Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antioch]

Yeah but you get less productivity.

And the hours required for the job don't change. In fact, being under-qualified in a demanding job sounds like Hell on Earth. Women want flexible jobs so they can spend time with their family, and high executive roles don't allow that.

I can't take arguments based on gender roles very seriously.

Do you think women do make the same career choices as men?

[scriver]

I'm for gender quotas, particularly for occupations with very loose qualifications like boards and such. 30% sounds like a reasonable requirement.

Is this anything but a vague arguing point at this time, though?

Yeah but you get less productivity.

And the hours required for the job don't change. In fact, being under-qualified in a demanding job sounds like Hell on Earth. Women want flexible jobs so they can spend time with their family, and high executive roles don't allow that.

Women who's not prepared to sacrifice that generally don't go for that kind of positions to begin with, so it's not like this would suddenly mean every board would be brimming with people who don't want to commit.

[Antioch]

I'm for gender quotas, particularly for occupations with very loose qualifications like boards and such. 30% sounds like a reasonable requirement.

Is this anything but a vague arguing point at this time, though?

Yeah but you get less productivity.

And the hours required for the job don't change. In fact, being under-qualified in a demanding job sounds like Hell on Earth. Women want flexible jobs so they can spend time with their family, and high executive roles don't allow that.

Women who's not prepared to sacrifice that generally don't go for that kind of positions to begin with, so it's not like this would suddenly mean every board would be brimming with people who don't want to commit.

Seeing as multiple European countries recently introduced such a quota it is very much reality.


I will repeat my statement that I find it unacceptable that men will be denied jobs based on their gender.

This will almost by definition cause less qualified women to get jobs over qualified men, as there is nothing that indicates that qualified women do not get those jobs already.

[SomeStupidGuy]

Seeing as multiple European countries recently introduced such a quota it is very much reality.


I will repeat my statement that I find it unacceptable that men will be denied jobs based on their gender.

This will almost by definition cause less qualified women to get jobs over qualified men, as there is nothing that indicates that qualified women do not get those jobs already.

By your reasoning, this would be a complete non-issue. 30% ain't a substantial portion of the work force, and if a workplace has 70%+ men in it, then yeah, that place could probably stand to diversify a bit.
And it's not like the companies in question will hire less qualified people because of the quota. There'll be plenty of options for them to hire, men or women.
Really, the only way your sort of reasoning makes any kind of sense is if you assume that women are naturally less qualified for this sort of work. Which says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about this quota.

[Skyrunner]

besides, when there are like a hundred equally qualified people to hire for one position, who gets the cut and who gets it in is basically random and/or based on networking, bias and human stupidity (I like the cut of that guy's jib, YOU'RE HIRED).

[smjjames]

If there are gender equality problems in those places, then it'd be a good thing.

The only places that I'd see the 70/30 ratio becoming a problem is in careers where there aren't very many women, which is where the diversity is needed in the first place anyway.

[Antioch]

Seeing as multiple European countries recently introduced such a quota it is very much reality.


I will repeat my statement that I find it unacceptable that men will be denied jobs based on their gender.

This will almost by definition cause less qualified women to get jobs over qualified men, as there is nothing that indicates that qualified women do not get those jobs already.

By your reasoning, this would be a complete non-issue. 30% ain't a substantial portion of the work force, and if a workplace has 70%+ men in it, then yeah, that place could probably stand to diversify a bit.
And it's not like the companies in question will hire less qualified people because of the quota. There'll be plenty of options for them to hire, men or women.
Really, the only way your sort of reasoning makes any kind of sense is if you assume that women are naturally less qualified for this sort of work. Which says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about this quota.

No I am saying women make different career choices than men. I find every position that is not selected because of qualification but because of gender despicable.

High school graduates are close to 50/50 men/woman. Is the fact that only 3% of mechanical engineering students are women due to discrimination?

does it make sense to introduce a quota of 30% women if a study mechanical engineering were to introduce an application procedure?

