Women in corporate positions.

[Idon'tstudydinosaurs]

I think of myself as a gallant male member of contemporary society, but the media has, again, brought up the debate of the lack of women in corporate and board positions. I believe in same rights and opportunity for everyone, regardless of sex. Should not the focus be on providing these jobs to the correct candidates and those individuals suited to the job title. Simply placing more women in these positions just to make up a certain ratio is not the right way to go about it.

[Scarecrow]

Yeah, basically. It's just the media making a story out of nothing. Again.

I chose to stop paying any attention to what the media is spewing out (ie. stop watching television entirely) to avoid being subjected to those kinds of garbage stories. When something actually newsworthy happens, I'll hear about it on the internet.

[mr b.caapi]

I hate sexism in work, annoys the hell outta me, I reckon women should be able to work in the nude, or at least wear skimpy clothes whilst working... no worries, havnt a problem with it. Damn sexists , garn get fucked.

[Mycot]

The media cartel usually plays the PC card even when that position is totally nonsensical.

Of course too many swallow the media crap that is fed them.

Fuller discussion of this type of thing can be found in the "Hate Women Thread", some good discussion despite the poor title.

[Idon'tstudydinosaurs]

^Haha. I only observe the media because it makes me laugh. Today tonight in particular has fueled my desire to question EVERYTHING. There are those out there who watch it and, unfortunately, think of it as gospel. If thats not a bias source of information then cover me in chocolate and throw me to the lesbians.

[Scarecrow]

Today tonight

haha, oh god. i think this image about sums up my position on that particular show:

[Idon'tstudydinosaurs]

Haha yeah. "On tonights show we discuss the issue of sexism of women in the workplace..." (the next day..) "On tonights show we will be road testing different cleaning products..." (but they only use women to test them).

[ballzac]

I think of myself as a gallant male member of contemporary society, but the media has, again, brought up the debate of the lack of women in corporate and board positions. I believe in same rights and opportunity for everyone, regardless of sex. Should not the focus be on providing these jobs to the correct candidates and those individuals suited to the job title. Simply placing more women in these positions just to make up a certain ratio is not the right way to go about it.

I'm sure it's no surprise to anyone what my position is on this, but I'll give my 2c anyway. The attitude that the numbers need to balance is bad for everyone.

There simply aren't equal numbers of every category of human being applying for every job. You would probably find differences by dividing humans into any sort of groups, but with gender there are real differences, both evolutionary and societal, that affect the sort of jobs people strive for.

Let's say 50 people (40 men and 10 women) apply for a job, and there are 20 positions available. The employer knows that they have to fill a quota, so they are forced to employ all 10 women, regardless of ability, and pick 10 from the 40 men. Let's say that 40% of the applicants are well-suited to the job. We would then expect 16 men and 4 women to be well suited to the job. The company loses because they have been forced to hire 6 women who are not well suited to the job. The 6 other men who were well suited to the job lose because that position has been filled by someone with less ability, experience, etc. IMO, the 6 extra women have lost, because, really, who wants to be hired because of their genitalia, and in spite of their lack of ability: how insulting. Working women in general lose because this kind of approach actually creates sexism. Think about it. Anyone who has to deal with this company will notice that all the men there are good at their job, capable, experienced, etc. But they will also notice that roughly 60% of the women who work there don't know what they're doing. So instead of dealing with 16 men and 4 women who are all equally capable, they will realise that most of the women they have to deal with are not very capable. Now, most people aren't going to think about the causes. They will just think that women in general are not suited to these kinds of positions. So, yes, I think it very much hurts the image of women in general.

But on another aspect (which I've also talked about a lot in the other thread), it amazes me that people are so intent on focussing on gender parity in the workforce at the top end, but ignore the bottom end. If we want gender parity, we should demand it across the board. This means we should be asking for 50% of coal miners and every other unpleasant and dangerous job to be women.

[Idon'tstudydinosaurs]

Exatly. Unfortunately their is still a sexist attitude towards women. Statistically, women still continue to be the "stay-at-homes". If they want women in coprporate positions then perhaps the focus should be on the root of the problem. Simply stating that their is a lesser ratio of women to men should not be the catalyst to fixing the issue. The same can be applied to indigenous in higher positions.

[ballzac]

If they want women in coprporate positions then perhaps the focus should be on the root of the problem.

Firstly they really need to establish that it actually is a problem. If you define success in life as the height reached on the corporate ladder, then perhaps it's problematic if a group of people, for whatever reason are not reaching that height. I personally think that's not a great definition of success.

[gtarman]

I work for a very big company where the CEO made a big spiel about how they're trying to get an equal number of women in leadership roles...I'm shocked that people don't see the stupidity of that rationale...

By choosing to give half the jobs to females, regardless of merit, you are actually being incredibly sexist. Say there's 10 positions going, 5 have already been filled by male candidates...now if there's 6 candidates left, and the best and most qualified of them is a man, how is that not discrimination?

