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

        • guysmiley on 14/02/2017 - 14:34
          +1

          @Ughhh: How dare you presume this poster's parenting, are you a parent? The way that you are posting i would guess not. So looking from the outside, you have all the perfect answers to fix everything, everywhere, right?

          Sadly it doesn't work like that, ever. There are influences in a child's life that parent has no control over, grandparents, friends, school, everything guides your child and helps them grow, positively and negatively. The best that you can do is help them be a good, kind and respectful person. The minute you start infecting them with the venom where things like boy colours and girl colours should be offensive to them, is when you start turning them into becoming a professional victim. People are allowed to be aggrieved by things that are socially wrong, but try to be problem solver and help with the solution not just a problem spotter and shake your fist in anger at the things you don't like.

          Also ad hominem attacks make you seem less intelligent as you are unable to counter a persons argument, or fail to answer a simple question, but you attack the person, you should stop doing that.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 15:41

          @guysmiley:

          Thank you.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 15:45

          @Ughhh:

          The facts are you've done everything in your power to insinuate that it is my "fault" that my daughter prefers certain colours and that I am a terrible human being for wanting to use the colours my daughter prefers to get her interested in building things. How dare I suggest that we have pink Lego cars. Clearly I am the devil incarnate.

          The fact is you haven't got a logical argument to make and your posts have degenerated into to absurd personal attacks and vile condescension. We need real solutions. Not more hate and illogical prattle.

        • Ughhh on 14/02/2017 - 16:23
          +2

          @syousef:

          Bloody hell, I don't care what colour your daughter prefers, or that your daughter likes friends Lego (whatever toy that is). My topic was stuff like "blue is a boy colour". It's the public statement linking colour to gender (and for the last time, gender in general, kids in general, im not taking about your kids or what you said said to your kid. I don't care about your parenting, why would you think I care?

          Again for the last time, idgaf what colour your daughter likes. If she likes pink, cool. If she likes blue, that's cool too. If she liked blue, You wouldn't say that's a boy colour to her right? My point wasn't about your daughter, but you keep bringing her up and making it personal.

          I've seen first hand a ~6ish yr old boy feel uncomfortable because another girl said that his favourite colour red, was a girl colour.

          I'm pretty sure I could say something like "unicorns are cool" and you'd still take offence from that, and take it as me saying you're evil or something. Just go back to your girl and boy coloured LEGOs.

          I'm not expecting change overnight and from 1 person. But everything starts somewhere, being aware helps. You can't change history, but people can shape the future of what is acceptable.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 16:36

          @Ughhh:

          You basically blasted ME (personal attack) for stating the bleeding obvious: Yes little girls like purple and pink.

          I never said that I forced pink or purple on my daughter or that I wouldn't give her something blue. She has a lovely blue Elsa dress that she absolutely loves. My boy sometimes steals my daughter's pink blanket for the night and I have never given him a hard time about it. You just make assumption after assumption about me and hurl insults and condescension then you act as if it's me that's being unreasonable!

          I said that I wish there were more of the real Lego in colours that appeal to little girls like mine. This somehow made me a monster. I didn't say girls should only play with girl colours. I said use the colours THEY love to get them interested and involved. YOU chose to make it an issue, not me!

        • Ughhh on 14/02/2017 - 17:54

          @syousef:

          I never said that I forced pink or purple on my daughter or that I wouldn't give her something blue. She has a lovely blue Elsa dress that she absolutely loves.

          I never said you did…

          Yes little girls like purple and pink.

          And some boys like purple and pink too, just as some girls like blue and "boy colours". In fact, blue is a favourite colour by many girls.

          Saying that a popular colour liked by both sexes is a "boy colour" can be more hurtful (in particular to kids) than it sounds- my previous comment about he 6yo as an example. Whether you think that makes you a monster is your opinion. Im saying the statement and the trend is cruel, not YOU specifically, so please stop making this personal. Applying gender to colours and saying that "blue is a boy colour" is outdated and unnecessary, its an unnecessary gender trend/streotype. Whilst the colour pink is more favoured by girls than boys, the minority of boys should not feel like an outcast for liking a colour catergorised as a "girl colour" by randoms.

