Please point me to where I said women are worse at tech. They might be or they might be better at it, I actually don’t care. I think the best candidate should get the job, no matter their gender, skin color, whatever.
Well, I understood the following quote like you wanted to enforce it:
Do you have an example for this? This whole thread one side was arguing how men and women are so similar and most differences were only cultural. If we are so similar, how can an IT system be designed in way that suits men, but not women or the other way around (except maybe some Ovulation & Period Calendar or something similar). I don’t think men or women are the same, but for sure we are similar enough to use the same software for almost all purposes.
My understanding of a quota is rather “letting the discriminated gender get the job he/she is the most competent for, as some recruiters have a (un)conscious bias and will not hire objectively”
If we do not see women in certain management positions it is not because they are not capable, it is rather because do not even get a chance to prove themselves
And if a quota-woman happen to be a bad manager/leader, how will it be different from a bad male manager? Doesn’t this happen both ways?
Actually I am not in favour of quotas per se but I do not see any better solution nowadays given the circumstances
Manager nowadays are really stupid, they could hire women and pay them less, instead they decide to pay more for a men with the same skills just because they are men.
I call bullshit. Everybody has obstacles but if you are in a minority or feel discriminated, then you will see most of your obstacles as discrimination.
If you have the skills to become a CEO, you can as well fund your own company.
And I want a quota for bald people as well. I don’t feel represented enough.
Yes, I just wanted to write that. If you think women really only earn 80% of what men do, start a business and only hire women, pay them 90%. You will have a 10% edge over competition.
I wouldn’t go in this direction as I don’t think there’s a problem currently: we each display what informations about us we want to, no more, and no less. Gender should not become an important part of our persona unless we want to (and I mainly don’t see the point, except for these kinds of discussions).
It really is a cultural thing, and a shitty one at that, that cuts both ways. Part-time work can help work-life balance, and some (not all and probably not a majority, I’ll grant that) husbands/fathers would appreciate taking a more active part in the household life but that’s not always an option. Part-time work shouldn’t be weigthed with gender considerations, yet it is, and we should work on correcting it.
The SERI had organized an online event to inform and answer questions of Swiss candidates interested to apply for the ESA astronauts call. I find it interesting that one of the questions was “given equal competency, will a woman get selected prioritarily?” and the answer from the female ESA HR representative was in substance “you’re going to be thoroughly vetted, going through a battery of tests and assessments to determine if you are the best fit for the Agency: when all is said and done, there will be no “equal competency”, so, no.” I wish all companies had the same standards for hiring.
As a side anecdote, I think I’ve been met with the reverse situation: given what I know of our former female head of HR, I’m still not sure I’ve been hired purely based on competency and not because I was kind of more cute than the other candidates. My male colleague in a similar position but another department being pretty handsome too (Yes, I’m flattering myself), that gives me even more doubts about the situation.
Those would be illegal, same for policies that would discriminate against people doing military service. I have had talks with HR representatives openly stating that it’s difficult to hire a woman because you don’t know when she’ll go on maternity leave and you’ll have to replace her so, in practice, there are. The veil used to cover them can sometimes be very thin, and sometimes pretty subtle.
I stand with @Sandro , though, that other people are discriminated using the same tactics so that’s not an isolated problem and not the only one we should tackle if we’re at it.
Wholeheartedly.
Quotas are institutionalised discrimination.
That’s fighting (supposed) discrimination with other discrimination.
I think we can live very well with “male-biased” bookkeeping, chemical process control or network security appliance systems.
You’re having a preconceived notion and just take it from there.
I don’t want to live in a society where one gender is discriminated against.
Neither do I want to live in one where there is a presupposition that that’s the case.
Quotas are also a mere band-aid fix that don’t address any (supposed) underlying issue.
Agree (even if at least that raises consciousness). Then which better solutions do you propose to fight discriminations? There are a bunch of competent people who do not even get a chance to advance their careers, hope we can at least all agree with that. If not, no need to further talk.
I am surprised how afraid one can be if an incompetent woman got a job because of a quota. Please look at all the incompetent managers/politicians, no matter the gender, we already have in some companies. How many of them did get their job because they are just friends with someone. The fear is disproportional, do not get that
Quotas are necessary to flip the balance a bit, to achieve change a little bit faster. Quotas don’t mean that unqualified people will be hired, it may just take a bit longer to find someone, and it also prohibits easy hiring from within a network (I know a friend etc). Quotas are not bad if used properly.
I am not afraid of an incompetent woman getting the job. It’s about the principle: I’m against the government controlling the economic activity of people. If you believe women are being discriminated, treat the causes, not the symptoms.
By the way, I don’t appreciate how you twist our arguments and assign us some feelings that we didn’t express. And the ironic/cynical tone also does not help us to understand each other.
There need to be a fair and unbiased systems, criteria and standards for hiring and career advancement.
Sure, it likely won’t be perfect (but neither will a quota system be), as some people that make decisions may have preferences. Or prejudices. Sometimes unconsciously so.
And yes, in some organisation (or parts thereof) it could be difficult to institute. But these are the fair and just way to do it.
Sure - male and female. We can agree on that.
As for your “no further need to talk” comment, you are free to withdraw from the discussion anytime. I’ll speak my mind, within the rules and commonly accepted (n)etiquette.
If quotas were to be introduced by law, they would inevitably also apply to non-discriminatory businesses and sectors.
bojack beat me to it, but please don’t twist my words.
While I’m against incompetent people being hired, I’m not particularly afraid of women.
Again, we’re back at sound HR principles.
It’s not a fear about women getting hired.
It’s an aversion to institutionalising rules that I think are wrong and unfair - namely hiring people because of their gender.
How about we start with a 47% female quota in the air traffic control / safety or nuclear safety industries and associated regulatory institutions?
Someone less qualified than others will be hired. Somewhere.
It’s basically inevitable, if the principles of supply and demand are distorted.
And “taking just a bit longer to find someone” is just kicking the can somewhere else.
I did notice the word “easy” there - but “hiring friends” isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Quite the contrary. After all, an employee that knows his/her friends and their particular strengths and weaknesses seems to be in a very position to make a sound recommendation (if done consciously and responsibly).
If we agree that women and men (or, for example, people with different nationalities and/or migrant background) are “different” - or even just being treated differently - then I agree it can be beneficial to hire minority subjects. I do believe that there are can be substantial benefits of having diversity in teams and staff.
But hiring for diversity is an inherently biased decision and practice.
We shouldn’t pretend that it will (per se) achieve gender equality, let alone equal opportunity.
Are there any women that studied to become an air traffic controller and can’t find a job in that field? There are many that are experts in a field but can’t get ahead for abovementioned reasons, and it’s in those professions that I believe quotas may help
By reading and partipating to this forum, you confirm you have read and agree with the disclaimer presented on http://www.mustachianpost.com/
En lisant et participant à ce forum, tu confirmes avoir lu et être d'accord avec l'avis de dégagement de responsabilité présenté sur http://www.mustachianpost.com/fr/
Durch das Lesen und die Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestätigst du, dass du den auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ dargestellten Haftungsausschluss gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist.
