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

    • ozbjunkie on 13/02/2017 - 14:18
      +2

      "I thought men were meant to be the strong sex"

      You're not appealing to established gender stereotypes and ignoring the diversity present in the opposite sex, are you?

      That would be ignorant and sexist.

      For your information, I'm a self-reflective, some times vulnerable individual with issues relating to confidence. I have heard I'm meant to just be "strong" but as I mature I have come to understand that this is simply an oppressive phrase uttered by those in alignment with the status quo.

      TLDR gender shaming from a feminist - and you wonder why people are not responding to you positively…

  • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 22:56

    Downvote and downvote. Guys you only get 5 per day and I will just keep posting new posts. You guys really think I haven't had to live through discrimination. I got my degrees in the 1980s. For my Digital Technology degree there were only 2 women in the entire 3 years. For my first IT job guys still had pictures of naked women pinned to their desks. Although I was the employee, and it was an employee loan, it was still filed under my other half's name. I've got where I am by working my arse off and not taking crap from anyone. When I applied for my first job the guy interviewing me asked if I wanted to have children, when I said no he said "good I don't like women abandoning their children in the home". You guys got some tales to top these on how you have been discriminated against?

    • goingDHfast on 13/02/2017 - 13:50
      +7

      Copy and pasted from a few posts up for you, if you read there are plenty more and most are far stronger than an off-hand remark during an interview:

      "I know ANZ takes it even further now and pays an annual Super contribution bonus… FOR FEMALES ONLY!"

      Here is the link: http://www.women.anz.com/at-anz/we-are-bridging-the-super-ga…

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 15:03
      +5

      Instead of creating a new post, why don't you answer some of the hilarious comments in your other posts making you look absolutely foolish. It's obvious you can't reply to facts, you just create a new post because you 'need to be heard'. Why don't you go join Clementine Ford's Facebook page, you would be a well suited there to spread your cancer.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2017 - 13:04

        "some of the hilarious comments in your other posts making you look absolutely foolish"

        What's particularly hilarious that her own comments are making her look foolish already.

    • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 15:54
      +1

      I left IT for these reasons and ten thousand more.

  • iSamurai on 12/02/2017 - 23:02
    +3

    I studied mechanical and aerospace engineering back in the days… at the uni careers fair, a government owned company was looking for graduate engineer positions. A few of my mates and I were looking at their stand. There were a couple of other female engineering students as well who we knew. The HR person came and just said in our face "we're looking for women only". It was really awkward and everyone just looked at each other. Well we walked away and the HR continued talking to the female students. I felt discriminated.

    Even though I really support more women in STEM subjects, I think it should be approached from the bottom up i.e. get as many girls as boys interested in these subjects from a young age and provide as many opportunities as possible, and not from the top down i.e. employment selection criteria.

    • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 23:22
      -2

      Chicken and egg situation. It takes a very brave person to be able to step up in a profession where they are so significantly the minority. Even if people are supporting you, it is still a hard choice to make to know that for the rest of your career you are always going to be a minority and you always have to fight for your voice to be heard. Next time you attend a meeting have a look at the contribution of the women in the room and if they are being talked over, ignored, or just reluctant to speak up. The studies show this happens a lot. I make sure I contribute but still listen and support others, it is a very hard juggling act. Sometimes I wish I could just step back, but I know that I owe what I do to the women who will come after me.

  • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 23:11
    +4

    How about some of you guys go back and have a good read of your comments. If you replace "black" or "jew" for women you would understand just how sexist your comments are. Although I was only one of two women in the Digital Technology course I became the student spokeperson for the course reviews; not because I was female but because I was committed and articulate. I was chosen by both the faculty and my fellow students. When I finished the Digital Technology degree I was offered 7 different jobs, again not because I was a women but because I got the grades and I could articulate my worth. More and more the soft skills are being recognised for their values, the ability for people to work together, the ability to understand a timetable for delivery, the ability to ensure the client understands what is happening. When I worked as a PM it was pointless having the best technical person, if they were incapable of working with anyone else and were pissing the client off. Give me someone competent to do the job, who was also a team player.

    • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 23:20
      +2

      I did try replacement with 'overseas paying students' and it was an academic furore.

      • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 23:23

        So "jew" and "black" just showed you were sexist, so you are ducking the issue huh.

