Gender Discrimination (Employment) - Female Gender Bias

m8 on 12/02/2017 - 13:07
Last edited 12/02/2017 - 13:23 by 1 other user

My friend told me a story of during his job hunting days around a year ago.

He and 15 others (10 male, 5 female) were sitting outside going in for a panel based interview for engineering roles for a reputable engineering company. Before going into his interview, the HR manager walks into the room and tells them that they are ONLY looking for women in this role. The interview did its thing and obviously, only 4 out of the 5 females got the positions. To add salt, one of the successful applicants was a friend of my friend's and she didn't even know what the role was about (like ffs).

I understand the importance of gender diversity in the workplace (especially engineering workplaces) but doesn't this seem effed up? I mean, success in an interview should be based on competencies rather than what genitals you have. I hate the idea (with respect to this particular example) that having a phallus, my competencies are hindered. There are faculties in universities primarily associated to "Women in Engineering" where the after tertiary education they're set up for life regardless of competence. It's a lot more challenging and so much more competition for males in this field and it personally just ruffles my feathers.

Does anyone share this? Is this even legal?

Education & Work

Comments

  • JIMB0 on 12/02/2017 - 13:20
    +106

    It's called reverse discrimination.

        • Boshait on 13/02/2017 - 07:40
          +18

          The term "Positive discrimination" was invented to make it sound better.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/02/2017 - 10:37
          +1

          @Boshait:

          Well that failed.

      • pos on 15/02/2017 - 12:51
        +2

        Not a lawyer, but the Sex Discrimination Act says,
        "For the purposes of this Act, a person (in this subsection referred to as the discriminator ) discriminates against another person (in this subsection referred to as the aggrieved person ) on the ground of the sex of the aggrieved person if, by reason of:
        (a) the sex of the aggrieved person; or…
        the discriminator treats the aggrieved person less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat a person of a different sex."
        So no specific sex mentioned - it's plain old discrimination.
        Unless it is a Special Measure intended to achieve equality - these are legal. Based on my quick read looks like it would only be OK if they were trying to achieve a quota.
        See a lawyer if you're really worried.

    • siresteelhell on 12/02/2017 - 19:14
      +68

      This happens when virtue signalling companies get sucked in just like the government by nonsensicle third wave feminist propoganda, along the same lines as the fable about gender pay gap….You never hear any complaints from feminists about jobs like sewerage workers being 99 percent men…Feminists only complain for the good stuff… Government sanctioned misandry

      • LeoFender on 13/02/2017 - 13:42
        -3

        I think these are (still) early days for inclusive thinking, without clear communication of why it matters.

        On Sewage workers being 99% men, a quick check through google found this: https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/2014-15-WGEA_SCO…
        25.5% women / 74.5% men - Industry: Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services.

        Sure, it's doesn't break it down to exact occupation, but haven't found anything more detailed yet.

        • picket23 on 13/02/2017 - 13:53
          +8

          Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste services.. That's a huge industry. From that stat all you can infer is that there are between 0-100% women in the "sewerage" workforce. Obviously the original 99% stat you were replying to was pulled from thin air also.

        • siresteelhell on 13/02/2017 - 14:16
          +12

          @picket23:
          ok nurses,only 10% are men… should the government stop hiring all female nurses untill the "equality equality" is reached? even if harldy any men went for these roles? 80% of jobs in health care and social assistance are women…should the same apply even though 90% of graduates entering that industry are women?…wake up to yourself….

        • bset on 13/02/2017 - 16:23
          +12

          @siresteelhell:

          seems to me that men only seem to care about this shit when it finally has an effect on their life - but couldn't careless past a cursory "that's terrible" when it isn't happening to them.

          right on.

        • siresteelhell on 13/02/2017 - 16:30
          -6

          @bset:
          seems to me that there isnt any discrimination in Australia other than agaisnt males and there hasnt been any agaisnt women for years, and it shows that feminism isnt about equality at all, just about getting ahead of males.

        • bset on 13/02/2017 - 16:49
          +6

          @siresteelhell:

          there are a few different types of feminism. rad fem, lib fem, first and second waves, etc. which feminism are you referring to?

          ps. no discrimination in Australia apart from against men? what about those indigenous people who were here before us? 1 in 4 incarcerated individuals are indigenous australians, 10% of our population is made up of indigenous australians. those are pretty staggering numbers. or what about "boat people" (a brilliant name to de-humanize the refugees who seek refuge from their third world motherlands and the persecution or danger they face there because their government is corrupt/no good) maybe the only discrimination you've encountered (against men) wasn't actually because you're a male - but because you may potentially be a blithering idiot.

          a quick google debunks your argument which is only backed by perspective and opinion — http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-11/are-girls-and-young-wo… — this report was made only a few months ago.

          look, you have a right to freedom of speech and your own opinion, but at least have an informed opinion before you spew dribble. shame so many other ozb's jump on this bandwagon but have no real concept of what discrimination really is. that's essentially the privilege of being a white male.

        • bset on 13/02/2017 - 21:01
          -5

          @siresteelhell:

          getrekt

        • siresteelhell on 13/02/2017 - 22:04

          @bset:
          LOLz

        • picket23 on 14/02/2017 - 05:19
          -3

          @siresteelhell:
          I can only assume that you weren't intending to reply to me? Your post has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I criticised Leofender for putting a random stat about a massive industry and trying to claim that it had some relevance to a very specific role within that industry.