[Reelya]

@SomeStupidGuy: Please don't stoop to personal attacks.

There are less qualified women engineers for example, not because women have any less talent for engineering, but because few women choose to pursue the studies to do that. If you put e.g. a women engineer quota in, companies will have to lower qualification requirements to compensate. There is nothing in that logic which claims women have less talent to be engineers.

Similarly, read Sheryl Sandberg and the other high-level feminists I quoted. A large number of professional women opt out of the career path. That's what Sheryl Sandberg's entire book Lean In was about: not enough women stay on the career track needed to be an executive, thus they don't get the experience needed.

[RedKing]

It's what women, even feminist women write articles about, see above.

We have figures, stats and surveys to boot. Highly-educated women plan career breaks well in advance.

http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2014/mar/25/70-of-women-fear-taking-a-career-break

Here, in a survey by London Business School, 70% of women responded that they fear the effects of taking a career break. It makes sense that you only fear something if you think it's likely, so I'd say that's a good indication that ~70% of women do actually intend to take a career break. Whether that's "sexist gender roles" or not, it's what's happening. Many women take the break not because they're forced to, but because they want to spend time with their children.

https://fairygodboss.com/Articles/why-millennial-women-plan-on-taking-career-breaks

http://time.com/89992/dont-let-your-husband-be-a-stay-at-home-dad/
"women’s average annual earnings decrease by 20 percent if they are out of the workforce for just one year…30 percent after two to three years, which is the average amount of time professional women off-ramp from the workforce."

To me, that's not a problem with women, that's a problem with capitalism.
I've *been* a stay-at-home dad. I think more guys would like to be able to spend time with their kids too. I don't understand this notion that a person is expected to devote their entire existence to their job. Especially when employers seem to increasingly give no real fucks about their employees.

Not to mention the whole earnings decrease thing is sexist as well. When I went back to work after 2.5 years in grad school and being a stay-at-home dad, I made more than I did when I was laid off to begin with. So obviously it's not a hard and fast mechanic at work of "Oh, you've been out of the work force so we have to pay you less."

[Reelya]

That was your personal anecdotal evidence, but the article I linked point out:

Perhaps not when you consider the facts of the matter. We know that women already pay a price for taking a leave of absence from the workforce. Sheryl Sandberg points out in her book Lean In that “women’s average annual earnings decrease by 20 percent if they are out of the workforce for just one year…30 percent after two to three years, which is the average amount of time professional women off-ramp from the workforce.”

Research suggests the penalty may even be greater for men who temporarily exit the workforce. One study found that dads who left work for even a short period of time to cater to domestic matters earned lower evaluations and more negative performance ratings at work than women who opted out.

Men are even worse affected for taking time off than women are, I just didn't mention it before because it wasn't relevant, but that fact sort of throws a wrench in the argument that the pay cut is specifically sexist against women.

[RedKing]

Personal anecdote vs. "one study suggests this may be a thing". Sounds like a wash.
Plus, it sounds they're looking specifically at instances of leaving and returning to the same job.

Also doesn't examine whether job performance really does suffer, or managers just have a bias against employees who took a leave of absence. The latter is not unheard of, and is a problem in its own right. I'mma just leave this here.

[Caz]

It's what women, even feminist women write articles about, see above.

We have figures, stats and surveys to boot. Highly-educated women plan career breaks well in advance.

http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2014/mar/25/70-of-women-fear-taking-a-career-break

Here, in a survey by London Business School, 70% of women responded that they fear the effects of taking a career break. It makes sense that you only fear something if you think it's likely, so I'd say that's a good indication that ~70% of women do actually intend to take a career break. Whether that's "sexist gender roles" or not, it's what's happening. Many women take the break not because they're forced to, but because they want to spend time with their children.

https://fairygodboss.com/Articles/why-millennial-women-plan-on-taking-career-breaks

http://time.com/89992/dont-let-your-husband-be-a-stay-at-home-dad/
"women’s average annual earnings decrease by 20 percent if they are out of the workforce for just one year…30 percent after two to three years, which is the average amount of time professional women off-ramp from the workforce."