          Have a read of this article http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/avoiding-the-pink-vs-blue…

        • Ughhh on 14/02/2017 - 17:57

          @guysmiley:

          @Ughhh: Well…no. For 2 reasons.
          I don't apply gender to colours.
          My car is green. (Emerald is you want to be precise)

          So you agree that applying gender to colours is unnecessary too? HIGH FIVE!

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 20:07

          @Ughhh:

          Where exactly did I say it was "necessary" to "apply gender to colours"?

        • Ughhh on 14/02/2017 - 20:14

          @syousef:

          …..IM saying it's not necessary to apply gender to colours. Please read carefully. Are you reading the wrong reply (reading my reply to guysmiley instead and taking it like I was talking to you?)

          You didn't say it was "necessary" but you applied gender to colours anyway, multiple times and argued for it.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 20:30

          @Ughhh:

          No I saw who you were replying to. So don't be insulting on top of everything else.

          You were giving him a pat on the back and me a slap in the face.

          Perhaps YOU should read what I wrote. I said that girls preferred certain colours. I did not argue for anything. I stated something I know to be true. At no point did I say girls should/must play with pink and purple. I said go with their preferences to get them interested in Lego/engineering toys.

        • Ughhh on 14/02/2017 - 20:40
          +1

          @syousef:

          Far out, I am talking to a brick wall, a rather thick one. You said "blue boy colours". Truth is, blue is a colour for everyone, not just boys. You are applying gender to colours, not me.

          I gave you a pat on the back earlier….you're not really helping yourself.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 22:53

          @Ughhh:

          blue boy colours = colours that boys like = colours that are traditionally associated with colours.

          It doesn't mean I'm going to punish my daughter for liking or wanting things in those colours. Hell blue can look stunning on a girl. At our wedding we had our bridesmaids in electric blue.

        • Ughhh on 14/02/2017 - 22:58
          +1

          @syousef:

          It doesn't mean I'm going to punish my daughter for liking or wanting things in those colours

          Who the hell said to punish anyone for liking certain colours?? Are you high?

          An unnecessary tradition and stereotype set and fed by marketing companies and narrow minded people. Are you gonna take this as personal attack too?

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 23:53

          @Ughhh:

          Read what you said above if you want an example of a personal attack.

        • guysmiley on 15/02/2017 - 00:06
          +1

          @Ughhh: What you fail to understand is that you are both actually arguing the same point. Although you, aside from the ad hominems, are, either directly or indirectly missing the point that syousef is trying to make and in doing so are creating strawman arguments.

          You both agree that gender shouldn't be associated with colour, yes? (I'm already aware that you are See previous HIGH FIVE!!)

          But you seem to care a lot more about changing it where the rest of us kinda don't, because it's not an actual problem, it's just something that happens. It's not indoctrinated, nor patriarchy, nor withcraft, or any other external force or element that causes it.

          If you ask anyone what they would associate as a girl colour, 99.9% would say pink or purple. the other .1% would get mad about it.

          Be the change you want to see in the world, not the force that tries to conceal it.

          thank you and good night.

    • SeVeN11 on 12/02/2017 - 23:30
      +14

      I think this is how females in the work place felt and they had to suck it up for the last thousand years…

      This has definitely happened @ my work place and I've been passed over for a promotion because of this reason.
      The flip side of the coin is they now allow males to take paid parental leave to be fair, i.e. 12 weeks paid leave similar to maternity leave.

      My wife has been slow and steadily climbing the corporate ladder and I would not be surprised if we decide that I stay at home and look after the kids and for her to go full steam ahead with her career. Times are changing, get with the times and get your wife to capitalise on her career.

      • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 18:33
        +2

        So lets add more discrimination and make it suck for another thousand years?

        Here's a novel thought? How about a true and level playing field where which set of genitals or chromosomes you have don't enter into it unless it has a direct bearing on your ability to do the work? Not in name only but in actual practice.

        If getting with the times means getting with a new kind of horrible inequality, no we shouldn't.

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 19:52

          Conversely that also means equailty in child rearing and domestic duties because this keeps a lot of women out of the workforce, purely because men don't get the same benefits.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 19:53
          +3

          @MissG:

          That would also require men who were interested in education and attending children's events to not be seen as potential predators.

        • SeVeN11 on 13/02/2017 - 23:36
          +1

          @syousef: I think if men played more part in attending children's event etc., perception will change over time.

