Kallasilya t1_itp4ttn wrote
Reply to comment by LordSevolox in Women will have equal share of seats in [New Zealand] Parliament with Soraya Peke-Mason's swearing-in by giblefog
Actually there's pretty extensive evidence to suggest that encouraging diverse shortlists leads to better recruitment and also helps to reduce prejudice and encourage a broader pool of applicants in the future.
In a prejudiced society men already have an unfair advantage; there's effectively already a 'man quota' in many ways. And yet some men like to pretend that it is merely 'meritocracy' that's led to politicians, CEOs and other powerful figures being vastly more likely to be male.
Nah. That's the man quota.
BrockStar92 t1_itpz7qm wrote
Also people often have this notion about hiring as if it’s only about that filling that individual role and nothing else matters company wide. It’s not about hiring who is best at that one job, it’s about hiring who makes the company as a whole more money. And a diverse team of different ages, genders, races and backgrounds with a broader range of experiences will generally do better than a group of white men around the same age of the same sort of background. Factoring in the background and experiences of the person you’re hiring matters a lot, in the same way that you wouldn’t hire someone with no people skills that causes everyone else in the company to be miserable and drop their productivity just because they’re X amount better at their specific job than a different candidate.
Sweyn7 t1_itp52gq wrote
I'd probably be more in favor of encouraging diverse shortlists bringing people from different economic and cultural backgrounds rather than just looking for XY chromosomes and different skin colors, but that's just me. As long as it's not a congress managed by only white old farts, that's fine by me.
laukys t1_itpbw0c wrote
How does this privilege manifest at lower levels of society? Would you support 50:50 quotas for garbage men, plumbers, builders, mine shaft workers?
Kallasilya t1_itpdxv4 wrote
Absolutely, and also for nurses, carers and teachers. (Maybe if we recruited more men to these professions they wouldn't be so overworked and underpaid!)
laukys t1_itpemph wrote
So you want to force men into jobs they don't want to work and force women in jobs they don't want to work?
Kallasilya t1_itpf2pc wrote
I'd like us to get rid of dumb stereotypes that say men can't be 'nurturing' and women are too weak for hands-on work, yeah. Do you really think men and women choose different careers because of some innate god-given gender difference, or because thousands of years of societal/cultural pressures push us towards different things? I know which one I think is more likely...
RookieRemapped t1_itpjd2u wrote
Could be argued that thousands of years of societal, cultural and (I’m gonna add) environmental pressures have created an innate gender difference
laukys t1_itpj5b1 wrote
So let's take testosterone for example, it is a biological fact that the average man produces more testosterone than an average woman. Testosterone is linked with aggression. Would you rather leave your kids with someone who is more likely to be aggressive or someone who is more likely to be empathetic?
[deleted] t1_itpqwfi wrote
[removed]
Sabz5150 t1_itpo6jx wrote
>Would you rather leave your kids with someone who is more likely to be aggressive or someone who is more likely to be empathetic?
The one who wouldn't get away with it. Googles student rape cases
[deleted] t1_itu5dyn wrote
[deleted]
laukys t1_itvg3hl wrote
My other comment adds more context to this. But basically no, I was just trying to say that:
- Stereotypes are harmful because they pigeonholed people and attribute qualities to each individual, however they are also grounded on some level of truth, which provides some level of utility. Dismissing them is dismissing that element of truth. Be honest, if you had a small child and had to leave them with a random woman or a random man for a few hours, which would you be more comfortable with? Of course, if you had to leave them with someone you knew well(like your brother vs your sister) there would be almost no difference.
- Women and men (talking about group averages, not individuals), have different predispositions. In US 97.6% of preschool and kindergarten teachers are female. Why do you think that is?In my view, it's a combination three main factors: ability to do the job, finding the job fulfilling and discrimination. Even if we got forcibly get rid of discrimination by enforcing 50/50 quotas, why would we want to force people in roles that they would be worse at and find less fulfilling?
It does suck for the people who actually have the talent for jobs in fields where they face discrimination and we should always be looking for sensible ways to approach discrimination. I will note however that there is less discrimination now that in any moment in history, yet people still try to suggest the most radical of changes, which annoys and baffles me to no end.
[deleted] t1_itvx5kl wrote
[deleted]
Sabz5150 t1_itpny03 wrote
>there's effectively already a 'man quota' in many ways.
If a quota for one is okay, a quota for the other is as well. Otherwise what you want isnt equality. What you want is revenge.
Kallasilya t1_itprpac wrote
/blinks.
Yes, this is literally exactly what I'm saying? But you sound like you think you're having a 'gotcha' moment with me. I agree with you. Since everyone is okay with men unfairly obtaining positions, everyone should be okay with women 'unfairly' getting positions through quotas, too.
Otherwise it's not equality, as you say.
Sabz5150 t1_itpsfj8 wrote
Unfairly vs. 'Unfairly'
Your bias is showing. /blinks
Kallasilya t1_itpswdy wrote
Sorry, I'm genuinely confused. Could you please explain why accepting the same thing for both men and women (preferential treatment/quotas) is 'bias'? Because 'treating people equally' is the opposite of bias, by definition...
EDIT - sorry, I think I get what you mean now with unfairly vs 'unfairly'.
You're saying that it's fair for men to dominate in workplaces and politics, because 'meritocracy' - they're inherently better, at everything, on average, than women? Is that correct?
Sabz5150 t1_itpt4d5 wrote
Why is it unfair when its a man, but "unfair" when its a woman?
Kallasilya t1_itpw4ph wrote
Well, it's unfair for both, obviously. I used quotation marks for women in the sense that quotas are an established practice designed to address inequality, which can be interpreted as giving women an unfair advantage.