          If you didn't get that then you need to wake up buddy.

        • guysmiley on 14/02/2017 - 12:37
          +1

          Using the same site, but different reports it shows a smaller percentage of women in Electricty, Gas, Water and Waste Services (20.2%). But you are looking that Industry as a whole.
          https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/20160801_Industr…

          Then if you use the Australia Jobs data, it is at 22%.
          https://australianjobs.employment.gov.au/jobs-industry/elect…

          Now if you look at the US Bureau of Labor Stats and Census from 2010-2015, just in Waste Services, that Industry is comprised of 99% male workers.

          Unless you are very specific about what data you are drawing from, it can be terribly skewed.

          I recall back in the day, when you were after statistics from the ABS, you would advise them of the data required and they would normally provide you raw data pertaining to your request. More recently, you can contact the ABS and advise them of what you are trying to prove/disprove and they can provide data that can assist. That's not how statistics are meant to work.

          In the end 85% of statistics are completely made up. :)

      • sator on 13/02/2017 - 16:06
        +4

        What are you talking about, sewage workers are highly respected and well renumerated. You're so full of shit ;-D

      • mingofmongo on 14/02/2017 - 10:29
        +2

        Why are you talking about the government in these terms? I work in the public service and I can tell you, any manager who told the candidates that they were only seeking females would be subject to disciplinary processes. I do a lot of recruitment within the public service, gender matters for nothing - it's all about the merit principle and getting the best person for the job (based on a fairly non-scientific process of assessing merit, admittedly - selection criteria, applications, referee reports, interviews).

    • Boshait on 13/02/2017 - 07:39
      +20

      No, it's just discrimination against men. It would be the most common kind, so calling it "reverse" would be misleading.

    • ItsMeAgro on 13/02/2017 - 10:11
      +20

      It's called reverse discrimination.

      …by people who don't understand that reverse discrimination is still just discrimination.

    • mobius on 13/02/2017 - 11:47
      +10

      To be fair a lot of men who are in these jobs today had a massive leg up. When they went to uni their wives and other women where certainly had zero chance. If you want to be mad at anyone be mad at who made the gender gap in the first place. Whilst at the same time I don't like this practise but something needs to be done.

      • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 18:26
        +26

        You can't fix yesterday's discrimination by adding more discrimination today. That thinking is completely messed up and counter-productive.

      • sabracad on 13/02/2017 - 23:33
        +11

        Leg up? Zero chance? Women weren't being discriminated against, they weren't seeking roles in these industries. The fact they now are is irrelevant. Every position in every industry should be awarded on merit.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 12:34
      +13

      There's no such thing. It's either discrimination, or its not

      • AddNinja on 13/02/2017 - 18:00
        -5

        This is overly simplistic as it ignores the context in which the discrimination occurs.

    • sator on 13/02/2017 - 15:08
      +24

      I don't know, I was sent to a diversity training session recently. It was interesting to find out that equality does NOT mean equal treatment, but rather outcome e.g. lots of effort/money can be poured into programs supporting indigineous Australians until they have the same health and employment stats as the general public.

      I guess the same system applies to women. As they've been discriminated against for the last 5 decades in the modern western civilisation, programs can be skewed to get them back on par with men.

      I guess this is kinda fair because us caucasian males have a huge advantage in the long term when it comes to career prospects anyway e.g. senior managers, management positions, CEO, CIO…

      A significant percentage of these successful female applicants will become part-time or leave in workforce entirely post-children due to social norms, so it's pretty reasonable to give them kinda a boost to account for this.

      In an increasingly globalised and robotised world, I believe it is these talented and driven women who will have children who can keep pace with, and even excel in this very competitive environment. Don't get me wrong, I respect the work of hairdressers, makeup artists, cleaners… but these individuals are less likely to produce the next generation of young Australians who will keep our country at the cutting edge and improve our living conditions. This could be due to stronger emphasis on education, better planning, or instilling a growth mindset into their children.

      Studies have shown the enormous economic gains to a country by having a highly productive and skilled female population. On a smaller scale, companies are shown to be more profitable if they had better diversity e.g. women, minorities…

      We can all recognise the horrible conditions women have to endure in countries such as the middle East or India -with their poor equality standards, and belief that women are property or baby makers. Maybe we need to realise that what we are going through now, is the next stage in an advanced culture's development.
      A good way to look at this is to imagine how you would feel if the lady applicant is your daughter instead of as your competitor.

      TLDR:
      1.Make sure you know what equality means, 2.Giving women a headstart is fair considering the hurdles they will have to overcome
      3.Smart productive women equals a better and richer country
      4.Smart women generally have more productive ans kids, better suited to an increasingly competitive world
      5. We realise countries like India and those in the middle East are crap for women but we can't see that Australia is far from ideal.

      • dealman on 13/02/2017 - 16:44

        Agree in general.. But perhaps in using India and Middle East in the same sentence with respect to women's rights.. You got that seriously wrong..

        • sator on 13/02/2017 - 16:51
          +2

          Please explain (with annoying bogan nasally voice)

        • dealman on 13/02/2017 - 19:03
          -1

          @sator:

          Look up stats, for starters women in India don't have to be a garb. For the rest lookup female participation rates in the economy.

