Workplace equality (or inequality..) - what to do?

hakkenuh on 23/02/2020 - 11:47
Last edited 25/02/2020 - 23:39

So basically, I was recently looking to move internally at my work to another division.

Upon contacting HR in an attempt to make the move happen (as I know there are roles open), they informed me that this division is not accepting any males at the moment and there are only roles open for women. The HR Lady then informed me that even though you may see the role open on the website, if you apply you will be rejected for being a male (she put this in writing in an email so technically I could take it to fair work if I really cared). In addition to this, on the website it did not say the role was specifically for women, as such males who thought they were rejected for performance, were simply rejected on the basis of their gender.

Note: the industry this relates to is Finance, not a role which specifically would require to be performed by women, this is simply because she said "there are too many males in the division at the moment and they have overhired in males".

Whilst I'm all for gender equality, and really do support gender quotas, this seems a bit crazy that I'm not even allowed an interview to prove my worth? At the same time, I'm also for the better person, and hard worker. If I put in the effort and try really hard working long nights for months on end to try get this position and my female counterpart has not but gets the role simply for being a female, isn't this then reverse discrimination? Couldn't discrimination just be completely removed by removing gender and all unique identifiers of the person on the application forms?

Just curious for people's thoughts, I'm not really planning to take it any further (like go to any discriminatory govt body) as I stated I'm all for gender equality. Just been having some issues trying to get over this rejection for a role that I really wanted..

Edit: didn't think I'd get so many replies, thanks everyone for contributing to some healthy discussion - have taken everything on board. I guess at the end of the day, the firm has no obligation to provide me with a job and the only ones missing out on something is them :) My opinion about gender quotas still hasn't changed (maybe not go so far as to quotas requiring X amount of females, but certainly at least targets they can work towards, using professional judgement where necessary for hiring). I still believe especially in an area such as consulting or problem solving professions, having diversity of opinion and background can definitely improve the outcome of a project. After all having a bunch of college educated white cis males vs a diverse group of females and males from different educational backgrounds pitching to clients trying to win work, I can tell you which group of people I would engage and would give me the best outcome (all other things equal)….

Education & Work

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 23/02/2020 - 12:01
    +98

    Just tell them you dont identify as any gender and for them to make an assumption of your gender identity based on how you look is wrong and shameful.

    • Vert93 on 23/02/2020 - 12:21
      +4

      Heather Swanson

      • [Deactivated] on 23/02/2020 - 12:22
        +1

        Who that

        • capslock janitor on 24/02/2020 - 17:14
          +9

          Heather Swanson

        • jaimex2 on 25/02/2020 - 10:27

          Watch last season of South Park. It's brilliant.

    • superdarkhumour on 24/02/2020 - 14:34
      +1

      We don't have to sleep with the boss to get a job these days?

    • bmerigan on 24/02/2020 - 22:31
      +1

      This is pretty smart. If you want to go on the record as gender neutral they'd almost HAVE to hire you.

  • brendanm on 23/02/2020 - 12:08
    +84

    Gender quotas are moronic. People should be hired based upon their ability to do the job, whether man, woman, or anything else.

    • nandxor on 23/02/2020 - 15:20
      +19

      Agreed, forced diversity is BS in the workplace. The job should be given to the most qualified person regardless of gender.

      • capslock janitor on 24/02/2020 - 17:15
        +7

        True, I identify as an Apache 7/11 Helicopter

        • brendanm on 24/02/2020 - 19:01
          +5

          Contact the air force, they'll have a position for you.

          • HighAndDry on 25/02/2020 - 13:49

            @brendanm: I actually looked this up: land attack rotor aircraft are Army, not Air Force.

            Why did I look this up and why's this important……… yeah beats me.

        • smogg on 24/02/2020 - 23:26
          +3

          Must be because of all those 7-Eleven fuel locking

        • chunksandwich on 25/02/2020 - 10:36

          Ohhhh so funny. Haven't heard this a thousand times before.

      • brendanm on 24/02/2020 - 15:24
        +22

        It's arguable that there is more equality of opportunity (see what I did there), for women than there is for men. There are a million special programs to get women into higher education, jobs etc.

        Women are perfectly capable of getting into university etc by themselves, there is no need for this pandering.

