Print

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

[Bumber]

what will actually work as an effective measure

Redesign the system such that the whole question becomes irrelevant.
...
But you'll solve most of the problem if money is no longer a driving force in society and the whole question of which group has the greater portion of high paying positions becomes a non sequitor because anybody can pretty much have any material thing they want without having to dedicate their lives to procuring it.

The real solution is to smash capitalism.

[Orange Wizard]

The real solution is enlightened despotism, dammit, and I'm definitely cut out for the job so why haven't you made me supreme ruler of earth yet

[nullBolt]

I don't see anyone championing for "equality" in undesirable arenas. The example was given previously, most garbage workers are men. Feminists don't usually complain about the unfairness of that because it's typically regarded as undesirable work. More often they complain about lack of women in executive positions, for example, because those are typically regarded as desirable positions. They not really interested in equality. They're using perceptions of inequality as a tool to manipulate people into giving them what they want.

See, I am really tired of hearing this crock of garbage that keeps getting tossed around because it sounds good, because it's a lie that a simple google search could fix.

How about

I google that

for you

a little.

The women fighting for equality in blue collar work has a 100+ year history. It's out there for literally anyone to see with a simple search to find out if what they're saying is actually true, or whether it's an anti-feminist meme that's been going around for years.

"A sanitation worker"
"Women coal miners"
Two of the sources you provide are women who work in the industries fighting discrimination, not outsiders calling for quotas which is what it is in every quality industry. How many of the women calling for more women programmers are women programmers? (I'll give you a clue, it's a tiny amount. Negligible. Most of the girls who code couldn't give less of a shit.)

And then the mention of the police force and fire fighting, where women are so willing to do the jobs that fitness standards for the both are lowered by such a large margin that they really don't count as being at the required level of fitness. And even then, after failing the tests, they still manage to get the jobs because these required public services don't want to be seen as discriminating.

The most sexist force in the world right now is feminism, and I don't mean it's sexist towards men. It views women as infants, as children. Squalling babies who need to be looked after. It constantly degrades women and displays them as not being capable of rising to a challenge. That's the reality of modern feminism.

But you're so emotionally entwined in this that you won't realise until a female firefighter can't drag your unconscious body out of a building because she's not strong enough to do it. And by then it'll be too late.

[Willfor]

Two of the sources you provide are women who work in the industries fighting discrimination, not outsiders calling for quotas which is what it is in every quality industry.

Right. Exactly. Thank you for making my point? I wasn't talking about calling for quotas, I was talking about how women want to be treated as equals in blue collar work which LordBucket said that there were no calls for. Which is wrong. Which is why I gave the links.

I kind of have to ask you which feminism you're even talking about as no one disagreed with me that it was not a monolithic entity, and now it is thread canon that there is far more than one kind. I am a feminist, for instance, and I don't think women are incapable of rising to a challenge. It seems like you do though as you don't think any woman could possibly pull someone from a burning building? Your last two paragraphs don't maintain internal consistency.

[nullBolt]

Two of the sources you provide are women who work in the industries fighting discrimination, not outsiders calling for quotas which is what it is in every quality industry.

Right. Exactly. Thank you for making my point? I wasn't talking about calling for quotas, I was talking about how women want to be treated as equals in blue collar work which LordBucket said that there were no calls for. Which is wrong. Which is why I gave the links.

I kind of have to ask you which feminism you're even talking about as no one disagreed with me that it was not a monolithic entity, and now it is thread canon that there is far more than one kind. I am a feminist, for instance, and I don't think women are incapable of rising to a challenge. It seems like you do though as you don't think any woman could possibly pull someone from a burning building? Your last two paragraphs don't maintain internal consistency.

There aren't any calls for an equal amount of women to be brought in to blue collar industries, though. Those are groups of individual women who are already in the industry saying that there's discrimination there. That's a whole different ball game compared to what the thread is about and what LordBucket seemed to be referring to. Go back and read through what he said.

There are probably a number of women who could pull someone from a burning building. They are, however, a very driven and minor percentage of the female population. A much larger percentage of the male population is capable of doing this.

Compare the fitness standards required for male and female police officers and male and female firefighters. The standards are very much night and day. I imagine there aren't enough women fit enough to fulfill 5% of the firefighting force if they were held to male standards.

Instead, female standards were lowered so that more women could get into firefighting and even then the tests are failed at an outstanding rate. They're still let in, though, in case people cry of discrimination. The police standards are pretty low in the UK and yet women were failing the tests 49% of the time until standards were lowered.

The reality of it is that women and men are different, have different life choices, have different goals, have different abilities. Ensuring quotas just means standards are lowered for one group of the population instead of ensuring equality. And that's never a good thing.

(On this note, male standards about 20 years back in Britain as men used to need to be 5'10" tall to join the police force. It was claimed that it was discriminating against short people, which it was, but I fail to see how that's a bad thing.)

[Orange Wizard]

The word "feminist" is about as vague and unhelpful as "religious" at this point, I think. We need... I dunno, a feminist Pope. Matriarch of Constantinople.

[nullBolt]

The word "feminist" is about as vague and unhelpful as "religious" at this point, I think. We need... I dunno, a feminist Pope. Matriarch of Constantinople.

It's pretty much a religion at this point anyway.

[Jimmy]

Forgive me for not reading through the full commentary before posting, so if this has already been suggested, I apologize:

Responding to the initial topic that mandatory female board member quotas discriminate against equally skilled male gendered applicants, or encourage the hiring of lesser skilled applicants based on gender, I'd propose removing the mandatory component of the quota and instead making it an incentive based system.