    • sp3ctr41 on 12/02/2017 - 23:29
      +7

      When I finished the Digital Technology degree I was offered 7 different jobs, again not because I was a women but because I got the grades and I could articulate my worth.

      If there was discrimination, you wouldn't have been offered a single job and they would have taken the 'less worthy' males over you.

      More and more the soft skills are being recognised for their values, the ability for people to work together, the ability to understand a timetable for delivery, the ability to ensure the client understands what is happening. When I worked as a PM it was pointless having the best technical person, if they were incapable of working with anyone else and were pissing the client off. Give me someone competent to do the job, who was also a team player.

      Where is the discrimination? I thought you've been implying the whole time being a man is a soft skill…

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 09:29

      I'm with ya, (profanity) these neanderthals.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 13:12
      +3

      you're contradicting your own argument. you got where you were because of your skill, but you're arguing that women now should get to the same place because of their sex.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 15:17
      +2

      So after all your rants, the conclusion is you weren't discriminated against at all? Thanks for clearing that up, toots.

  • try2bhelpful on 12/02/2017 - 23:27
    +1

    Sorry boys, would love to keep this discussion going but I have to go to bed. Keep lobbing the grenades, though I should warn you the armour is pretty thick by now.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 07:44
      +6

      Who cares? hidden

  • jaimex2 on 12/02/2017 - 23:56

    Trust me, you dont want to work at this company. There would be plenty more crap like that if you got the job.

    Is it legal? No. File a complaint with Fair Work.

  • johnno07 on 13/02/2017 - 00:11
    +3

    I have actually been told by HR (at a Big 4 firm) that, in relation to an internship, "we've already met our quota for males - but would you like to be notified if anything comes up in the future?" I said no.

  • gccmelb on 13/02/2017 - 01:55
    +3

    At CSL it is well known various departments are 'women only". This is to help gender inbalances in other departmnents like management.

    Also happens at CSIRO. Most of the heads are males. Most of support staff are women. Also because most of the Heads of Departments are creepy AF.

  • bargainbeseecher on 13/02/2017 - 02:00
    +1

    Looks like age old sexist ideals (that affect men and women alike) has created a huge divide. Maybe the company were looking for more female engineers just like the health industry is looking for more men :-)

    www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-10/men-entering-health-pink-coll…

  • runtoparadise on 13/02/2017 - 02:05
    +13

    NOTE FOR ANY CURRENT OR FUTURE FEMALE ENGINEERS READING THIS THREAD:

    Just know that the industry is actively trying to make the profession an equitable one for all, but it will take time as there are a lot of people out there who do not understand what privilege actually looks like when it comes to themselves, especially us menfolk.

    Equality vs Equity
    http://i.imgur.com/o2r7YB0.jpg

    • Scrooge McDuck on 13/02/2017 - 10:59
      +7

      Equality vs Equity
      http://i.imgur.com/o2r7YB0.jpg

      I look forward to an equitable NBA, where average height and short players can dunk because the hoop moves down for them. /sarcasm

      This crap is worse than communism!

      If we enforce this kind of national policy we will be hopelessly uncompetitive against countries who support their best and brightest in their specialised strengths, rather than squandering resources by artificially propping up everyone to the same level on every metric.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 13/02/2017 - 11:28

        The image is disingenuous too. The symbolism is that the 3 boxes from the equality case can be better distributed as in the equity case so that all 3 can see over the fence.

        But if 0 boxes were used (equally) the tall person could still see over the fence. That's the most efficient distribution of resources.

        As a compromise, 1 box can be used to boost the middle height person alone so 2 people can see over the fence. That's still more efficient than equity and achieves the outcome of the equality case in the image with only a 3rd of the resources.

        • macrocephalic on 13/02/2017 - 11:59
          +1

          Except that it means that one third of people aren't participating. If you equate that to employment, you've just said that it's ok that one third of people don't get employed, because the two thirds can be employed for less resources.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/02/2017 - 12:10

          @macrocephalic:

          But peering over a tall fence isn't the only role for people.

          There are roles which suit average height people and others suited for short people.

          This symbolism applies to the real world too.

        • runtoparadise on 13/02/2017 - 19:29

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Except you are saying that the role is "peering over a tall fence", the role is actually "to watch the game" of which all of the participants are equally qualified to do.

