Male and Female in Top Jobs? 50% or Merit?

Forums › Off topic › Male and Female in Top Jobs? 50% or Merit?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2051262 7-Jul-2018 22:41

One thing I have noticed is that almost all debate on this subject is one sided. That is to say, we here much about why women are "under-represented" in (usually) well paid, middle class jobs. We hear very little about fields where men are under-represented, nor see many plans to remedy that...

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2051266 7-Jul-2018 23:03

This thread is drawing out the usual types and the gorgeously Victorian attitudes, along with the simplistic answers for everything.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2051280 8-Jul-2018 08:21

Geektastic:

One thing I have noticed is that almost all debate on this subject is one sided. That is to say, we here much about why women are "under-represented" in (usually) well paid, middle class jobs. We hear very little about fields where men are under-represented, nor see many plans to remedy that...

That's not really true. There's been plenty of concern expressed about the low number of male teachers in schools - particularly at primary level. Nursing too.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2051357 8-Jul-2018 10:57

Fred99:

MileHighKiwi:

It has to be merit.

Yeah for sure!

Oh wait - who decides what those specific meritorious attributes are?

(it is not that simple)

It's also based on an assumption that a meritocratic system based on competition rewarding "winners" disproportionately is beneficial for all.

Who decides: the employer. It is that simple. That may not be the best thing for society, but that isn't the employers objective. The shareholders, directors and executive decide a companies objectives (for better or worse). Companies don't exist for the benefit of society, they exist for the benefit of shareholders

NGOs, and government organisations are different. According to the Minister for Women (interviewed on The Nation this morning) women now occupy about 45% of positions on state boards and in the top three tiers of government departments. So the govt is nearly there (assuming 50% is the target).

Mike

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 298
Inactive user

#2051367 8-Jul-2018 11:14

MingBNZ: Dude I am debating. You said there are fewer female company directors because women make themselves ineligible by having children. I’m asking what part of having children makes a person ineligible to be considered for a company directorship. I suggested a couple of reasons and pointed out that these reasons apply equally to professional rugby players. So my question is how are mothers less eligible for the role simply because they are mothers?

I imagine the part where they cannot manage the time demands a director's role involves. If you're interested, take a look at the hours per week the directors of (especially large) private firms work (hint: easily an average of 60+) and then try to reconcile that with the time demands of raising children.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2051369 8-Jul-2018 11:20

UHD:

I imagine the part where they cannot manage the time demands a director's role involves. If you're interested, take a look at the hours per week the directors of (especially large) private firms work (hint: easily an average of 60+) and then try to reconcile that with the time demands of raising children.

Maternity wouldn't stop a person getting one directorship. If a director is working 60+ hours per week they have multiple directorships. One directorship doesn't require that much work. A directorship is very much part time.

Something I think companies that want to imp4ove diversity should utilise is associate directorships. They are a way for people to get boardroom expertise and if they like it ready themselves for being a director, without having the actual responsibility.

Mike

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

vulcannz

436 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 136
Inactive user

#2051370 8-Jul-2018 11:21

dejadeadnz: This thread is drawing out the usual types and the gorgeously Victorian attitudes, along with the simplistic answers for everything.

Well it is simplistic statements that are made. Simply stating that women are underrepresented because "men" is about is simplistic as it gets.

For publicly listed company boards we'd need to see the reasons why. Equal opportunity has been part of the law for a long time. There is no data around how many women apply for these roles and whether their skill set is appropriate/relevant to the role.

It is also incredibly sexist, as it assumes men do not have the appropriate skills and are getting the jobs simply because they are men. Yet AFAIK in the last 50 years there have been zero employment targets in the government or private sector to target a 50% male employment level, despite some sectors such as education and healthcare being dominated by women.

MingBNZ

4 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 4

#2051374 8-Jul-2018 11:28

UHD:
MingBNZ: Dude I am debating. You said there are fewer female company directors because women make themselves ineligible by having children. I’m asking what part of having children makes a person ineligible to be considered for a company directorship. I suggested a couple of reasons and pointed out that these reasons apply equally to professional rugby players. So my question is how are mothers less eligible for the role simply because they are mothers?

I imagine the part where they cannot manage the time demands a director's role involves. If you're interested, take a look at the hours per week the directors of (especially large) private firms work (hint: easily an average of 60+) and then try to reconcile that with the time demands of raising children.

