Gender Discrimination (Employment) - Female Gender Bias

m8 on 12/02/2017 - 13:07
Last edited 12/02/2017 - 13:23 by 1 other user

My friend told me a story of during his job hunting days around a year ago.

He and 15 others (10 male, 5 female) were sitting outside going in for a panel based interview for engineering roles for a reputable engineering company. Before going into his interview, the HR manager walks into the room and tells them that they are ONLY looking for women in this role. The interview did its thing and obviously, only 4 out of the 5 females got the positions. To add salt, one of the successful applicants was a friend of my friend's and she didn't even know what the role was about (like ffs).

I understand the importance of gender diversity in the workplace (especially engineering workplaces) but doesn't this seem effed up? I mean, success in an interview should be based on competencies rather than what genitals you have. I hate the idea (with respect to this particular example) that having a phallus, my competencies are hindered. There are faculties in universities primarily associated to "Women in Engineering" where the after tertiary education they're set up for life regardless of competence. It's a lot more challenging and so much more competition for males in this field and it personally just ruffles my feathers.

Does anyone share this? Is this even legal?

Education & Work

Comments

      • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 10:11

        "Don't generalise, you have no idea how anyone got anywhere."

        Top drawer. Encore! Encore!

  • rambutann on 12/02/2017 - 14:13
    +2

    Maybe they were specifically wanting women in order to change the office culture?

  • phluffed on 12/02/2017 - 16:31

    Isn't usually as open as that, but plenty of businesses, especially in certain sectors, do have diversity targets. Your friend may not have been 100% with you, this could well have been offered as a specific role to increase women in the industry and the 10 males that turned up should not have been invited to the interviews in the first place.

    Want to solve it all? Resumes should have "Candidate Number: " and interviews be conducted online through text only. Remove all gender from the process and hire only based on relevant criteria.

    But that will never happen, so we deal with it as we can.

    • Gina Rinehart on 13/02/2017 - 12:50
      +1

      interviews be conducted online through text only

      That is a horrible solution.. Hiring someone without actually talking to them, meeting them, and assessing their skills in person is a terrible idea.

      • nieza on 13/02/2017 - 17:34
        +1

        Agreed. However, if you had interviews but anonymised the results then that would work.

        In fact, the 'best' method of selection removes all identifying information throughout the process (before short-listing, after interviews etc), and then gets matched up right at the very end.

      • phluffed on 14/02/2017 - 18:09
        +1

        I wasn't suggesting it was the BEST way to do it, just a way to ensure gender didn't play a role in selection.
        I know there have been plenty of applicants I've dealt with who seem great on paper but fall way short in the face to face.

        But from a pure data point of view, it would allow to shortlist the top 2 without any bias on sex, race, or appearance.
        That said, it would wholly depend on what sector the job is in. That's no way to hire a PA, but might be great for an architect.

    • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 18:56
      +2

      No it will never happen and you know why? Because as a baseine, at this point in time, men have had better circumstances than women from early childhood and as such, on paper, do better because the paper doesn't take into account the disadvantages that women have had.

  • airal3rt on 12/02/2017 - 17:19
    +21

    The pendulum has swung back in the other direction, it is sadly viewed as completely fine to discriminate as long as white men are being discriminated against and a minority group is the beneficiary of this discrimination. Many of these people don't want equality, they have a victim mentality and discriminate so they can "get even" whilst having the nerve to say it is equality. Until people can lay aside historical grievances and support a TRUE equality we will become an increasingly fractured society.

    • siresteelhell on 12/02/2017 - 20:43
      +7

      Dumb people who learn dumb crap from dumb professors in uni`s all around the world…I love how people say it is impossible to be racist agaisnt white people…WTF are these people smoking… bunch of commies/fascists and morons who protest agaisnt the likes of Trump and follow Hillary, who was partially funded by one of the most repressive countries in the world (Saudi)

    • Munki on 13/02/2017 - 11:24
      +1

      Pretty much. It'll only ever be "fair" when white people get treated the way they have treated others in the past. Anything less will be an injustice.

      • sator on 13/02/2017 - 14:07
        +1

        Well it's pretty obvious who Australian Trump supporters are

        • Munki on 13/02/2017 - 14:16
          +3

          Well somebody's gotta make 'Straya great again.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 14:42
          +1

          Pretty obvious who the snowflakes are.

