The Pink Ceiling: Workplaces Rigged against Early and Mid-Career Men

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

• 

  Kongzi on 21/09/2023 - 21:06

  +44

  In my global company, all the executive level managers are men. The head of people was a woman, but just recently replaced with a male.

  • randomvis on 21/09/2023 - 21:12 Comment score below threshold.
    • 

      bobswinkle on 22/09/2023 - 07:09

      +33

      Did you even bother to look at actual statistics in the University sector?

      https://theconversation.com/no-change-at-the-top-for-univers…

      • 

        boirganz on 22/09/2023 - 09:35

        +56

        Don’t go bringing your facts and figures into this ! We’re busy being emotionally outraged by our own small-world experiences!

      • 

        ThithLord on 22/09/2023 - 10:18

        +20

        mate that's not what Ben Shapiro says!!1!

      • 

        EBC on 22/09/2023 - 15:32

        +5

        These stats are absolutely correct in my experience (I work in the sector). But looking at the imbalance at lower levels of academia is still possibly cause for concern if we are aiming for true 50/50 balance.

        86% more men than women at associate professor and professor levels D and E (10,363 men, 5,562 women)

        11% more men than women at senior lecturer level C (6,355 men, 5,724 women)

        25% more women than men at lecturer level B (7,428 men, 9,253 women)

        15% more women than men at associate lecturer level A (4,426 men and 5,093 women).

        We have done a good job increasing the number of women entering academia and have possibly already overshot it (I would need the stats on work tenure to understand if the % is higher when stratified by years worked - whether women work longer in lower levels). Increasing percentages at the top in academia is hard because of how promotions work. You generally don't jus get hired as a level E professor so it isn't really just a matter of hiring more women professors to balance things out. And you need to prove that you are performing above average for the level above yours to get a promotion so you are equally competing with everyone at your level (man or woman).

        As an example, if the proportion of women at level C is less than 50/50 you are going to end up with an imbalance in promotions to level D favouring men in a perfectly merit-based world. The same can be said of the lower levels where there are more women than men.

        All this to say, that the process of improving equality in academia is going to be a slow process as it currently exists. It takes at least 15-20 years to become a full professor, maybe longer. But the imbalance at the lower levels towards women suggests that progress will be made as they get promoted. The trick is going to be in ensuring we don't overshoot the mark if gender balance is truly what is being sought.

        Of course there are some simplifications here because I don't have all the data.

        Edit: I should mention this doesn't at all apply to Chancellor and Vice Chancellor roles. You don't get promoted into those so the above doesn't apply and there are so few roles that there are certainly enough equally qualified women to make that balance equal. So definitely still work to do there.

        • 

          Baghern on 22/09/2023 - 19:25

          +4

          @EBC: raw numbers are pretty useless if you ignore the age group

          100% of new Professors could be all women, but it wont fix the inbalance

          That's another reason why the Pay Gap is such a useless number

          There wasa indepth study in one of the science fields a while ago, I think it was Chemistry or Biology

          There were more women entering it, but they on average were still earning less over time.

          What they found were that women were more likely to go the technical route, while men were going management route. Now the question then is asked, how much is it choice, and how much is it sexism…. industry sexism? social sexisim?

        • 

          User102430 on 22/09/2023 - 20:07

          +18

          @EBC: Why are we "aiming for true 50/50 balance"?

          It's rather surprising people working in academia who don't distinguish between equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is perfectly fine, however push towards equality of outcome is nothing but pure communism, and I'm seeing it everywhere, I'm afraid. In my profession (IT), my manager - female - was recently complaining she HAD to interview absolutely incompetent person for the role because of, well, vagina.

          Funny that, I never hear about "equality of outcome" when it comes to really hard and not so fancy professions like sewer workers, landfill operators, coal miners, garbage collectors or oil rig workers - mostly dominated by man, as well as other high risk, physically demanding, dangerous, and underpaid roles.

          • 

            lew380 on 22/09/2023 - 22:19

            +6

            @User102430: Spot on, equality of outcome, abhorrently evil, unjust and unfair. Yet it gets shouted from the rooftops and you lose your job if you question it.

          • 

            bobswinkle on 23/09/2023 - 16:16

            @User102430: "equality of outcome is nothing but pure communism"

            Lmao, it's not only communism but pure communism. Can you tell me where precisely Karl Marx referred to equality of outcome?