        • sator on 13/02/2017 - 20:20
          +4

          @dealman:
          Ahhh, I see where you're coming from.
          I was just pulling out two quick examples. For all intent and purpose, it's splitting hair between shit and shitter.
          I was more thinking of equality in general for women I.e. job, marriage… Rape and the sense of entitlement of men in India is pretty staggering. Screw participation in the workforce when you can't fulfil personal security -which is lower down in Maslow's need hierarchy.

        • dealman on 13/02/2017 - 23:31
          -1

          @sator:

          Hahaha

          I'd say the difference is between pi$$ and $hit.. But hey each to their own.

      • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 18:29
        +18

        Equality should always be about equal treatment, not equal outcome. Pre-determining the outcome is always a biased act. I don't accept the definition of "equality" you've been brainwashed to accept at all. I absolutely support equality of opportunity - a fair and level playing field. Not one that's skewed in a bone headed attempt to undo the past.

        Engage your brain. Do a bit of critical thinking. What happens when you have more talented people overlooked because of their gender? Isn't this what women are complaining about? Now we're going to add more of it as if 2 lots of discrimination equals fairness? This is the sort of nonsense that creates resentment and division between the sexes.

        • ItsMeAgro on 13/02/2017 - 19:31
          +5

          Equality should always be about equal treatment, not equal outcome

          Of course, but it doesn't take a genius to look at the radically different outcomes and think "maybe this has something to do with all the disadvantages [minority] faces due to all that prejudice against them for centuries" rather than "LOL [minorities] are all dumb".

        • sator on 13/02/2017 - 20:30
          -2

          Check out a reputable dictionary's definition for equality before you sprout stuff. What other definition of equality are you referring to? The dumb uneducated definition, or the 20th century one, when women and minorities could not vote or own property.

          Progressive thinking takes effort. Being a bigot does not.

          The deck has been stacked against women for so long, it's fair for them to have things in their favour for a little while.
          I apologise to your huge sense of entitlement though.

          Enough of this 'discussion'. I'm always amazed by how vocal and confident stupid people are of their opinion and knowledge… I guess ignorance is bliss.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 20:40

          @sator:
          It's 'spout', and that is a really embarrassing mistake in the context. Beans sprout.

        • sator on 13/02/2017 - 21:41
          +2

          @Frugal Rock: thanks for the correction. First attempt at that expression =D thought it seemed a tad funny

        • sabracad on 13/02/2017 - 23:59
          +9

          @sator: You criticise someone arguing for equality for "having a sense of entitlement" yet your comments indicate women are more than entitled to one. It might be best if you check out a reputable dictionary's definition of hypocrisy.

        • elmotta on 14/02/2017 - 10:20
          +1

          @sator: May I suggest try using some common sense and perhaps find some real facts before you get your next verborrhea attack? So far you are just another bigoted and shallow individual with an overworked keyboard and too much time in your hands…

        • sator on 14/02/2017 - 10:26
          -1

          @sabracad: So true!, I did have a day off =D

        • sator on 14/02/2017 - 10:28

          @sabracad:Lol, what's the point of furthering this debate. I have not vested interest, nor do I care…
          Ok, let's just stick with males are being discriminated against in this terrible modern world

        • victinini on 15/02/2017 - 18:10
          +3

          I think there are two things that need to be addressed with this type of thinking.

          1) Equal treatment doesn’t happen under usual conditions, even when it appears to be on paper. If you’re a woman, the people who interview you are men, your bosses and colleagues are going to be men, and the law is written for a typical male worker. Opportunities for promotions and raises are skewed towards men (and there are many reasons why). I’m not saying that all men are going to be sexist, but I am saying that people tend to like people that are more like them, and the people who make the decisions now are Caucasian men. The same medicine really only works if everyone has the same problem. And this is obviously not the case.

          2) Yes, it’s sad if someone is overlooked because of their gender. But this is only a problem if you believe that women are inherently worse at doing things than men are. What people are implying implicitly (maybe without realising it) when they say they’d rather have the best person for the job than a woman, is implying that women wouldn’t be able to do the same job. Looking at it from another direction might be that if you can’t find a woman that is good enough for the job, then try harder. This is the problem that women want solved. Companies who are dominated by Caucasian males don’t try hard enough to find women that can do the job because they are used to hiring people who they are familiar with - people who look like themselves.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 18:28
          +1

          @victinini:

          Equal treatment doesn’t happen under usual conditions, even when it appears to be on paper. If you’re a woman, the people who interview you are men, your bosses and colleagues are going to be men, and the law is written for a typical male worker.

          If the law is written for a typical male worker, you don't have equal conditions "on paper".

          What people are implying implicitly (maybe without realising it) when they say they’d rather have the best person for the job than a woman, is implying that women wouldn’t be able to do the same job.

          No. They're not implying that at all. They're saying you're going to exhaust the best from a smaller pool more quickly than from a larger pool. If you have a male dominated profession and you insist on 50 percent women at the top, you assume that the entire say 20% pool of women are competent. That's so statistically unlikely I'm more likely to be hit by a flying dinosaur.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 18:30
          -1

          @sator:

          The deck has been stacked against women for so long, it's fair for them to have things in their favour for a little while.

