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

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#238204 6-Jul-2018 18:21

I didnt put this in Politics so it gets wider coverage.

To me its merit, end of story, close the thread please! I dont even know why this is an issue.

Currently One News says its 45% someone said it needs to be 50%, I just caught the end off the clip.

Why does it need to be 50%? I think 45% is great. Most males are eligible. Many females have children, so the 50% of females gets reduced, so by my off the cuff calculations, the gals are doing really well.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

4336 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2072

#2050770 6-Jul-2018 18:40

it shouldn't matter as long as the best person has the job.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2050777 6-Jul-2018 18:58

vexxxboy:

it shouldn't matter as long as the best person has the job.

Agree, but the history says otherwise. Its all about equality apparently. Much like when South Africa decided it needs x% of black players. So for them it was about equality and not about sport. I guess these thing fill space in papers and websites, and give activists something to do.

hio77

'That VDSL Cat'
13036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3896

ID Verified

Trusted

Lizard Networks

Subscriber

#2050794 6-Jul-2018 19:15

i support that there should be equality.

However, i don't support it at the expense of everything else in order to reach a metric.

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

vulcannz

436 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 136
Inactive user

#2050822 6-Jul-2018 20:26

Is this is about Julie Anne Genters rabid comments about directors and boards?

Two things, you have equal opportunity and equal outcomes. Equal opportunity is where everyone gets a fair crack at the job - no matter gender/race/age/etc, and whomever best fits the role gets it. Equal outcomes is where you force a proportion of people - where someone may be hired because of their sex rather than their capabilities/merit. We want equal opportunity - not equal outcomes. Equal outcomes is essentially a form of sexism/racism etc.

The second problem we have is NZ has a lot of diverse companies, we have:

- 362,000 companies with zero employees. So the directors of these companies are probably a single owner /+ accountant

- there are 140,000 with less than 20 employees. So once again likely to be owner/directors

So screaming that we need more company directors and boards to be 50% female just doesn't work as a lot of them are owner/operator directors. Unless we have a massive wave of women starting their own businesses this isn't going to change.

But I suppose this kind of ignorance is to be expected by some young greenie yank who wasn't actually representing an electorate nor voted in by an electorate.

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#2050828 6-Jul-2018 20:39

Looks like a new policy tdgeek saw on the one news today:

Link to policy announcement and stats data:

http://women.govt.nz/news/more-women-public-boards

corksta

2405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 382

Trusted

Subscriber

#2050865 6-Jul-2018 22:25

Everything should be based on merit.

Personally in my job I couldn’t care less if my supervisor is a male or female. As long as they are the best person for the job then gender is irrelevant.

Meeting a gender based target does not necessarily equate with competence or capability.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2050875 6-Jul-2018 22:49

I find this drive to create outcomes based on any one factor to equality sickening.

I support anyone being able to put their name forward for a job, man women or otherwise. I 100% only support hiring the best person for the job. I don't care about gender for that.

I consider it madness to even consider hiring a particular gender for a particular role, gender shouldn't be a factor.

Journeyman

1205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1236

#2050904 7-Jul-2018 01:16

vulcannz:

So screaming that we need more company directors and boards to be 50% female just doesn't work as a lot of them are owner/operator directors. Unless we have a massive wave of women starting their own businesses this isn't going to change.

I haven't looked into the detail around this, but I'm guessing Julie Anne Genter is referring to something like listed companies, rather than every company.

That said, I tend to agree with you. Especially when J.A.G. posts idiotic stuff like this:

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2050963 7-Jul-2018 09:29

Journeyman:

That said, I tend to agree with you. Especially when J.A.G. posts idiotic stuff like this:

What's idiotic about that?

It's only twitter - and it's actually a damned good question. Why the hell - when having a clean-out - did he end up following only men on twitter?

Edit to say hahahaha.