            • 

              User102430 on 24/09/2023 - 00:11

              +2

              @bobswinkle: There's error in the question associating communism with Karl Marx only, as apart from Communist Manifesto, there's more than his work that creates communism and sets its principles. One of them, in both theory and even more so in its various implementations, is central planning and control. This is nothing but the highest form of equality of outcome, where in theory at least, resources are distributed in a centrally managed way that minimises inequalities and promotes a more equitable society. In theory, again, it should work, right?

              So tell me, would you have that or market forces as we know it in Australia? 100 millions of dead victims of communism and plenty of failed communist countries should give you a hint.

              Communism is full of theories that never worked well. Equality of outcome is one of them.

              • 

                bobswinkle on 24/09/2023 - 06:35

                @User102430: I never for a second defended communism mate. I think it's a pretty rubbish economic system. Although you're fooling yourself if you're ignoring the many deaths from corporate capitalist systems around the world.

                My point is people throw around things being communist as a nonsensical attack that makes no sense in the context. Affirmative action is not "communist".

                • 

                  User102430 on 24/09/2023 - 15:25

                  @bobswinkle: Never said anything about capitalism, wrong assumptions again.

                  My point is people throw around things being communist as a nonsensical attack that makes no sense in the context

                  Or perhaps you don't see deeper context? Equality of outcome, which is what gender quotas are really about (as is this entire thread), are nothing but direct implementation of leftist philosophies, that at their source, originate from communism (socialism to a lesser extent).

          • 

            knk on 25/09/2023 - 08:53

            @User102430: Yeah this rings too true in IT.

            It's not a physical job, it's not a dirty job, it's mentally challenging and technical and doesn't fit the stereotypes for a "manly" job - but for some reason it's a boys club and always has been for the most part. I've worked alongside a handful, a very small handful of brilliant women in this field but they are unfortunately few and far between. I've also seen women treated like less than their male counterparts, for no good reason I could see other than them being women.

            Given the huge gender disparity I agree, we need to look at equality of outcome. And simply put, if you've got more competent and experienced male applicants than female then it's going to take literally generations in a field like this for the gender "gap" to close.

          • 

            kyle on 05/10/2023 - 05:40

            @User102430: You've put it so well.

      • 

        Bullion78 on 23/09/2023 - 15:10

        -3

        The conversation would be the very last website i would research for facts on anything.

        • 

          bobswinkle on 23/09/2023 - 16:07

          +1

          @Bullion78: Lmao. "The very last website". You're either wildly hyperbolic or an idiot.

          Also, ad hominem attack much?

          • 

            SpainKing on 24/09/2023 - 19:53

            @bobswinkle: Feels more like he's attacking the source than attacking you so I would consider it a genetic fallacy as opposed to an ad hominem attack

        • 

          bobswinkle on 23/09/2023 - 16:10

          +1

          @Bullion78: Also the link I posted is literally just citing facts from the Education Department. Do people even think before they post their inane opinions on the internet? What a stupid question, of course they don't.

    • 

      bobbified on 22/09/2023 - 13:53

      +18

      I work across the financial services industry and I've been told on more than one occasion - either hire the female applicant or leave the position vacant. My peers at other companies have told me similar stories. While I understand what the companies are trying to do, it means that the best applicant isn't getting the job they would've otherwise got.

      • Alligate on 22/09/2023 - 15:23 Comment score below threshold.
        • 

          bobbified on 22/09/2023 - 15:53

          +11

          @Alligate: I probably should've clarified - we often only get a very small amount of female applicants compared to males (mainly IT-related SMEs for projects) So we go through the interviews etc. and we pick the most suitable applicant. If they're female, then they're female. When it's a male, we sometimes get resistance and "pressure" (from above) to hire the female applicant for no other reason other than them being female.

          As the PM, I've had to argue it a few times because, I really don't care whether the person is male or female. I just need the job done. And when it comes down to it, I'd rather leave the role vacant than having someone sitting there not being able to do the job and draining the budget at the same time. I am not going to hire someone simply because they're female.

          • 

            Alley Cat on 23/09/2023 - 07:15

            -4

            @bobbified:

            And when it comes down to it, I'd rather leave the role vacant than having someone sitting there not being able to do the job and draining the budget at the same time.

            This should always have been the case either way. The thing is your ability to judge wether or not someone can or cannot do the job has been influenced by your gender because it was men who came up with the selection criteria and interview process, down to the very way people have been taught to think (hence heavily rooted in the education system). Like hires like, even if it’s not the intention, because it’s so ingrained. One’s superior ability to solve a technical problem doesn’t make one the best candidate for the job, a lot of the times you can eliminate the problem by looking at it differently, ie solve a simpler problem. And that is a whole different type of intelligence.

