to find time to start a family. Women tend to work fewer hours on average than men, which may be due to aforementioned family matters or may be that women prioritize free personal time over working overtime, a perfectly viable choice but one less likely to lead to promotions. It's really hard to determine the extent to which women can't get a particular job or position versus choosing not to go for a particular job or position.
Not to blow my own horn, but again who determines which companies have to hire the 30% of women? Is it like the first 30% of companies that hire a new CEO will have to hire a female one?
Will big enough companies be prevented from moving their office overseas to bypass the requirement? Bigger companies do that for reasons like tax codes, etc, i can't see why they wouldn't consider it for something like this.
What will be the consequences if the 'big' players all leave the country (office-wise) and only the 'small' companies are hit with this requirement? Could be bad if the more profitable companies rebase to somewhere else?
Will companies be able to apply for exemptions to these requirements? We have anti-discrimination laws here in australia but you can apply (pay) for an exemption, thats how hooters got in.
Even if the basic premise (creating quotas to end descrimination) is sound, the implementation of it could end up being problematic at best.
Ketara wrote: Simply instituting the quote for women alone is blatant sexism in the most traditional form of the word.
Or just a recognition of the obvious fact that there is no current problem with having too few men in high-level jobs. Adding new laws that have no meaningful effect just so you can prove that you're "fair" is just bad government.
Really? I'd say it's the inherent epitome of good government. The law, applying equally to all men and women. No discrimination based on exactly what piece of packaging they happen to be equipped with between their legs, in the same way the law doesn't publicly grant extended stop and search powers for being a certain skin colour, fines for being from a certain region, or rules imposing a minimum quota of asexuals on the board of every publicly quoted company (because they're highly underrepresented).
This piece of legislation is cackhanded discriminatory 'bad government'. Modifying it in line with the above simply makes it cackhanded bad government instead. If the law is not equal to all, then it is 'bad government'.
Ketara wrote: If the law is not equal to all, then it is 'bad government'.
idk, it's really easy to take this into some "the law forbids the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges" territory. If a particular group has specific problems and laws are made to specifically address these problems then it isn't necessarily an issue that these laws don't do anything for another group without those problems.
So why are you in so many feminism-related threads lately?
Mostly because it's a topic that highly interests me, is important and I am very actively involved in - on top of being more knowledgeable than most Dakka users. Especially those that claim to be feminists but have no idea what they're talking of.
So why are you in so many feminism-related threads lately?
Mostly because it's a topic that highly interests me, is important and I am very actively involved in - on top of being more knowledgeable than most Dakka users. Especially those that claim to be feminists but have no idea what they're talking of.
Yes, your unflinching belief in managerial omniscience sure showed us the error of our ways. I repent!
I think I will still hang my hat on ensuring each minority group in a given workforce is given an interview in direct proportion to the number of applicants.
As was pointed out in the case of women, there appears to be a certain preference to given jobs which can arguably be based on cultural gender roles.
I think that trying to promote a minority where it skews them above those with better skills for the job is the wrong thing to do: the benefit of diversity could be outweighed by lacking competitive advantage due to skill-set.
So the question still remains, if down to two applicants of extremely similar merits, pick the minority you are short of or coin-toss?
I would pick diversity as an asset worth considering when all else has been covered.
As it so happens my mother is one of the "10%" of female CEO's out there, not of a fortune 500 company but a fairly big one that provides irrigation services to a bunch of farmers in our region, all part of the dairy industry machine.
I've talked to her about this subject before and she said that the idea that board members sit around blocking women from positions of power is ridiculous. You have to remember that if the company doesn't turn out a profit the members of the board don't get paid. So unlike your average McDonalds store manager who gets paid either way, they can't afford to hire based on any qualification other than merit, they HAVE to hire the best person for the job.
Now you say what if you have two equally qualified people and and one is male and one female? Its a myth, doesn't happen, the board can usually tell after looking at a CV and a few interviews who is going to make them money, because that's what they are there for, to make money and hiring people purely based on whats between your legs isn't the best way to make money.
My mother told me that she has never been turned down from a position based on her gender, sure she has encountered sexism, but its comments from co-workers or attitudes, not hiring practices.
Ketara wrote: Simply instituting the quote for women alone is blatant sexism in the most traditional form of the word.
Or just a recognition of the obvious fact that there is no current problem with having too few men in high-level jobs. Adding new laws that have no meaningful effect just so you can prove that you're "fair" is just bad government.
Really? I'd say it's the inherent epitome of good government. The law, applying equally to all men and women. No discrimination based on exactly what piece of packaging they happen to be equipped with between their legs, in the same way the law doesn't publicly grant extended stop and search powers for being a certain skin colour, fines for being from a certain region, or rules imposing a minimum quota of asexuals on the board of every publicly quoted company (because they're highly underrepresented).
This piece of legislation is cackhanded discriminatory 'bad government'. Modifying it in line with the above simply makes it cackhanded bad government instead. If the law is not equal to all, then it is 'bad government'.
The math doesn't line up. If you only meet the minimum requirements of the quota, who are the other 40%?