Sam had stated that his method to clean out people he followed was to unfollow anybody who tweeted anything. Based on gender difference in use of social media, women tended to self select themselves out at a faster rate than men - knock me down with a feather. I'm not signed up to twitter, only facebook. With a few exceptions, most of my male facebook friends seldom post anything, if I used Sam's method to cull my friend list, I think the same would happen. In the end I'd be left friends with a few male friends who don't seem to post anything at all, and some old fake accounts people set up for their now long dead cats etc.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2050966 7-Jul-2018 09:36

Fred99:

Journeyman:

That said, I tend to agree with you. Especially when J.A.G. posts idiotic stuff like this:

What's idiotic about that?

It's only twitter - and it's actually a damned good question. Why the hell - when having a clean-out - did he end up following only men on twitter?

Stop trolling Fred.

It is nobodies business as to who he follows on twitter. Maybe he also needs to have equal numbers of coffees with women as he does men. Clearly JAG is a man hater who will stop at nothing to push her own very skewed agenda. IMO having rules to ensure women get at least 50% of everything is clearly bias and should be illegal. Rules should be to ensure the best person gets the job throughout out public service.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2050969 7-Jul-2018 09:46

Pumpedd:

It is nobodies business as to who he follows on twitter.

You're wrong there. It's public information that people choose to make available to the public. If you don't like how that's being used - then do what Sam has done.

See my edit above - there's probably a very simple explanation. If there's gender imbalance as observed, asking why is a valid question. Even the probable answer (in that case possibly that women post more frequently on social media) kind of begs further question "why" - even if the answer doesn't matter to you.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#2050982 7-Jul-2018 10:23

I believe the argument about merit is a fake one, used to justify current practice. Females have been, and still are, discriminated against throughout their lives in a variety of ways. This is changing but people today are still affected by the practices of yesterday. The result is that there are always more men than women with the best CVs because men are given better opportunities to develop their careers and women have to be extra capable or extra lucky to reach the same levels. 'Merit' can be assessed in different ways. The current ones disadvantage women. It is a fake argument.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2051000 7-Jul-2018 11:28

Rikkitic:

I believe the argument about merit is a fake one, used to justify current practice. Females have been, and still are, discriminated against throughout their lives in a variety of ways. This is changing but people today are still affected by the practices of yesterday. The result is that there are always more men than women with the best CVs because men are given better opportunities to develop their careers and women have to be extra capable or extra lucky to reach the same levels. 'Merit' can be assessed in different ways. The current ones disadvantage women. It is a fake argument.

That is true as to history..no doubt there. It is more about the evolution of humans than anything else. Now I believe men are being discriminated against very clearly. A lot of public service jobs now must be women by decree. Public Servant CEO's have a mandate to appoint women, but no mandate to appoint men. This is clearly discrimination.

I strongly agree to equality, but not at any cost.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#2051006 7-Jul-2018 11:36

I agree that some men are being discriminated against in some situations. I think the argument for this is that it is a temporary measure to compensate for past discrimination against women, and once a fair balance is achieved it will no longer be necessary. I don't know if this is a good idea. It doesn't feel right to me. But I do think something has to be done to bring women to a genuinely equal footing with men, and if this is what it takes, then maybe it is a necessary evil.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2051009 7-Jul-2018 11:50

Fred99:

Pumpedd:

It is nobodies business as to who he follows on twitter.

You're wrong there. It's public information that people choose to make available to the public. If you don't like how that's being used - then do what Sam has done.

See my edit above - there's probably a very simple explanation. If there's gender imbalance as observed, asking why is a valid question. Even the probable answer (in that case possibly that women post more frequently on social media) kind of begs further question "why" - even if the answer doesn't matter to you.

Whether or not information is available to be seen publicly or not is irrelevant in this case. It is still not a Ministers role to judge on how many followers are what sex. It is typical of what is happening this generation. It is still nobodies business but Morgans on what sex his followees are. This is what is wrong with society these days. We judge a person on a small piece of irrelevant information that actually says nothing about the person.

Maybe we should reverse the same sex relationships Acts, as it is not right not to have a male and a female in that role.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5