Female Hiring Targets

LegallyAbroad

the-island-man wrote: »

Sounds great but if you're a woman or a man applying for a role and you don't get it because of a company level gender target, does it make it any better that you contributed to equality when you can't pay the bills at the end of the month?!

If it applied for all jobs you could surely get a job in a sector where your gender is underrepresented?

the-island-man

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

If it applied for all jobs you could surely get a job in a sector where your gender is underrepresented?

Cannot speak for everyone as different people take different careers paths but for me that would mean I spent 4 years in University studying a discipline only to come out and be told oh no you have to retrain into another sector because of your gender? That makes no sense.

Economics101

Females get on average higher Leaving Cert grades and thus CAO points. Therefore they will have an advantage choosing high points programmes such as Medicine. They dominate the entry numbers into nursing and teaching, which between them account for a lot of third-level students. So its almost mathematically inevitable that males will dominate numerically in some other areas. The poor eejits have to go somewhere! So why the obsession with certain types of engineering?

km991148

I assume we are generally talking about targets here. They are not quotas and don't even necessarily mean that more of one gender will be pushed over another.

It just means they are actively looking to encourage people from a gender not traditionally associated with whatever role or sector.

If you went and studied for 4 years and struggle to get a job you'd be better off looking at why you are sh*t at your job (or at least why you are bad at interviews) rather than blaming some gender quota bogeymen (or women!).

LegallyAbroad

km991148 wrote: »

I assume we are generally talking about targets here. They are not quotas and don't even necessarily mean that more of one gender will be pushed over another.

It just means they are actively looking to encourage people from a gender not traditionally associated with whatever role or sector.

If you went and studied for 4 years and struggle to get a job you'd be better off looking at why you are sh*t at your job (or at least why you are bad at interviews) rather than blaming some gender quota bogeymen (or women!).

This too. If you can't get in to the 50% or 66% quota available to your gender you're probably not great in the first place.

LegallyAbroad

the-island-man wrote: »

Cannot speak for everyone as different people take different careers paths but for me that would mean I spent 4 years in University studying a discipline only to come out and be told oh no you have to retrain into another sector because of your gender? That makes no sense.

You could still apply to the 66% of the sector available to your gender?

the-island-man

km991148 wrote: »

If you went and studied for 4 years and struggle to get a job you'd be better off looking at why you are sh*t at your job (or at least why you are bad at interviews) rather than blaming some gender quota bogeymen (or women!).

Are we still talking about a hypothetical scenario or is that directed at me because you think i'm a college graduate with a chip on my shoulder?

the-island-man

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

You could still apply to the 66% of the sector available to your gender?

I think you're mixing up a gender target on the percentage of applicants for a role with a gender target on the company's employees. You're assuming that more than 66% of the existing employees in the company are not already the same gender as you!

Dodge

the-island-man wrote: »

I think you're mixing up a gender target on the percentage of applicants for a role with a gender target on the company's employees. You're assuming that more than 66% of the existing employees in the company are not already the same gender as you!

You’re getting angry about losing a mythical job to a woman in a company that doesn’t exist. You need to calm down mate

km991148

the-island-man wrote: »

Are we still talking about a hypothetical scenario or is that directed at me because you think i'm a college graduate with a chip on my shoulder?

The whole post was about quota Vs target (because you flip between these words).

The part you quoted was a generalisation, but I didn't want to quote you because it wasn't specifically directed at you.

Of course, now that you have said that, I am of course wondering if you do actually have a chip on your shoulder (but I didn't really think you did until you said those words!).

km991148

Anyway.. about the topic at hand.. I have a problem with this type of positive discrimination (or generally affirmative action) because of threads like this... i.e. pitting different groups against each other doesn't help matters (or it helps one group in particular, and it's probably not who you think it is).

the-island-man

km991148 wrote: »

The whole post was about quota Vs target (because you flip between these words).

The part you quoted was a generalisation, but I didn't want to quote you because it wasn't specifically directed at you.

