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.

So I'm not clear how "I don't want to be x or do y" works as an argument against quotas?

No it doesn't, but the thread had evolved into a broader discussion about why women are under-represented in positions of power. What I've tried to do in previous posts is outline why I think that is, I believe it's largely down to personal choice. Opportunities are there. We can all acquire a marketable skill, we can all stay within the work force without taking breaks to raise children if we want to, we can all stay at a company long enough to acquire the experience necessary to become a viable candidate for promotions. The reality is that most of the jobs which tend to come up in this type of discussion necessitate tremendous sacrifices and the vast majority of people, of both sexes, are quite understandably unwilling to make them because they're not insane and they'd prefer a healthy work/life balance.

I'm appealing to anecdotal evidence now and of course your experiences may differ to mine, how many people do you know who truly love work and live for it 24/7? I have known a good number of people who started their adult life in this mind-set but their enthusiasm waned once they matured and began to yearn for a family and something more meaningful in their lives than work. Again though, I accept that your experiences may be different to mine which is why the discussion is worthwhile and interesting.

I am of the opinion that it's too simplistic to look at positions of power and conclude that sexism and discrimination is the key factor because there is a disparity between the sexes. I we'd get closer to the objective truth by deciding which particular positions of power we're talking about rather than taking broad strokes, then analysing what exactly is required of a candidate who wants the job. The pool of viable candidates is likely to be rather small in most cases I think, if that pool of candidates is predominantly male then lets look at the reasons for that. Equality of opportunity may not directly translate to equality of outcome for any number of reasons.

Every time a woman who is not quite up to the job gets promoted, it ends up being damaging to other women. It is so unfair when there are huge numbers of incompetent men, but unfortunately it just ends up reinforcing the view that the "top" women are not as good as the "top" men. For that reason, I am against quotas. I would rather have fewer but excellent women in high profile positions. I would also rather be judged on my own merits than to be compared to other women who have previously proved not to be particularly brilliant (and whose promotions have generally not done anything to help my career).

I would much rather have practical ways in which women are supported to reach the top. There needs to be a change in attitude towards career breaks and more awareness of how the structure and type of social and work events can operate to exclude or disadvantage women. There is also a tendency for men to promote other younger men who are similar to them, and that kind of influence needs to be minimised. Quotas just seem to me to be a superficial way to fix much broader problems, both in terms of gender and ethnic diversity.

we can all stay within the work force without taking breaks to raise children if we want to

But realistically it will be women who take time off to do so. Whether that's down to biology or social expectations the question still remains: why should women be penalised for looking after children?

if that pool of candidates is predominantly male then lets look at the reasons for that.

I think that's what people on this thread are doing.

I don't think anyone discrimination is overt and easy to spot (although occasionally it is) but rather a million tiny things adding up as you go through life that steer you in different directions.

But realistically it will be women who take time off to do so. Whether that's down to biology or social expectations the question still remains: why should women be penalised for looking after children?

I totally agree that women shouldn't be expected to take lengthy career breaks by default whilst men get back to work, if it makes more sense for the father to take parental leave and/or become a SAHD then that's what should happen. Personal choice is still a factor here though. You can choose not to have children with a man who isn't willing to take time out of his career or you could choose not to have children at all. However if you do either of those things, your earning potential and your career prospects will be affected because others have surpassed you whilst you were out of the work force. It was their choice to be there whilst you were not, and the consequences of your decisions are yours to bear.

I don't think anyone discrimination is overt and easy to spot (although occasionally it is) but rather a million tiny things adding up as you go through life that steer you in different directions

I agree.

But realistically it will be women who take time off to do so. Whether that's down to biology or social expectations the question still remains: why should women be penalised for looking after children?

But why should they be treated the same as people who haven't taken 9-12 months out and have actively been developing their career?

And that goes for when competing against childless women too.

And this is why I don't buy merchandise for my children.

But why should they be treated the same as people who haven't taken 9-12 months out and have actively been developing their career?

Because it's not even about taking extended maternity leave.

Women HAVE to take some time off, as it is the woman who has to be pregnant, and give birth, and then probably breastfeed, and recover from the birth (which could be some months, was for me).

So women will always be disadvantaged in the workplace because they have to take that time. If the couple want more DC, the woman has to do it again.

A man can have as many DC as he wants and it never has to impact on his job at all. Whereas it always does for a woman.