Are you saying that no directors can be parents if the demands of raising children are so onerous? Not even the dads?

Regardless a directorship is a governance position, not management and it is common for people to hold multiple directorships simultaneously even alongside other employment. In fact is perfect for someone who has to juggle multiple responsibilities.

MingBNZ

4 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 4

#2051379 8-Jul-2018 11:32

vulcannz:
dejadeadnz: This thread is drawing out the usual types and the gorgeously Victorian attitudes, along with the simplistic answers for everything.

Well it is simplistic statements that are made. Simply stating that women are underrepresented because "men" is about is simplistic as it gets.

For publicly listed company boards we'd need to see the reasons why. Equal opportunity has been part of the law for a long time. There is no data around how many women apply for these roles and whether their skill set is appropriate/relevant to the role.

It is also incredibly sexist, as it assumes men do not have the appropriate skills and are getting the jobs simply because they are men. Yet AFAIK in the last 50 years there have been zero employment targets in the government or private sector to target a 50% male employment level, despite some sectors such as education and healthcare being dominated by women.

Perhaps part of the reason that women are under represented in management and governance positions is because some men assume that women who are parents do not have the capacity to take on high level roles. The OP said women who are parents are ineligible to be directors, you said that women who are parents do not have time to work 60 hours a week. It may not be the only reason but I do not doubt it is a factor.

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 298
Inactive user

#2051529 8-Jul-2018 15:36

MikeAqua:

UHD:

I imagine the part where they cannot manage the time demands a director's role involves. If you're interested, take a look at the hours per week the directors of (especially large) private firms work (hint: easily an average of 60+) and then try to reconcile that with the time demands of raising children.

Maternity wouldn't stop a person getting one directorship. If a director is working 60+ hours per week they have multiple directorships. One directorship doesn't require that much work. A directorship is very much part time.

Something I think companies that want to imp4ove diversity should utilise is associate directorships. They are a way for people to get boardroom expertise and if they like it ready themselves for being a director, without having the actual responsibility.

If you're talking about being part of an external (as opposed to internal and dealing with the day to day) board member then perhaps not. However, you are quite unlikely to attract employment as an external director of any major company without first being a part of senior management (and therefore easily working 60+ hours a week) or already holding a number of external board positions.

You also forget that raising children does not begin and end with the human gestation cycle. It is a rather involved process and can last a number of years. Depending on your personal decisions things like childcare and family/babysitters can enable both parents to continue working but for both to remain working 60+ hour weeks is unlikely.

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 298
Inactive user

#2051538 8-Jul-2018 16:02

MingBNZ:

Are you saying that no directors can be parents if the demands of raising children are so onerous? Not even the dads?

No. Given the fact that a number of parents are currently directors that is obviously not the case nor at all what I wrote in the first place.

MingBNZ:

Regardless a directorship is a governance position, not management and it is common for people to hold multiple directorships simultaneously even alongside other employment. In fact is perfect for someone who has to juggle multiple responsibilities.

Actually, there are several types of directors within the business world. Internal directors are definitely full time, hands on positions which involve the day to day management of the company (think CFO, etc...) and external directors can at times be positions that occupy less time. The reality is, no one is hired as an external director unless they are already holding other directorships or they have been involved in senior management for a significant period of time.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2051539 8-Jul-2018 16:02

And no-one questions whether working 60+ hours a week is a normal, healthy thing to do, or whether a job that requires this should cause the company involved to be made criminally liable for imposing inhuman working conditions?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 298
Inactive user

#2051541 8-Jul-2018 16:06

Rikkitic:

And no-one questions whether working 60+ hours a week is a normal, healthy thing to do, or whether a job that requires this should cause the company involved to be made criminally liable for imposing inhuman working conditions?

That is not the question of this thread nor is trying to deny the reality that certain positions require a significant commitment.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2051543 8-Jul-2018 16:32

Correct, but I think it is relevant when discussing apparent sex disparities in high level positions. I would add that I don't think 60 or more hours is necessarily excessive for a business owner trying to build something up, but it is a lot for an employee.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2051624 8-Jul-2018 18:30

Rikkitic:

I would add that I don't think 60 or more hours is necessarily excessive for a business owner trying to build something up, but it is a lot for an employee.

I actually do think it's excessive - unless occasional / due to intermittent demand.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5