          All of the female engineers I know have been equally capable of doing their jobs as their male counterparts. These measures are about increasing participation not giving anybody free rides. Private companies do not intentionally give jobs to people who cannot do them. At the graduate level there really is very little difference between candidates - university marks are not a great indicator with most engineers lacking the people skills actually required of them in the workplace.

          This should be more concerning to you - most engineering occupations are still on the Skilled Migration list when there has not been any shortage for quite a number of years.
          http://www.professionalengineers.org.au/skilled-migration-sh…
          https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Work/Work/Skills-assessment-a…

        • runtoparadise on 13/02/2017 - 19:30

          But if 0 boxes were used (equally) the tall person could still see over the fence. That's the most efficient distribution of resources.

          So the most fair and efficient distribution of resources is to not use them at all? Illogical.

      • AddNinja on 13/02/2017 - 19:29

        So do you think society gets nothing of benefit by actively spending resources on promoting equality? I mean, if you think you're going to be the big man in that society, I can see why you might think it is a waste of money helping others who have historically been discriminated against.

    • elliebargain on 13/02/2017 - 13:07
      +9

      Thanks for posting this. Explains the difference between equality and equity so well! I'm saving it :D

      My SO is an engineer and he has first-hand seen some blatant discrimination against female engineers.

      He's had multiple extra payrises on top of his female colleagues that started in the graduate program at the same time as him - They only realised this a couple of years later after finally talking about pay. He couldn't believe how underpaid they were compare to the guys. The managers also expected the female grads to do things like make tea, clean up after them and always be the one taking minutes in meetings (the male grads would never get asked - my SO used to volunteer after seeing the femals get asked every time) - These are insanely smart engineers with outstanding technical skills - but time and time again they are given the "womanly" jobs, whilst the technical jobs would get handed out to the men. My SO said it wasn't totally obvious at first - it's insidious - like "It might just be a coincidence - SOMEONE has to make the tea/clean up after the meeting (whilst the male engineers walk out of the meeting room chatting with their managers).

      I myself have been talked over, interrupted, had my ideas stolen during class discussions (where we were given marks for our input into the discussion). This was in a university science honours program made up of 5 women including me and 14 men. Our professor in this class openly bragged about sleeping with and "negging" female colleagues when he was getting his PhD, whining about how his supervisor at the time was a "bitch" who "couldn't take a joke" when she dropped him from her program back in the 1990's. This is a man who ended up as a very highly paid professor. Needless to say the women in that class got lower marks than then men on average for the "discussion" portion, even though some of the women had in frustration asked to not be interrupted after being talked over multiple times. We walked out of that class dumbstruck. That was a harsh introduction to the kind of sexism rife in the science field.

      It must feel really unfair for men who feel they were a better candidate to be passed up for a female candidate, but, I mean, if you believe merit is distributed equally between genders, than shouldn't it be just as likely that a female candidate get the job? (taking into account student ratios ie 60:40 male:female students should go into their fields 60:40).

      It's a tricky problem and I don't think there will ever be a perfect solution - It's complicated by the messed-up economy, and some women leaving the workforce to have children (which doesn't account for the entire gender pay-gap, but some of it), but it is a real issue - And I really like the Equality vs Equity example.

  • Krizy on 13/02/2017 - 03:04
    +8

    My male peers at university were pretty underwhelming when it came to critical thinking. It's because of them that I realised MRAs are bullshit and patriarchy is totally a thing; they were totally blind to anything that wasn't explicitly communicated to them by the textbook. Women doing my course were either too shy (or sly?) to express their ideas or they were too busy trying to compete on technical merit against guys who were getting ahead on nepotism and bare competency.

    In the end I empathise more with the latter, women, because they've made the correct assumption that everyone is in it for themselves and aren't under any illusions as to that fact. It just happens that the best strategy for men is to keep up a pretence of fairness — inhabiting the persona of a 'fair dinkum bloke' — while passively benefitting from their privilege. Ignorance is the key to success in many things because positivity is an attractive quality. So the differences between men and women are superficial: affirmative action offsets nepotism. If men and women are different in professional contexts it's because a patriarchal culture has made it so. It's archaic and MRA bullshit just prolongs it.

    The main feature of patriarchy which demands affirmative action in response is this: men are women are generally socialised with slightly different values, which lead to men having behaviours which are erroneously overvalued by the disproportionate number of male senior employees who do not know what they're doing but 'like the cut of your jib'.