Of course, now that you have said that, I am of course wondering if you do actually have a chip on your shoulder (but I didn't really think you did until you said those words!).

I concede that I messed up the title of the thread. It should be target and not quota.

No chip on the shoulder. Been employed for over 10 years since graduating in a number of different companies. Never been out of work other than by choice but also this trend of setting targets is relatively new.

the-island-man

km991148 wrote: »

Anyway.. about the topic at hand.. I have a problem with this type of positive discrimination (or generally affirmative action) because of threads like this... i.e. pitting different groups against each other doesn't help matters (or it helps one group in particular, and it's probably not who you think it is).

That term is giving the game away. I know it's not you that came up with it but imagine if someone came up with the term positive racism!

km991148

the-island-man wrote: »

That term is giving the game away. I know it's not you that came up with it but imagine if someone came up with the term positive racism!

It does appear to be an oxymoron for sure! But obviously context is key and discrimination isn't equatable to racism in that context - but that term is jarring a bit.

Of course its only one subset of "affirmative" action - and all of them are problematic in one way or another.

AndrewJRenko

the-island-man wrote: »

That term is giving the game away. I know it's not you that came up with it but imagine if someone came up with the term positive racism!

You might want to read up on "positive action" as set out in legislation.

Though you seem generally determined to keep this as a fact free discussion.

Outkast_IRE

Reminds me of the female only STEM professorships in universities even though in areas like engineering for alot of degrees they may only be 10% of the student intake.

Best person for the job should get the job. I work in an international engineering consultancy who love to see themselves as " woke" and they have specifically been trying to hire female engineers for years now best person for the job or not. If a job came down to a male and female and the manager hired the male they would get an interrogation afterwards from the top levels of the company.

km991148

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Reminds me of the female only STEM professorships in universities even though in areas like engineering for alot of degrees they may only be 10% of the student intake.

Best person for the job should get the job. I work in an international engineering consultancy who love to see themselves as " woke" and they have specifically been trying to hire female engineers for years now best person for the job or not.

I think its dangerous to start bandying about the word "woke" like this.
I also find it hard to believe they are hiring or attempting to hire women who cannot do the job.

Do you have a problem with generally with trying to get more women into engineering, or is it the methodology - your post is lacking in detail here and it could be confused with a general rant.

the-island-man

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You might want to read up on "positive action" as set out in legislation.

Though you seem generally determined to keep this as a fact free discussion.

Where in my post did I mention Positive Action? I was talking about the term Positive Discrimination. You seem determined to try skew everything that somebody who disagrees with you says. You refused to answer earlier in the thread what you're background or experiences were.

Flinty997

the-island-man wrote: »

...it will no doubt achieve the aim of leveling the playing field but at an individual role level it will surely result in discrimination against men and the successful candidate will not always be the best person for the role...

Leveling the playing field is entirely the point.

In fairness most jobs most of the applicants can do the job.

Consider, if a place if operating this policy, if you did end up working there your promotion opportunities would be very limited. Unless of course you can stand out as being much better than everyone else.

JustAThought

Lets just hope female quotas don’t get muddied up with : a man in a dress, a man that wants to he a woman but isn’t, a man that will say he is really a woman or identifies in his head as one to get that job or visa to work.

Maybe we should be also talking about the inevitable disruption and pressure this put on colleagues when the inevitable happens - maternity leave and maternity cover. Fine in theory but creates chaos in business and in projects and inevitably leave someone else shouldering the cost, training, longer hours or workload while someone else is looked for who might be able be jigsawed into the project/team - and then back out again while the ‘old’ sleep deprived 6 month out of date and baby focused employee is hammered back in again. Always running of at precisely 5 o’clock to the creche - while their team have to pick up their slack and compensate for their absence and deficits.

Flinty997

I've seen obvious positive discrimination twice in my working life. Once it was between 3 candidates and they picked the only one who didn't have qualifications and experience.