In the same way that "black people can't be racist", that's how

[Idon'tstudydinosaurs]

Unfortunately, contemporary society believes that money is success, which is what comes with being on the coporate ladder. Personally I would possibly slit my wrists if that was my chosen career. Sure I would be earning a lot of money but I would just become a zombie of society. As a youngan ;) I left my science degree in 2011 to chase a career in the mines and earn a decent wage (I do 160 hours a fortnight mind you). Two years on and I have realised that it was the biggest mistake of my life, which is why I am going back next year. My perception of money has changed dramatically. Now I am driven to make a change in society rather than turn the economy with my dollars.

There are a lot of perceptions that need to change.

[Roopey]

In the same way that "black people can't be racist", that's how

This is an interesting point, and one that is seen much more often in the States due to the large number of African Americans. White guilt is really just a different form of racism, showing favoritism to people who have not earned it. This is exactly the point I think zac is making, favoritism to women because of guilt.

Guilt and shame are interesting tools of control that I think are at the core of these issues.

[ballzac]

In the same way that "black people can't be racist", that's how

Not sure if everyone is familiar with donglegate, but a woman (Adria Richards) at pycon heard two men behind her making a joke about the size of dongles, or something like that, and also about forking repos (one of the men later said that she was right that he was making a sexual joke about dongles, but that he was genuinely using the term "fork a repo" in its technical meaning, and that any sexual connotation was applied by Richards rather than intended). She took a photo of them and posted it on twitter. One of the men got fired from their job because they were at the conference as representatives. While its unclear whether that's what Richards hoped for or whether she expected it, she was certainly unapologetic about the course of events. She was claiming that two men making jokes about dongles was misogynistic (I don't know how it has anything to do with women at all) and that she felt harassed, even though none of the conversation was directed at her.

Of course, the debacle went viral, and people started trawling through her twitter. It turns out that she had made a very similar joke relating to male genitalia on her twitter less than a week before the convention at which she felt harassed by men doing exactly the same thing. Further, it turns out she'd made some other comments that got people worked up, the most notable being "Black people CANNOT be racist against White people.Racism is a position of the oppressor who has the power". It's pretty clear to me that someone who thinks the rules don't apply to them will break those rules. I mean, really, what she is saying, is that she could tell a person they are white scum, tell them that they, and every other member of their race deserve to be exterminated, that white people are useless, worthless, and a waste of oxygen, and according to her that wouldn't be racism because black people cannot be racist against white people. We always hear about white, male privilege. Now it's pretty clear to me that if someone thinks they are immune to criticism because of the colour of their skin, and their gender, that is a form of privilege too.

Anyway, the icing on the cake is that Richards eventually got fired from her job too.

It's very similar to the notion that women can't rape men, which is very common in certain circles. What this means, is that a woman can tie a man down, force objects into his anus, give him viagra to force him to get an erection, and forcibly have sex with him, and it isn't rape simply because of his (and her) gender. This view cannot be seen as anything but misandry.

I'm personally sick of hearing how white males are the cause of all the world's problems and that their opinions shouldn't count. I've always cared about equality, whether it's applied to race, gender, or anything else, but it's not my fault that I was born with a particular colour of skin and genitalia, and I don't feel I should be expected to apologise for racism, or any other bigotry, perpetrated by people who I happen to share certain attributes with. I think all of these problems can be addressed using an individualistic approach. We should all try to treat each other with dignity and respect, and if racism or sexism is occuring, it should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Yes, the societal context is important, but it's not fair to demonise one person and excuse another for analogous actions, simply because of their respective races or genders.

[CβL]

To add one practical concern to it - women are sometimes wont (wont is spelled correctly) to have babies every now and again. If they're working, their employer is obligated to pay them for ~3 months of maternity leave. The law says that an employer should not discriminate against an employee on this basis. But to look at it from a purely economical standpoint - you have employee A who is allocated 2-4 weeks of paid leave a year, then employee B who is allocated 2-4 weeks of paid leave a year in addition to 3 months of paid leave at any time (or instead of). All other things equal - it's going to be better business sense to hire whoever is guaranteed to be at work for the greatest percentage of time.

[ballzac]

To add one practical concern to it - women are sometimes wont (wont is spelled correctly) to have babies every now and again. If they're working, their employer is obligated to pay them for ~3 months of maternity leave. The law says that an employer should not discriminate against an employee on this basis. But to look at it from a purely economical standpoint - you have employee A who is allocated 2-4 weeks of paid leave a year, then employee B who is allocated 2-4 weeks of paid leave a year in addition to 3 months of paid leave at any time (or instead of). All other things equal - it's going to be better business sense to hire whoever is guaranteed to be at work for the greatest percentage of time.

The simplest solution to this is to give every new parent the same amount of parental leave regardless of gender. There is certainly a biological reason why this doesn't quite make sense, but it removes the problem you are talking about.

[Fenris]

The manager of the department I work in is a woman, she works part time because she has a son. When she is there her time is limited because everyone needs to see her. All our output has to go through her, this makes work difficult. The manager whether man or woman needs to put in about 50hr a week to keep the department running smoothly and we get, what feels about 28-30 hours a week of managerial input.