    If you think senior management is made up of mostly men because they are biologically programmed to have different proclivities, interests or aspirations… You're not an intellectual, you're assuming the status quo must exist for a reason and then contriving a convenient argument to keep yourself in the position of advantageous ignorance. Your arguments are tautological. Patriarchal values are a vestigial trait in modern society, nothing more.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 07:17
      +4

      The logastellus anonymous meeting is down the hall. I had money on an 'ergo' in there somewhere.

      • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 14:03

        Can't refute the argument, so make a smartarse comment. Seems about right.

    • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 18:58
      +3

      "Affirmative action offsets nepotism"

      Touche.

    • aerom on 14/02/2017 - 23:22
      -1

      Very articulate and impressive. Thanks for the perspective.

  • FatBlanket on 13/02/2017 - 06:52
    +4

    If they to specifically hire women candidates to not look sexist that means things are already stacked in the males favour. Otherwise they wouldn't bother. It's like when they have to hire an African in America because they have an all white staff. Isn't it a bit pathetic for the one who still has the advantage to be complaining? After all they've been calling for male teachers for a while and I don't think women would be moaning about that.

    • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 14:05

      No problem about bringing in male teachers at primary school level, show the boys a nuturing view of men - in fact it would probably be the blokes whining about them being paedophiles - I mean what sort of real guy would want a low paying, low status job like that unless there was an added benefit, right? Primary School teacher is a "girl's job".

  • vlahka on 13/02/2017 - 07:39
    +4

    At least in this story the people hiring were honest. I got absolutely screwed out of my job interview. Friend at the company told me they asked how my interview went. He was told I answered the questions too perfectly and thats why I wasnt hired. Instead they got a girl who needed help turning the pc on during her first day. I know sounds far fetched, but I'm still livid over it. My previous job in a government branch, floor had over 30 women and 4 men. Every month 2 women would have a private meeting with the manager because one felt slighted over some non existent issue between the two. It would end in either one shrieking and crying or both passive aggressive for the next month. The manager ended up transferring elsewhere because she was over it. I dont work in that toxic environment anymore.

    • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 14:09
      -2

      OMG how awful for you, that must have been such a terrible environment. Then again you could work with a bunch of guys who think it is OK to comment about a fellow employees tits as a group discussion. That's not toxic is it, just normal guy banter? I find it interesting you were so into the office politics you got involved in the discussions about who was slighting who; listening at the door were you or just bitching with the other girls?

      • vlahka on 14/02/2017 - 05:37
        +4

        I'll politely reply to your mocking post despite the obvious glee you have for me losing my job and income. I never 'listened' on in the office politics. They came out of the room yelling like banshees. I did my absolute best not to speak or get involved with any of them unless it was work related. Side note, I DID lose a previous job in an office that was dominated by females when I had been asked to do a job that would of taken my 2 hours to finish, despite having told the managers I had to be at a doctors appointment which was in 20min, and had been allowed btw. One sub manager took this personal and 2months later I was out with the excuse that funding had been lowered. Also in the past 11 or so places I've worked at, never in my life have I heard men talking about womens tits and other parts of them.

        However I can assure you the conversations I heard about guys from the women were beyond vulgar. I also had 2 females at one job, for no reason at all, decide it was an excellent idea to corner me and lay blame on my shoulders for why guys dont seem to want to make the first move lately, throwing in all sorts of derogatory words and calling me/us less of a man for being gutless. Only option I could do was walk off quickly because any reply would somehow get me into trouble despite being harassed.

        What I've learned is women get away with almost anything in the work place. The guys? No. Further more I really dont appreciate your tone towards me. Please be more civil.

  • Boshait on 13/02/2017 - 07:41
    +3

    This is why you always have your recorder app turned on as soon as you enter the premises.

  • KLoNe on 13/02/2017 - 07:46
    +4

    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).

    'Hi, my name is xx, I'd like a role in… wtf do you guys do again?'

    'You're Hired!'

    Yeah, sure…

    • backpaqer on 13/02/2017 - 14:02

      That's where having a name like "Kim" can work.

    • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 14:36

      Heresay, I would like to have heard the woman's side of this. You do realise that employment is not just about the technical side of it, it is also about someone being able to work in a group situation without pissing everybody else off. Lots of things can be learnt on the job, not being a dick is a bit harder for some people.

      • KLoNe on 13/02/2017 - 14:46
        +5

        No, an ENGINEER position is NOT learnt on the job.

        'Who do you want to overlook that new underwater tunnel project, Barry?'
        'Meh, chuck that new chick from the photocopy room on the job, she's nice'

  • lddv04 on 13/02/2017 - 08:25
    +6

    In 2014 when the Labour Government won the election in Victoria, they sacked all 19 water corporation boards so that the new boards could be at least 50% female. How much money do you think that wasted? So if governments are driving this agenda, it's difficult to fight against it.

    • goingDHfast on 13/02/2017 - 13:53
      +2

      Absolutely disgusting and blatantly discriminatory. It would be very interesting to compare the experience & skills of the boards both before and after that decision was made. Take gender out of it and just compare fit for the role; I'm sure it went downhill massively after this change.

    • KLoNe on 13/02/2017 - 14:47

      Wasted money? I dare say they had exactly the same wages.

      • Mrgreenz on 13/02/2017 - 18:10

        I dare say they didn't hit the ground running at the same speed as the previous boards were operating considering the only apparent issue was the gender balance of the boards, not a inherently poor managment.

      • lddv04 on 14/02/2017 - 09:27

        My comment about wasted money related to the recruitment of over 130 positions, including advertising, interviewing etc.

  • AddNinja on 13/02/2017 - 08:34
    +5

    It's a strange thing. Basically what is happening is that individual men are taking a hit for society. So individual men find it harder to get a job, but the upside is that more women are moved into an industry where they are not well represented. This is usually because they were historically discriminated against. I guess the idea is that the men who lose out on the job, being men with all the advantages that entails, will find another job.

    It's weird - we have a policy of discrimination against men (for a "good" reason), whereas we used to have unwritten policy of discrimination against women - but definitely for a bad reason.

    I guess in for it - but only just.

  • mightyfes on 13/02/2017 - 09:13
    +8

    How did your friend make it to the interview stage? Don't get triggered, this is a fake story. Your friend is probably a great engineer but has a deceptive and disgusting personality so he makes up excuses for not getting hired.

  • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 09:28
    +3

    ITT: FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMALES

  • porsche26c on 13/02/2017 - 09:48
    +6

    this same crap is occurring in the fire station. they have made it so they can try and equal men to women i.e the intake. so big men that can actually lift someone out of a fire in a home or hold a hose going full pelt that no average person can hold steady and they loose out because of political bullshit. women are better at some things and men are better at some things. (information given to me by a friend who is trying to be a fireman)
    however it should be who ever is the best for that role.

  • Cwong14u on 13/02/2017 - 10:55
    +6

    If women really get paid 20% less for the same work, wouldn't a shareholder conscious company just hire only women?

    • Scrooge McDuck on 13/02/2017 - 11:14
      +10

      Yes.

      Capitalism doesn't select on gender, it selects on profitability.

      If women were as proficient as men in a particular field they'd fill half of the roles organically.

      And if women were superior to men, they'd dominate.

      • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 14:16

        Seriously, you think that the CEO in charge of Australia Post is really worth the money they are paying him. If only companies worked logically then what you said would all make sense; but they don't work logically. The best way to get a job is to have an inside running on it, you know the person who is hiring, you ensure you are a member of the team, even if you don't work for that section at the time, you keep feelers out for what is going on. Unfortunately when the people doing the hiring have sexist attitudes this reaches down through the company and the problem gets perpetuated. Your comment "And if women were superior to men, they'd dominate", says it all. You obviously don't think much of any woman's abilities.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/02/2017 - 16:02
          +1

          Your comment "And if women were superior to men, they'd dominate", says it all.

          Do you think women are superior to men?

          You obviously don't think much of any woman's abilities.

          That's false. Some individual women have very high abilities, some have very low abilities. The same applies to men.

        • sp3ctr41 on 13/02/2017 - 16:14
          +1

          Well said Scrooge.

          Statistics say it all. Men are more proficient in engineering than women NOT because they are naturally better at it but simply because there is a larger pool of students, and therefore a better distribution of talent. It is not men's fault that women are electing not to pursue engineering.

          I'm sure if there were as many women as men studying engineering, there would be very little difference in the workforce. But as it stands, the chances for exceptional female engineers to stand out is lower and therefore men fill more roles.