The other was where very weak candidates were promoted to project management. Eventually 9 out over 11 project managers were women. Some were excellent, but about 50% struggled badly in the role.

But you have to get on with it.

km991148

JustAThought wrote: »

Lets just hope female quotas don’t get muddied up with : a man in a dress, a man that wants to he a woman but isn’t, a man that will say he is really a woman or identifies in his head as one to get that job or visa to work.

Maybe we should be also talking about the inevitable disruption and pressure this put on colleagues when the inevitable happens - maternity leave and maternity cover. Fine in theory but creates chaos in business and in projects and inevitably leave someone else shouldering the cost, training, longer hours or workload while someone else is looked for who might be able be jigsawed into the project/team - and then back out again while the ‘old’ sleep deprived 6 month out of date and baby focused employee is hammered back in again. Always running of at precisely 5 o’clock to the creche - while their team have to pick up their slack and compensate for their absence and deficits.

Sounds like you need a new job tbh

Basically you are saying no women at all in the workplace? Including a rant about trans people - nice!

the-island-man

JustAThought wrote: »

Lets just hope female quotas don’t get muddied up with : a man in a dress, a man that wants to he a woman but isn’t, a man that will say he is really a woman or identifies in his head as one to get that job or visa to work.

Maybe we should be also talking about the inevitable disruption and pressure this put on colleagues when the inevitable happens - maternity leave and maternity cover. Fine in theory but creates chaos in business and in projects and inevitably leave someone else shouldering the cost, training, longer hours or workload while someone else is looked for who might be able be jigsawed into the project/team - and then back out again while the ‘old’ sleep deprived 6 month out of date and baby focused employee is hammered back in again. Always running of at precisely 5 o’clock to the creche - while their team have to pick up their slack and compensate for their absence and deficits.

Most of that sounds like an organisational issue rather than the persons fault? Scraping by with the bare minimum number of Employees? Also it's a reality that we've a small population with a declining birth rate and it's been well documented that there is a shortfall of funding for our pension system. Unfortunately it would seem like we have to do everything we can to encourage people to have children.

Im about as happy at the idea of women getting jobs based on their gender as any fella is

In practice ive never seen a woman appointed to a role purely because she was a woman

Ive seen women appointed to roles i didnt think they merited, alright. Couldnt say it was anything to do with their gender.

Matter of fact, id reckon ive seen it happen at about the same rate that ive observed it in fellas.

I dont think hard gender quotas will ever actually come in and be enforced in any way that wouldnt immediately risk disaster for the company/industry in question, but either way treating the question like the boogeyman under the bed is a strange impulse imo.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Gender disparities tend to be down to systemic bias more than ability.

There you go again, making a bald claim as if it is proven fact. It reminds me of those proclaiming the tenets of critical race theory. Have you got actual scientific proof that ''systemic bias'' produces gender disparity?

Systemic bias is a corporate jargon type term - it basically means that men (presumably, being the gender most represented) are looking down upon or are somehow secretly contemptuous of women in their profession. Who are these system-infiltrating Neanderthals? I think they are a fantasy. Or rare throwbacks.

There was certainly archaic behaviour of this sort but genuinely - now genuinely I mean this - I do not come across this behaviour in real life nowadays. If anything people are careful to bend over backwards in the opposite direction.

I have been hiring for companies which do work in male-dominated professions that often require hard physical labour and the bosses genuinely never have enquired of me as to the sex of candidates - it is the best qualified people who get a shot. Full stop. Gender has never been mentioned.
I have sons working in highly technical difficult scientific and IT areas and when I have enquired if the females in study or work environments with them have trouble advancing, their completely ingenuous response is the women they work with are just awesome and brilliant, why would they have issues.
Their eyebrows-raised attitude is why would I presume there is stone age level thinking still existing.
Sure, the university courses originally may not have attracted as many females to study the subjects - but that is personal choice - unless you think there is systemic bias breathing down people's necks when they fill in their CAO forms, or make their subject choices in schools. Girls can do physics, higher level maths, woodwork, metalwork, etc from 12 years old. The most brilliant physics student in our whole town 35 years ago was a girl, and she went up to the boys school to do her classes simply because none of the rest of us wanted to do physics. But 35 years ago she was completely facilitated to follow her talent.

