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.

As a woman I find positive discrimination patronising. As a mother of boys I find it deeply troubling.

@Ttb as the mother of girls I find it reassuring that by the time they get to board level they might not be discriminated against because they had to take a 6 month mat leave due to complicatons instead of the 3 month one I was told to take.

Sonic it's also usually the same posters. I will never understand how people can be presented with so much evidence of male privilege and still deny it exits. See also: male violence.

As a mother of boys I find it deeply troubling.

As a mother of a daughter and a son, i find it a necessary evil. I find that troubling.

That without it ds will always have an advantage (and probably even with it) purely on the basis that he was born with a penis.

I want both my kids to have equal opportunities. As much as possible and Not have bias based on sex.

I want then to be judged on merit. Unfortunately that doesnt happen.

The research is becoming increasingly clear that theeaffect of single-sex short lists and other forms of positive discrimination is that it pushes up the overall quality, because mediocre men who don't do a very good job are squeezed out in favour of more competent, experienced and talented women who otherwise wouldn't get the job due to unconscious (or sometimes conscious) bias.

It's stupid to be against it because you should earn your position. The whole point of such lists is that the current system rewards people who are not fairly earning their position.

this this this, absolutely this this this.

I loath the very concept of positive discrimination, there's nothing positive about it. Having experienced first hand the very negative impact of a promotion (allegedly) because I was female (untrue but that was the perception) I want no part of it. Although it was many years ago, the entire experience still leaves a nasty taste. I never really had the respect of some of the people I worked with, it made my job 3x more difficult than it needed to be.

Earning respect can be challenging enough, male or female, without adding the inherent hostility of excluding based on gender. The point at which you exclude a gender in the selection process, is the point at which you cannot possibly say you looked at all the best candidates.

I broke through the proverbial glass ceiling, I did it on merit and would be incredibly insulted if it were suggested that I made it here because I'm female - I'm here because I deserve it!

I will never understand how people can be presented with so much evidence of male privilege and still deny it exits.

I won't deny that male privilege exists - albeit to a lesser degree than it did - but two wrong don't make a right, it just adds resentment and distrust to a less than ideal situation.

I don't agree with positive discrimination. Like someone up the thread said should we be recruiting more femaike miners? Or male doctors/ nurses/ teachers?
My experience is that I live and work in an area where probably many men and women have been to university and are equally qualified. Myself and DH have the same qualifications. I work pt and him full time because I want to. He would swap in a heart beat. Many of my friends now work pt or not at all out of choice. I'm guessing less women apply to be a CEO. I don't know I could be wrong but many of the intelligent women I know simply do not want the high prolife driven jobs.
I actually feel that being a female gives me more choice. I suspect I'm in the minority here though.

andro so you have no idea if gender was part of the process.

Just that some people assumed it was. That suggests their misogynist attitude was the problem. Nothing you would have done would have gained their respect.

The problem you had was arseholes who assumed you cant have got the job on your own merit and it must just have been positive discrimination.

And that attitude is why positive discrimination has had to make an appearance.

Maybe all cv's should have name and gender removed?

If recruitment was genuinely free of bias then you would have a roughly 50/50 men/women numbers in all jobs, from the top right to the bottom, therefore if this isn't happening then it's good that this positive recruitment is making it happen.

If cvs didn't have your name, sex or ethnicity on them then maybe people would be hired more in their experience/qualifications rather than who they are.

If cvs didn't have your name, sex or ethnicity on them then maybe people would be hired more in their experience/qualifications rather than who they are.

The problem is interviews.

It's undoubtedly problematic HOWEVER I think it's definitely the lesser evil than another generation of inequality

Quotas make changes much more quickly than other routes/nothing!

MrsJamesAspey

What do you base that on? What science or provable fact?

Gorgosparta - I know that gender wasn't part of the process at that time, I also know that I was by far the most qualified. The company was investigating the possibility of using positive discrimination to increase the number of women in higher positions, not that long after I was promoted they trialed it and it was a disaster - I got caught in the cross fire.

I've been out of that company for several years now and you couldn't pay me enough to go back!

That suggests their misogynist attitude was the problem.

Perhaps, but until the spectre of positive discrimination showed it face I had the respect of my colleagues. The atmosphere changed.

Quotas make me sad. I would never want to be hired based on my race, sex or whatever other 'class' can describe me. Women who do want it are weak and seem to me to be admitting that they can't compete on a level playing field.

I'm sure men feel the same way, but they bear up with immense fortitude.

Women who do want it are weak and seem to me to be admitting that they can't compete on a level playing field.

Well of course they can't compete on a level playing field because there isn't one!

Well of course they can't compete on a level playing field because there isn't one!

Yes, and that's why I personally reverse sex in voting, for example. Of course, if there's an exceptional man I will vote for him, but by default I vote for women. I do this because I've had many men mansplain to me, with tremendous patience, that of course they're not sexist voters. They would vote for an exceptional woman. They really don't realise that they're saying that otherwise they'll vote for a mediocre man but never a mediocre woman.

IfyouseeRitaMoreno

What?

You're hurting my brain a little.

I'm sure men feel the same way, but they bear up with immense fortitude.

Men complaining about not getting jobs when there is any form of positive discrimination for women is the epitome of male privilege.

Yes, discrimination is a good thing.

And the best thing about quotas is that is doesn't actually hurt the people who did well out of it, it hurts youngsters who were not even born when men were privileged.

We as a society should say loud and clear, the contents of your character and actions do not matter, we will treat you badly based on other peoples, collective punishment if you will, probably shouldn't call it that since that is banned under the geneva convention.

We know that boys underperform in primary, secondary and undergraduate level ( when graded by teachers who discriminate mind you, ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/, when graded by a machine they actually do better www.nfer.co.uk/publications/NPC02/NPC02.pdf)

It is therefore only fair that boys when being failed by a system ran by women should be discriminated further, this is what we want to be as a society.

Until the majority of people in top-end positions are women, then yes we need quotas.

amazon echo

What do I base what on?

If recruitment was genuinely free of bias then you would have a roughly 50/50 men/women numbers in all jobs, from the top right to the bottom,

This is an absurd comment. You would not expect to see women 50/50 in heavy labour jobs. You would not expect to see men in makeup and beauty- I run a youtube channel and it s 91/8 F/M on the analytics.

If cvs didn't have your name, sex or ethnicity on them then maybe people would be hired more in their experience/qualifications rather than who they are.

This has been done!!!!!! More men got through to the next round, these experiments have been done, am i taking crazy pills? Are you all frozen in time! 'well maybe [ thing that has happened so many times] then blah blah'

How can people have such strong opinions on topics on subjects thery know less than nothing about.

We as a society should say loud and clear, the contents of your character and actions do not matter, we will treat you badly based on other peoples, collective punishment if you will, probably shouldn't call it that since that is banned under the geneva convention.

Yeah, I hate the defacto 90% gender quota for men. I mean, I think it's really unfair and deeply humiliating for them. I look at a photo of powerful people and I see probably 95% men and I know they're squirming reflecting on the fact that no group selected entirely on merit would consist only of men so everyone knows there are other forces at work to secure them preferment.