[whitewind]

There's a lot of disgruntled men out there isn't there! I'm guessing we are all unappreciative people who should probably just shut the **** up because no matter what the situation someone else isn't as privileged as we are and they deserve better

[ballzac]

The manager of the department I work in is a woman, she works part time because she has a son. When she is there her time is limited because everyone needs to see her. All our output has to go through her, this makes work difficult. The manager whether man or woman needs to put in about 50hr a week to keep the department running smoothly and we get, what feels about 28-30 hours a week of managerial input.

Yep, our society promotes the belief that women can have it all, an involved home life and a high paying corporate job. This isn't to say that most women expect this. There are plenty of women who chose to follow more traditional gender roles and be mostly stay at home mums or work a humble part time job. There are also women who prefer the career life and don't have children, or they decide, with their partner, that they will be the breadwinner and their partner will take on most of the domestic responsibilities. But societies attitude that women can (or even should) have it all, leads to many women trying to accomplish this, and it just doesn't work. Then people wonder why a man doing the same job (but twice as many hours) gets paid more and offered more promotions. The data is pretty clear on this, that the more personal choices you control for in a study of wage and position level as a function of gender, the smaller the gap gets, until it completely vanishes.

[ballzac]

There's a lot of disgruntled men out there isn't there! I'm guessing we are all unappreciative people who should probably just shut the **** up because no matter what the situation someone else isn't as privileged as we are and they deserve better

Quick!!! Someone pull the fire-alarm!!!

[Darklight]

The simplest solution to this is to give every new parent the same amount of parental leave regardless of gender. There is certainly a biological reason why this doesn't quite make sense, but it removes the problem you are talking about.

Why does this not make sense? Do you think a bloke on parental leave would have nothing to do?

[ballzac]

Why does this not make sense? Do you think a bloke on parental leave would have nothing to do?

I said it doesn't quite make sense. It mostly does, but the bare minimum amount of leave that a woman would need after giving birth is non-zero, whereas a man can theoretically not take any time off work at all. Even a single father who has adopted can hire a babysitter the day he adopts. Breastfeeding is another biological reason why it might make more sense for the mother to get more time off than the man.

It really comes down to what the parental leave is for. If it's for physical recovery from giving birth, then it certainly doesn't need to be three months for anyone. If it's a compassionate way of allowing workers to take time off to come to terms with the reality of having a newborn to take care of, and to bond with the child, then it should not matter what the gender of the parent is. Essentially, that's what I was getting at, but I worded it poorly.

[whitewind]

I said it doesn't quite make sense. It mostly does, but the bare minimum amount of leave that a woman would need after giving birth is non-zero, whereas a man can theoretically not take any time off work at all. Even a single father who has adopted can hire a babysitter the day he adopts. Breastfeeding is another biological reason why it might make more sense for the mother to get more time off than the man.

It really comes down to what the parental leave is for. If it's for physical recovery from giving birth, then it certainly doesn't need to be three months for anyone. If it's a compassionate way of allowing workers to take time off to come to terms with the reality of having a newborn to take care of, and to bond with the child, then it should not matter what the gender of the parent is. Essentially, that's what I was getting at, but I worded it poorly.

Actually, 3 months is the bare minimum I would give any woman to recover from childbirth! Honestly, I think women should also be given 3 months before the birth. It is incredibly difficult on the body. I think men should be given the same amount of time off to help care for the woman and to bond / care for the child. It's a really important process and our stupid economic system doesn't allow for it, because there is no immediate profit for the employer to make.

[Gimbal]

There's actually been a lot of research done on this topic. And what has been pretty much universally found is that the lack of women in high-level positions is due to confirmation bias, not lack of ability.

Just one example off the top of my head - there was a big famous orchestra in the USA which had less than 10% female musicians. It was claimed that there just weren't as many good female musicians as male ones. But when they switched to doing blind auditions (ie didn't see or know anything about the person who was auditioning) women's acceptance into the orchestra jumped to around 50%.

There was also a study I remember which sent out the same resume under different names (which were clearly White, Hispanic or Black names) and found that the white-named resume got significantly more calls for interviews that either of the others, even though it was exactly the same resume. I'm pretty sure the same kind of study was done with male/female names, with the same result.

So it appears that the solution is not to randomly employ 50% women regardless of ability... the solution is to level the playing field by reducing or removing the opportunity for confirmation bias which disadvantages the people who actually do have the necessary skills.

[Gimbal]

.... with gender there are real differences, both evolutionary and societal, that affect the sort of jobs people strive for.

.....Now, most people aren't going to think about the causes. They will just think that women in general are not suited to these kinds of positions. So, yes, I think it very much hurts the image of women in general.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Or are you one of the people you mention who don't think about the causes and just think that all women are just not suited to certain positions because you've seen certain women do their jobs poorly?

Edited to add: I do think you are making a valid point that some people generalise about all women based on the abilities (or lack of) of one. I'm just not sure how you reconcile that contradiction with your original statement.