I don't understand all this grievance manufacturing.

Flinty997

JustAThought wrote: »

Lets just hope female quotas don’t get muddied up with : a man in a dress, a man that wants to he a woman but isn’t, a man that will say he is really a woman or identifies in his head as one to get that job or visa to work.

Maybe we should be also talking about the inevitable disruption and pressure this put on colleagues when the inevitable happens - maternity leave and maternity cover. Fine in theory but creates chaos in business and in projects and inevitably leave someone else shouldering the cost, training, longer hours or workload while someone else is looked for who might be able be jigsawed into the project/team - and then back out again while the ‘old’ sleep deprived 6 month out of date and baby focused employee is hammered back in again. Always running of at precisely 5 o’clock to the creche - while their team have to pick up their slack and compensate for their absence and deficits.

Having kids is part of human society. Society breaks down if you don't support families, or people with long term illness, or illness etc. You're really talking about living to work vs working to live.

Flinty997

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...
Ive seen women appointed to roles i didnt think they merited, alright. Couldnt say it was anything to do with their gender.

Matter of fact, id reckon ive seen it happen at about the same rate that ive observed it in fellas.

....

You'd only notice if the gender balance was way over 50% in an area that isn't normally thatb skewed. Like IT can be 50:50. Construction mostly men, HR mostly women. (Sweeping generalizing).

The odd strange appointment you assume it's the usual office politics etc.

km991148

isha wrote: »

There you go again, making a bald claim as if it is proven fact. It reminds me of those proclaiming the tenets of critical race theory. Have you got actual scientific proof that ''systemic bias'' produces gender disparity?

Systemic bias is a corporate jargon type term - it basically means that men (presumably, being the gender most represented) are looking down upon or are somehow secretly contemptuous of women in their profession. Who are these system-infiltrating Neanderthals? I think they are a fantasy. Or rare throwbacks.

There was certainly archaic behaviour of this sort but genuinely - now genuinely I mean this - I do not come across this behaviour in real life nowadays. If anything people are careful to bend over backwards in the opposite direction.

I have been hiring for companies which do work in male-dominated professions that often require hard physical labour and the bosses genuinely never have enquired of me as to the sex of candidates - it is the best qualified people who get a shot. Full stop. Gender has never been mentioned.
I have sons working in highly technical difficult scientific and IT areas and when I have enquired if the females in study or work environments with them have trouble advancing, their completely ingenuous response is the women they work with are just awesome and brilliant, why would they have issues.
Their eyebrows-raised attitude is why would I presume there is stone age level thinking still existing.
Sure, the university courses originally may not have attracted as many females to study the subjects - but that is personal choice - unless you think there is systemic bias breathing down people's necks when they fill in their CAO forms, or make their subject choices in schools. Girls can do physics, higher level maths, woodwork, metalwork, etc from 12 years old. The most brilliant physics student in our whole town 35 years ago was a girl, and she went up to the boys school to do her classes simply because none of the rest of us wanted to do physics. But 35 years ago she was completely facilitated to follow her talent.

I don't understand all this grievance manufacturing.

A bunch if anecdotes doesn't count much for evidence either tho and doesn't really get us far. For every story you tell of your son(s) in IT I'm sure I could counter with blatant sexism - and sure I think the females are just awesome as well - this doesn't mean I am pro "positive discrimination" or any other such bollocks - just that it's counterproductive.

Regarding this point tho:

I have been hiring for companies which do work in male-dominated professions that often require hard physical labour and the bosses genuinely never have enquired of me as to the sex of candidates - it is the best qualified people who get a shot. Full stop. Gender has never been mentioned.