          Keep in mind it did take thousands of years for humanity to realise it has left half the world's potential on the bench (i.e. females)… Hopefully unlocking this will also include humanity accepting men as primary carers of their children. I think it is just something people will have to get use to and learn to accept over the next century or so.

          It's a bit like the technology life cycle: innovators => early adopters => early majority => late majority => laggards.
          Note: This is a social issue so it will likely take many generations to get to full adoption.

          The bigger picture is that half the world's population are females and this means half the world's potential are females. i.e. It is in humanity's interest that this potential is unlocked sooner rather than later.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 08:41
          +6

          @SeVeN11:

          Oh perception has changed over time….for the worse. There use to be a few men in education, but now you'd have to have rocks in your head to be a primary school teacher as a male. All it would take is one accusation - not proof - just accusation to totally derail your career. And men know it which is why you might have 1 in 20 male teachers these days. When I was young it might have beeen 1 in 10.

          Here are my first hand experiences.

          Photographing at my children's little athletics group I had a pair of DSLRs. My wife asked me to take pictures of some of the other kids as she had asked the mums for permission but obviously she'd missed some. One lady came and yelled at me that I had no right to take pictures of her kids. I offered to delete them when she continued to scream at me while watching me do it. The kicker? There was a mother standing next to me casually videoing the whole event, and another taking video nearby too. A third repeatedly asked what I do with all the images. This was highjump not swimming and the kids were fully dressed. I had never been made to feel like a sexual predator before. I refused to ever go back to that club. And in the end we changed to a different club because my wife was quite distressed that I wasn't coming to watch the kids.

          Similar thing at my kids school talent quest, except this time I was only photographing the teachers and my own kids. I got pulled aside by the principal who said that it was no big deal but he'd had complaints (later clarified to more like questions. Apparently some thought I was a reporter). That was my first meeting with princial, and I don't spend much time at the school since. It's not as if I'd never been to the school.

          …and you see womens groups nudge out men all the time when it comes to parenting. Sometimes it's subtle and sometimes it's not.

          So respectfully, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's nothing like technology and things are going backwards. I absolutely want females included in society and I want to unlock their potential. But I do not want to see men discriminated against more. I want to see women discriminated against less. And there are many women who will deny it is possible to discriminate against men, and say that this is only fair because women have been discriminated against for so long. Well guess what. It's not the same men who discriminated against men that you are now hurting.

      • guysmiley on 14/02/2017 - 12:20
        -1

        "This has definitely happened @ my work place and I've been passed over for a promotion because of this reason…"

        If that is true, and you have proof that this was the reason, that is discrimination.

    • bobbified on 13/02/2017 - 09:05
      +2

      Unless they have applied for and received an exemption, it is not legal to assess suitability of candidates based on sex alone.

      Imagine the uproar if it was the other way around - ie, they were only seeking men.

  • supnigs super skids on 12/02/2017 - 13:26
    -2

    Women can do some things better than men!

    • altomic on 12/02/2017 - 14:13
      +43

      Like give birth!

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

        I tried once, but the child that came out from my phallus loins was hard as a rock and kidney shaped :\

        • BartholemewH on 13/02/2017 - 12:38

          You realise kidney stones are not kidney shaped yes?

        • Kangal on 13/02/2017 - 13:02
          +8

          @BartholemewH:
          I know that, but I wasnt sure anyone would realise what I meant if I hadn't put the word kidney in the sentence somewhere.

        • BartholemewH on 13/02/2017 - 19:53

          @Kangal:
          No worries, I get it, I was being obtuse.

      • SeVeN11 on 12/02/2017 - 23:34
        +6

        I think this is exactly the type of discrimination that exist and the world just accepts.

      • JayM on 13/02/2017 - 12:30
        +1

        Arnold Schwarzenegger disagrees with this statement.

        • altomic on 13/02/2017 - 13:15
          +1

          it's not a tumour!!

    • D C on 12/02/2017 - 14:19
      +8

      When the mining boom was in full swing companies were trying to hire women to drive the big yellow things around - overall they tended not to drive like (profanity) so wear & tear on the gear was less.

      Not only were spare parts expensive, there was a long waiting list for them.

      Money > Equality.