            I would also add that personality is greater than technical skills if you intend to keep your hire for a while. If you hired someone who’s completely incompetent, they have the right personality, with the right mentorship they’d grow into your best asset. On the flip side, someone who can do the job at the get-go, but fails at learning and investing in themselves for the long term, becomes a liability, especially in tech. Also if you are only hiring when you need someone next Monday, you need to get some training. Good managers are always hiring, that’s why they can afford to bring some one up to speed and grow their team like they mean it.

            Edit: actually the last bit on liability is heavily influenced by how men tend to think so I don’t know if that is true.

            • 

              bobbified on 23/09/2023 - 14:36

              +1

              @Alley Cat:

              The thing is your ability to judge wether or not someone can or cannot do the job has been influenced by your gender because it was men who came up with the selection criteria and interview process, down to the very way people have been taught to think (hence heavily rooted in the education system). Like hires like, even if it’s not the intention, because it’s so ingrained.

              I understand what you're saying. I never conduct interviews myself and I don't always go in with other males. There's times where my lead is a female and I'm really just there as a "sanity check". I do throw in an odd question every now and then for shits and giggles, but when it comes to the decision - especially around the team/"cultural" fit, I always let my lead decide because they're the ones that have to work closer with the successful candidate.

              I don't know if it comes as a surprise or not, but I've found (now, this is only from my experiences!) that males tend to favour females and females tend to choose males.

              • 

                Alley Cat on 23/09/2023 - 17:32

                -1

                @bobbified: Men and women are supposed to gravitate towards each other. It’s the most productive way (😆) because of their difference in ways of thinking and doing. It’s also primal. Same gendered bodies have an underlying competition in sexual selection going on, especially during the reproductive years.

                There’s an experiment done where they put two men in a room vs a man and a woman together and asked the man to donate money. The participants do not know each other, they just sit in the room. The man donated more when there’s a woman present, even when there’s no sexual attraction. But who knows, it might just be a reflection of the aggregated mother and father issues in the collective 😂

        • 

          SpainKing on 22/09/2023 - 16:03

          +6

          @Alligate: That's a more interesting conclusion to come to, seems like wilfully misinterpreting the statement.

          He's saying if you can hire a man, don't, because they can't be the best applicant because they aren't female. If the same applicant (in all other respects) was born/became a woman then give her the job. This is what he's been told to use as hiring practices.

          The best applicant could well be a man, and if they didn't got the job based off their gender this would be unfair. The statement "it means that the best applicant isn't getting the job they otherwise would've got" is correct because if they're a man they have 0 chance of getting a job with such discriminatory hiring practices.

          In context, this translates to "the best person for the job is not necessarily the one that will get it because they may be a man which would invalidate their skills, experience and suitability for the role."

          Glad you're taking such an interest in to the woes men face in the modern world

          • 

            bobbified on 22/09/2023 - 16:09

            +1

            @SpainKing: ^ Exactly this! Thanks for that!

            Their aim is to try to even out the numbers a little. My interest is to get the most suitable and qualified applicant (ie, that is, someone I'm confident can do the job)..

      • 

        811b11e8 on 25/09/2023 - 18:58

        +1

        I worked at a bank and it was exactly the same. However this was almost 10 years ago and I've heard it's no longer as bad as it was then from people who still work there. I was originally at a consultancy with about 90 staff all working at the bank in ongoing FTE roles. About 30 of the consultancy staff where female. The bank hired all the females directly within 12 months. Literally poached all our female employees and paid them more put them in higher positions. They also had to pay out the consultancy quote a lot of money as they violated all our contracts about poaching.

        All the men missed our bonuses at the consultancy as the formula for our bonus had a gender ratio multiplier in it and our consultancy had no female staff at the end of the financial year. My bonus should have been about 25% of my salary but I missed it due to the staff poaching so I was pretty upset at the time.