Since I'm no economist or have any experience with sitting on a board of directors, these are simply my own speculations, but should a system exist whereby some form of non-trivial tax deduction incentive exists for boards who maintain a minimum gender ratio, the female presence at these levels may increase accordingly. On the one hand, boards who maintain status quo would be no worse off under the system, as there's no mandate forcing them to dismiss qualified persons simply on the basis of their gender. On the other hand, there would be significant incentive for proactively designing systems and processes favourable to females, as the cost of these changes could be borne by the incentives provided for their recruitment.

Similar systems are already in place in such settings as higher education, where people from specific ethnic or economic backgrounds have a financial incentive provided to their chosen school of learning for providing them access to an education that might not commonly be pursued by their peers. This in no way disadvantages their fellow students, as their performance in their field of learning is judged based on their own intellectual merits alone, but provides opportunities for diversity that might otherwise not exist simply due to the incumbent status quo.

My two cents of armchair philosopher wisdom ends.

[nullBolt]

<snip>

The reality of business is that every board would take the exact required amount of women required to get the tax break and then do nothing else whilst breeding suspicion and intolerance towards women being promoted. As long as it was profitable to promote the women which, in the vast majority of businesses, it likely will be.

[Jimmy]

Then the machine of capitalism succeeds at evoking the change required to promote gender equality. After all, under the proposed system, those who fail to employ females aren't discriminated against for their decision. It's business as usual, with no loss of profitability. Those who spend the time and resources to create opportunities for females, however, have an incentive to do so as the system pays for itself; and even becomes an additional source of wealth in the long term on top of the value added by including a female perspective. Whether it breeds suspicion or not becomes irrelevant in the long term as perceptions change due to the new status quo being inclusive of female board members.

[Orange Wizard]

But it will also lead to the perception that female board members are only there so the business can reap its tax bonuses; and I guarantee someone will point at business who don't aim for the tax bonus and say they're so sexist they're willing to pay for it (although no one will take them seriously, but y'know).

I dunno, it's probably a good idea, but (as with anything, really) people will complain.

[Jimmy]

Whether folks complain or not, and whether or not a proportion of the female board members are simply seat warmers, it still generates a pool of qualified women capable of functioning at the highest corporate level. Eventually critical mass is achieved and we start seeing significant numbers of women in leadership positions creating their own opportunities instead of requiring the approval of a male dominated board. Simply by existing, these women will have the skills needed to found their own businesses and translate the skills they've gained into creating their own form of corporate structure, one which hopefully transcends gender bias.

[wierd]

I suppose I am in an unusual position.

I went from a vocation dominated by males (technology and engineering) to a vocation dominated by females (Nursing.)

Other than occasionally being mislabeled "she" by busy nurses (who then promptly correct themselves-- I DO have long hair, in their defense) I havent really seen a real problem from either side. Work hard, and you will excel, and others, regardless of their gender, will acknowledge your quality of work.

Without switching genders somehow, and re-experiencing going back the other way again as a woman, this is the closest to seeing both sides of the fence first hand that I am capable of.  Is there a glass ceiling in nursing for males? no.  There is not.

What is the most likely contributing factor to lower female earning expectations? The risk of becoming pregnant makes employers less willing to consider you essential, from what I can tell. Males can better be expected to always be at work on time, and work efficiently and effectively because they aren't going to become debilitated from the natural side effects of having a sex life-- or at least, not debilitated for 6 or so months time.

Sorry ladies, but I believe that is just the way it is.  I seriously doubt it has anything to do with "Some bunch of old misogynists just has issues with women being in charge." (though, amusingly, the ones complaining the loudest about "The patriarchy" keeping women down, do seem to fit the other side of that sordid coin. I suspect a good number of 4th wave feminists in the nursing profession get ticked off that that the majority of doctors are male, when the only thing keeping them from upgrading their RN to an MD is the required time and money invested. I know many female doctors. There is no sexist barrier there.)

[wobbly]

I see little reason to think women are less biased in hiring. Particularly if you look at the proportion of women in HR departments. Women are already to doing a lot of the hiring & the biases still exist. As for corporate execs starting their own businesses, when you have a corporate salary, it's a lot easier to invest in an existing business then start your own business. I'd want to see figures that show corporate execs are the people starting businesses before I believe it's true.

[Jimmy]

For entry level positions there's certainly adequate representation of female staff, however as the position of power within the hierarchy of a business increases, the gender distribution predominantly decreases. Certainly the wealth of studies already posted in this topic to much to explain the reasons, which is well and good and should be acknowledged as a natural feature of employment. However for positions where only intellectual merits apply, we face a paucity of female representation, more than can be attributed to normal distribution.

I sincerely doubt that the figures you're seeking exist, however you've quite excellently proven your own point when you note that investment in an existing business is typically the preferred method of executives wishing to increase their influence. Entrepreneurs create a grassroots business, which grows to exceed their own skills in managing, necessitating the addition of qualified persons at the highest level to continue business growth. Surely with a pool of skilled, hungry and experienced female executives created by incentivizing women in upper management positions, these new businesses will offer the opportunities they seek. This is, after all, how a board of directors evolves, and having a female member as a founding force in the initial stages will doubtless break down many barriers to further advancement for other women seeking similar positions. Moreso, should these executives decide to do as many women do and halt their career for family, they will have many skills which would translate well into founding their own business once their family responsibilities allow them the freedom to pursue entrepreneurial activities.