      • Unknown1 on 12/02/2017 - 16:32
        +6

        During a ADF "You Session", one of the mentors stated his preference for female workers. Due to them not bitching or loafing around when asked to fetch a wrench.

        Productivity > Equality, as well.

      • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 18:35
        +1

        Or you could just hire drivers that don't drive the equipment roughly, regardless of gender. If they do replace them with someone that's gentler.

        • D C on 13/02/2017 - 19:31

          Good luck with that.

          No doubt you're 'above average' like everyone else, but have you noticed how most people drive?

    • Scrooge McDuck on 12/02/2017 - 18:19
      +10

      Women can do some things better than men!

      But the women as described in the OP didn't do anything better than the men…

      Other than just being women.

      • D C on 13/02/2017 - 00:27
        -3

        Imaginary women at that.

    • peterpaoliello on 13/02/2017 - 21:28
      +5

      I don't understand why women want to be equal when they could be better.

      That shows a lack of ambition.

      Which is why men are better

      • outlander on 14/02/2017 - 17:49
        +3

        Yeah, I know. Most men can do shit all. Whenever I hear a woman talking about how she can do something 'just as well as the boys can' I'm like jeezus lady, set the bar a little higher.

        • lainey13 on 14/02/2017 - 22:57
          +2

          Woman's mantra: "I can have the confidence of a mediocre white man!"

  • AdosHouse on 12/02/2017 - 13:30
    +28

    I'm pretty sure its illegal for them to do that. That is discrimination based on gender, and that is illegal.

    The smart thing to do would have been to interview everyone and then only take the females without saying anything. Now the idiot has opened himself up to legal problems.

    • altomic on 12/02/2017 - 14:14
      +6

      The smart thing would be for a male to dress as an effeminate femalr

      • Scrooge McDuck on 12/02/2017 - 17:56
        +4

        Or pack a skirt in your bag for your next job interview.

    • D C on 12/02/2017 - 14:16
      +16

      You know this didn't happen, right?

      No one in HR is "pretty sure" this is illegal, they'd never openly say "Girls only" at an interview.

    • siresteelhell on 12/02/2017 - 19:16
      +2

      nah our stupid govenment allows this type of BS… and it is BS however u name it… identity politics filtering into everyday life

    • kindshibe on 12/02/2017 - 19:53
      +17

      It is not illegal.

      The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 allows organisations to take discriminatory actions in order to ensure equality overall, this includes selectively hiring females in male dominated industries.

      For example, The University of Melbourne last year listed 3 roles in its Mathematics department available to females only.
      See: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-18/melbourne-university-o…

      • Charity on 12/02/2017 - 22:30
        +1

        wow!

      • 4foxache on 13/02/2017 - 09:08
        +5

        Holy crap now it is actually legal to discriminate against men… how in the hell is that equal rights? lol

        • ItsMeAgro on 13/02/2017 - 10:14
          +2

          Are… are you serious? They just said exactly how it's supposed to be equal rights:

          The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 allows organisations to take discriminatory actions in order to ensure equality overall, this includes selectively hiring females in male dominated industries.

          Not that I agree with it, necessarily, but you can see their logic there.

        • siresteelhell on 13/02/2017 - 11:36

          @mgowen:

          O it is legal, but it is BS, shows how far our government is lost…

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 18:37
          +2

          @mgowen:

          Yet to see this applied to a female dominated workplace.

      • susu abis on 13/02/2017 - 12:29
        +1

        This happens a lot in big firms. There is this really big drive for diversity. For Engineering companies in particular, there's been an emphasis on employing graduates from all races (White, Black, Yellow, etc) and disabled too. I guess its good because you get a mixed of backgrounds and different ways to tackle problems.

        Women Engineers are tough so maybe these 4 would have got in on merit

      • DingoBilly on 13/02/2017 - 23:53

        It is still illegal though if they're discriminating without going through the appropriate channels. Melbourne University openly said they were looking for female only applicants and went through the correct channels to obtain an exemption.

        In this case, the employers would not have, and are just discriminating.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 14:00
    +10

    I can't respect women in engineering after personally witnessing female undergraduates at a top university being progressed despite failing maths prerequisites to keep up numbers. They are given scholarships, spending money and part time jobs around university and lower, sometimes failing, pass marks.