          • brendanm on 24/02/2020 - 16:37
            +13

            @[Deactivated]: You realise a lot of that is by choice? No one is forcing people to do unpaid work, no one is forcing girls kit to do maths. Women retire with less super if they haven't worked as much, that's basic maths.

            Men and women earn exactly the same amounts for exactly the same jobs.

              • Dovrick on 24/02/2020 - 17:58
                +17

                @[Deactivated]:

                Nope. For instance, in the Health Care and Social Assistance sector women earn 22.3% less than their male counterparts ; in the Financial and Insurance Services sector 22.2% and Professional, Scientific and Technical Services sector 22.1%.

                The gap could largely be explained by:

                women are less likely to be promoted in senior, higher-paid roles,
                and men are more likely to negotiate additions to their base salary, such as bonuses.

                @BrendanM is talking about the "Same Job" as in the "Same Role" and you spout for this percentage based on an industry average across all roles?

                The only difference between pay for the "Same Role" is hours worked, this was attested to by a female CEO on Q&A last year if a company was to pay on a different hourly scale for the exact same role based on gender the auditors and internal review would eat them alive.

                The Workplace Gender Equality Agency has spent years trying to come up with statistics to support your argument and even with access to the full ABS and census data they were unable to account for their claims. Instead, they chose to refer to "annualized hours" and how women should be paid the same even if they work fewer hours because they are more productive hours than a man could offer.

                And if you want to fall back on all of the "disadvantages" of being a woman that you listed in your initial comment there are plenty of examples going the other way even in your own source material.

                Equality is the goal, seeking to demonize a perceived systemic bias while representing a competing bias doesn't help anything.

                While it may be a biological disadvantage as the primary reproductive partner to risk one's career to procreate. As males, we don't get the same flexibility with parental duties but we sure as hell are expected to take up the slack when it comes to filling the financial burden.

              • brendanm on 24/02/2020 - 19:08
                +7

                @[Deactivated]: Girls haven't been told maths or science are "boys subjects" since before I went to school, which was a while ago now. I was quite good at physics and maths, but there were plenty of girls who were better at it than me, and no one mocked them for it. This was in a country town as well.

                You do realise a "sector" is not the exact same job, right? A accounts manager gets the same pay whether they are male or female.

                Lol, "men are more likely to negotiate additions to their base salary", so they should be punished for asking for more money?

                So women should be payed more to make up for the fact they could possibly be raising children? Should women who never have children also get these benefits, or should they be discriminated against as well?

                This is a bit like the university entrance scores in America by race. Obama's kids would have a lower bar for entrance to university than the children of a white trash drug addict, who had to bust their asses to get anywhere, while others got it in a silver platter. Grouping people together by race and sex for different perks/benefits is stupid, and undermines any woman/minority who has worked hard to get to the position they are in.

            • john_conner on 24/02/2020 - 17:16

              @brendanm: Then maybe women need education / encouragement / programs to help them make better decisions…

              If women aren’t being hired or promoted to do the same job, they can’t earn the same.

              • brendanm on 24/02/2020 - 19:11
                +2

                @john_conner: Maybe they simply don't want to do those things? Men are much more likely to take on a dangerous profession than women. In saying that, mining companies love having women drive the trucks, as they are easier on the machinery, and get as much work done as the men.

            • od810 on 24/02/2020 - 21:52

              @brendanm: Some of these arguments I do agree, but the argument around super is just… not great. A lot of people expect women to fulfil the duty of child care, and a lot of women does so. Most men would expect their wife to take time off work to take care of their kids hence reducing their opportunities to advance in their career. Imagine you are at prime of your career and take a few years off to take care of kids.

              • brendanm on 24/02/2020 - 22:28
                +4

                @od810: This is why if a couple breaks up, super is taken into account when dividing assets. Again, not all women have children. Some men take time off work to look after the children, why don't they get thought of?

                Perhaps instead of just using daft blanket gender statements, we could look at it slightly deeper.

          • lonewolf on 24/02/2020 - 18:07

            @[Deactivated]: I have been working in a university for more than 20 years, the ratio of women to men as staff and students have been increasing in some areas at a dramatic pace since i started.

