Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
461 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 229


  Reply # 2051125 7-Jul-2018 15:41
Send private message

Why is gender the deciding factor for 'equality'? Why not age or IQ? Seems very narrow minded to me. I work in a team of about 25 people and there's probably slightly more men than woman, but most of the woman earn more than me, despite doing 'the same job'. I don't care. They are more experienced than me and stronger qualifications. When I occasionally hear them talk about being disadvantaged at work I have a little chuckle. They earn $115K+ for a 37.5 hour week and are probably doing better than 80% of the population.

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcDrE5YvqTs

 

Busting the gender pay gap myth.

 

It has to be merit. 


5209 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2119


  Reply # 2051130 7-Jul-2018 15:53
Send private message

Merit. Quotas suck. Contest works.

I have noticed a massive increase in female leadership in my career. It's been a slowly rising tide with no observable advantage or disadvantage to organisational performance.

Females will be better represented in CEO/board roles in time. Whether 50% or not depends on how many women desire those sort of roles.

That's the topic none touches. What roles are men and women drawn too and how much of that is innate vs learned. Why are females more drawn to nursing and males more to tree felling?








Mike

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 895


  Reply # 2051178 7-Jul-2018 17:15
Send private message

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

 

Maybe try

 

 

 

"Legislation for gender equity. ... Legislation in respect of gender equality in the workplace include the Equal Pay Act 1972, the State Sector Act 1988 and the Human Rights Act 1993. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 protects all New Zealand citizens from discrimination on the basis of sex."


7529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3948


  Reply # 2051194 7-Jul-2018 17:54
2 people support this post
Send private message

Pumpedd:

 

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

 

Maybe try

 

 

 

"Legislation for gender equity. ... Legislation in respect of gender equality in the workplace include the Equal Pay Act 1972, the State Sector Act 1988 and the Human Rights Act 1993. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 protects all New Zealand citizens from discrimination on the basis of sex."

 

 

There's a huge difference between legislating against discrimination, and legislating for "affirmative action".


7529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3948


  Reply # 2051199 7-Jul-2018 18:03
3 people support this post
Send private message

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. 


12006 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3895

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2051205 7-Jul-2018 18:43
Send private message

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

 

 

 

It'll be the next step, don't worry.








13563 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2448

Trusted

  Reply # 2051207 7-Jul-2018 18:49
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

No its not a good idea. Past discrimination occurred. Humans have evolved. So do we retrospectively discriminate against males to establish punishment? Or do we do that to get a 50/50 outcome?. SA rugby was told to have x amount of coloured players. So sport doesnt matter, neither do businesses if its about male/female/what you have for breakfast instead of the best person for the role

 

Th problem with my opinion is that will be taken as discriminatory. The roles appear to have been reversed?




13563 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2448

Trusted

  Reply # 2051208 7-Jul-2018 18:51
Send private message

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.

 

Not where I work. How many countries have had or have female heads of state in recent years? Many




13563 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2448

Trusted

  Reply # 2051211 7-Jul-2018 18:58
Send private message

MingBNZ:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Take a step back and discuss

 

You are being quite childish. If two people were eminently qualified, and one had more years of experience due to working all the time and not taking time out to have children, that is an advantage. Take work, take sport. Being in any role all the time is a benefit. 

 

"act of giving birth that makes women less suitable to act as company directors." Particularly childish. I dont recall stating that. Or on your opinion we hire 60 yo over 18yo for all roles??? 

 

Reading the rest of your biased rant, if you way to compare rugby players to the workforce, thats up to you. 

 

So lets do quotas. Do we also need to include minatory groups as well? Lets fight for 18yo as well. And so on. 

 

Debate, dont rant

 

 




13563 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2448

Trusted

  Reply # 2051212 7-Jul-2018 19:02
Send private message

gzt:
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.

 

The US is extremely racist. I dint see them as pertinent. Discrimination is everywhere, its about overcoming it, and IMHO, there is little of a female management issue here. 




13563 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2448

Trusted

  Reply # 2051213 7-Jul-2018 19:05
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

But that is what should apply? The best person gets the role. Same in reverse. Thats the merit argument.




13563 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2448

Trusted

  Reply # 2051215 7-Jul-2018 19:08
Send private message

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.

 

 

Thats the point. Who cares if its male or female that works or cares? Thats today, finally. Thats an example where sex is not the issue, as the primary carer or the primary earner.




13563 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2448

Trusted

  Reply # 2051216 7-Jul-2018 19:11
Send private message

vulcannz:

 

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?

 

 

Your second paragraph is misleading. There will always be roles that are more suitable for either sex. You cant use that as an argument. The argument are roles that are unisex. 


4 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 4


  Reply # 2051226 7-Jul-2018 20:25
One person supports this post
Send private message

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?

329 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 77


  Reply # 2051251 7-Jul-2018 21:28
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Your second paragraph is misleading. There will always be roles that are more suitable for either sex. You cant use that as an argument. The argument are roles that are unisex. 

 

 

Well lets examine your statement, Forestry and agriculture seem to dominate the accidents. And those accidents are dominated by operating of machinery/vehicles.

 

Are you stating women are not suited for operating vehicles and machinery?


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.