        • sator on 13/02/2017 - 16:03
          +1

          @snagseb:
          Lol go build a wall.

          Snowflake? Are you calling me beautiful and delicate? Sorry mate, I'm not into guys…

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 18:54

          Hate Trump with a passion but also hate a bastardized definition of "equality" that is about adding more inequality and revenge.

        • sator on 13/02/2017 - 18:58
          -1

          @syousef:
          I don't think it's a bastardised version of equality. It's just equality is commonly misunderstood.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 19:03
          +3

          @sator:

          Equality is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Equality means you get an equal chance to learn, and an equal chance to get a job based on merit. The revised definition - equality of outcomes - is completely bastardized.

          Your definition would throw out Einstein and give the job to a cashier based on quotas. That's not sane. That's not fair. It's wasteful and it's dangerous.

      • siresteelhell on 13/02/2017 - 15:09

        u ever heard of progression… ie, we learn from the past? or should the whites become the slaves and be massacred?….should all the current Germans (beside all the migrants) also be gassed for what someone did 100 years ago too?>…are u even thinking before u comment Munki?

        • Munki on 13/02/2017 - 15:28
          +2

          I'm not sure you're understanding the context and tone to my comment. Perhaps read it a few times.

        • siresteelhell on 13/02/2017 - 15:33

          @Munki:
          my bad if I missed the sarcasim :O

      • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 18:54

        What you are thinking of is revenge, not equality. What's worse you want revenge against a generation that did not perpetrate that inequality…You want to punish the child for "the sins of the father".

        Adding inequality to the world won't make it a fairer place. You either want to make the world truly fair, in which case i'm with you - your abilities aren't determined by skin colour, genitals or chromosomes for most jobs. Or you want your revenge. In which case you're no better than those that have come before.

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 19:12
          -3

          But they're not adding inequality - right now it's unequal due to male privilege. The attempts are being made to bring balance, not domination.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 19:15
          +1

          @MissG:

          These aren't attempts to bring balance. They're attempts to introduce further inequality. You can't fix the situation in the job market without fixing education and training. Stuffing people who don't know how to do the job because you're upset that they might not have had the same opportunity to learn as the person who should get it based on merit isn't reasonable, equitable or fair.

          If you have 10% female engineering students you shouldn't expect 50% of engineers are women. Fix the initial problem first before stuffing the worst performing students in the job ahead of competent ones.

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 19:17
          -2

          @syousef: I think they're trying to encourage that 10% into applying for jobs they wouldn't ordinarily apply for because the field has been so damn nepotistic.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 19:24
          +1

          @MissG:

          For the last time as I won't keep repeating myself. You can't fix bias and inequality by adding more bias and inequality.

          If women wouldn't normally apply, you need to fix the reason and remove that nepotism….not add more discrimination.

          If a student can't study well because of their socioeconomic situation, there needs to be more support for those students, not putting them in the position anyway despite a lack of skill in a misguided attempt at fairness.

          The first IT job I worked in there were 50% men and 50% women programmers. The women were better because they didn't get distracted by what was cool and shiny. (It was a company of young people). They were just interested enough in their craft to be good at it, but it wasn't their hobby. Prior to my arrival there was one very sexist male who would abuse the women all the time. He had left when I got there so it was a great little place to work. I didn't give the gender of my coworkers a second thought. My boss was a woman. And I've had female bosses elsewhere that I got along with every bit as much as my current male bosses. One of the best coders in my uni course was also a woman. I think she wound up winning the Uni medal. This was in the late 90s. I don't accept that women are bad because they get told they're bad at coding math, because I've seen first hand how good they can be!

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 19:28
          -1

          @syousef: There is no support for those students. There never will be. There will never be support for single people with children who are trying to do study.

          I'm glad you had a good experience. The wider data runs very against that though. I went to the engineering floor at Google Sydney one day. Not a single woman on the floor. I asked. No, there were no female employees.

          I agree that it would be better if this was addressed earlier than at the employment stage and that this is an imperfect solution - but a lot of women wont get there without proper role models and mentoring. I don't disagree with this solution as a temporary fix and I agree that in the long term it would be counterproductive. Right now employers are really the only ones doing anything about it. They can't support disadvantaged women OR men at any other point, so this is what they are doing. And I will bet you a coffee than in ten, twenty years time, a big proportion of these 'mediocre women', will actually have done really well because they've worked hard with the opportunity they've been given. And once at the top, will be able to better attract higher performing women, who in turn will attract even higher performing women.