        I also went over to the bank directly and worked with a lot of the poached women after the turmoil. I didn't really have much of a choice about going over the relationship between the consultancy and the bank pretty much destroyed and the writing was on the wall about contracts getting renewed. I was also pissed about missing my bonus after the consultancy made bank on all the contract breaches. Lots of the women didn't work out in the new roles. Staff under them who had more experience where genuinely pissed they missed getting the role both men and women. Lots of them out into high pressure PM roles too where the rest of the staff was about 20 years older and had all been working the role for 10 years. A lot of the teams became very toxic after wards. Ironically the bank made me redundant just after I became full time. The bank let go about 20 people from my team and not one them was a female. Pretty much they picked the 20 newest men in the team and made them redundant.

        I think about 20 of the men left at the constancy all got made redundant when the bank didn't renew the contract. Others moved on to smaller clients. Most of the redundancies where older men.

        I've been hesitant to work for bank after the experience.

    • 

      frewer on 27/09/2023 - 09:31

      +1

      OP just identified as a woman and asked for a promotion. Done.

  • 

    azero on 22/09/2023 - 10:25

    +3

    My experience in IT as well. I have only come across 2 female senior execs and both of them were in non tech roles.

  • 

    CowFrogHorse on 25/09/2023 - 22:51

    +2

    Its strange that people here think that its unfair that there are few women in executive roles, but they fail to see that its unfair executives get paid above everybody else in the first place.

    Women are half the population but executives by their greed and overpayments are discriminating against EVERYBODY in the entire business below them.

    We all know that Qantas has a lot of hard working people from pilots, cleaners and a lot of others. I hope the Qantas staff sue the crap out of the board for only giving bonuses to the board and giving nothing to the people who actually make the planes fly. By making the planes fly i mean EVERYBODY in the company.

    Then again its hardly a surprise given the worship of corporate leadership in American media and todays SMH. Nobody bothers to question why theses parasites are allowed to gift themselves the payments that they get.

• 

  SBOB on 21/09/2023 - 21:11

  +119

  So, if your son is entering the workforce in the next 10 years what would you tell them?

  Don't be a whiney b*tch.
  Work hard and be the best you can.
  Realise that sometimes, others, including woman may be smarter or more qualified than you and you might not get that job, promotion, or thing you want.
  Life isn't necessarily easy, or always fair, but giving it your best shot is half the battle.

  And even if that happens, and you don't get the job, whining about it on the internet is never the answer. Perhaps you just aren't as smart or qualified as you thought.
  Oh, and wear sunscreen…

  But that's only if I wanted him to grow up to be a man.

  • randomvis on 21/09/2023 - 21:22 Comment score below threshold.
    • 

      SBOB on 21/09/2023 - 21:25

      +18

      Nice stab

      Not a 'stab'. So many new hires these days fail to realise that they aren't as good as they think they are.

      Your advice purposely ignores modern business practices

      As a (33M) final year working in the university system I don't think you're qualified to make that call.

      My advice stands.

      Or, try your way. Doesn't bother me.

      • randomvis on 21/09/2023 - 21:27 Comment score below threshold.
        • 

          Chandler on 22/09/2023 - 08:47

          +30

          @randomvis:

          In totality I've spent 8 years in industry and 8 years in academia, not sure what your point is.

          I assume the 8 years in academia is actually ~4 (employment) and ~4 (studying), unless you just started working at a university and didn't study at all.

          I've spent 18 years in industry. It differs between industries, but on the whole the deck is stacked against women.

          And to respond to an earlier comment of yours:

          You did read the post right? 30% vs 100%, that is RIGGED. It has nothing to do with qualifications or how good you are. Your advice purposely ignores modern business practices.

          Those statistics mean nothing. 30% of men promoted vs 100% of women? Dig deeper. How many men/women employed? How many suitably qualified? How many suitably experienced? How many actually good? I think you'll find if you start digging deeper you'll see why, on face value, it may seem like it's tipped, but in actual fact its less rigged than you think…

          • 

            od810 on 22/09/2023 - 21:34

            +5

            @Chandler: Or it could be that it took him 8 years to finish his degree :P, clearly not as smart as he thinks he is.

      • 

        cookie2 on 21/09/2023 - 21:37

        +3

        And what do you think of the disparity between male and female promotions at 30 vs 100%?

        • 

          ptrubs on 22/09/2023 - 07:21

          +14

          @cookie2: Well, if there are only 6 women in the field and 100 men, it does change rhe question somewhat…

          • 

            SlickMick on 22/09/2023 - 08:11

            -1

            @ptrubs: but should it?

            • 

              od810 on 22/09/2023 - 21:35

              +6

              @SlickMick: Definitely it does, sample size is small, so variance can be high. Also it could be these 6 women are actually the top of their fields, the mediocre ones already drop out.