You can't really use a negative like this to prove the point either - sure if I didn't want a woman doing a hard physical job (or any job) - I'm not going to tell be daft enough you that, am I? So unless you actively do something (and again, I am not pushing for targets, quotas or any kind of discrimination), then how would you know?

hots

Equality of opportunity not equality of outcome imo, if a company is hiring 10:90 from a pool that is 50:50 then they have the problem (and that problem should be fixed by removing barriers/biases - not introducing new ones), if they are hiring 10:90 from a pool that's 10:90 then the pool might have the problem and need to remove any barriers to entry and ask the question of why it's so skewed.

And I've been in hiring cases where any close calls we were strongly encouraged to remember our diversity targets and make selections based on that, large MNC, 25/30 people given the same instruction for the hiring process - in case a specific example makes my opinion more acceptable.

Smee_Again

JustAThought wrote: »

Lets just hope female quotas don’t get muddied up with : a man in a dress, a man that wants to he a woman but isn’t, a man that will say he is really a woman or identifies in his head as one to get that job or visa to work.

Maybe we should be also talking about the inevitable disruption and pressure this put on colleagues when the inevitable happens - maternity leave and maternity cover. Fine in theory but creates chaos in business and in projects and inevitably leave someone else shouldering the cost, training, longer hours or workload while someone else is looked for who might be able be jigsawed into the project/team - and then back out again while the ‘old’ sleep deprived 6 month out of date and baby focused employee is hammered back in again. Always running of at precisely 5 o’clock to the creche - while their team have to pick up their slack and compensate for their absence and deficits.

Running out the door at 5 o'clock isn't a negative, doesn't matter the reason. If you don't value your time that's your problem.

the-island-man

hots wrote: »

And I've been in hiring cases where any close calls we were strongly encouraged to remember our diversity targets and make selections based on that, large MNC, 25/30 people given the same instruction for the hiring process - in case a specific example makes my opinion more acceptable.

Stuff like this. It will never be written down in black & white but it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. I was in an MNC until recently. I Decided to apply for parental leave for one day a week. Was told in a private meeting by my manager that the director may not approve it. When I asked why, he told me it was because I would be the first man to apply for it. Despite multiple women in the company in similar roles having parental leave for one day a week.

Treppen

the-island-man wrote: »

Stuff like this. It will never be written down in black & white but it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. I was in an MNC until recently. I Decided to apply for parental leave for one day a week. Was told in a private meeting by my manager that the director may not approve it. When I asked why, he told me it was because I would be the first man to apply for it. Despite multiple women in the company in similar roles having parental leave for one day a week.

I think you can be refused parental leave the first time but nt the second,

the-island-man

Treppen wrote: »

I think you can be refused parental leave the first time but nt the second,

Oh it was approved but I had to point out to my manager what he was suggesting was discriminatory and he rowed back on what he said fairly quick.

Nermal

hots wrote: »

if they are hiring 10:90 from a pool that's 10:90 then the pool might have the problem

Why is the 'pool' being 10:90 a problem in the first place?

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont think hard gender quotas will ever actually come in and be enforced in any way

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/twenty-women-only-professorships-to-be-established-this-year-1.4128975

AndrewJRenko

the-island-man wrote: »

Where in my post did I mention Positive Action? I was talking about the term Positive Discrimination. You seem determined to try skew everything that somebody who disagrees with you says. You refused to answer earlier in the thread what you're background or experiences were.

That's exactly why I suggested you read up on Positive Action in legislation. Positive action is legal. Positive discrimination on grounds of gender is illegal. Any business that tried to discriminate positively towards women would be breaching the law, and would end up paying out large sums for discrimination claims. Positive action measures are fairly soft measures - encouraging, supporting, creating links with schools and colleges, access programmes.

They do not involve giving preference to lower ranked female candidates at interview - that would be illegal.

There are a very small number of exceptions to this, about 20 academic professor posts around the country on subjects where females have low representation.