          Not a perfect solution, but it's the only one because the government and sexist families and societies sure as shit aren't doing anything.

        • browncar on 16/02/2017 - 09:37

          @MissG: Nothing draws the ire/downvotes of the average white male like mentioning "male privilege". It's not a personal affront guys; you can acknowledge that your life has given you opportunities that other people were never offered.

        • MessyG on 16/02/2017 - 21:09
          +1

          @bronwcar:

          You know, I've put up with sexist crap in medical school, been told I speak too confidently for my station (they used the word station!) while my male colleagues were applauded for it, I've been bullied by older male doctors, forced to work 7 nights with 2 days off then back onto 5 days when 34 weeks pregnant, made to reinterview for the position I was returning to from mat leave at 36 weeks pregnant, forced to return to work at 4 months, put on the same run of nights 2 weeks after returning to work in spite of breastfeeding, then sat my specialist exams 2 weeks later. Then forced to attend mandatory after work teaching sessions until 9pm every weeknight, more teaching on Saturdays, and into work on Sunday for ward rounds 'to keep it fair to everyone', then been sent to the other side of the country for the final specialist exams, then sent to a rural hospital for the last six months, again to 'keep it fair' for everyone. Been told I shouldn't be at my elite hospital because I'm a mother and that I should go to worst hospital in the state because that hospital 'doesn't send people to the country'. Last year got told my knowledge couldn't be as good as the men because "you're a mother and have less time than the men to read" (in spite of scoring highly on aforementioned exams). Now that I have female supervisors? I'm hearing none of that rubbish.

          Downvotes and personal attacks on a random Internet forum are meaningless to me after all that. I particularly like the posts where people tell me that sexism doesn't exist anymore. And that one that said I must be 'older' because of my views.

        • [Deactivated] on 16/02/2017 - 22:28
          +1

          @bronwcar:
          13 hours. No downvotes.

          Airball! Airball.

  • ozhunter on 12/02/2017 - 17:40
    +3

    Companies are going to hire who they want to hire. The HR could have said nothing and then no one would be upset.

  • Scrooge McDuck on 12/02/2017 - 18:26

    The interview did its thing and obviously, only 4 out of the 5 females got the positions.

    The 5th female was installed in upper management.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 00:46
      -1

      *womanagement

  • belongsinforums on 12/02/2017 - 19:40
    +1

    To be fair, the reverse happens in female-dominated professions.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 12/02/2017 - 20:31

      How much could I score for undertaking a beauty therapy course?

      • supnigs super skids on 12/02/2017 - 20:44
        +1

        if you are a really good communicator, they would be the ones bouncing on that stick of yours (refering to profile pic)

      • belongsinforums on 12/02/2017 - 20:47

        wtf is beauty therapy?

  • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 21:05
    -5

    Interesting to see how much of the alt-right is represented here. I'm a 55 year old female network architect and I have earned it the hard way; but being good at what I do. For thousands of years women have been discriminated against, and in a large part of the world we are still discriminated against in incredibly vile ways, yet you guys are annoyed because we might be getting a little tiny touch of assistance to get over the millenia of discrimination we have experienced. Funny how once the foot was off the throat we suddenly found out that women can be lawyers, doctors, scientists. Now have a really good look at some of the crap that women are still wading through in those professions, or do you think all those reports are "fake news" as well. I would be happy to trade our little bit of positive discrimination for genuine equality, economic security and protection from Domestic Violence. Anyone here going to provide us with it?

    For every boo hoo story you can give me, I can give you one hundred, or one thousand of counter ones. Forgive me if I lack a little sympathy.

    • belongsinforums on 12/02/2017 - 21:08
      +15

      As a gender fluid centrist, i take offence to your comment

    • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 21:32

      I call your thousand counter story bluff. Go ahead. My boo hoo story is above.

    • sp3ctr41 on 12/02/2017 - 21:34
      +13

      That may have been true in the past. It doesn't mean someone who WASN'T affected like you should benefit. I'm sure you worked hard and I'm not trying to undermine that, but better opportunities shouldn't be given to you because of what happened thousands of years ago.

      Forgive me if I lack a little sympathy..

      • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 22:51
        -1

        You really think I wasn't affected by discrimination. I fought back and I had the benefit of the women who went before me and made the sacrifices so I had a chance. The price I pay is that I don't get to slack off, I represent my sex in everything I do, if I fail then that reflects on the women who come after me.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 12/02/2017 - 23:08
          +5

          I fought back

          How?

          The price I pay is that I don't get to slack off,

          Well who does? Men?

          Would you like to slack off?

          I represent my sex in everything I do, if I fail then that reflects on the women who come after me.

          That seems like a very neurotic and divisive outlook.

          I don't represent curly haired people in everything I do; I'm an individual.

        • sp3ctr41 on 12/02/2017 - 23:08
          +3

          Again, the sacrifices of another woman does not entitle you to anything… It's pretty baseless to say that you 'represent' women in your field. No one is looking at you saying:

          "Oh look, it's a female architect, let's get a male one he can design our network better."

          People look at your skills, your experience, your portfolio of work. If you screw up, that's a mark against you, not on women.

          I worked with female building architects and other contractors and that is unequivocally how I viewed them.

        • Miss B on 13/02/2017 - 00:02
          +7

          I can't respect women in engineering after personally witnessing female undergraduates at a top university being progressed despite failing maths prerequisites to keep up numbers.

          Yeah, no-one would judge all women in a field based on a few. They certainly wouldn't be supported in doing so with many more positive votes than negative.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 00:21
          +1

          @Miss B:
          I think every top Australian University has a women in engineering program and prides itself competitively on how many female engineering graduates they can churn out. I do not think this is isolated. Take UNSW that I have chosen on instinct:

          "Traditionally, women have been under-represented in engineering. However, more and more companies and universities are recognising the importance of a balanced approach to challenges and the value of diversity. UNSW Engineering has above-average female enrolments at 22% (the national average is closer to 17%), but we are actively recruiting women and have set a goal of boosting female enrolments to 30% by 2020."

          They will want to graduate those same students…and they will do that by progressing failing students to keep up numbers. The dropout rate for students recruited artificially is very high compared with students that actually like and chose engineering.

          Can someone set up a gofundme for poor women:
          DSTO Undergraduate Scholarship for Females in Science and Engineering
          Orica Women in Engineering Scholarship
          Hindmarsh Women in Civil Engineering Scholarship
          Arup Women in Engineering Scholarship
          Commonwealth Bank of Australia Women in Engineering Scholarships
          Women in Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering David Beale Scholarship
          Faculty of Engineering Rural Scholarships (two for women)
          Faculty of Engineering Interstate Female Scholarships
          Kimberly-Clark Women in Engineering Scholarship
          Atlassian Women in Engineering Scholarship
          Transurban Women in Engineering Scholarship
          Boral Women in Engineering Scholarship
          Bouygues Construction Women in Engineering Scholarship
          WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff Civil and Environmental Women in Engineering Scholarship
          The John Lions Women in Engineering Scholarship

          Every female scholarship holder should have the question asked if they deserved it on merit.

        • nieza on 13/02/2017 - 18:05
          +2

          @Frugal Rock:

          Jesus, Mary n Joseph, the comments in this thread are gold!

          We've got the full range: the hateful self-loathing MRAs who've stuck their fingers in their ears while they whine "NA NA NA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"; the offended bogan ignoramuses who chant "dey took mer jawb!"; the concerned fragile dude-bros whose penises seem to shrink every time a woman succeeds; and the obstinate myopic sophists who actually believe that they know how to run a university and select scholarship winners better than the universities themselves!

          Lucky I stocked up on microwave popcorn recently!

        • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2017 - 00:11

          @nieza:
          Did you lose the last batch down a skin fold again? Follow the butter trail.

      • Mcbargains on 13/02/2017 - 08:58
        +3

        For thousands of years, not thousands of years ago. Do you really think these issues are that far in the past?

        • sp3ctr41 on 13/02/2017 - 09:01
          +2

          No, but she went as far back as a thousand years implying issues back then should count.

          Any issues now can only be rectified with true equality, not discriminating the majority group who had nothing to do with the problem.

        • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 15:22
          +1

          @sp3ctr41: Thousands of years is accurate. We are now in the second millenium and we know how women were treated, and viewed, due to comments in books such as the Bible the work of the Greeks, the Romans etc. You really think that discrimination is not alive and occuring at the moment - really truly think that? See this as a hiccup on the road to women getting real equal opportunity to their male counterparts - you know - when men stop running out of excuses why you shouldn't hire a woman into a position because there are just so many of them already doing this sort of job, and doing it well.

