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

4 posts

Wannabe Geek

# 2051010 7-Jul-2018 11:53

3 people support this post

tdgeek:

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.

It's funny the things that bring you out of the woodwork but this argument compelled me to register.

I hate to break it to you but many males also have children so if this is the criteria that you are using to ascertain eligibility for a company directorship you've just excluded a group of men as well.

If what you meant to say was that women who have children are more likely to take time out of the workforce than men who have children then you are arguing that continuous experience is an overriding criteria. In this case you would always appoint a 60 year old over a 45 year old. Unless there is something specific about the act of giving birth that makes women less suitable to act as company directors. So can we find a group that take long periods out of the workforce and suffer physical injury yet are still well represented on NZ company boards? Why yes we can! Professional rugby players. Despite not being engaged in industry or the corporate world for much of their 20s and even 30s and some suffering multiple concussions (something far more likely to affect your analytical ability then pushing a baby out of your vagina) former professional rugby players are well represented on NZ's company boards.

So don't try and argue that women are underrepresented because they have children. This attitude that because a woman has taken a few months or years out to have children automatically places her at the back of the queue is exactly why quotas are needed.

gzt

10901 posts

Uber Geek

# 2051011 7-Jul-2018 11:54

tdgeek: 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.

Look at a recent private sector management report:

Women in business: beyond policy to progress: The survey results from New Zealand businesses in Grant Thornton International’s 2018 Women in Business research are dire. The female proportion of senior management teams has hit an all time low of 18% since the report began in 2004 (31%), compared to 20% in 2017. What is more discouraging is the marked increase in the number of businesses with no women in senior management roles at 56%, compared to 37% last year.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 2051018 7-Jul-2018 12:16

gzt:
tdgeek: 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.

Look at a recent private sector management report:

Women in business: beyond policy to progress: The survey results from New Zealand businesses in Grant Thornton International’s 2018 Women in Business research are dire. The female proportion of senior management teams has hit an all time low of 18% since the report began in 2004 (31%), compared to 20% in 2017. What is more discouraging is the marked increase in the number of businesses with no women in senior management roles at 56%, compared to 37% last year.

Maybe we should legislate everything...this is what it is coming to. Our PC society is crazy and it can only lead to bad things. Surely if you own a business it is your choice who you have on your board? Why would you want to own a business when all your decision making is legislated?

The JAG's of this world are so biased against men they risk screwing with society and damaging it beyond repair. Women have only really had equal choices in society in very recent times, and it will take time for the full effect to filter through to the private sector board room. Many many women own their own businesses now and only have women employees...is this right? My Doctors surgery is all women...6 women doctors, 3 women nurses and 2 women admin. They employ solely based on gender. IS this right? I still choose to attend this surgery yet I am a man.

Women in SOME areas are demanding equality to men, but they are not equal and the reverse applies I am sure.

da5id

552 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

# 2051054 7-Jul-2018 12:27

Jordan Peterson breaks it all down here very well. End main thing to point out is that even in politically correct "diverse" cultures, men still tend toward male-brained jobs like engineering, and women still tend toward female, people-oriented jobs such as nursing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TsF_SL_SSY

SpookyAwol

507 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 2051056 7-Jul-2018 12:32

3 people support this post

I wish to see 50% male teachers in school. Now. Thank you.

gzt

10901 posts

Uber Geek

# 2051058 7-Jul-2018 12:37

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

In USA for example where they clearly have some problems with racial discrimination it was found that when controlling for all other factors candidates with African American 'sounding' names on the CV had a much smaller chance of being selected for just the interview stage.

At the least it implies that some usa employers have preconceived ideas about african American candidates and apply a different standard to these cv's. Presumably an african american candidate unlucky to fall under this statistic would have to go one better just to get to the interview stage. Given there are also preconceptions in other areas I do wonder if something similar occurs.

A minimum step would be some kind of equality in the hiring process to ensure that all eligible candidates were in fact interviewed for a role.

Hammerer

1990 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 2051059 7-Jul-2018 12:39

One person supports this post

I hate discrimination = "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex".

But I love discrimination = "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another".

The arguments here are often about how we trade off one against the other given a lot of agreement that prejudice does exist. But we also have arguments - I'm particularly thinking of arguing that merit is a "fake argument" - that denigrate the more important discrimination that should produce better decisions and outcomes.

If our goal is to make a better society then I do not believe that enforcing discrimination on private organisations is the best way to do it because such coercive regulation will create more injustice. In practice, the current government is far more likely to take such a heavy-handed approach but the previous one basically neglected the real opportunity to make a positive difference in this area.

What I would be happier with is for the government to lead the way to show that it can be done without a negative impact on performance. I would add a major objective for state-owned organisations to appoint those who are more clearly able to introduce greater diversity in the boards they are on, i.e. apply this to all board members not just the board chairs. Those wanting state sinecures will get the message the fastest and that probably includes many of the MPs (present and retired) who are the biggest, most public and most influential old-boys network in NZ.

Rikkitic

Lock him up!
10665 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 2051070 7-Jul-2018 12:57

Hammerer:

What I would be happier with is for the government to lead the way to show that it can be done without a negative impact on performance. I would add a major objective for state-owned organisations to appoint those who are more clearly able to introduce greater diversity in the boards they are on, i.e. apply this to all board members not just the board chairs. Those wanting state sinecures will get the message the fastest and that probably includes many of the MPs (present and retired) who are the biggest, most public and most influential old-boys network in NZ.