So again, please do some reading up so you understand what is legal and what is illegal.

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Reminds me of the female only STEM professorships in universities even though in areas like engineering for alot of degrees they may only be 10% of the student intake.

Best person for the job should get the job. I work in an international engineering consultancy who love to see themselves as " woke" and they have specifically been trying to hire female engineers for years now best person for the job or not. If a job came down to a male and female and the manager hired the male they would get an interrogation afterwards from the top levels of the company.

If the situation you describe does happen, the employer will find themselves making substantial payouts to discrimination claims at the Workplace Relations Commission before too long.

Flinty997 wrote: »

Leveling the playing field is entirely the point.

In fairness most jobs most of the applicants can do the job.

Consider, if a place if operating this policy, if you did end up working there your promotion opportunities would be very limited. Unless of course you can stand out as being much better than everyone else.

What policy are you referring to there? I ask specifically, because on this thread, people seem to be fairly confused about what policies are actually in place.
[

Flinty997 wrote: »

I've seen obvious positive discrimination twice in my working life. Once it was between 3 candidates and they picked the only one who didn't have qualifications and experience.

The other was where very weak candidates were promoted to project management. Eventually 9 out over 11 project managers were women. Some were excellent, but about 50% struggled badly in the role.

But you have to get on with it.

The best PMs I've ever seen were working mums with young kids who were utterly focused on making the most of every hour they spent at work, utterly focused on getting their job done without any BS or networking or dragging the lads off for lunch.

If the first situation happened as you described, the company was exposing itself to serious financial penalties through discrimination claims.

AndrewJRenko

the-island-man wrote: »

Stuff like this. It will never be written down in black & white but it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. I was in an MNC until recently. I Decided to apply for parental leave for one day a week. Was told in a private meeting by my manager that the director may not approve it. When I asked why, he told me it was because I would be the first man to apply for it. Despite multiple women in the company in similar roles having parental leave for one day a week.

Sounds like you're working for a fairly crap employer, if this is the case. Honestly, it seems unlikely that you'd be the first male to apply for parental leave in any organisation, given that this right has existed for more than 20 years now. But if it is the case, you might want to consider getting representation or joining a union or just making a bit of a fuss within your organisation. Parental leave is a legal entitlement.

Deleted User wrote: »

Im about as happy at the idea of women getting jobs based on their gender as any fella is

This doesn't happen.

JustAThought wrote: »

Lets just hope female quotas don’t get muddied up with : a man in a dress, a man that wants to he a woman but isn’t, a man that will say he is really a woman or identifies in his head as one to get that job or visa to work.

Maybe we should be also talking about the inevitable disruption and pressure this put on colleagues when the inevitable happens - maternity leave and maternity cover. Fine in theory but creates chaos in business and in projects and inevitably leave someone else shouldering the cost, training, longer hours or workload while someone else is looked for who might be able be jigsawed into the project/team - and then back out again while the ‘old’ sleep deprived 6 month out of date and baby focused employee is hammered back in again. Always running of at precisely 5 o’clock to the creche - while their team have to pick up their slack and compensate for their absence and deficits.

You might want to read up on parental leave and paternity leave entitlements.

Nermal

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Positive discrimination on grounds of gender is illegal.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There are a very small number of exceptions to this, about 20 academic professor posts around the country on subjects where females have low representation.

The Red Queen of boards here, capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast.

Flinty997

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

....
What policy are you referring to there? I ask specifically, because on this thread, people seem to be fairly confused about what policies are actually in place.
....

No idea if it was an official policy.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

....
The best PMs I've ever seen were working mums with young kids ...

I don't think it has anything to do with having kids.

If someone is a good PM, they are a good PM regardless.

Flinty997

Nermal wrote: »

Why is the 'pool' being 10:90 a problem in the first place?...

Well its historical exists so it what we have to work with.
The idea is to make it more fair.

AndrewJRenko

Nermal wrote: »

The Red Queen of boards here, capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast.