          You just admitted you don't want equality. You want female supremacy.

          First of all, the men who benefited in the past from being unfair are gone. You're punishing a whole new generation of men solely based on their gender. You are a hypocrite. All you want is revenge. I won't support that. No sane man or woman would.

        • victinini on 15/02/2017 - 18:33
          +2

          @syousef: The point is, why does it have to be male dominated? If there aren’t enough women, then train more! If they aren’t good enough, then train them better! Like I said, it sounds very much to me like they just aren’t trying hard enough. If you treat everybody the same, then nothing changes.

          That’s the issue isn’t it? Politics is dominated by men as well. How would we as men know how laws should be written to ensure equal treatment for everyone? The only democratic way to do it would be to get a even split of the people that the laws impact to work on it. Which has never happened and will never happen until the government better represents us as a nation. All we can know for sure is that the current status quo benefits the typical caucasian male. And we can't know how it keeps things the way they are, because we don’t see things from their point of view. We need to have a dialogue and figure out what the best options are.

          Of course, things have to go the other way as well. Men should be more readily accepted into female dominated roles. The same thing should be happening the other way around. I can argue for both sides at the same time, because these are not conflicting issues.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 18:42
          -2

          @victinini:

          You can downvote until you go blue. It doesn't change a the truth.

          When you've trained the women and they're getting the jobs on their own merits which by the way requires that you remove all the entrenched sexist attitudes - something I fully support - you won't need quotas.

          All we can know for sure is that the current status quo benefits the typical caucasian male.

          Nope. That's all you are willing to admit is true. We know what happens when we introduce unfair practices on a system and whether it does more or less harm.

          We need to have a dialogue and figure out what the best options are.

          Yes we do. We need to do this instead of wildly adding further injustice and expecting things to get better.

          Of course, things have to go the other way as well. Men should be more readily accepted into female dominated roles. The same thing should be happening the other way around.

          I no more want to be treated by an incompetent male nurse who got his job on a quota, or have my son taught by an incompetent male teacher who got in on a quota than I want an incompetent female engineer to build a bridge I drive over. Quotas are toxic.

        • victinini on 15/02/2017 - 18:50
          +1

          @syousef: Please don’t take what I’m saying personally. I didn’t downvote you at all. I can prove it by adding another down vote to your comment, I’ll take it off again later though, after you reply.

          I still think you’re stuck on the belief that quotas mean that the people who get in are going to be inherently worse. Whereas I’m saying that they don’t have to be, if they try hard enough instead of being lazy and getting by with the minimum effort. And I don’t think we’re going to agree on that point.

          Again, it appears that you just don’t accept that the laws that have been in place for decades, centuries were written for the benefit of caucasian men. The only reason that it appears fair is because it’s always been that way. When in fact all these little laws that have been passed, from abortion rights to parental leave to labour laws to immigration laws all add up little bit by little bit to make up what is now known as the status quo. The point is that what you see as fairness might just not be as fair as you might think they are.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 18:53

          @victinini:

          I still think you’re stuck on the belief that quotas mean that the people who get in are going to be inherently worse.

          I'm not stuck on it. If the quality of candidates is equally distributed in a bell curve and you take all the candidates from that smaller pool you get more (perhaps even all) the bad candidates from the smaller pool.

          I am not denying there is plenty of injustice in the law against women. Some of it has already been addressed though. For example women have been able to vote for a long time. What's more there's plenty of injustice in the law for men. Plenty of men who have been in custody battles can tell you stories, as can men who have suffered partner violence.

        • victinini on 15/02/2017 - 18:58
          +1

          @syousef: I agree very much with your issues. I don’t want my kids taken from me by default if I ever get divorced. But we can fight for these issues all at the same time, they are not unrelated and I think something that we should all talk about as part of the dialogue of conversation.

          Like I said, quotas can be followed to the letter, or to the spirit. Following a quota to the spirit would mean maintaining high standards while increasing the talent pool with a view to the long term. This involves advertising, offering scholarships, making the workplace a more welcoming place for women, changing labour laws so that parental leave doesn’t impact on future promotions and raises, and all that stuff. Certainly not all of that can be applied equally, but there are some very common sense things that can be done to help reach a place where everyone is happy, and will help men in the long run as well. You just need to put in the effort.

          By the way, I don’t think it’s possible for me to remove a down vote from here, so I’ll give yours an up vote instead!

        • Elee3112 on 15/02/2017 - 23:44

          @victinini:

          I'm not sure what its like with other universities, or what its currently like, but when I started studying Engineering some 10 years ago, we had about 10% female students. By the time I reached my final year, it was down to maybe 5%.

          If every one of those 5% is better than 85% of the male students, well you still have a lot equally good, if not better, male graduates.

        • victinini on 16/02/2017 - 11:50
          +1

          @Elee3112: I’ve seen the same, and I think there are two ways to interpret that. Firstly yes it does hint that there are just less people to fill the same roles, and filling a quota may reduce the quality of work.

          However, I see this as evidence that more work needs to be done to balance the numbers and convince women that these professions are worthy pursuits. That they won’t be entering a boys club, that there are good opportunities for promotion and raises even if they have to take time off for having children etc. At the same time, we need to do more work to build an environment that lets men know that they don’t have to be workaholics, that we understand that fathers want to spend time with and take care of their children too and they won’t be penalised if they put their family first.