        • sp3ctr41 on 13/02/2017 - 15:45
          +5

          @try2bhelpful:

          Let me give you a personal story of mine from a few years ago. When I was at university studying structural engineering, a friend of mine (at the time) was doing a fluid mechanics subject with me. She had failed 4 subjects prior to this and I could tell she was going to fail this one, I helped her get through it by going through most of the tutorials with her. She was not working, had no financial issues (party girl), and no extra curricula activities. She was scraping uni and didn't seem to put enough effort into her studies. I was friends for long enough with her to know.

          When it was time to apply for graduate programs, a certain company needed to meet their quota for females. We both applied and made it through to the end. On the one hand, I was a distinction student with knowledge on a wide range of engineering topics, not just in structures. I could create my own circuits to do stuff, I was involved in competitions (leadership), I helped model a car engine to scale it down and I was a competent programmer. None of which most people doing civil engineering could do and all self taught.

          Wanna guess who got that job?

          I stopped talking to her after that because I was just mad at the situation, but you can't seriously think this sort of discrimination is fair. Why did I have to lose out on an opportunity which should have been based on skill and not gender?

          Discrimination is always bad, there are some people here saying it's for a 'good cause'. The reality is, the definition of discrimination requires a victim.

        • nieza on 13/02/2017 - 18:06
          +1

          @try2bhelpful:

          Third millenium, actually.

        • AddNinja on 13/02/2017 - 18:11
          +1

          @sp3ctr41:
          Yeah - I think what happened here is you paid the cost for all of mankind in giving this woman a job. Did it affect your career negatively? Or did you go on to bigger and better things? Because I feel if it was just a little roadbump for you, well, the institutional discrimination against women needs to be made up for in some manner. But if you were unemployed for several months as a result of this, then it seems unfair that you were the one that had take a loss that other men didn't.

        • nieza on 13/02/2017 - 18:12
          -2

          @sp3ctr41:

          Let me guess who nailed the interview…

          Sounds like you stopped being friends with her because you are incapable of accepting that you might need to work on your social skills, or change something about yourself that's off-putting. Obviously she had the humility and realism/pragmatism to acknowledge when she could learn from you and accept some help. You obviously would rather lose a friendship than admit to yourself that you might be able to learn a few things from her. And now you're full of bitterness and envy.

          But yeah, can't possibly see any reason why they didn't want you on their team… </sarcasm>

        • sp3ctr41 on 13/02/2017 - 18:37
          +2

          @nieza:

          Could learn absolutely nothing from her. I nailed the interview, they took her because she has tits. She even acknowledged it later through a mutual friend saying 'she was so lucky they needed a girl'. That's how I found out why I didn't get it.

          Today I am in a higher position than her because of my skill, experience and leadership. Your right, I WAS bitter and envious at her at the time, now I just don't care because I found another opportunity. Whether it's better or not is up for debate. Point is, she didn't deserve the additional advantage over me back then and I don't respect her as an engineer.

          And finally, you shouldn't assume what someone's personality is off the internet. I can probably beat you out in an interview without looking the interviewer in the eyes.

        • sp3ctr41 on 13/02/2017 - 18:40

          @AddNinja:

          I don't know whether it affected me negatively to be honest. It was a consulting firm however so it did affect my career direction. I ended up receiving an offer into site engineering -> project engineering. It did take several months though.

          Over there I found a fellow female site engineer who didn't even have engineering qualifications.

        • nieza on 13/02/2017 - 18:41

          @sp3ctr41:

          I can probably beat you out in an interview without looking the interviewer in the eyes.

          Nah mate, my dick's bigger than yours for sure. I don't need interviews; I get headhunted. ;)

        • sp3ctr41 on 13/02/2017 - 18:42

          @nieza:

          Cheap, but so do I ;).

    • siresteelhell on 12/02/2017 - 21:43
      +2

      I dont think it is that… I think it is more along the lines of… If I work harder and learn more and am more qualified for a job, I get passed over because I have different genitals…Funny how the leftists always cry for equality, get when equality is failing they go quiet and figure it is ok..same at ANZ, if i have a vagina I get more superanuuation, regardless of hours or effort…….I agree that there is a huge problem overseas, and I would march with women for equality in those places,, but there is no inequality here (except agaisnt men)…What there is is "payback" for many years of innequality agaisnt women…how is this ok? When does it end?

    • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 22:10
      +5

      Women get to live within a safety net i.e. ever heard of a mens shelter?
      They get 63% shorter prison sentences for the same crimes
      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002.
      It's easier to find work in low paying jobs such as retail, etc.
      You might not get the largest piece of pie when you're at the top of an organisation but you also don't get the pointy end of the stick.

      I'm all for equality and I honestly prefer to see women in management but don't pretend being a woman doesn't come with perks.

      • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 22:38
        -7

        You want to get rid of the vast majority of the violent crime in the world then put men on a curfew, womean already have to live under one. If we dare to put our nose out after dark and get attacked then it is considered our fault because we had the temerity to step outside where we shouldn't have been. I notice a lot of you downvoted me, but not one of you has addressed the issues I raised about women still being discriminated against. Women surgeons and lawyers are being discriminated against and being abused. The investigations into this weren't 20 years ago, they were last year. Women are being kept as sex slaves by ISIS. Yet you guys are bleating about the fact that a very few women are being given a chance where they are currently such a small minority. I have spent most of my life being a minority, often the only woman in the room, and I got to where I am by not accepting crap from anyone. Bring it on boys, with what I've been through over the years I'll eat you for breakfast. "She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted."

        • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 22:48

          You can't even honour my thousand anecdote coupon.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/02/2017 - 00:23
          +16

          You want to get rid of the vast majority of the violent crime in the world then put men on a curfew, womean already have to live under one.

          Men live under the same threat of violence after dark. How many of the coward punch victims were female?

          not one of you has addressed the issues I raised about women still being discriminated against.

          Probably because you didn't list any sources.

          Women are being kept as sex slaves by ISIS.

          ISIS is a terrorist group operating out of parts of Iraq and Syria.

          They have no power in Australia nor the rest of the Western World. O_O

          Yet you guys are bleating about the fact that a very few women are being given a chance where they are currently such a small minority.

          That is so ludicrously far removed from the issue of ISIS sex slaves.

          Are you suggesting that Western women should be advantaged in employment to balance out the disadvantage of Middle Eastern women, as though men and women belong to teams which should be globally equalised? O_O

          Why not focus your effort on empowering disadvantaged Middle Eastern women?

          and I got to where I am by not accepting crap from anyone.

          Did you actually receive crap from anyone?

          Bring it on boys,

          Are you deliberately infantilising men?

          Users are disagreeing with you based on the content of your comments, not because they're male; there are probably females amongst them.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 00:26

          Yes women are discriminated against sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously through inference and it's hard to admit that and make changes to a persons own internal filter but some try.

          I'm just saying men are also discriminated against in different ways. Everyone gets judged on first appearance from their race to their sex to their religion to their social status.

          Can you agree with that?

    • Scrooge McDuck on 12/02/2017 - 22:28
      +1

      For thousands of years women have been discriminated against, and in a large part of the world we are still discriminated against in incredibly vile ways,

      But not now, or here.

      • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 22:43
        -1

        Are you seriously kidding me, have a really good look around you and tell me women aren't being discriminated against. The industries that are male dominated are the ones with the best pay, men dominate the honours lists. Trump got to say incredibly vile and disgusting things and he was still voted into office. I want there to be shelters for men. That is where the Domestic violence perpetrators should be, instead of out in the community continuing to abuse their women and children. If the Government had taken Domestic violence seriously then the Lindt seige and the Bourke St attacks wouldn't have happened because the bastards involved would've been locked up and supervised.

        • DarwinBoy on 12/02/2017 - 22:55
          +9

          Never hit a female, been hit by females twice.
          Hate hearing the domestic violence thing played out like it's all the males faults. Not saying it's an issue to be ignored, happy for all violence to be responded to I just think the data on DV is massively skewed. I have known a few friends with the same experiences. No one involved the police so therefore no data.

        • captobvious on 12/02/2017 - 23:38
          +2

          @DarwinBoy: You are from Darwin. Girls hit boys in that place.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 12/02/2017 - 23:43
          +9

          have a really good look around you and tell me women aren't being discriminated against.

          I had quite a good look. I found a woman rolling around on the rug. Se didn't seem to be being discriminated against, but I asked her to make sure. She answered that she has things pretty good but complained that women's shoes aren't comfortable. I replied that she isn't obliged to wear uncomfortable shoes and that women have women's equivalents of most men's shoes, but not vice versa. She replied that women's shoes are pretty. Needless to say, the conversation ended there.