          • bs0 on 24/02/2020 - 23:07
            +7

            @[Deactivated]: It seems odd that the website would only mention that 'more older women are at risk of homelessness than men' without mentioning the fact that more men are homeless then women, some 67407 compared to 49017 in 2016 ABS census data.

            By no means a comprehensive summary, but commonly overlooked (ignored) statistics include
            - 94% of workplace fatalities are men
            - 65% of serious workplace compensation claims are men, including some 80% of musculoskeletal injuries (including, lacerations, amputations, organ injuries)
            - Higher male victims of homicide, attempted homicide, robbery, imprisonment. Higher rates of sexual assault victims were female
            - Higher rate of suicide attempts in men
            - Higher rates of those who were homeless were men
            (From ABS data)

            If the Vic gov website linked uses the same data as what the WGEA gov website sourced from the ABS, there's limitations on their model based on difficulties accounting for part vs full time, and overtime hours worked. This is kinda documented clearly on the ABS website, but not explored too much on WGEA.

            I'm for equal opportunity, but equal outcomes (metrics, data etc) does not equate to equal opportunity and freedom of choice.
            Would it be ridiculous to argue for equality in workplace fatalities and accidents as well, but not fight to reduce fatalities and accidents in the first place?
            Would it be considered discrimination if female dominated industries stopped hiring women, and hired men only for nursing, or childcare?
            There just wouldn't be enough applicants either. We can only encourage more people to apply, and provide incentives to do so (choice).

            In another sense of this argument, would creating equal outcomes work with other factors, for example race? Male and female population in Australia is roughly 50-50, but caucasians form the majority of the population… so what if;
            1. Would an employer saying no to an eligible caucasian applicant, simply because they are creating equal outcomes by filling a vacancy with a certain minority group be acceptable? Yes, if that job position had some specific requirements like a language gap that needed to be bridged etc, but if that wasn't a requirement, it would probably be considered as discrimination.
            2. Would an employer saying no to a minority ethnicity applicant, because there is too many of that minority group in the industry, be acceptable? Again, probably not.

            • CocaKoala on 25/02/2020 - 06:47
              +7

              @bs0:

              more men are homeless then women, some 67407 compared to 49017 in 2016 ABS census data

              This is such bs - you cannot bring facts into this feminist dance therapy argument.

      • syousef on 24/02/2020 - 18:39
        +2

        Men don't get a chance to be teachers, child care workers, nurses, nannies etc.

        Women don't get the opportunity to get killed in war, do dangerous construction or mining work.

        Is that what you're talking about?

        • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 18:59
          -4

          Women don't get the opportunity to get killed in war,

          Actually, they don't.

          Women can only be employed in approximately 88% of employment categories in the ADF. They are still excluded from direct combat roles. The results of surveys of six defence bases have confirmed, and as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s recent ruling on damages to a former RAAF member demonstrates, that women in the ADF are still subject to sexual harassment and sexual assault.

          Is that what you're talking about?

          Not quite. But I'm going to leave it at that. I've already spent way too much time replying to comments on this thread. I'm not here to change anyone's opinion. I'm here for the jokes and the light-hearted convo :)

          Edit: I didn't neg you nor anyone else in this thread.

          • manshrew on 25/02/2020 - 10:54
            +1

            @[Deactivated]:

            Women can only be employed in approximately 88% of employment categories in the ADF.

            Since October 2018 - "All Australians can now apply and be enlisted into any role within the ADF as long as they can meet all the demands of the role."
            https://www.pmc.gov.au/news-centre/office-women/landmark-mom…

            • [Deactivated] on 25/02/2020 - 11:07

              @manshrew: Cheers! October 2018 and it still was heralded as a "landmark moment" for women…

              From the article you've linked to:

              Defence has also introduced targets for women in the ADF. By 2023, Defence is aiming for 25 percent in the Navy, 15 percent in the Army and 25 percent in the Air Force. Currently women represent 17.9 percent of the permanent ADF (21.2 percent in the Navy, 14.3 percent in the Army and 22.4 percent in the Air Force).

              Let the whingeing start about those targets.

              • manshrew on 25/02/2020 - 11:25

                @[Deactivated]: Just a quick question, where did you find the 88% statistic?

