Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 19:41:48
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 19:43:30
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.
Spoiler:
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/01 19:55:12
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).
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 20:02:35
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.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 21:39:12
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/01 22:25:07
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 22:28:50
Torga_DW wrote: How do you end discrimination by creating more discrimination?
By making sure you only discriminate against privileged white males.
WarOne wrote:
At the very peak of his power, Mat Ward stood at the top echelons of the GW hierarchy, second only to Satan in terms of personal power within the company.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 23:09:24
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 23:51:59
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/02 00:34:25
.