    Here is an example scholarship scheme:

    "The Women in Engineering Bursaries Scholarship celebrate the success of high achieving female students who choose to pursue a rewarding career in engineering.

    Value: $5000 for a full-time study load (48 credit points) for one year.
    Number available: The Faculty will offer up to 50 Women in Engineering Bursaries in 2015."

    Funnily enough, they state:

    "At XXXX Engineering, we celebrate academic excellence and support students who are disadvantaged. " so being a woman is a state of disavantage.

    • hamole on 12/02/2017 - 15:07
      +31

      "I can't respect women in engineering"
      That's a pretty broad brush

      • D C on 12/02/2017 - 15:13
        -3

        Came with his MRA membership.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 15:17

        Who are your top three favourites, or are you virtualising?

        • hamole on 12/02/2017 - 15:24
          +8

          …are you genuinely asking if I know 3 competent female engineers?

          What does virtualising even mean in this context?

        • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 15:38
          -2

          @hamole:
          Are you a qualified engineer? If not, yeah, don't bother. I don't care about fawning admiration.

        • hamole on 12/02/2017 - 15:45
          +2

          @Frugal Rock:

          No I'm not, I did a couple of engineering subjects at Uni and met lots of people who have gone onto to do great work.

          It's stupid to say you can't know somebody is good at their job if it is not the field you work in.

        • macrocephalic on 13/02/2017 - 11:34

          @Frugal Rock: I am. I still don't know what you're talking about.

    • razorack999 on 12/02/2017 - 15:22
      +11

      Frugal, your comment is the sort of "reasoning" that has got society into this situation in the first place. Affirmative action is now seen as a necessary evil because of broad sweeping statements and attitudes like yours. Treating each applicant on his /her own merits is the obviously preferred option- not some "ëven up the score" artificial construct such as affirmative action- but with BS comments like your, you can hardly complain.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 15:24
        -2

        "with BS comments like your, "

        Wipe the froth off your screen.

        • razorack999 on 12/02/2017 - 15:25
          +12

          LOL I think its on your side of the glass….

        • bhm133 on 12/02/2017 - 19:49
          +1

          Gold. LMAO.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 12/02/2017 - 18:06
      +3

      I can't respect women in engineering after personally witnessing female undergraduates at a top university being progressed despite failing maths prerequisites to keep up numbers. They are given scholarships, spending money and part time jobs around university and lower, sometimes failing, pass marks.

      I never questioned the competency of my female peers at Uni.

      But it's a shame for them that these discriminative practices will rightly cause others to.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 18:53
        +1

        Well, the truth is that the exact same practice of artificially advancing struggling paying foreign students is an academic scandal and a 4 Corners exposé, but when promoting women in engineering, it's affirmative action and fighting male oppression.

    • altomic on 12/02/2017 - 23:54
      +9

      yeah, and they - monash uni- are also offering 50 scholarships for people with 98+ point ATAR scores, 50 scholarships for international students, an undisclosed number of indigenous scholarships and 5 mining engineering scholarships.

      so looks like they are trying to attract a more diverse student body.

      but I'm being discriminated against because I am not a woman, I'm not from another country, I'm not indigenous and I'm not doing mining engineering, and I just completed post grad psych, but that doesn't matter.

    • runtoparadise on 13/02/2017 - 01:10
      +3

      "I can't respect women in engineering after… <insert anecdotal reasoning>" - if you were an actual engineer logic would tell you your qualm is with the university as opposed to all "women in engineering", this is almost like a Donald Trump rant.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 09:37

        It was actually more like Amy Farrah Fowler's meme theory experiment, testing whether trite anecdotal sexism or institutional academic misconduct would outrage SJWs more. Thanks for your participation.

    • ddab568 on 13/02/2017 - 11:58
      +6

      I can't respect women in engineering

      How did this get 14 upvotes…

      • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 12:05
        -2

        Take that ellipsis back.

        • ddab568 on 13/02/2017 - 12:18
          +4

          Take your sweeping statement based on a ridiculous personal anecdote back. Your attitude is the reason why those programs come into existence.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 12:30
          -2

          @ddab568:
          I will if you find me three short pieces of code, written by a woman, to equal the brilliance of the fast inverse square root.

      • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 18:41

        "I can't respect women in engineering after personally witnessing female undergraduates at a top university being progressed despite failing maths prerequisites to keep up numbers."

        and all you took was

        "I can't respect [ANY/ALL] women in engineering"

        If he did in fact see women fail maths and progressed based on keeping up numbers, he shouldn't respect them, nor the institution.

        • ddab568 on 13/02/2017 - 20:20

          "I can't respect women in engineering" implies ALL. The wording implies ALL women in engineering, inclusive. If he had said "I can't respect SOME" I wouldn't bother commenting. Don't misconstrue something so (profanity) obvious, please.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 21:00

          @ddab568:

          You've never used a broad term where being more percise would be clearer? Why don't you ask the OP what he meant instead of assuming?

        • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 23:00

          @ddab568:
          No. I merely didn't capitalise the 'W' and the 'E' in 'Women in Engineering' to cause maximum pixie mischief and SJW trigger japery. Bad, bad me.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5nkUVpG8JmI

          Mr Highway is a metaphor for those two uncapitalised letters.

    • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 15:52
      +8

      Women fail maths because they are told from day dot that they aren't good at maths. There was a very interesting study in New York that split up two groups of un-encultured girls, and one group were told girls were better than boys at maths, and one group were told the opposite. No prizes for guessing which group did worse. You have society telling them they can't do maths, you have math teachers with these beliefs, conscious or unconscious, you have girls being diverted away from maths based activities and into the arts, and so by the time they get to university level, if they're still even doing maths, that no, they're not going to perform as well. The goal posts are shifted to accommodate this.

      The old, getting in on merit argument fails for this reason and many many others. It hasn't worked. Women don't get into male dominated industries on merit because their circumstances are entirely different, disadvantaged from a very young age in terms of their education (much better for children now though), and this just has not been recognised by the people who should have recognised it.

      I support this push to get women through purely because the meritocracy has failed them. When things even out and the current generation of more equally educated children get to that age, then you can remove the quotas and the gender-preferencing in hiring but right now, at this point in time, it's very necessary.

      Sits back and waits for the downvotes.

      • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 18:50
        +5

        People who fail maths are generally not interested in maths. In this day and age when you can look up something that interests you and teach yourself online, that is a poor excuse. If women are so impressionable as to stop trying because they're told they're not good at something perhaps it is time we addressed making women more resilient. Resilient men and women both would take that as a challenge when they're told they aren't good at something - an opportunity to prove people wrong.

        Gender quotas are never good or right. They are wasteful. You are wasting the best talent in an attempt to achieve a result that may or may not have any merit. But at the individual level you're actually allowing more people who aren't as good into positions that others that are good have fought hard to achieve. There is point at which put up barriers based on pre-existing bias rather than merit makes the world a better place. None. You're not improving equality, you're adding inequality.

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 18:54
          +6

          People who fail maths may fail it because:

          They're not interested.
          They suffer exam anxiety.
          They have terrible self esteem and it makes them afraid of studying and going to class.
          They have living circumstances that impacts on their study (parents, abusive relationships)
          They are incredibly poor and don't have the resources other people have.
          They have medical problems.
          and so on.

          'Best talent' as measured by what? The person who came top of the class who lived at home while their parents paid for everything? Or the person who came middle of the class while struggling on a single parent pension with sick parents whose only study time is an hour at 1am? Don't assume that the person who hasn't done as well hasn't fought as hard - they might have fought harder. The problem with merit is that it assumes equal circumstance.

          Don't dumb this down. This is a complex issue and you do it and yourself no favours with the old "if they're interested enough they'll do it' argument.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 18:59
          +1

          @MissG:

          Can you please explain to me under what circumstances you think it's appropriate for "the person who came middle of the class while struggling on a single parent pension" to design a bridge or airplane if they're not capable of getting the math right? The person "who came top of the class who lived at home while their parents paid for everything" still had to do the work to get good!

          The right way to fix the situation you're talking about is to provide middle class students with more opportunity, not to take the mediocre student that results and give them a job, overlooking the guy that can actually do it well. Giving a mediocre student the job over the star student - THAT is a great example of the "dumbing down" YOU are chiding me for. And it will be our downfall.

          I'm not dumbing it down at all. If you want a better world you don't waste talent and you don't add inequality now in a misguided attempt to counter inequality of the past. In both cases you're being wasteful, increasing misery and increasing the inequality.