                • [Deactivated] on 25/02/2020 - 12:21

                  @manshrew: From Wikipedia :

                  The ADF was granted an exemption from the Sexual Discrimination Act when it was introduced in 1984 so that it could maintain gender-based restrictions against women serving in combat or combat-related positions, which limited women to 40 percent of positions in the ADF

                  Approximately 88% was the figure that was floating around when I was working for the Defence, back in 2005.

                  • manshrew on 25/02/2020 - 12:24

                    @[Deactivated]: It seems 15 years makes a bit of difference then. Good to know that we're all on the same page now.

                    • [Deactivated] on 25/02/2020 - 12:41

                      @manshrew:

                      It seems 15 years

                      Where did the time go…? It really doesn't feel that long ago.

    • Autonomic on 24/02/2020 - 23:18

      Should be, but they aren't. Much less likely to get a call back unless you have a white sounding name.

  • MisguidedGames on 23/02/2020 - 12:13
    +15

    Do not believe her, my recommendation is to apply for the Job. This will give you leverage later down the track if you want to make a complaint or ultimately when you for another role.

    • hakkenuh on 23/02/2020 - 15:20
      +5

      But she is the one reviewing the applications - so she will simply deny me straight up.

      • MisguidedGames on 23/02/2020 - 16:00
        +30

        Good, than you have an actual grievance.

      • HighAndDry on 24/02/2020 - 11:42
        +4

        Do it anyway. Possible grievance aside, it can give you leverage in applying for any other role too.

  • JIMB0 on 23/02/2020 - 12:17
    +11

    All you have to do is identify as female and the job is yours.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/02/2020 - 12:21
      +6

      Indigenous ESL female even more

      • [Deactivated] on 23/02/2020 - 12:26
        +4

        All i am saying is dont let someones percieved view of your gender identity hold you back.

  • original15 on 23/02/2020 - 12:29

    I wouldn’t suggest working every night for months on end would help you prove you can do the role
    Companies can attempt “positive discrimination” however seems they/your HR rep perhaps aren’t going about it the right way
    Is it a senior role?
    Potentially quotas they’re trying to meet

    • hakkenuh on 23/02/2020 - 15:25

      It's a graduate role in another division. I was willing to downgrade ranks to move across to a higher paying division, and one that I'm more interested in.

  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 23/02/2020 - 12:29
    +5

    If the company does not have an exemption under the equal opportunities act, the HR advice is possibly incorrect and highly likely in breach. However, if you pursue this course of action, the company/HR/supervisors may look for an excuse to part ways with you.

    • hakkenuh on 23/02/2020 - 15:26
      +1

      Yes this is my exact reason why I don't want to take it further as this lady is the only recruiter for this specific division. I replied to her email saying to inform me if any roles for males open lol…

      • capslock janitor on 24/02/2020 - 17:17
        +2

        Is this your Dream company/job

      • Roman Sandstorm on 25/02/2020 - 10:47
        +2

        I would be questioning my commitment to a company which endorses such policies.

  • qwijibo on 23/02/2020 - 12:53
    +13

    Tell her you identify as a "masculine presenting transgendered lesbian" (i.e. looks like a male, only sleeps with women, but you "transitioned" to being a woman).

    Its not like they can ask a person to prove their gender - that's another lawsuit waiting to happen.

  • TheBilly on 23/02/2020 - 12:58
    +30

    This is absolutely ridiculous. This is the reason why the women's rights movement will never gain real traction because everything is falsified, propped up or manipulated. Once we all accept that men and women are equal but definitely and extremely different, all problems will be solved.

  • bobbified on 23/02/2020 - 13:22
    +11

    Similar thing has happened at a large bank I worked at.

    Six male applicants and one female applicant for a vacant role. One of the males is the most qualified and suited. Boss says that a directive has been received from the top: "you have to hire the female applicant or leave the position vacant".

    Position was left vacant. So we just ended up denying the male a job he would otherwise had been offered because of the stupid quotas.

    • Charity on 23/02/2020 - 16:57
      +4

      Should fire the boss for being a spineless coward too. "They" get away with these things because of spineless cowards not wanting to rock the boat and standing up for what is right.

  • crashloaded on 23/02/2020 - 14:21
    +13

    If the email clearly states that you'd be rejected based on gender I would send that to fair work regardless of whether you apply or not. That's not an acceptable email for HR to be sending imo.

    • nandxor on 23/02/2020 - 15:37
      +4

      I went for an interview at a well known computer security company a few years ago while completing my degree and was told by the hiring manager that "she never hires Australian citizens". The only reason I landed the interview was because the head office requested her to hire an Australian resident with the potential to advance in the company. She made me feel very uncomfortable, but called me a few hours after interviewing to reluctantly offer me the job. I declined the offer and wrote an email that night to the head office informing them of what happened.

      I hope she was fired.

      • crashloaded on 23/02/2020 - 17:05
        +1

        Yeah, things like that definitely need to be investigated. If this HR person is just making up these rules on their own, Could make the company look really bad if it gets out.

        • hakkenuh on 23/02/2020 - 17:22
          +1

          It's definitely not this single HR lady making up the rules I can confirm. This is a firm wide decision, in their move to try and be progressive. I know even in other areas, they have a 50/50 female/male graduate recruitment policy. As such if 4 males and 2 females get recommended for the graduate roles, they will cut off 2 males even if they were worthy for the position, however if it was 3 males and 3 females recommended, they would take them all.

          My particular case however is a lot more explicit, whereas usually it's hush hush, since I'm already at the firm it seems the HR is more open about it with me.

          • crashloaded on 23/02/2020 - 17:28
            +2

            @hakkenuh: I can understand graduate gender quotas because that's a level playing field and a good opportunity to diversify.

            Internal advertised positions should accept all qualified applicants imo. If the agenda is to hire a woman for it I don't see why they need to tell anyone. They can do that without making it known.

            • jatyap on 24/02/2020 - 17:08

              @crashloaded: Not really… some graduates are still more suited to the job than others. I don't think holding back productivity to enforce gender equality is the right way to go about it, but then I don't have all the answers.

              • crashloaded on 24/02/2020 - 17:26

                @jatyap: I agree, I believe in both quotas and the best person for the job. It's also hard to have a quota in all industries because some genders don't want to work in some industries.

            • Jackson on 24/02/2020 - 23:33

              @crashloaded: Because they would be wasting a lot of blokes' time, telling them there was a job offer that doesn't exist for them. You can't do that, it's an offence

              • crashloaded on 25/02/2020 - 08:42

                @Jackson: Just because the agenda is not listed on the advertised position doesn't mean the agenda isn't there, very hard to prove and I bet it happens a lot.

                • Jackson on 25/02/2020 - 15:15

                  @crashloaded: OP has stated in comments that he has an email from the hirer in HR stating that it's for women only, however nothing on the ad itself suggesting that is the case. As such, it's very easy to prove.

                  • crashloaded on 25/02/2020 - 17:09
                    +1

                    @Jackson: Yes I know it's easy to prove in this case, which is why my previous comments state what they do. I'm talking about in most other cases generally.

            • sakurashu on 27/02/2020 - 14:33

              @crashloaded: If you think about graduate quotas though, they should really be applied to match the prevailing graduation statistics. If you simply go for 50/50 when the number of graduates is more like 80/20, then your company might "look better" to some, but you're not helping the industry overall in this area as by taking more than the prevailing market share, you're starving other companies in the opposite direction

  • ozhunter on 23/02/2020 - 15:07
    +13

    Whilst I'm all for gender equality, and really do support gender quotas

    Why write the post? You're getting the very thing you're supporting(but in this case, it's not working in your favor).

    this seems a bit crazy that I'm not even allowed an interview to prove my worth?

    What would be the point? They don't need someone who is good at the job, they need a woman.

  • [Deactivated] on 23/02/2020 - 15:41
    +17

    Whilst I'm all for gender equality, and really do support gender quotas.

    You support gender equality by supporting a selection criteria that favours gender over merit?

    facepalm emoji… with echo

    • o53djz7qTPY4der on 23/02/2020 - 16:07
      +6

      And then complaining about it…

      That said, I don't support gender quotas. It is not a sound business decision to hire or not hire someone based on what's in their pants.

      • jonkvh on 24/02/2020 - 08:46
        +2

        Studies like you quoted have such narrow terms of reference. They're self reinforcing. The gender workplace stuff has been debunked by Paul Elam on his YT channel. The work place culture defines the success rate of a business, not genitals.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 09:34
          -1

          Paul Elam, the man who preaches the gospel that men’s failures and disappointments are not due to personal shortcomings or lapsed responsibility, but rather institutionalised feminism as well as a world gripped by “misandry,” or "the hatred of men"?

