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.

Positive discrimination is bullshit. Change the attitude, perhaps make a full report on WHY a candidate was hired over another one, and things will gradually change, but quotas just diminish the pride you can take in getting a job and potentially put rubbish people where they don't belong.

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

What us a top-end position in your opinion? CEO of a multi-national corporation perhaps? Well my question is simple. Who the fuck would want to be one of those? Working 70-80 hours a week. Never, ever switching off from work. Travelling long haul regularly to maintain relationships with clients and suppliers. Rarely if ever having time for friends and family, if you have a family at all. You have to be insanely driven and dedicated to do that and you have to be willing to sacrifice just about everything else for your entire working life otherwise you will be replaced by someone else who is willing to make more sacrifices than you and work harder. You have to be prepared to live for work. Many "top end" positions require this of you and very, very few people are prepared to do it because most of us would consider it a fucking miserable existance. Of the tiny minority of people who are willing to do all of that, most happen to be male. I don't know why that is but I don't envy them and I don't want to be like them.

quotas just diminish the pride you can take in getting a job and potentially put rubbish people where they don't belong.

Yes, but how to rid ourselves of this humiliating male quota putting incompetent men where they don't belong?

Of the tiny minority of people who are willing to do all of that, most happen to be male. I don't know why that is but I don't envy them and I don't want to be like them.

The word I is really carrying this message.

The word I is really carrying this message.

Indeed. I don't speak for anyone else. If you want to be a CEO and you're willing to do everything I outlined in my previous post, crack on. If you have already done so, congratulations.

most happen to be male yeah, probably just a coincidence and not ingrained sexism.

yeah, probably just a coincidence and not ingrained sexism

Or maybe higher testosterone levels, in a very small number of cases, results in a hyper competitive streak and an insatiable desire to achieve more at all costs.

All for quotas for the reasons eloquently expressed previously.

Until the real glass ceiling is smashed, though, we won't have serious progress. And that ceiling is at home. When the choice to scale back when the children arrive is a truly equal playing field, things will be different.

As it stands, the choice many mothers have is working part-time, being a sahp or working full time with childcare, because considering the same options for their partner to take is just not on the table.

You think most male CEOs don't have children, Somerford?

Improve rights for fathers so they can take paid paternity leave for the same length of time as females and the tide may start to turn quicker than you think.

Also this 'male privilege' your on about in top jobs is actually 'class privilege'. Working class males are less likely to get good GCSEs, less likely to go to university and more likely to be unemployed than women.

If we're going to have quotas then do it for ALL jobs. More male primary school teachers can only be a good thing.

Indeed. I don't speak for anyone else.

So I'm not clear how "I don't want to be x or do y" works as an argument against quotas? Surely that's just an argument against you applying for a job you don't want? Quotas won't force you into a career you don't want to have. No one thinks you should be slave labour in the feminist mines of equality.

Or maybe higher testosterone levels, in a very small number of cases, results in a hyper competitive streak and an insatiable desire to achieve more at all costs.

Studies have shown that this^^ high testosterone, win-at-all-costs attitude is not good for the long term position of a company. They make decisions that benefit them short-term, but which store up trouble for later on (knowing that they'll have enjoyed the multimillion pound bonuses and jumped ship by the time the chickens come home to roost).

This is all a symptom of the patriarchy at play. It's really not good for anyone.

Yes to class privilege.

Improve rights for fathers so they can take paid paternity leave for the same length of time as females and the tide may start to turn quicker than you think.

Fathers and females. Interesting choice of language.

More male primary school teachers can only be a good thing.

Why?

For greater take up of shared care the father NEEDS the same protection women who are pregnant get as currently a man could take 6 months shared care and get fired for taking 6 months of no protection where as a women could take the company to the cleaner's for such blaint discrimination

Women already get paid maternity leave, men don't. Hence why I didn't say both. I do think parental rights as a whole needs to improve.

Why would'nt more male primary school teachers be a good idea?

You think most male CEOs don't have children, Somerford?

I've no idea. I'm sure many do, I'm sure some don't. They still have to work those ridiculous hours though. They still have to be ready to take a work phone call at any time and they still have to travel a lot and spend much of their time out of their home. I'm generalising of course but the reality of capitalism is that if you aren't willing to do that, the likelihood is that you'll be replaced by someone who is and who will add more value than you.

I will briefly go into detail about my own situation hopefully without offering any details which are outing. I spent 15 working my way up within an industry which tolerates nothing less than absolute dedication of those in the top jobs. I wasn't willing to do it. I have a marketable skill though so I started my own small company. There are no barriers in my way now. If I want to win a new client, I provide better service than their existing supplier or I undercut them. If I do either of those things I win the client. They don't seem to care whether my genitals match theirs because it's business. Not everyone has that option but many do. I did it without a bank loan or any real capital. I just planned it and got on with it. I keep reading that patriarchy will ensure that I will fail but it hasn't managed to do that so far.

@MrsDustyBusty and @SonicBoomBoom I would very much like to continue the debate if you are willing but I need to get some sleep now. Hopefully this thread will still be going strong tomorrow because I think there is lots more to discuss and I am interested in your views. Good night all

Why would'nt more male primary school teachers be a good idea?

It would be, but first society is going to need to fix the paedophile paranoia that puts so many men off (and understandably so).

@Andro might be more productive to stop such large numbers of men sexually abusing children. You'd solve the paranoia and the sexual abuse.

Why would'nt more male primary school teachers be a good idea?

I don't know any reason why they'd be better or worse but the main problem appears to be that they don't want to do it. They are certainly well receivedby parents and schools when they do go into it and experience faster promotion. The number of male heads in primary schools is vastly disproportionate to the numbers entering the profession.

Of course, primary teachers are generally poorly paid and regarded. Improving pay rates and respect for teachers is what is needed to encourage boys into teaching. Instead, oddly, the preferred solution is to denigrate the women who do the job. Odd, eh?

might be more productive to stop such large numbers of men sexually abusing children. You'd solve the paranoia and the sexual abuse.

Indeed. Men of my brother's and husband's generation and older were primarily taught by men in primary schools (Christian Brothers, we're in Ireland) and they are all far more wary of men in positions of power over vulnerable people than I imagined until we had children. They tell blood chilling tales of abuse of all kinds, including sexual abuse. Some of what you're describing as paranoia is not just silly, hysterical women but plenty of people who have good reason to beware.

MrsDustyBusty I was taught by nuns at primary. No sexual abuse but the physical and mental abuse was pretty horrific. Beatings with a cane were regular and you didn't let on to your parents because they wouldn't question the nuns. Unfortunately I never found a school with all male teachers for my kids so I had to cope with the worry of them potentially being taught by sadistic women.

Hmmm, men don't become primary teachers because they don't want to. Fair enough, then conversely perhaps women don't want to be COEs and therefore there is no need for quotas. Well that's that sorted then!

I see why it's wanted but there are too many negative effects imo.

Ime It impinges on the sense of fairness ( however laughable commenters here may see that) and so corrodes trust.

I was accused of benefiting from affirmative action. It wasn't true anyway; it stung. I wouldn't have coped if I really had done it that way.