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

          @syousef: You're assuming that person is solely responsible for the safety of what they've designed. They're not. Any design of any major structure at which human safety is at risk will have multiple safety layers. Again you're oversimplifying the problem. Maths ability is not solely what they're looking for. There are multiple other attributes employers are looking for. Employers can also train their employees up to the standard they want - and that struggling person may be very talented at maths, they're just not getting the hours to perfect it. They will likely do better once they're getting paid and their circumstances have improved.

          You may well be wasting talent if you ignore the exceptional, yet disadvantaged applicant.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 19:08
          +1

          @MissG:

          Oh come on. This is the real world.

          • Whether it's one person or a team of 100, mistakes happen. Fatal design flaws DO pass the design stage and lives are lost.
          • When you have the entire team hired based on your criteria of hiring mediocre students, the entire team is weaker and more likely to let mistakes slip. It actually isn't fair to put someone in a situation where they're out of their depth without providing support. A whole team of mediocrity is a really REALLY bad idea.
          • Again the correct thing to do here is provide support to the disadvantaged applicant so that they are exceptional too. But this has to happen BEFORE they're given the job.
          • Your version of equality would see Eintein thrown out and replaced by a cashier who can barely make change, purely based on gender. That is wasteful, ridiculous, dangerous and not particularly sane. It certainly is not fair.
        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 19:10

          @syousef:

          Einstein is a very poor example - do you know anything about his history?

          Mistakes happen and so do fatal design flaws, even when the best talent is hired. The person with the lower scores but the better work ethic may well prevent this because they're not so arrogant to assume their work is perfect.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 19:12
          +3

          @MissG:

          A personal attack. Nice. I've read 2 biographies on Einstein, and I hold a masters in astronomy as a mater of fact. Not a joke. I've studied relativity too.

          More mistakes happen when you hire incompetents. Nature doesn't give a damn what your motiviation for hiring is. You have to be capable of the work in the first place to spot the error.

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 19:15
          +1

          @syousef: Well then you'd know very well he failed the entrance exam to the Swiss Polytechnic.

          It wasn't meant as a personal attack, but paraphrasing Neil Degrasse Tyson and not giving him credit, dude..not cool.

          And my point is that this group may well be very competent, it's just not reflected in their university scores. It's up to the employers to decide if they are.

      • foreveraloan on 14/02/2017 - 13:22

        where can I find this study?

        • foreveraloan on 18/02/2017 - 08:26

          @MissG:

          I think you overstated the extent to which the study proves your point. They weren't really un-encultured girls, they were undergrads at major universities, and the experiment was conducted vis a vis men from the same pool which could have a distorting effect. Plus, tiny sample size. I don't think this is the silver bullet you want it to be.

        • [Deactivated] on 18/02/2017 - 08:41

          @foreveraloan:
          MissG is a compulsive liar. Look at her statement:

          "women are by far the largest and most contributory group to the tax base"

          By WGEA's own facts:
          Women comprise 46.2% of all employees in Australia.
          Women constitute 71.6% of all part-time employees, 36.7% of all full-time employees and 54.7% of all casual employees.

          Full time average weekly earnings for a woman: $1352.50
          Full time average weekly earnings for a man: $1613.60

          Precisely how MissG extrapolates through that women contribute far more to the tax base is mystifying. They have lower total and much lower full time employment and consequently lower average income and pay less tax. They are neither the largest nor most contributory group. There are fewer female taxpayers and they pay less tax.

          She should follow her own advice on her own ridiculous lies: "Mate have you ever read anything you've written out loud? You should try it sometime."

        • foreveraloan on 20/02/2017 - 00:07

          @Frugal Rock:
          As much as I don't agree (even slightly) with MissG's stances, to be fair, I think in this case she was talking about how women are the largest contributors to the tax base as compared to other marginalised groups.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2017 - 01:44

          @foreveraloan:
          MissG attempted to verbal Skramit through raw beligerence or carelessness:

          Skramit: "I simply think the gender pay gap is a myth and research in Aus would support that."

          MissG: "The pay gap exists for many groups, I agree, but women are by far the largest and most contributory group to the tax base."