          Also the man whom court records show has lived off, and emotionally and physically abused the women in his own life; who has abandoned his children not once but twice and refused consistently to pay child support ; the one who has been lining his pocket with donations to his for-profit organisation which purports to advocate for men's right but when queried as to how that money is being spent, his response was "None of your f-ing business"?

          Nah, I don't want to idealogically align myself with that man.

          • jonkvh on 27/02/2020 - 17:02

            @[Deactivated]: Thanks for biting binksy. Give Elam his due though, he puts himself out there. Spose if I mentioned Bettina as well, you'd chuck a feminist wobbly.

        • IainND on 24/02/2020 - 13:13
          +5

          I don't think one guy yelling into a camera counts as "debunking" a whole field of study. I feel like the many different organisations who've studied it over many years might have more knowledge than one person. Especially a guy whose entire worldview seems to be based on his mummy issues and diarrhea:
          https://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/how-mens-rights-leader-p…
          Probably shouldn't trust the diarrhea guy on this issue. Might have some kinda bias. Because of the diarrhea thing.

          • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 24/02/2020 - 13:18
            +4

            @IainND: Buttfeed always tells the truth.

            • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 13:27
              +2

              @OBEY YOUR MASTERS: How do you feel about court records? The ones that shows that he was emotionally and physically abusive, abandoned his kids and refuse to pay child support?

              He was also filmed during a protest where he justified violence against women and was carrying signs that said that some of them

              walk through life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH—PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

              He associates with extremist male supremacists such as Daryush "Roosh" Valizadeh who are proponents of legalising female rape:

              Make rape legal if done on private property. I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds….If rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone….

              other quotes attributed to him and his friends

              • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 24/02/2020 - 21:18
                +3

                @[Deactivated]: Court records don't mean a god damn thing when it comes to divorce and child custody. I've personally known men who can never see their own children again because she decided to lie in court.

                His comments on rape are routinely taken out of context. Nothing particularly interesting here.

                Roosh V I don't know much about, but I'll bet my bottom dollar his comments will be taken out of context too.

                • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 21:41
                  +1

                  @OBEY YOUR MASTERS: Please explain in what context is this comment appropriate :

                  some (women) walk through life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH—PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

                  • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 24/02/2020 - 21:43
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: Listen pal why don't you do your own research and find HIS comments on the topic.

                    • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 21:53

                      @OBEY YOUR MASTERS: I have and I have linked to some of them in my comment above. And please don't call me "pal". I'm not your "pal". I don't want to have anything to do with someone who defends a man who not only tries to justify rape by claiming some women deserves it but is also a regular key speaker at an event called the "Annual Bash a Violent Bitch Month".

                      • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 24/02/2020 - 22:06
                        +2

                        @[Deactivated]: I can't see any links to Paul Elams own comments. Only snippets taken out of context by you.

                        You're not too high on my list of top quality people either.

                        His "bash a violent bitch" thing was in response to a feminist article about bashing violent men. It was satirical. But of course you didn't know that because you didn't actually check.

                        • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 22:24

                          @OBEY YOUR MASTERS: It is hard to quote everything this man has said without risking getting banned for hate speech on ozb.

                          But since you've asked for context, here is one of his "bash a violent bitch" comments as it was posted on his blog. It has since been taken down.

                          Here is a videoof Paul Elam and his other A Voice for Men cohorts going on a tirade about Jessica Valenti not being interested in giving any of them blow-jobs, as well as making crass comments about another feminist's " p***y". If you listen closely you can even hear one of AVFM allies slurring something about "good rape".

            • IainND on 27/02/2020 - 11:37

              @OBEY YOUR MASTERS: I'd like to think if I agreed to be interviewed by an outlet, and they included things I actually said consistent with my views mixed in with a made-up diarrhea story, I'd take at least one step to correct that. I'd at least say "I said everything except the diarrhea stuff" somewhere. But hey this guy is different from me so who knows why he hasn't corrected it.

              Anyway, seems pretty weird to me that an outlet would conduct an interview, publish tons of real quotes from that interview, and make up exactly one (1) completely fabricated quote. Seems more likely to me he said the diarrhea thing.