          I would argue that quotas etc. aren’t explicit enough, in that a simple number doesn’t convey how much work needs to be done over years and years to build up a good sized talent pool. I think the concept of a quota is a good start, but we also need to have the conversation about why we have them, and what more can be done so that some day we may not need to worry about quotas anymore. We need to look at it from a practical point of view as well an ideological point of view.

      • Incrediho on 14/02/2017 - 18:41
        +1

        This is all an extension of identity politics that has created monoliths of gender, ethnicity and sexuality that are far too broad and cumbersome categories to efficiently help the most genuinely disadvantaged (and inadvertently further benefits those who already have immense "privilege" that defy the stereotype of their label). This is a great video I found highlighting how counterproductive this approach can be:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8yGhBV1a8&feature=youtu.be

      • Geoff-bargain on 14/02/2017 - 21:35

        off-topic but I met an English hair dresser that had been sponsored to come here - I previously thought you could only sponsor for highly skilled jobs that required a degree or specialised skill

        • airzone on 15/02/2017 - 11:33

          No, any profession in demand. A while back the easy route to a visa was being a baker.

        • Incrediho on 16/02/2017 - 22:52

          @airzone: That's kind of f'd when you think about it. Instead of letting demand drive either a) higher wages and better conditions or b) increased employment opportunities for Australians, they import outside labour to keep competition nice and ruthless to suppress wages/working conditions.

      • yannyrjl on 15/02/2017 - 09:54
        +3

        Equal outcome is the most unfair thing in the world, wage gap is a myth, as it does not take into consideration of life choices.

        Similarly, it takes a lot of sacrifice to make into those senior positions (i.e. less family time, mental health issues, long working hours, relocating overseas etc), having equal outcome basically ignores the individual efforts you put in.

        It should be "Equal Opportunity over Outcome" !!! Also, there is a big push for women in STEM areas, despite based on their free choice, women choose not to go into those areas. Why aren't there a push for more women to be in trades e.g. Plumbing, Bricklaying, Carpentry (because it's a dirty tiring job).

        Equality is not about pick and choosing the best bits!!

      • Happy501 on 15/02/2017 - 11:33
        +2

        I remember much of the same financial arguments being made in South Africa during the Apartheid. Discrimination always backfires on a long enough timeline.

    • Cyphar on 13/02/2017 - 16:24
      +7

      Hiring by gender rather than by skill is how bad mistakes happen.

    • grang on 13/02/2017 - 16:55
      +17

      Wow.

      The tone in the discussions here is a good reflection of why we need diversity in the work place.

      I am male and in the place I work it would be very interesting if everyone had to reapply for their jobs. About half of.middle managers would probabaly not get it… And it is that half today that are having a huge impact on who they hire.

      …Women and young people have a tough time ahead with embedded thinking.

      • canyoudoitcheaper on 13/02/2017 - 23:15
        +2

        Diversity always adds to the workplace, but I think decisions on hiring and promotions should really be based on merit, rather than to meet a gender target. Other wise it's really unfair on the other candidates, as in the case of OP.

        It's definitely more important to have a diverse interview/ selection panel, so there's less of an 'old boy's club' attitude.

      • Incrediho on 14/02/2017 - 18:57

        I'd hazard a guess that most people who oppose the approach highlighted by OP would agree sexism was widespread in hiring policies up until a few decades ago. As a result, the gender balance in more lucrative professions/positions is skewed heavily towards males who would not have earned said place if the scales of equality were balanced at the time.

        The main point I argue is that children shouldn't inherit the sins of their parents, and many men just entering the workforce now benefit from no privilege (when it comes to applying for jobs at least), nor any affirmative action. Thus they are discriminated against and inherently disadvantaged when applying for many positions. If you subscribe to the (inter-generational) "an-eye-for-an-eye" approach to discrimination, fine, but acknowledge it.

      • Kevan2 on 16/02/2017 - 18:09

        Women and young people have a tough time ahead with embedded thinking

        Add ageism if you are 40 …….

        or Cant talk at the urinal

        or have accumulated Long Service leave [ re- accruing cost stopping bonuses on profit targets

        or not on long term unemployed [ government incentives for employment ]

        or just fill in the blankedy blanks ……..too fertile, too pretty, no boobs hipster, wont party after work.

        Best one I have seen , Chap was having heart attack …. Boss please call an ambulance, response - if you are sick you are no good to me , your fired. Chap lived others called 000 and he can never work again. He was not capable or did not know of his damages rights.

    • yesiamcheap on 13/02/2017 - 19:33
      +5

      there's no such thing as "reverse discrimination" in the way you intend it to mean lol… discrimination against a person (male or against a female) is the same thing (discrimination). calling it "reverse discrimination" is inherently offensive by the insinuation…..

      in the case of the OP (if he is truly stating the facts) then he has a very valid point of "UNFAIR discrimination", i.e. discrimination. It is unfair against the more qualified person to lose the opportunity to gain the position simply because there was a gender quota someone wanted to meet.