              • 

                SlickMick on 22/09/2023 - 21:59

                -2

                @od810: Get 2 deck of cards, mark 6 cards, shuffle them all together, then draw the top 36 cards.
                If the 6 marked cards are drawn, then I concede that this is not a stacked deck either.

                • 

                  od810 on 22/09/2023 - 23:28

                  +6

                  @SlickMick: Pick 6 Aces and mark them, what's the chance of getting aces that's unmarked.

                  FYI, i'm pro equal opportunity, men or women doesn't matter. But women in male dominated field are different. Look at Marie Curie, back in her day, you can argue that close to 100% of women chemists won Nobel prize.

  • 

    jv on 22/09/2023 - 00:54

    +10

    Work hard and be the best you can.

    That would be fair enough it if was an even playing field, but it's not…

    • 

      bobswinkle on 22/09/2023 - 18:21

      +13

      You're absolutely correct. The overwhelming objective evidence suggests it is still bias against women and this little man's subjective whinge isn't indicative of the overall story.

  • 

    Alligate on 22/09/2023 - 15:30

    -2

    Bless you.

    It's like trying to teach physics to chimps to explain to some men that a woman getting a job over them (or their brochacho) DOESN'T make it a diversity hire. I think it comes from a lifetime of positive reinforcement that somehow they really DID SOMETHING by being born white and male.

    The idea that they are handing out promotions to any female is laughable, even more laughable that they are handing them out to incompetent females - although for the men that believe that nonsense I guess that's redundant, right?

    • 

      brendanm on 22/09/2023 - 23:18

      brochacho

      😬

  • 

    Jackson on 23/09/2023 - 16:33

    -1

    This is a role reversal populist comment if I have ever heard one, it's exactly like what women and minorities were told for years, gaslighting them into working their hardest even when the odds are stacked against them. I don't know why you think it's ok to do to someone else. It's possible that the guy works in a pocket where this discrimination does happen, over and above what should be effected by pro-diversity policies. I have worked in the industry and see it happen first hand. You can go to 10 different offices and it's implemented differently everywhere. It's also exacerbated by a large number of people in management who either think that experience doesn't matter and anyone they get along with can do the job, or who just don't care so much who's being hired (what I think is the biggest issue with how these places are run, and feeds into the overuse of consultants which are a scourge on the sector).

    I am pro-diversity, and believe all things equal it's time more women were hired into (esp. senior) roles they are qualified for. IMO this issue is as much about hiring people that aren't qualfiied, it happens all the time and makes life hell for the people that have to work with and for them, regardles of their gender.

• 

  SnowDragon on 21/09/2023 - 21:28

  +44

  Honestly, if the game is so rigged, why play it?

  This is what women and other minorities have been experiencing for the last century and beyond.

  men had a 30% chance of promotion within a given cycle while women had 100%. That's right. 100%.

  Can you provide more clarification about the document you saw?
  Did it say the university would promote all women and only 30% of men solely by gender?
  Or have the women of the university simply been working harder to get ahead in a male dominated world and the men were expecting a promotion by just existing?

  • randomvis on 21/09/2023 - 21:30 Comment score below threshold.
    • 

      AngoraFish on 22/09/2023 - 00:31

      +31

      So many made up, fantasy, imaginary numbers in this post. 69.7% of statistics are entirely made up.

      • 

        boirganz on 22/09/2023 - 09:37

        +4

        Homer Simpson : Aw, you can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that.

      • 

        Alligate on 22/09/2023 - 15:33

        +2

        So happy to see people calling this nonsense out.

        A thread of this type gets posted every few months and its so discouraging to see how many people will play along with it sometimes.

  • 

    jv on 22/09/2023 - 00:55

    +29

    This is what women and other minorities have been experiencing for the last century and beyond.

    Exactly. So why haven't we learned from this and now treat all people equally ?

    • 

      Sinnerator on 22/09/2023 - 08:32

      +8

      because social narrative rules the world, unfortunately people don't like facts

    • 

      smartazz104 on 22/09/2023 - 09:05

      +3

      Payback /s

    • 

      idonotknowwhy on 22/09/2023 - 10:35

      +2

      Exactly. So why haven't we learned from this and now treat all people equally ?

      15 years ago, this is where I thought we were heading. Equal opportunity, not discriminating based on race, sex, sexual-orientation, etc.