          The industries that are male dominated are the ones with the best pay, men dominate the honours lists.

          You're referring to outcomes not opportunities.

          Trump got to say incredibly vile and disgusting things and he was still voted into office.

          That was the choice of US voters. Men and women have equal voting rights here and in the US.

          I want there to be shelters for men. That is where the Domestic violence perpetrators should be,

          The criminal justice system already includes prisons for men… and women.

          instead of out in the community continuing to abuse their women

          Whose women? O_O

          If the Government had taken Domestic violence seriously then the Lindt seige and the Bourke St attacks wouldn't have happened because the bastards involved would've been locked up and supervised.

          I think those were more closely related to shortcomings of the bail and mental health systems.

        • smashed on 13/02/2017 - 04:03
          +3

          @DarwinBoy:

          But using her logic…
          Women get abused more so she won't have any sympathy for a man being abused as it is a minority situation..

          Oh the irony…

        • ozbjunkie on 13/02/2017 - 14:10
          +2

          @smashed:

          Yes i think she lost the tread of reality when she argued that domestic violence is essentially a crime against women perpetrated by men.

          Glad to see the votes and comments are basically tracking logic and reality. Well done to most OzBargainers.

          And for those who seem to be arguing reverse discrimination is a good response to discrimination and domestic violence - I think many in this thread understand why you feel that way… But the position doesn't stand to reason.

    • Skramit on 13/02/2017 - 16:46
      +1

      Recognising and calling out blatant sexism isn't a move of the "alt-right". Way to totally not understand what the alt-right even means.

      You're a hypocrite, and that's being polite and factual.

  • PVA on 12/02/2017 - 21:14
    +4

    I understand. In the company I work for there has been put in place that a female must be in final selection in an interview. Meaning if 10 people apply, 9 male 1 female, the female will be in the final selection. Also a female must be on the interview panel, if there isnt a female in the group concerned with knowledge of the role one from some other group will sit in.

    I think it's diversification gone A little wrong. In the example above, 5 males could be better suited but only 2 will get to the final 3 selection as one has to be female.

    • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 15:40

      Do you have any evidence at all that the wrong person is being selected for any of the positions you are talking about. If there are 10 people applying for a job, and only one female being selected for interview then I think there is a problem there already. If there is only one woman on the interview group, that would also be an issue. Are you saying that men are only suitable to be interviewers and the interviewees - because it certainly sounds like it to me.

      • PVA on 13/02/2017 - 20:29
        +1

        no, thats not what I said at all.

  • sp3ctr41 on 12/02/2017 - 21:30
    +26

    It's wrong to have 50% male/50% female in any job. That is blatant discrimination. The ratio should be based on the ratio of students in the field (for grads) or professionals in the field (for higher level roles).

    What I am saying is, if 95% of engineering students are male and 5% are female students, then that should be the ratio in the workplace for grad programs. It gives everyone a fair chance at getting the job. Otherwise every one of those females will have a spot.

    But companies only care about what looks better at face value.

    This goes both ways, if there are more females studying in a profession (law,nursing,teaching?), then there should be more females in the workplace for the same reason.

    • siresteelhell on 12/02/2017 - 21:44
      +17

      Please dont use common sence or facts here…..because feminism :D

    • Wheresmyspaceship on 12/02/2017 - 22:20
      +1

      Thank you, this is exactly what I have always said too. Industry will reflect the proportions of qualified individuals, simple. If there is really an issue with balance, then a cure lies in the past and should not be to the detriment of those who have already established their careers.

    • btst7000 on 13/02/2017 - 02:54

      Your idea doesn't work if certain people tend to perform better in certain roles - ie men as leaders, women as nurses etc

      /s

      • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 15:43
        +1

        Maybe your bias is showing a tad here lad. I'm sure you would be with the "women should not get the vote" group, 'cause everyone knows they can't think as well as men. Your comment is about as blatently sexist as it gets and you really can't see the issue. Just WOW.

        • PVA on 13/02/2017 - 20:30

          you didnt see the /s I am guessing.