      Fair discrimination should be acceptable for anyone reasonable. For e.g. you wouldn't hire a polar bear to be a sandwich artist at subway.

      a lot of organisations talk about diversity and inclusion but typically demonstrate this by discriminating on gender or sexuality (usually with hypocritical good intentions). diversity in my opinion should really be about the way a person (who is qualified for the job/ fairly discriminated against) THINKS. diversity in the way each of us think is not something that can be categorised by gender or sexuality, ever person is capable of thinking differently to their peers, family members, partners, whatever…

      /endrant

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 22:56
      +1

      YES, It happened to me exactly the same way;
      The job was in IT. 15 successful applicant for 5 positions in one of the top 5 companies in Australia, 10 men who probably were struggling to feed a family. 5 women mostly teenagers who couldn't have less knowledge about IT. It was obvious from the group interview.

      All females were called to stay. All men were asked to leave.

      Imagine my shock

      • senz on 15/02/2017 - 21:35
        +1

        Happens in the automotive mechanics industry too.

      • Kevan2 on 16/02/2017 - 18:11

        It is expected that some people knew too much and would be hard to controll

      • littleDealFish on 27/02/2017 - 19:29

        Can't even see your own bias?

        "5 women mostly teenagers who couldn't have less knowledge about IT"

        vs

        "10 men who probably were struggling to feed a family"

        Assuming we go by your opinion these men were older/had more experience it doesn't necessarily make them the best candidate.

        • Experienced people can butt heads with others in similar positions/experience.

        • Experienced people cost more.

        • Experience can also make people comfortable, lazy and thus become incompetent workers.

        Most importantly, a willingness to learn and adaptability is equally as valuable as experience.

        I would say regardless of gender, you should always give young people a chance. You can never know for sure who you're hiring, you certainly don't know someone's work ethic or merit from a single group interview. What a very presumptuous and damaging thing to say…

    • guysmiley on 14/02/2017 - 09:13
      +1

      That would be true, if the word discrimination only applied to unjust or prejudicial treatment of women.

      Is this case, it's just discrimination.

    • nikey2k27 on 16/02/2017 - 09:59
      +1

      white male discrimination.

    • smartazz104 on 13/02/2017 - 07:39
      +1

      You should look up the definition of trolling.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 13:26
    +2

    Probably not morally right but a company can seek suitable candidates for a role that they are filling
    It seems pretty messed up but at the end of the day if HR is looking for females to fill a role they should of perhaps made that clear pre interview
    its a little bit of a strange field for that gender request by HR, I could understand a real estate front desk role etc (not to say males can't be receptionists before anyone assumes this) wanting a female staff member and primarily females would apply for that role as they would be best suited etc

    I dunno, seems pretty rude of a company to do that, I personally wouldn't work there if they started off like that during the interview stage
    tells me a lot about their overall moral compass

    • Ughhh on 12/02/2017 - 13:33
      +8

      made that clear pre interview

      One of the problems is that if they wrote in their ad they were only looking for females, people would still complain about gender discrimination.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 13:43

        Whilst true
        Employers can ask a particular person to fill a role

        An interview is about meeting the right fit for a particular role, at the end of the day you might as well say you were discriminated against for not been chosen, society is almost at that point where people nitpick at every single little detail

        Do females / Males deserve the same rights, absolutely but lets look at the big picture here, at the end of the day if you are not the "right fit" you are not chosen

        Legal issues, perhaps for the interviewer, then again you only have verbal proof and whos to say your mate is full of s&&t and blowing the whole interview process out of proportion

        • Ughhh on 12/02/2017 - 13:57
          +1

          The most legal and safe way for the employer is probably to just avoid male sounding names when picking resumes (if looking for females). If a couple of Sams or Jamies pass, interview them anyway, knowing you're wasting everyones time.

          Rude either way unfortunately.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 09:26
        -1

        Cringe.

        Women. They are only looking for women.

      • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 18:31
        +3

        That's because if they only look for females it IS gender discrimination.

        • Ughhh on 13/02/2017 - 18:56
          +3

          So the best solution is to let the applicant hanging, wasting the applicants time writing a CV and letter. If they happen to pass through the filter because they had a unisex name, just give them a quick 5 min interview with a crappy but legal dishonest excuse. Meanwhile applicant has wasted his day prepping for a job that was never his and possibly missing actual potential jobs.

          You can't make someone hire you, despite whether its legal or not. I would rather know beforehand, than waste my time.

          That being said, Im not saying I agree/approve gender discrimination. Laws really only act as a hurdle and a guide.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 19:04
          +1

          @Ughhh:

          No the best solution is to actually practice real equality. Give applicants equal opportunity and then judge them on merit. I guess that thinking makes me a dinosaur.

        • Ughhh on 13/02/2017 - 19:15

          @syousef:

          Companies also have an equal opportunity image to hold too. No doubt there will be people and media questioning why this company is 90% males.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 19:18
          +2

          @Ughhh:

          If there is discrimination against women there is no shortcut to fixing that. You can't counter it with discrimination towards men. They don't cancel each other out. They both add unfairness and resentment.

          If there are 90% males in the field of study feeding into the company or area of the company and you want 50% women you need to get more women interested first, not take the worst students because they happen to be female.

          There aren't any shortcuts to being fair and just.