What's impossible about having a tiny number of exceptions? They tend to happen in the real world.

A small number of fully vaccinated people are still getting infected with Covid.

hots

Nermal wrote: »

Why is the 'pool' being 10:90 a problem in the first place?

I had 'might' in there deliberately, it might not be a problem, but I'd want to be looking into the reasons for the disparity, if there's nothing untoward going on and everyone is getting the same chance and same push to take that path and it's still 90:10 then happy days...

the-island-man

Here is a pretty interesting read. A fair and balanced article from the Harvard Business Review:
https://hbr.org/2013/10/the-trouble-with-gender-targets

and before AndrewJRenko comes back stating that it's an article written in the American context I would like to say that I don't agree with him. We are one of the biggest beneficiaries from US Foreign Direct Investment in Europe and I don't agree that U.S workplace culture doesn't at least permeate into American MNC's based in Ireland. I think most people who have worked in MNC's would agree that most of the culture comes from the mothership!

the-island-man

km991148 wrote: »

It does appear to be an oxymoron for sure! But obviously context is key and discrimination isn't equatable to racism in that context - but that term is jarring a bit.

Of course its only one subset of "affirmative" action - and all of them are problematic in one way or another.

Upon thinking about this I'm not so sure it isn't equatable in this context? The larger "diversity" mantra which a lot of "progressive" companies are trying to follow could be described as "positive racism" against Caucasians just that they found a better label for it?!

Fred Cryton

Gender quotas imply with absolute certainty that the quality of the hire will go down. This can be proved mathematically by looking at a) the pool of women interested in a field, for example only 20% of STEM graduates are female, and b) by looking at the distribution of intelligence. The male IQ distirbution has much fatter tails at the extremes. When we look at the 99 percentile of intelligence, men outnumber women by around 9 to 1. So is it any wonder that CEOs and top engineering jobs will be held by men. This is the reality of the situation. Wishful thinking won't change that.

km991148

the-island-man wrote: »

Upon thinking about this I'm not so sure it isn't equatable in this context? The larger "diversity" mantra which a lot of "progressive" companies are trying to follow could be described as "positive racism" against Caucasians just that they found a better label for it?!

Well if you really want to switch gears to race then this type of policy generally benefits the white population. Keeping everyone divided and fighting it out etc

km991148

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Gender quotas imply with absolute certainty that the quality of the hire will go down. This can be proved mathematically by looking at a) the pool of women interested in a field, for example only 20% of STEM graduates are female, and b) by looking at the distribution of intelligence. The male IQ distirbution has much fatter tails at the extremes. When we look at the 99 percentile of intelligence, men outnumber women by around 9 to 1. So is it any wonder that CEOs and top engineering jobs will be held by men. This is the reality of the situation. Wishful thinking won't change that.

None of what you wrote is backed up by any mathematical proof that you offered..

Too many variables and untested assumptions there, including, but not limited to:
-Reasons behind why STEM numbers are lower for women
-How quality is measured, does raw intelligence equate to 'better' in general? Even in engineering Christ, even measuring intelligence is not a simple task!)?
-Assuming the top CEO job is related to ability (it's by far not the sole requirement).

This is the reality of the situation.

Smee_Again

Fred Cryton wrote: »

So is it any wonder that CEOs and top engineering jobs will be held by men.

Probably more to do with increased rates of psychopathic tendencies in men.

Outkast_IRE

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If the situation you describe does happen, the employer will find themselves making substantial payouts to discrimination claims at the Workplace Relations Commission before too long.

How would you expect this to happen , the other candidates will never know and management will all be very careful with any notes or documentation.

Buddy Bubs

It's nearly all just paying lip service to the quotas, for a press release or a tweet or something. Best people get the jobs and that's that.
Huge amount of jobs women don't want to do but they are being told they should be pursuing these careers.

the-island-man

Smee_Again wrote: »

Probably more to do with increased rates of psychopathic tendencies in men.

References to any studies to back that statement up?