      Now we've gone full circle and are doing the exact same thing in reverse with backwards ideas like "affirmative action", "the voice", etc :(

      • 

        MetaLaugher on 22/09/2023 - 10:56

        +14

        Please tell me how a completely non-binding advisory committee to our federal legislature is doing it "in reverse." Even if the Voice gets enacted, politicians can straight up ignore the committee with zero consequence. Isn't that what you guys want - a token gesture that kicks the debate another decade down the line?

        • 

          Motek Benzona on 22/09/2023 - 21:08

          -4

          @MetaLaugher: @MetaLaugher
          Dross like you just wrote..like serious tripe is why i am voting no

          Please continue

        • 

          xsacha on 23/09/2023 - 02:00

          +2

          @MetaLaugher: Why do we need a referendum for this non-binding advisory committee and none of the others? If that is what it is, just do it. Why the money wasting?

          Why do we need a specific race in the constitution? How is that making anything equal? If this is the only question, why is it bundled with this non-binding advisory committee?

          As you say, if this is accepted, nothing will actually be done for a decade then because this will be considered some solution.

          • 

            callum9999 on 24/09/2023 - 11:07

            +4

            @xsacha: If you want to know these answers, why didn't you spend 2 minutes looking into them? It's not rocket science.

            We need a referendum because that's a prerequisite for constitutional change. They want to write it in the constitution because Australian governments have a history of dismantling things like this.

            Because that "specific race" was present in Australia before the country was colonised and taken away from them, and was systematically abused that has never been recovered from.

            It doesn't make anyone equal, it gives a voice to marginalised communities that don't have a realistic means to take part in the democracy imposed on to them.

            I think the idea that anything was going to be done but this will stop it is fanciful. A huge proportion of the country is literally outraged that Aboriginals might get an official organisation that can make non-binding representations to parliament. On what planet are these same people going to agree to comparatively radical acts to address this issue?

            • 

              idonotknowwhy on 25/09/2023 - 14:38

              @callum9999:

              It doesn't make anyone equal, it gives a voice to marginalised communities that don't have a realistic means to take part in the democracy imposed on to them.

              I really don't understand this part. An individual aboriginal adult has the same voting power as an individual non-aboriginal Australian citizen. Not only do they have a means to take part, they (like non-aboriginal Australians) are required to vote.

              Do you see what I mean? While shitty things happened to them in the past, and other marginalized groups, in 2023 they have the same rights as every other Australian citizen, the same means to take part in society and democracy.

              • 

                callum9999 on 25/09/2023 - 19:23

                @idonotknowwhy: Ukrainians living in Crimea have the same voting power as a Russian citizen living in Crimea. Do you think they have a fair say over what happens to Crimea?

                An individual being given "the same voting power" as everyone else doesn't particularly help them if they are vastly outnumbered.

                While I don't necessarily agree with giving them additional power above the rest of us, the majority of this country are either descendants of colonisers or people who have been invited here by the descendants of colonisers. I don't think it's particularly feasible to "give back control" at this stage (though don't rule it out in a limited form), but I don't think it's too much to ask that they're allowed to formally make representations to the Parliament they've been forcibly subjected to against their will and have no practical power to influence.

        • 

          idonotknowwhy on 23/09/2023 - 08:33

          +2

          @MetaLaugher:

          Isn't that what you guys want - a token gesture that kicks the debate another decade down the line?

          No I don't want a specific race in the constitution. Let's protect equal opportunity and move on to solving other issues.

    • 

      Dognosis on 22/09/2023 - 11:05

      +6

      look up the difference between equality and equity.

      • 

        jv on 22/09/2023 - 11:09

        +3

        Look up discrimination.

        • 

          Dognosis on 22/09/2023 - 11:10

          +1

          @jv: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
          "victims of racial discrimination"

          recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
          "discrimination between right and wrong"

          what is your point?

        • 

          GrueHunter on 22/09/2023 - 23:40

          +3

          @jv: Look up that video where a teacher uses bandaids to explain the difference between equality and fairness to five year olds

          Should be closer to your speed

  • 

    Bobby Hill on 26/09/2023 - 12:38

    women and other minorities

    But what about minority men?

• 

  Jimothy Wongingtons on 21/09/2023 - 21:29

  +6

  Mrs. Doubtfire: [as Daniel] Look at this! My first day as a woman and I'm getting hot flashes.