        • Ughhh on 13/02/2017 - 19:50

          @syousef:

          you need to get more women interested first,

          Such as programs and scholarships to entice females to join and apply. Something to express that women are welcome and wanted in this field that may be known as a male dominated field.

          What method do you suggest to get women interested, without discriminating against men?

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 20:58
          +3

          @Ughhh:

          • Respectful, safe, welcoming spaces. My local astronomy club is very female and family friendly. We don't tolerate swearing, learing or carry on. (It's mostly older married blokes and from what I can tell there are no creeps).
          • Make toys that encourage engineering in girl colours. Like Lego. Not that "Friends" shit but actual vehicles.
          • Take things they're actually interested in and explain the science and maths. Don't judge what they're interested in. Music has math, cooking has chemistry, textiles are all about the science. Find ways to make math relevant to their lives.
          • Zero tolerence on bullying girls for liking science and math.
          • Take claims of sexual harassment seriously. That doesn't mean women should automatically be believed. But their concerns should not be dimissed and there should be provision made to move them away from superiors and mentors at work if such a claim is made, whether or not it is substantiated. And by move them away I don't mean into a corner where they're ostracized.
          • Stop increasing the number of hours people are suppose to put in while simulataneously decreasing pay, conditions and job stability. The same companies that promote only women often have a very dim view of a woman working fewer or different hours to raise kids.

          Here's a really radical thought for you. Pay women (and men) for housework and raising the kids. The idea that we're suppose to tend house and raise a family in our spare time is stupid. At the same time there need to be criteria to be met to earn a wage. For instance kids meeting standards at school could earn parents a bonus. Kids who volunteer to help others might earn the family a small bonus (need to be careful it doesn't get abused as child labour)…The idea would be to set up a system that rewards kids becoming good, productive well educated citizens. And yep it would be hard. If companies want to contribute, let them contribute their fair share of tax to stuff like this.

        • Ughhh on 13/02/2017 - 21:05
          +2

          @syousef:

          Make toys that encourage engineering in girl colours

          Oh boy. What are "girl" colours? Pink? How does this make the guys who like pink feel? If I don't like the colour pink (which I don't), does that mean Im not a 'proper' girl?

          Take things they're actually interested in and explain the science and maths. Don't judge what they're interested in. Music has math, cooking has chemistry, textiles are all about the science. Find ways to make math relevant to their lives.

          Because cooking and textiles is a girls thing right, we're all good and love being in the kitchen.

          You're treating the females differently, like giving special treatment. Isn't that discrimination?

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 21:29
          -2

          @Ughhh:

          Well I have a daughter who is obsessed with "girl colours". I have no interest in that crappy "Friends" Lego which is Lego in name and branding only. Where did I say you weren't a proper girl? Are you looking to play professional victim? If you are a little girl who likes yellow and black and blue boy colours" there's already Lego out there for you?

          And yeah you know what? I see a lot more girls talking about cooking reality TV shows than guys. Who are you to decide on behalf of all women that they can't like that? If they are interested in that use it as a way to get them into the field. But no you're more interested in crying "mysogynist!" than actually listening to what I'm trying to say.

          It comes down to this. If you can't get girls interested in whatever field you're trying to establish equality in, then enforcing a quota of disinterested and second rate women is just plain insane. All you'd do is weaken that industry. And there'll be another country that isn't as damn stupid that'll absolutely out-compete you. So how about this. Why don't YOU tell ME how you'd get girls interested in the first place instead of how you're going to force disinterested incompetents into up to half the positions.

        • Ughhh on 13/02/2017 - 21:40

          @syousef:

          You really like your lego dont you.

          Make toys that encourage engineering in girl colours

          You didnt answer my question, what are "girl colours". I'm intrigued.

          If you are a little girl who likes yellow and black and blue boy colours" there's already Lego out there for you?

          Colour is just a colour. Why are you labeling colours with genders? Thats whats wrong with society, and you dont even see what you are actually doing. Blue and pink can be a colour for any sex.

          Who are you to decide on behalf of all women that they can't like that?

          Cant like what? wtf you on about? Some like, some dont. Your suggestion was based on the assumption that all women liked cooking etc "lets get women interested in science by involving things that we know women love, like cooking and textiles". Also, Who are you to decide what colours are girl and boy colours.

          I see a lot more girls talking about cooking reality TV shows than guys.

          You're making a lot of assumptions based on your daughter and girls who happen to talk about cooking reality shows. Just because they talk about it, doesnt mean they actually love cooking, nor does it mean men dont watch it or like cooking.

          On top of that, basically your suggestions can be seen as discriminatory as well, to men. My point it, it's easier said than done to achieve perfection in society, to make everything fair.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 22:44
          +2

          @Ughhh:

          Oh my god. It's like talking to a passive agressive brick wall.

          Lego is a great example because it's an engineering toy. You learn to build structures with it as a young child.

          My little girl and ALL her friends that I see are interested in pinks and purples. They are attracted to those colours. I have a much better chance of getting her to build a Lego car with me if it's in those colours.

          Do I really need to hunt down demographics of shows like Masterchef and MKR to show you that more women are watching them?

          And yes it's hard to make things fair but it's a lot harder to find fairness when you go out of your way to make them unfair.

        • Ughhh on 13/02/2017 - 22:47
          -1

          @syousef:

          LOL! Oh boy. So is white a girl or boy colour?