However, it's rare for people who consider quotas to be unfair who also recognise that men dominating all high-powered/high-paying roles is unfair, too. But that position is logically inconsistent. If getting a job based on your gender is bad, then getting a job based on your gender is bad, whether you're male or female. (The only way to 'logic' out of this position is the blind belief that men are in positions of power due to innate superiority - i.e. if you admit to being a straight-up old-fashioned sexist, which surely no thinking person would do).
As you said, literally the only way to make it 'fair', in theory, is to have 50/50 quotas for men and women for everything. But that's what gender quotas already are, and it sounds like you don't think they're a good idea! Hence my confusion.
(If women wanted revenge, the quotas would be to have 80-100% of all powerful roles filled exclusively by women for a couple of millenia or so. I don't see anyone proposing that particular strawman, however.)
Sabz5150 t1_itut94j wrote
>men dominating all high-powered/high-paying roles is unfair, too
As is men dominating the blue collar, labor intensive, often dangerous roles. But we don't hear about that for some odd reason.
Kallasilya t1_itx1o74 wrote
Yeah, because women LITERALLY weren't allowed to even apply for these roles until recently, and there's still massive sexism within a lot of manual labour industries. It's almost like (gasp) increased equality in the workplace could help to solve this issue too!
Sabz5150 t1_itx599l wrote
>Yeah, because women LITERALLY weren't allowed to even apply for these roles until recently
Women helped win WWII in such jobs. Turns out they are fantastic welders.
>and there's still massive sexism within a lot of manual labour industries
Blue collar manual worker here. No. The women that do work here would not tolerate it. That stereotype is breathing its last breath thankfully.
> It's almost like (gasp) increased equality in the workplace could help to solve this issue too!
Its about making the proverbial horse drink, there is water all around. Its not all that high paying, not clean at all, and in rather undesirable temperatures at times. Not exactly what you described as the jobs that women are gunning for. Is there a drive to get women into blue collar like there is with STEM?
Kallasilya t1_itzbet5 wrote
Despite (I assume, forgive me if incorrect) not being a woman and (from what I can see) not being active in any feminist subs or spaces, you apparently think you already know all the answers to the issues of workplace gender politics. I don't really have any more energy in trying to discuss this with you as it seems you're not interested in considering other viewpoints. Cheers.
Sabz5150 t1_itznec4 wrote
>you apparently think you already know all the answers to the issues of workplace gender politics.
Well they teach us this in the industry: if you have to force it, you are doing something wrong.
Kallasilya t1_itzot24 wrote
Ah yes, as we know, all social change has been brought about by groups of people quietly sitting back and doing nothing.
;)
Sabz5150 t1_itzpc87 wrote
Its also never been rammed down one's throat. That's what the Right does.I am not saying change should not happen, but it should not be forced with quotas and the like.
Kallasilya t1_itzqg0h wrote
Okay I said I'd let this drop but I can't let that take stand... Women got the vote by going on hunger strike, smashing windows, and setting shit on fire! Societal change (not just for women but for all groups) has always been 'forced'. It's the only thing that's ever worked.
And the people in power have never, ever liked it either. But give it a few decades and hopefully all of these measures will be in the past.
hellraisinhardass t1_itp8zq9 wrote
Bullshit. Everyone hates 'tokens', it's painfully obvious when a person didn't get hired based on merit- this makes co-workers dislike them because they're stuck working with an incompetent person, it makes underlings hate them because they know they're more qualified and most importantly it makes qualified people from that privileged group hate them because it damages their group images by being associated with incompetence.
Kallasilya t1_itpagz5 wrote
But men don't get hired purely based on merit.
That's my point.
(Unless you think the majority of powerful positions occupied by men up til now were based 100% on merit, and women are just inherently inferior? I doubt anyone would admit to genuinely believing that these days though, surely...)
There has always been an invisible quota for men.
Why is a male quota acceptable but a female quota isn't?
Why should you expect people to hate incompetent women who've been placed in a role due to a quota, more than incompetent men who are placed in a role due to their privilege? Neither option is great, obviously! But why should one be worse than the other?
(For the record I am playing devil's advocate somewhat - I do think that quotas are blunt instruments at best, I think they should be used to ensure a diverse shortlist of qualified candidates rather than directly applied, and I hope that in a few decades or so we'll no longer need them.)
anto2554 t1_itpf9te wrote
>Why is a male quota acceptable but a female quota isn't?
Because one might be based on men getting more votes from men, and men liking men more, (?) or on men statistically pursuing something harder for various reasons.
The other is a blatant "you may not do this because of your gender" in black and white
Kallasilya t1_itpfkms wrote
The word 'might' is doing a heck of a lot of hard work in that sentence there, lol.
anto2554 t1_itphthv wrote
Okay, so am I understanding correctly that this is your opinion?:
Men vote more for men, because they're men, and women vote entirely based on merit
laukys t1_itpbcz2 wrote
I think you overestimate how much privilege matters. If person A can do the same job at half the cost that person B can, in a capitalist society person A will get hired significantly more often.
Kallasilya t1_itpbl4d wrote
Oh okay, so you're going with the "men are in vastly more positions of power because they're just inherently superior" angle?
Righto then. That's certainly... a take.
laukys t1_itpe5z1 wrote
No, I think it's more complicated than that. Sociological forces exist, but so do other factors. There is the greater male variability hypothesis for example. There is also evidence to suggest that in general women tend to gravitate to jobs that deal with people and men gravitate towards jobs that deal with things. There is also the gender equality paradox - as countries become more egalitarian (like Scandinavian European countries for example), the gender gap actually increases.
I am not saying any group is better than any other group, and I am not trying to pigeonhold anyone either - the in group variance is actually higher than the variance between groups, so there are women qualified for any position. Equality of opportunity should be one of the main goals of our society, however expecting an even 50/50 split in anything is ridiculous.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments