To ask your opinion on gender quotas

[eatabagofdicks]

After speaking with men who believe that many men are being pushed out of positions they deserve because of gender quotas. What are your opinions? Interested in women's point of view after being in a room full of men all night.

I'm talking about the fact that she was experienced

That was the problem though. She had a record that people could look at, be suitably repulsed by, and consequently decide not to vote for her. Life long Republicans will vote for whoever the Republican candidate is, life long Democrats will do the same. The rest of the electorate was faced with an awful choice and they went with the unknown. We had a similar choice in the UK and the female candidate won so I'm not so I'm not sure you can make a strong case for sexism being the key driver of voting preferences in Western societies.

Which research was that @solaris? All of the research I've read suggests genderless applications results in more women on the board.

My favourite study is one which showed that genderless job applications led to a much higher level of men hired as opposed to women

Men have more confidence in themselves and in selling themselves than women - this would come across in the application (talking themselves up etc) , and in the fact that they actually applied in the first place.

Somerford you must think that women are astonishingly bad at running countries if you think that sexism isn't a factor. Only two countries in the work have >50% female parliaments. Only three (two Western societies) have had a female leader for more than 15 years. There are only 15 female world leaders currently. 8 are their country's first.

Women must be abysmal at this if it's all about merit.

By the way, up to very recently, there were more men called John who held CEO positions than the total number of women in board positons. You can't tell me that's right, or explain that away by saying women don't have the talent. Women do have the talent but existing board recruitment practices discriminate against them.

They need shortlists until headhunters don't automatically reject an application when they look at the name. I have a unisex name but you can tell the surprise on the interviewers faces when they meet a woman and will often not get a reason/feedback when I'm rejected post-interview because acknowledging the rejection via their systems gives me grounds to demand why.

Let's take nursing. Female dominated profession.

But yet, every time I've been in hospital, the charge nurse has been a man.

How strange.

I am not a huge fan of positive discrimination.

However it evens the playing fields.

Do the men that moan get as upset about the fact that they have got jobs over better suited women. Because lots will have.

I'm definitely in favour of it for senior and board positions. I have sat in senior meetings and often been one of only 2 women with about 20 blokes it is painfully obvious to me that, either conciously or unconciously, men have a bias towards promoting and supporting other men.

this one - blind trials

It took less than 10 seconds to find online!

So, you've now moved onto the argument that it isn't about bias in the recruiters but men are better and if they are, the only possible reason can be some kind of patriarchal-given leg-up? Nonsense. If a blind recruitment doesn't show that, what more proof do you need?

Quotas embarass any woman who has made it by themselves and are used to placate women who haven't done as well as they think they should have, IMO (of course).

MrsTerryPratchett

That seems like the likely conclusion, doesn't it. Makes me proud to be a (usually) Conservative. What do the Tories do for women? Makes them Prime Minister!

But yet, every time I've been in hospital, the charge nurse has been a man.

I dont think i have ever had a male charge nurse. I wonder if certain NHS boards do it differently to others

@MrsTerryPratchett telling me how few female leaders there are does nothing to further the debate. Are there an equal number of male and female candidates? If not, there won't be an equal outcome. If women have not stood for election very often, if at all, historically and we are now making progress then great. If women are still not standing for election in particularly high numbers then lets look at why that is. But saying "there are X amount of male leaders and only Y amount of female leaders, therefore sexism" is far too simplistic.

*it is painfully obvious to me that, either conciously or unconciously, men have a bias towards promoting and supporting other men.

me too

This is interesting; www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias especially the bit where they get candidates to remove their shoes to prevent the tell tale clip clip of high heels or the absence of them.

So, you've now moved onto the argument that it isn't about bias in the recruiters but men are better and if they are, the only possible reason can be some kind of patriarchal-given leg-up? Nonsense. If a blind recruitment doesn't show that, what more proof do you need?

It is bias in the recruiters, and it is also the fact that from childhood men and women are treated differently in a way that leads men to be over confident and women to be under confident.

Eg
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2014/09/11/are-women-too-timid-when-they-job-search/amp/

Blind auditions for orchestral places lead to more women getting employed. Pity blind interviews aren't possible for many roles.

The thing with quotas is that men dont get pushed out to make space for women. So I do not buy the argument in the op. The Labour party for example has 50% all women shortlists but for the seats where sitting mps will not run again. That leaves the other 50% for men. Yes they lose some priveledge, but I dont see how anyone can call having 50% of the positions open to each gender unfair. All those of you saying that quotas are patronising and that you want to be given the job because you are the best candidate - unfortunately the best candidate isnt always picked. Quotas and other positive discrimination enable the best women to come through at the expense of the less able men, which sounds to me like the best person getting the job.

Also did these men with whom you spoke actually have any examples of them being denied positions for which they were OBJECTIVELY the best candidate?

I'm not against quotas, but ideally I think the problem could be addressed much earlier on in the talent pipeline, e.g. through promoting higher take up of shared parental leave, more men going part time/dropping out of the workplace after having children rather than it always being the woman, no prejudice and expectation that the mother is the default carer and will therefore be taking the slow lane at work for the next decade. And even before that, by ensuring that girls are encouraged to study traditionally 'male' subjects at university and vice versa.

I suppose all of those are very complex cultural changes though and quotas are a more 'concrete' solution.

With more women than men qualifying in law and medicine, will we (or should we) soon be seeing men prioritised for these roles in order to ensure a sex-balance? No, thought not.

Also, there are an awful lot more men down mines, sewers, and being shot at in warzones. More quotas to ensure equal representation? No?

Yeah because women are SUPER over represented in law

But yet, every time I've been in hospital, the charge nurse has been a man. Not my experience, I was in hospital last year with a cancer scare (all sorted now) my Consultant was female, her Registrar was female, the Ward Sister was female. I was in hospital this year with a heart problem, my Consultant was male, Ward Sister was female, Senior Ward Sister was female, in fact the only male nurse was semi retired and working on bank. It was a mixed ward.

I retired last year, I was Senior HR Manager. I never had to intervene with managers as they were discriminating against women. Race was another matter and I sometimes felt I was beating my head against a brick wall.

The Supreme Court.

All PoC and women. All of them.

I love how voraciously people pile into these threads to argue that women aren't discriminated against and how actually, it's the men that have it toughest because of [insert the exception job or study here]

Seems a strange position for someone to take on this, a predominantly female website, with predominantly female users.