          (That didn't look like agreement to me ;) and note the 'many groups' for future reference)

          If it's the demographic group that experiences a pay gap WRT men's average wage where double featuring is allowed, then 'Over 12s' is a larger group than women, pays more tax and has a pay gap. MissG is still wrong. 'Brunettes' pay more tax than women, it's a larger group than women and has a pay gap. 'Enrolled voters', too. Right handers.

          Why would MissG use spurious statistical groups where people can be counted twice or more in different groups. The comparisons would be pointless and she would be wrong. Oh, those 'many' groups to compare with men that aren't women.

      • coolhand on 16/02/2017 - 12:22
        +2

        MissG are you a little older? While this rhetoric may have been true of an older generation where women weren't as encouraged to even pursue further education it certainly is no longer the case for anyone in their 20's or younger. Certainly parents while outdated views can influence thier offspring but the educational environment is not a discriminatory place and hasn't been for a very long time.

        • MessyG on 16/02/2017 - 20:53
          +1

          The fact that there are still hardly any women in engineering courses would suggest otherwise, it is by nature discriminatory for that reason, - women feel that is an area they can't access for a variety of reasons.

          And I suppose depends on what educational environment you're referring to. I graduated medical school 6 years ago, I'm not sure if that makes me 'a little older' or not. Regardless, it was hugely sexist. And once in the workforce, every supervisor I've ever had up until last year was male. 5 years it took to be supervised by my own gender. The mix in medical school may be 50:50 but further than it's not. Every year I've attended at least one meeting where I've been the only woman in the room.

          If you think the educational environment is not a discriminatory place, I would argue it's because you've not experienced it - and why would you have, unless you know a woman who has?

          It may not be overt like it has been in the past, but it's still there.

        • coolhand on 16/02/2017 - 22:07

          @MissG: It's complex debate that I think is better discussed in person, however the idea that because a certain career path or line of education has a higher ratio of males to females then it is by nature discriminatory is illogical.

          Certainly the effects of the male dominated education and workforce will be felt for another decade or more as a disproportionate number of those getting the education levels or those in roles which provided work experience for supervisory roles were males. However as the newer generation of leadership candidates come up to replace them the pool of candidates will be less affected by this.

          As this debate progresses it seems that more and more people want to suggest that gender isn't a real thing…..it is a real thing. Biology is real a real thing that has evolved over millions of years inside of us. Certainly it's a scale and some women may have more masculine tendancies than some men and vice versa but masculine and feminine are not made up concepts, it's been shown in studies to essentially be due to hormonal differences. If you give a male levels of estrogen that an average female experiences they will be more compassionate but also more sensitive and self-conscious, essentially their emotional sensitivity is heightened. On the flip side when you administer testosterone to females in levels that the average male would experience they demonstrate more aggression and are more prone to risk-taking behaviour, however they are also more assertive and self-confident. These sex hormones essentially dictate a huge element of personality, so while to suggest that there may be differences in male and female preferences in terms of career pathways has become taboo it becomes pretty logical to imagine why that might be the case when you have an understanding of the underlying biology at play here.

        • MessyG on 17/02/2017 - 07:09
          +1

          @coolhand:

          Most professions used to be male dominated. Using your logic, it was because hormones and gender.

          I'm not going to argue sex hormone biology with you, it's more complex than them dictating personality as they are not stable in their levels between human to human.

          And your argument that the educational environment is not a discriminatory place anymore is quite frankly, staggering.

        • coolhand on 17/02/2017 - 10:37

          @MissG: no, most buisness professions used to be male dominated because of the way the educational and workplace environment was previously set up, I mentioned that in my point about current holders of superviaitory and leadership roles.

          I also conceded that hormone levels are not stable and you will inevitably have some males which are more feminine than some females and vice versa. However when your presenting statistics about millions of people then you are inherently considering averages, and average levels are vastly different between genders and the define a huge component of an individuals personality.

          Why is it a staggering assertion?

    • jjjaar on 15/02/2017 - 08:46
      +2

      As a woman working in engineering who studied full time for four years while working part time, f you.

      I got given nothing besides a little amount of Centrelink for those weeks when I was studying too much to work.

      I began working in my field in my second year because I hunted for relevant jobs and wanted the experience. Don't generalise, you have no idea how anyone got anywhere.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join