      • Lastchancetosee on 24/02/2020 - 09:44
        -2

        Agreed. You've only got to look at the two current main political parties to see how unless there is a conscious effort to bring about change, the status quo prevails. The ALP has a quota system, is almost at parity, had the first Australian female PM; The Coalition parties have a 'merit-based' system, have had some of the most male-dominated cabinets in recent times, are way off parity, and are yet to have a female PM.

        You need to put women in roles to create momentum and inspire other women to achieve the same thing. It was the same thing for opening up work and study opportunities for people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

        There is a risk, at the outset, that some people will be hired primarily for their gender (or race, where quotas are used), but over time,things even out.

        It is about a principle of representation - women make up half the population of the country, so should be represented at all levels of society.

      • gorgrond on 24/02/2020 - 10:47
        +6

        https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-dive…

        “Rigorous, peer-reviewed studies suggest that companies do not perform better when they have women on the board. Nor do they perform worse.”

        • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 11:24
          +1

          Have you read those "rigorous, peer-reviewed studies" or are you relying on someone else's interpretation? Here's what those meta-analyses actually found:

          • Female board representation is positively related to accounting returns and that this relationship is more positive in countries with stronger shareholder protections—perhaps because shareholder protections motivate boards to use the different knowledge, experience, and values that each member brings.

          • Although the relationship between female board representation and market performance is near zero, the relationship is positive in countries with greater gender parity (and negative in countries with low gender parity)—perhaps because societal gender differences in human capital may influence investors’ evaluations of the future earning potential of firms that have more female directors.

          • Lastly, that female board representation is positively related to boards’ two primary responsibilities: monitoring and strategy involvement.

          • gorgrond on 24/02/2020 - 11:35
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: Does not matter if, when checking the numbers, no significant difference is found.

            We should, as mentioned in Eagly, 2016, stop the "promulgation of false generalizations about empirical findings [that] can impede progress in both of these directions. Rather than ignoring or furthering distortions of scientific knowledge to fit advocacy goals, scientists should serve as honest brokers who communicate consensus scientific findings to advocates and policy makers in an effort to encourage exploration of evidence‐based policy options."

            • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 13:17
              +1

              @gorgrond:

              Does not matter if, when checking the numbers, no significant difference is found.

              Of course it matters. It is quite ironic that you've quoted a social psychologist to support your statement. Psychologists do not just present statistics and leave it at that.They dig deeper to get to the root cause. In that same paper that you've quoted, she said:

              (…) social scientists should (a) conduct research to identify the conditions under which the effects of diversity are positive or negative and (b) foster understanding of the social justice gains that can follow from diversity.

              My comment above attempts to explain why there is a disparity between these meta-analyses and what we see in practice i.e that fostering diversity in the workplace has a significant positive effect on the triple bottom line.

              • gorgrond on 24/02/2020 - 13:59
                +5

                @[Deactivated]: Your comment tries to explain disparity between these meta-analyses and what we see in practice based on your own assumptions.

                There is no data to support that. It is all "generalizations about empirical findings" that fit the way you want to see it.

                • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 14:05

                  @gorgrond: Can we at least agree that :

                  Diversity and inclusion can serve social justice goals by countering discrimination that may have put women and minorities at a disadvantage.

                  Beyond countering possible discrimination lies an even more fundamental social justice consideration – that of equitable representation. This principle holds that citizens in democracies should have equal access to influencing the decisions that shape their lives. To the extent that women and minorities are not represented in decision-making groups in proportion to their numbers in the population, they are unlikely to have their interests fairly represented.

                  As political scientists have pointed out, the ideals of democracy are violated if decision-making is dominated by the rich, the white and the male.

                  • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 14:18
                    -4

                    @[Deactivated]: Did I get negged by a rich, white male?😂

      • HighAndDry on 24/02/2020 - 11:45
        +9

        All of those are reversing cause and effect - basically saying that wet footpaths cause rain.

        No, higher levels of female recruitment don't cause better outcomes, they reflect that the organisation already had a more meritorious advancement system and that's what's causing better performance.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 13:20

          they reflect that the organisation already had a more meritorious advancement system

          What do you base your assumption on?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join