• 

  mskeggs on 21/09/2023 - 21:31

  +48

  In your made up Uni 100% of women are promoted, but only 30% of men.
  And you found the same in ASX 200 companies.
  Yet if we look at the stats collected from large organisations in Australia there is zero evidence of this:
  https://www.wgea.gov.au/data-statistics/data-explorer

  Amazingly, it is the opposite.
  I think you might be looking for excuses for your own lack of performance.

  • randomvis on 21/09/2023 - 21:35 Comment score below threshold.
    • 

      mskeggs on 21/09/2023 - 21:38

      +36

      So the system was rigged to promote women, yet the stats show men greatly outnumber women in higher positions.
      Does the rigged system not work, or is it yet to start?

      • randomvis on 21/09/2023 - 21:40 Comment score below threshold.
        • 

          mskeggs on 21/09/2023 - 21:47

          +45

          @randomvis: The WGEA stats are very comprehensive, broken down by industry and roles at different levels like CEO, senior managers, other managers, professionals, admin workers and other roles.

          Almost every industry has men over represented in senior roles, and almost every industry has men over represented in junior managers.

          The stats say what you are claiming is not happening.

          • 

            xsacha on 23/09/2023 - 02:07

            @mskeggs: The issue nowadays is mostly women not participating or staying in the workforce. Women are more likely to stay at home, look after a child or enter a different workforce other than what is shown there.

            The stats you are referring to show this, not the promotions that OP is referring to.

            This is why we see a focus on women in STEM, shared parental leave and other such methods to engage women and provide opportunities for them to stay in professional roles.

  • 

    jv on 22/09/2023 - 00:56

    -2

    Amazingly, it is the opposite.

    Two wrongs don't make a right…

    Ask the new Qantas CEO.

  • 

    Caped Baldy on 22/09/2023 - 12:42

    That data doesn't look too unreasonable either as women often take more time off during early childhood years which can hinder career progression. Obviously there is some way to go though.

• 

  TEER3X on 21/09/2023 - 21:32

  +34

  I worked for ANZ a long time ago when McFarlane was CEO.

  He openly told us that if two applicants were exactly the same in every way except gender, the woman would get the job. They were pushing for more women in higher up roles to even out the numbers.

  • 

    mskeggs on 21/09/2023 - 21:40

    +14

    I think that is really sensible. Considering there are so few women in senior banking roles, if there is an equal applicant they should definitely aim to employ the woman.
    Otherwise you are much more likely to suffer from a lack of diversity of opinions or have a lot of groupthink.

    • 

      jv on 22/09/2023 - 00:57

      +34

      I think that is really sensible.

      I think it discriminates based on sex…

      • 

        smartazz104 on 22/09/2023 - 09:07

        +24

        Just like picking the male over the female, if both candidates are "exactly" the same otherwise…

    • 

      ssfps on 22/09/2023 - 03:20

      +8

      Otherwise you are much more likely to suffer from a lack of diversity of opinions or have a lot of groupthink.

      Yeah, Gina Rinehart is such a soppy motherly bleeding heart, really changed how we think about business.

      So sick of hearing this sort of horse-shit, as if injecting some XX chromosomes or some african genes will turn the org into an R&D think tank. Institutional workers and leaders conform to the same organizational expectations regardless of any protected characteristics.

      Funny how the modern ESG-proponent racists say shit like "there's no such thing as race" and "there is often greater difference between two black people than between a white person and a black person", yet then contradict themselves by stating hiring somebody based on gender or the color of their skin will meaningfully change the company culture.

      • 

        mskeggs on 22/09/2023 - 16:00

        +11

        I don’t think you are reading the same thing. It said if you had two equally skilled applicants, would you choose the one just like all the other workers, or the one that could offer different insights?

        If you have a room of men, and you want a male view, you have plenty to ask. If you want a female view, you will struggle. You can replace female with any other minority view in a boardroom.

        If you don’t understand why a business with many female or minority customers might want to hear a view other than a male one, maybe you could reflect on why you think that and how it might be an opportunity where you can find successes.

    • 

      TEER3X on 22/09/2023 - 09:25

      +7

      I respectfully disagree, and think it's borderline illegal.

      Also, what actually happens is more women get hired and not because they are better or equally qualified… and as a consequence more men miss out. Sure it will even up the numbers, but you don't get the best people.

      In hindsight, I wish I had of spoken up, it was over a group conference call and we were allowed to ask questions/voice opinions.

      • 

        mskeggs on 22/09/2023 - 09:27

        +3

        But if the two candidates are equivalent, how do you not get the best people? How is a male candidate a better person for the job if they are equal?