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 22:49

          @Ughhh:

          Are you trolling?

          You know very well that there are colours typically associated with boys and girls and that by a certain age children of each gender gravitate to them. How much is nature vs nurture isn't important. What's important is what you can do with them to get people interested in a field of study you see as underrepresented by a gender.

          This discussion is quickly becoming a quagmire.

        • Ughhh on 13/02/2017 - 23:12
          -2

          @syousef:

          You know very well that there are colours typically associated with boys and girls and that by a certain age children of each gender gravitate to them.

          It's a little hard for kids to gravitate towards a colour honestly and without feeling pressured/judgement when there are people like you (and toy companies) already making labels like "girl colours". Boys may grow up thinking they shouldnt like yellow because it's not a "boy colour". Keep thinking you're an angel, whatever floats your boat.

          I'm guessing your favourite colour is brown…

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 08:45
          -1

          @Ughhh:

          Yeah it's all my fault - "people like you ". I am the one that made want to play with pink and purple toys? I am the one that told her what her favourite colour should be. I couldn't possibly be a dad that wants her to play with real Lego instead of gravitating to that shitty "Friends" Lego which is what SHE begs for when she asks for Lego.

          You're not a nice person at all. People like you are the problem. You don't care who the hell you blame as long as you can put someone else down.

          And you still haven't answered my quesiton: How would YOU get girls interested?

        • guysmiley on 14/02/2017 - 09:25
          +2

          @Ughhh: You need to stop trying to bait this poster and pretending like you don't know what they are talking about.

          What are "girl colours" generally Pink and Purple, but you could also go for Teal, Turquoise (etc). Unfortunately that is a societal thing, not only by this poster.

          You need to stop pretending to be so aggrieved as if this is a personal attack on you, it isn't, it was a simple reply to a post that you obviously took offence to.

          I have a 7 year old daughter, who comes with me to work sometimes, she wanted a toolkit for herself, but didn't want blue or black or yellow, she wanted pink, when i told that she didn't have to get pink because she's a girl, she said she wanted pink because "It looked better that way".

        • Ughhh on 14/02/2017 - 10:37

          @guysmiley:

          Unfortunately that is a societal thing, not only by this poster

          Correct, a social thing, who contributes and how do these things start?

        • Ughhh on 14/02/2017 - 10:44

          @syousef:

          I am the one that made want to play with pink and purple toys?

          I'm talking about labels, contributing to the issue of associating colours with sex… What if you had a son who liked pink? You still gonna call it a girl colour?

          Take a break, maybe you've been playing too much friends Lego.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 10:58

          @Ughhh:

          I would love nothing more for her to ask me for the "boy Lego". If I try to buy it for her she gets upset. I must be a monster for not forcing it on her.

          You don't love women, and want equality for them. You hate men, and want to put them down. There is a difference. The first makes society better. The later adds more hate.

          it doesn't matter how many people mod the truth down. It still stays true. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

        • guysmiley on 14/02/2017 - 12:15
          +1

          @Ughhh: Yes, a Societal thing.

          http://jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blu…
          "According to Smithsonian.com, the shift toward pink and blue happened gradually. For centuries, all children had worn practical white dresses, which could easily be pulled up to change diapers, and bleached when said diapers inevitably exploded. Pastel baby clothes were introduced in the mid-19th century, but according to University of Maryland historian Jo B. Paoletti, author of Pink and Blue: Telling the Girls From the Boys in America, the colors weren't gender-specific at first."

          FYI, Societal and social technically mean the same thing, please refrain from correcting someone when they are not wrong.

        • Ughhh on 14/02/2017 - 12:55

          @syousef:

          I would love nothing more for her to ask me for the "boy Lego". If I try to buy it for her she gets upset. I must be a monster for not forcing it on her.

          Not sure when I said about forcing them to like a colour. My comment was about labelling, swoosh

          You don't love women, and want equality for them. You hate men, and want to put them down. There is a difference. The first makes society better. The later adds more hate.

          Oh really? Are these your facts? Maybe I just don't like labels?

          I don't hate women, I don't hate men. I don't love women, nor do I love men. I like some (majority of, unless we have a problem or you're an idiot, some I love too) women, as I do with men. But good try with your assumptions, Pat on the head for you!

        • Ughhh on 14/02/2017 - 13:05

          @guysmiley:

          Back then, homosexuality was illegal and racial labels wasn't a big deal.
          But it's 2017 now, why continue labeling things. The blue isn't a "boy colour", it's just colour. Lots of my friends and girl peers at school actually preferred blue as opposed to the "girl colour" pink, many of them still prefer blue.

          If your boss asked you what colour your car was, you wouldn't say "it's a boy colour" right?

        • guysmiley on 14/02/2017 - 14:19

          @Ughhh: Well…no. For 2 reasons.

          1. I don't apply gender to colours.
          2. My car is green. (Emerald is you want to be precise)

          You are acting as if all this can change overnight, it took decades for boy and girl colours to be widely accepted. You need to make positive changes to assist with it, seeing as you are the one with the problem with it, not just charge at windmills and get upset for the purposes of playing the victim.

          I am surprised that in any of your replies to syousef, that you haven't tried to blame the Patriarchy for gender colours. That's where it feels like you are headed.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join