    • iamw0man on 13/02/2017 - 10:50
      +4

      I tend to agree but there is definitely gender bias within all of us. For instance, this paper discusses the impact of blind auditions on female orchestral members. Spoiler alert - a lot more were hired. Rejecting good candidates is not a perfect solution but in many cases there are issues to be addressed.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 22:41
    +14

    They did this when I was working at one of the big 4 banks. 95% of applicants were male, but they enforced a 50-50 hiring policy. We had to literally turn away highly proficient male applicants based solely on gender. I wish I could have told them as such, as they would have had a case for discrimination.

    I know ANZ takes it even further now and pays an annual Super contribution bonus… FOR FEMALES ONLY!

    • Binchicken22 on 13/02/2017 - 07:28
      +3

      Yep, one reason I'll never bank with ANZ.

    • goingDHfast on 13/02/2017 - 13:48
      +4

      "I know ANZ takes it even further now and pays an annual Super contribution bonus… FOR FEMALES ONLY!"

      If there is a Mens Rights organisation in Australia they should seriously boycott ANZ due to this. Absolutely disgusting.

      Edit: here is the link for anyone wondering

      http://www.women.anz.com/at-anz/we-are-bridging-the-super-ga…

      • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 15:46
        +2

        I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that women tend to take time off to have babies, or that they seem to be stuck in the lower paying jobs because of family committments. They are dealing with an outcome that says women with much less in Superannuation than men because society still sees women as the primary care givers.

  • DiscoJango on 12/02/2017 - 22:43

    this is the unfortunate side effect of equality, you all of a sudden have to hire the "wrong" people, just to make it look like your not discriminating. eg: hire a female even though a majority of experienced applicants are male, hire someone of a certain race etc etc

  • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 22:48
    +1

    I love all you guys downvoting me, trying to take away my voice. I will continue to put up post, after post. I have a lot of patience as I have been used to this sort of rubbish over the years. Apparently there was no discrimation for thousands of years whilst women didn't flourish, but suddenly because there are a couple of women getting a break to try to allow them some breathing space, all these guys are losing their minds. I thought men were meant to be the strong sex, looks like not so much from where I sit. So what is happening boys, is it just that this generation of women are just sooooo much smarter, or, shock horror, could it actually be that women were discrimated against all these years.

    • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 22:52
      +2

      What's your favourite parallel popcnt implementation?

      • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 22:58

        I'm a network architect, not a programmer.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 23:02
          +1

          I figured you might need a few extra strings to your bow to justify so many references to 'where you are now'. Some more impressive ones, maybe.

        • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 23:14
          +3

          @Frugal Rock: Clutching at straws, are we. If you think the only way someone gets to Network Architect is through programming then you are sadly lacking. The extra bows I have is being able to deliver to both the satisfaction of my organisation and my clients. You might want to work on that, if you want to achieve in your profession.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 23:16
          +2

          @try2bhelpful:
          I did and retired in my thirties. Thanks for asking :) Maybe it was all that male entitlement.

        • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 23:25
          -1

          @Frugal Rock: Couldn't hack it for the long haul, huh. Then again maybe it was just male entitlement, which I strongly suspect, or maybe it was you just aren't a people person.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 23:47
          +18

          @try2bhelpful:
          I was worried that if I worked until I was 55, that I'd be a bitter and twisted blowhard telling corporate cubicle war stories on a random forum like a drunkard.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/02/2017 - 00:49
          +4

          @Frugal Rock:

          The Rock just laid the smackdown!

        • JohnCandy on 13/02/2017 - 02:47
          +2

          @Frugal Rock:

          Wow, just wow. Hands down one of the greatest comments I have ever read in my whole life. Props to you, sir.

        • mick123 on 13/02/2017 - 15:16
          +1

          @Frugal Rock:

          Geez mate, that's not just Game, Set and Match… that's the bloody Grand Slam

        • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 15:55
          -1

          @mick123: You call that a smackdown, such a sad, and predictable, response. I'm not bitter and not a blowhard, I just won't take crap from someone who thinks there contribution to life ends at 30. So what have you been doing since then, curing malaria, stoping women being circumcised in Africa, probably not. Just coming here being a keyboard warrior talking crap about something you have never had to deal with and and your little glee club band have fallen in behind. You, and Trump, are proof than money certainly isn't an indicator that a human is contributing anything worthwhile to society. Can't take being challenged, can you?

    • Your Friend on 13/02/2017 - 07:48
      +3

      you are everything that is wrong with feminism, its people like you that are seriously detrimental to actual equality ever becoming a reality

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join