        • 

          jv on 22/09/2023 - 09:35

          +13

          @mskeggs:

          But if the two candidates are equivalent

          If they are equivalent, WHY should one get an advantage just because they were born a female ???

          • 

            Dognosis on 22/09/2023 - 10:05

            @jv: Because of history. That is the whole point.

            • 

              jv on 22/09/2023 - 10:26

              +12

              @Dognosis:

              Because of history.

              What does that have to do with 2 kids going for a job today ?.

              Are you blaming them and punishing them?

              • 

                Dognosis on 22/09/2023 - 11:00

                @jv: Not blaming or punishing.

                We are trying to correct an intergenerational societal problem and this does mean that a male may have a disadvantage for a period of time. Overall society may become better for it.

                This is probably a problem with no perfect solution. Do you have a better idea?

                • 

                  ssfps on 22/09/2023 - 13:19

                  +4

                  @Dognosis:

                  This is probably a problem with no perfect solution. Do you have a better idea?

                  Get rid of "positive" discrimination and fix over-work culture, then accept that some professions are still going to be dominated by women, and some by men, and that's not really a big issue. Why does there need to be more male nurses, or teachers?
                  Do we need to get more women to the front line, or fixing plumbing? Don't hear much about that.

                  • 

                    Dognosis on 22/09/2023 - 13:54

                    +1

                    @ssfps: I agree some professions might skew to some genders, but you are ignoring the impact of the historical suppression of women in society that men (broadly speaking) still benefit from today—and this contributes to gender disparity that is not just the 'girls wanna be nurses', or 'boys wanna shoot stuff' difference.

                    Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand?

                    • 

                      j4ice on 23/09/2023 - 08:09

                      @Dognosis:

                      society that men (broadly speaking) still benefit from today

                      I dont think that's true. There is no barrier for women to enter any profession today as long as they are capable and willing.

                      There is no real pay-gap if you do multi-modal analysis. And if there was, then most companies would hire woman only to save cost.

                      Businesses are judged on their results, and it's not in their interests to favour one gender over another. The 'system', if any, is built upon what can make the most money (or produce the best results). And the judge is often the general public, which is pretty close to gender parity, with women making more buying decisions than men in general.

                      Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand?

                      Boradly speaking, men are discrimnated against in modern society as a whole; harsher sentencing for the same crime, less support for homelessness, less likely to get custody of children in a divorce.

                  • 

                    GG57 on 22/09/2023 - 14:34

                    @ssfps:

                    Do we need to get more women to the front line…

                    Do you mean the supermarket check out?

          • 

            azero on 04/10/2023 - 10:15

            @jv: Because the female is the best fit for the team. You are mixing up technical talent and team fit.

            He did not lose the job because he was a man, he lost it because she was a better fit for the team.

            What you are hiring for is the best person for the team and for the company as a whole. Not just the person who has most technical knowledge. Same reason why you'd reject a technically excellent candidate that has a bad attitude.

            If the company decides that an equal gender mix gives them the best results, then it is their decision and you can either agree or walk away.

            • 

              jv on 04/10/2023 - 10:16

              @azero:

              Because the female is the best fit for the team.

              Which team?

              • 

                azero on 04/10/2023 - 13:35

                @jv: team that they are hiring for - or department or whatever you call it

                As the hiring manager you are not there to find a job for the candidate, you are there to find someone to fill the need of your team. If there are 2 candidates with similar technical abilities and the female one fills the need of your team better, then she IS the better candidate for your team - and in an indirect way for the company as well.

                • 

                  jv on 04/10/2023 - 14:34

                  +1

                  @azero:

                  As the hiring manager you are not there to find a job for the candidate, you are there to find someone to fill the need of your team

                  Exactly, so why discriminate, rather than hire the best person for the job…

                  • 

                    azero on 04/10/2023 - 19:00

                    @jv: Exactly my point, since ANZ made a decision as a business that they want to have a gender balanced workforce the female IS the BEST person for the job. Not because she was born a female.

                    So it is not discrimination, just picking the most suitable person for the position.

                    • 

                      jv on 04/10/2023 - 19:08

                      +1

                      @azero:

                      since ANZ made a decision as a business that they want to have a gender balanced workforce

                      and what if they made a decision to have a 'weight balanced' workforce ? or a 'white only' workforce?

                      I guess you would be OK with that too, rather than hiring someone based on their skills and knowledge…

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6