Opinions on my conversation with DP please, re job quotas

I don't KNOW how to separate two equal candidates.

So then, you can have no quarrel with a quota system in this instance, especially as you have pointed out one of the major reasons why a women might not be offered a super high up position within a company. This despite women being pretty aware that super high up positions sadly usually mean very long hours, and women who are qualified for these positions being able to work that out for themselves.

You do realise that it's illegal to even ask whether a candidate has children/planning a family, let alone consider their childcare arrangements when offering the job.

Yes the long hours culture didn't exist when most married women were housewives.

The long hours culture doesn't have to exist - it is bad for everyone imo (except the companies who squeeze every last drop of blood out of their employees). Most other European countries don't seem to have developed this working culture fancies a siesta

The long hours requirement is in itself a false requirement. Most jobs do not require the amount of presenteeism that has developed over the past 20 years. It's funny how that has coincided with the number of women qualified for senior jobs.

Yep and when you look at the figures, actually, childless women also earn less than men once you get past about 40's.

So that three years out of the market place in a 40 year career, doesn't really hold water at all.

Maternity leaves are part of continuos periods of employment and therefore are not breaks on the CV.

Is it ok to have quotas of childless women then?

You also have to question the supremely self-satisfied entitlement of a man who doesn't question the parasitical nature of men dumping most of their childcare and domestic commitments on women, leaving them free to make more money and leaving women disadvantaged in the workplace.

Privilege, they name is Martinedwards. At the moment.

"maybe, just MAYBE, women APPLY for fewer super high up jobs because they will be expected to work the long hours that will have them away from their young families a lot more than they are willing to accept, while men are LESS LIKELY to see the issue with that."

I can't believe someone can type that sentence out without spotting the irony of what they're saying!

So let me spell it out for you: Men don't have to worry about childcare because women do.

And yes, lots of women feel compelled to do so (myself included) but does that mean they should be penalised for doing a job that, let's face it, is pretty damned valuable?

You want to talk about unfair disadvantage but you have no idea what it's like to go from earning a lot of money, having a lot of independence, to having to go for crappy jobs that you are overqualified for and answer interview questions like "so, how often is your child ill?"

And yes, I know that's illegal, but it doesn't stop it happening.

I get patronised all the time, so I'm used to it actually.

It doesn't usually come with a decent wage and social status.

17 years difference vs 20 years difference? Pfft.

Isn't it odd that acceptable other criteria always seem to be things like this that benefit men even if they make fuck all difference to the job in hand. Funny that.

I don't think anyone getting a job they have applied for and are qualified would feel patronised if they actually got the job over an equally qualified white man. They'd more likely be fucking amazed. But hey, you know you "they" feel.

EQUALLY? maybe. but you HAVE to be able to bring out another criteria, otherwise you get:

aw there, there, there,

give the poor little "insert gender/race/creed/sexual pref" person a job.

nice. they love being patronised.

And when you look at why men are employed in senior roles and women aren't because one has taken time out to do a business and one has taken time out to raise children, you'll find that what they've got in their pants is exactly the deciding factor in why they are hired.

Come off it, you really think that a tiny percentage of time out of the workplace, makes a huge difference in terms of capability of doing the job?

When men have taken time out (to go travelling, to be house-husbands for a while, to try their own business/ different careers in a different sector etc.) the three years they were out are judged irrelevant.

Are you actually making the argument that sexism doesn't exist and it's all about women's choices?

How dull.

companies that are a "wee bit low" on women at board level if they had equally qualified applicants in front of them would be sensible in recruiting based on what's in candidates' pants, as several studies have shown that companies with mixed-sex boards are likely to make better decisions and make more money...

Maybe, just MAYBE the employers look at a 40 year old man, and a 40 year old woman and see two equally qualified candidates, but the man has 20 years experience, while the woman has 17, because she has taken 3 maternity leaves.

maybe, just MAYBE, women APPLY for fewer super high up jobs because they will be expected to work the long hours that will have them away from their young families a lot more than they are willing to accept, while men are LESS LIKELY to see the issue with that.

I don't KNOW how to separate two equal candidates.

obviously, arm wrestling is out, as is competitive eyebrow plucking and the length of belch produced after drinking a pint of warm lager.

what about the distance the candidate can carry a digestive biscuit clenched between their buttocks (outside clothing obviously)?

but what they have in their pants is, was, and ever more SHALL be, WRONG

martinedwards you didn't say best for the job in your first post you said equally qualified. Huge difference.

Interesting. But I'll ask again, in the vain hope of getting an answer to the actual question.

What criteria would you suggest a prospective employer use when faced with 2 or more equally qualified candidates for a job? Given that the chances are that having a penis (especially a white penis) instead of a vagina is more likely to get you the job, on account of so many jobs needing pale penises handy and all.

MartinEdwards - I think you have the answer to your OP question in the other thread.

The answer is that you choose to concentrate on extreme examples and ignore the people who are genuinely trying to engage with you.

So, I'll repeat my questions in the hope that you'll answer them:

Ask yourself this why are so many industries more than a "wee bit" low on women? And why do those industries tend to be the better paid ones?

But men get jobs because of their gender all the time.

They just don't notice they do.

They're not playing on an even playing field with women and it's just blind privilege that stops them seeing that.

CaptChaos, if it came to a tribunal... and the employer admitted that they had employed candidate A over candidate B because of what they had in their pants?

no way.

not 30 years ago when it WAS WRONG and not now when it is equally wrong.

I know a bloke who manages to hang onto his job in a small company in Belfast because he's the token Catholic in a predominantly Protestant area. he openly lounges around and does less work than his colleagues safe in the knowledge that if they sack him, he'll have them in court before the ink on the p45 is dry.

and that is WRONG.

should a woman be allowed to know that she has progressed in a company NOT because of merit, and the fact that she's the best for the job, but the fact that she's female?

no way.

My wife has just got a promotion in her work because she works hard and is really good at her job. and rightly so. If she thought for one minute that she got the job because of her gender she'd rip it up and throw it in their faces.