Having children is something that nearly everyone, male and female, wants to do at some point in their lives. Yet it's women who have to suffer the consequences of that choice, because of biology, whereas men can have both.

And anyway, plenty of men with 9-12 months LESS experience get promoted ahead of the woman with 9-12 months more experience. Because men are judged on their potential more than women (because of bias).

So apparently experience isn't that important... When it has a penis. Make of that what you will.

Women HAVE to take some time off, as it is the woman who has to be pregnant, and give birth, and then probably breastfeed, and recover from the birth (which could be some months, was for me)

Women don't have to do this though. They can choose not to have children. It isn't anyone else's responsibility to make sure that we can have it all unfortunately. A private employer isn't obliged to ignore their need to fill a vacancy with the best available candidate and the state has no moral right to coerce them into doing so in order to address a gender imbalance.

But why does the woman have to forgo having children in order to compete "fairly" against a man who can have lots of children?

But why does the woman have to forgo having children in order to compete "fairly" against a man who can have lots of children?

Because no matter how much legislation we throw at it, we can't change biology and we can't change the impact of taking time out of the work force. Attempting to level that particularly playing field (biology and the impacts thereof) would need total acquiescence to the state and so much regulation that we would no longer have anything resembling a free market. If you advocate for a different system and you oppose capitalism I can understand why you'd be happy with that but that's a separate discussion which would derail this thread.

But isn't the point about maternity leave that, yes, it will inevitably put women 9-12 months behind the equivalent man (if she takes that much time off) but it should not affect her chances of progressing when she returns. There is no reason why women can't do the same job just as well as men when they return from maternity leave. It may mean relying on the father or getting childcare, but apart from the biological fact of having a baby and usually being its primary carer for at least the first six months, there is no reason why women's careers should be affected beyond that.

This is why there needs to be more support for women returning to work, policies to ensure that they are supported in progressing their career and getting back up to speed, and a complete overhaul in the attitude towards mothers in the workplace. Men are often applauded for taking time off to be with their children. Women are taken less seriously if they do the same thing because they are perceived to care less about their careers than their family. It is so hypocritical.

But isn't the point about maternity leave that, yes, it will inevitably put women 9-12 months behind the equivalent man (if she takes that much time off) but it should not affect her chances of progressing when she returns

Of course her chances of progressing will be affected. Taking maternity leave doesn't mean that she CAN'T progress, but she has no right to expect progression ahead of a colleague who was working during her time out of the work force and is therefore better placed to take a promotion should a vacancy be available at that particular time.

policies to ensure that they are supported in progressing their career

Such as?

I work for a big hospital, I'm a sister.

Are the male Sisters also called Sisters? If not, then you shouldn't be calling yourself one either. You should be called a Charge Nurse. Otherwise we might as well go back to Firemen and Firewomen, Police Constables and Women Police Constables. Why are female orientated job roles entitled to still have female names, whereas male ones are not?

I've never quite understood why people are so anti quotas.

Lets say we want a quota of 30% women. Are we REALLY saying that there aren't enough qualified women out there to meet that quota?

I find the idea that quotas are bad quite patronising.

And I think they are needed in the other direction too, eg we need more male teachers in primary schools.

The only way we are going to get past discrimination is to force people to hire outside their comfort zone.

Because no matter how much legislation we throw at it, we can't change biology and we can't change the impact of taking time out of the work force.

What we need is for the law to be equal, and allow men time off to look after a baby. I know a woman can give some of her leave to the man, but the man needs to be entitled to it in his own right, and needs to be able to attend all ante-natal appointments, not just two of them. You could even make the law so he is compelled to go to all the same ones as the mother.

Are we REALLY saying that there aren't enough qualified women out there to meet that quota?

Its not just that - women might not necessarily want the jobs.

I think saying we need quotas seems a bit Stalinist. The Soviet union had a good record on female engineers.

And astronauts! They got a woman in space 20 years before the Americans did.

And we're those astronauts and engineers any worse than the male ones?

Were *

And we're those astronauts and engineers any worse than the male ones?

Of course. They forgot how to astronaut and engineer when infants colonised their brains. Well, I say brains...

I don't think I need to add anything else, the last couple of comments in this thread are a good indicator of the logical conclusion to the debate so I'll leave it there. Interesting discussion nonetheless.

I'm in favour of quotas, they are unfortunately necessary, as bias towards favouring men, even uncounciously, is so ingrained.