Would not disagree with this. The problem with the merit argument is that in today's world, there are likely to be far more men than women with the 'best' qualifications, 'best' in this sense being mainly range and degree of prior relevant experience. If the choice is between a suitably qualified woman and a better qualified man, the man will usually get the tick, even though the woman could do the job perfectly well. The circle than becomes self-sustaining because the man will always have more opportunities to gain experience than the woman will.

An additional complicating factor is that psychopathy can make a candidate appear more appealing for many roles that reward an aggressive approach, and this is more likely to be a male quality.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

mattwnz

15145 posts

Uber Geek

# 2051073 7-Jul-2018 13:10

2 people support this post

Thinking out load. I think part of the problem is the 'ol' boys network', which can be pretty bad in NZ, and I think has partly led to the numbers. But promotion to these positions should all be about merit. Not everyone has kids or wants to have kids, or can have kids. but having kids does mean sacrifices. In my brothers case he has become the childcarer at the cost of his own career, and his wife has been the career person. The fact is not everyone wants a high powered position anyway. Many people, both male and female would prefer to looking after children while the partner works. Although due to the high price of houses, it often needs two incomes now to service a mortgage, so that is becoming less common. Some people in these high powered positions rarely get to see their children, and isn't that one of the reasons for having children, to enjoy them.

mattwnz

15145 posts

Uber Geek

# 2051074 7-Jul-2018 13:12

Rikkitic:

An additional complicating factor is that psychopathy can make a candidate appear more appealing for many roles that reward an aggressive approach, and this is more likely to be a male quality.

Someones personality also often comes into it. If someone is charming and likable, they can sometimes be chosen ahead of someone who is more introverted, even though they maybe more qualified and skilled.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 2051088 7-Jul-2018 13:43

What I see now in the Public Service is women only employing women. But I guess this is what is meant.

vulcannz

436 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

# 2051091 7-Jul-2018 13:51

Rikkitic:

Would not disagree with this. The problem with the merit argument is that in today's world, there are likely to be far more men than women with the 'best' qualifications, 'best' in this sense being mainly range and degree of prior relevant experience. If the choice is between a suitably qualified woman and a better qualified man, the man will usually get the tick, even though the woman could do the job perfectly well. The circle than becomes self-sustaining because the man will always have more opportunities to gain experience than the woman will.

An additional complicating factor is that psychopathy can make a candidate appear more appealing for many roles that reward an aggressive approach, and this is more likely to be a male quality.

I think we are at a stage where women have a fair go. If they decide that family is more important and decide to take a career break than that is their choice. We now have plenty of support for women and in many cases far more than men. If someone is better suited to the role then the choice should be made on merit not on reaching a quota. The artificial quotas have been used in fields like education and that is now a mess with men not interesting in pursuing teaching careers.

It is also quite offensive how feminists are cherry picking roles - avoiding roles which involve danger and stress. Men account for 96% of deaths in the workplace in NZ. Where is the equality there? Men account for 3 times as many suicides as women. Where is the equality there? Men die earlier than women from diseases like prostate cancer, but womens health gets 4 times as much funding. Where is the equality there?

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 2051095 7-Jul-2018 14:15

mattwnz:

Thinking out load. I think part of the problem is the 'ol' boys network', which can be pretty bad in NZ, and I think has partly led to the numbers. But promotion to these positions should all be about merit. Not everyone has kids or wants to have kids, or can have kids. but having kids does mean sacrifices. In my brothers case he has become the childcarer at the cost of his own career, and his wife has been the career person. The fact is not everyone wants a high powered position anyway. Many people, both male and female would prefer to looking after children while the partner works. Although due to the high price of houses, it often needs two incomes now to service a mortgage, so that is becoming less common. Some people in these high powered positions rarely get to see their children, and isn't that one of the reasons for having children, to enjoy them.

I tend to agree to an extent. The old boys network is dying off or retiring and in fact we are beginning to see the birth of an old girls network. These networks are everywhere and are across all races and genders and just happen to be about contacts and friends which is human nature when you think about it.

As the baby boomers retire the pace of change will speed up. I still stand up for my strong beliefs, that if we dispose of appointment of merit as opposed to appointment on gender, we are doomed as a society and it will break down. You can make things so equal they do become seriously unequal.

Its like our electoral system....we HAD to change (apparently) as it was unequal...now look what we have got. A system where we get a Government(not party) that nobody really wanted. In fact FPP was extremely fair within each geographic(local) area.

We need to be very careful in insisting that everything be equal, because we are not designed to be equal. Basically the Country wanted a change in Government last year because the less well off were being disadvantaged severely. Surprise.....they still are being disadvantaged, and perhaps more so now.

Geektastic

13301 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 2051114 7-Jul-2018 15:03

I can't see any particular benefit to having 50%. It should be whatever is best for the organisation and that might be 100% one way or the other or anywhere in between.
I don't think it's the place of the law to interfere.

gzt

10901 posts

Uber Geek

# 2051118 7-Jul-2018 15:06

One person supports this post

No law has been proposed or even raised as far as I'm aware.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5