To me, that's not a problem with women, that's a problem with capitalism.
I've *been* a stay-at-home dad. I think more guys would like to be able to spend time with their kids too. I don't understand this notion that a person is expected to devote their entire existence to their job. Especially when employers seem to increasingly give no real fucks about their employees.

Not to mention the whole earnings decrease thing is sexist as well. When I went back to work after 2.5 years in grad school and being a stay-at-home dad, I made more than I did when I was laid off to begin with. So obviously it's not a hard and fast mechanic at work of "Oh, you've been out of the work force so we have to pay you less."

Yeah, paternity leave really needs to be on par with women before there can be real equality. Is it true that America has no paid leave at all?

[scriver]

Seeing as multiple European countries recently introduced such a quota it is very much reality.

Ah, I misunderstood the OP as the worker's parties of those countries having put it on their agenda, as opposed to actual laws being put through.

besides, when there are like a hundred equally qualified people to hire for one position, who gets the cut and who gets it in is basically random and/or based on networking, bias and human stupidity (I like the cut of that guy's jib, YOU'RE HIRED).

Pretty much this. I don't see any particular problem with it because instead of seeing it as "denying men placements" I see it as allowing more women the chance for employment.

By your reasoning, this would be a complete non-issue. 30% ain't a substantial portion of the work force, and if a workplace has 70%+ men in it, then yeah, that place could probably stand to diversify a bit.
And it's not like the companies in question will hire less qualified people because of the quota. There'll be plenty of options for them to hire, men or women.
Really, the only way your sort of reasoning makes any kind of sense is if you assume that women are naturally less qualified for this sort of work. Which says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about this quota.

No I am saying women make different career choices than men. I find every position that is not selected because of qualification but because of gender despicable.

High school graduates are close to 50/50 men/woman. Is the fact that only 3% of mechanical engineering students are women due to discrimination?

does it make sense to introduce a quota of 30% women if a study mechanical engineering were to introduce an application procedure?

The main problem with that quota would be that it would fail because the lack of applicants. This is also the difference between your example and the other situation.

[LordBaal]

Positions should be filled according to the skills of the worker, nothing less or more, sex should not be a important factor, not even for physical work.

Of course women have the need of maternity leaves, just as the same a men can have a broken leg or some sickness or injury that forbids him to work for a few weeks/months.

So unless the woman is half rodent and gets pregnant every couple of months it shouldn't affect much the position either.

What you say, the position is so critical there are no leaves contemplated? Well, people can die suddenly, have accidents or find better works and leave without noticing, so it's not an excuse.

As for quotas, I'm in IF they are only temporary and utterly necessary, as in breaking trough the traditions of only male offices, once this is established and bias is not longer a factor the quota requirement should be lifted. Some woman could even think that this is pejorative (I know a few that do) since it points they can't get a job without special help or a law that specifies so, which in turn might be seen as pointing out they are indeed weaker.

[Loud Whispers]

By your reasoning, this would be a complete non-issue. 30% ain't a substantial portion of the work force

Wat

and if a workplace has 70%+ men in it, then yeah, that place could probably stand to diversify a bit.

Why?

And it's not like the companies in question will hire less qualified people because of the quota.

Yes they will if they are legally bound to ignore better qualified people.

There'll be plenty of options for them to hire, men or women.

For some reason?

Really, the only way your sort of reasoning makes any kind of sense is if you assume that women are naturally less qualified for this sort of work. Which says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about this quota.

Yeah nah, you should hear one of our Baroness's talking about the absolute shite that ended up working for our gov because of who they were not for actual talent. You should see the great success that was South Africa's affirmative action, it ended up driving talent away, increased racial divides and income inequality and fucked their country up in such a short span it was quite impressive. For some reason killing meritocracy tends to do that.