          Artificially filling in roles with this 50/50 BS would mean that in a situation where there are 95% male engineers and 5% female engineers. All 5% of those females would be hired even if they were absolutely horrible leaders, lacked skills and didn't have the capacity to learn. Wasted opportunities for people who are actually interested and keen on what they do to progress and become better. The end result is they get paid less than men because that is what they are worth and then those same women cry 'discrimination!!!'..

        • aerom on 14/02/2017 - 23:31

          @try2bhelpful True story I can attest that :)

      • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 15:56

        sound of me banging my head on my desk.

        That simple huh?

      • AddNinja on 14/02/2017 - 08:36

        I think you're right here - but it just highlights problems with capitalism. Overall capitalism is pretty good, but it needs regulation to work well because it has known problems. With women being the main caretakers in society, they are worth less in a workplace because they can't commit to same hours and years that a man can (generally speaking).

        So, we either pay them properly for their caring, or we force employers to make allowances for their other commitments.

  • donkeydoc on 13/02/2017 - 11:08
    +1

    It's not really discrimination is it? I mean it's like a charity! These companies are demonstrating philanthropy when they hire a woman who is below the average competency level!

    But seriously, I've struggled to get a job and I did okay at university whilst my female peers are now 3-4 years into working with top project management companies, I couldn't find work for 2 years after over 100 job applications constantly improving my resume and uniquely written cover letters. I had one phone interview, that's about it.

    I'm 1-2 years into a project management role under a newly established building company so it's worked out for me thankfully!

    • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2017 - 00:41
      +2

      Going through this right now and feel like its impossible for me to get any mechanical/mechatronic engineering job in Sydney.

      Ive had easily over two hundred job applications submitted over the last two years and only had three interviews. One phone interview, one normal interview and one video interview. Ive got decent marks (credit) and thoughtfully crafted cover letter/cvs.

      Gotta ask who are going to hire all those thousands of poor graduates every year with all the competition from imported engineers, gender politics(discrimination?), process automation and other real discrimination going on.

      Sadly there is no fair opportunity, its all about appearance, connections and cheap labour (money).

      • Powershopz on 14/02/2017 - 09:26
        +2

        Sadly this all to familiar if you're a fresh engineering graduate looking for work in Melbourne/Sydney. Takes ages to find a job and honestly it's who you know, not what you know.

        I applied for ~100 jobs over 2 years - only got 1 interview. I now work in finance.

        • donkeydoc on 16/02/2017 - 21:12

          I got my job through connections and he's happy with me. Screw engineering work, do a cert iv and diploma in building and construction, far better cash and an engineering degree is just proof that you're a quick learner and a problem solver. Do it online and message me for work if you don't mind getting your hands dirty!

  • Justinism on 13/02/2017 - 11:26
    +2

    I have been passed over a number of times because of this, and especially since i am looking at a social work type office job, my prospects are quite bleak as it is dominated by women. my panel for these interviews have almost been exclusively women. a short tour of the office and i spy at most 1 man in 10 women.

    While i feel quite angry because we all wanna seek a better life doing what i like, i feel that its just better to get on with it and try to make yourself a better candidate that stands out regardless of what is, or is not, hanging between your legs.

    I advise you not to buy into your friend story too much, especially if its the engineering industry; as a guy, he wouldnt have a lack of opportunities. no sense wasting time on this when thousands of women engineers are being passed over at other companies, i have female family members in engineering that have moved on just because the industry was too tough to get into. His story was probably the exception to the rule.

    • sd4f on 13/02/2017 - 13:26

      No, I'd say it's tough to get into because there's very little industry here that actually has demand of engineers (mining downturn has also made a lot of engineers re-enter the job market). Of my colleagues from uni, very few are actually working as engineers. The reason they have jobs is because engineering degrees are harder than most other degrees, and a big component of engineering is problem solving, something which can be applied across industries. Doesn't help that a really large proportion of jobs advertised as engineering jobs are actually sales jobs.

  • Shame on 13/02/2017 - 11:33
    +2

    shame

  • vicosads on 13/02/2017 - 11:34

    Had a friend in the air force tell me a few years back that if 2 people are up for promotion the woman should always be chosen because they want more women in higher positions.

    Who cares about ability in the military right

  • The Wololo Wombat on 13/02/2017 - 11:53
    +1

    Yes! Ozbargin! Finally some sense in the world.

    I LOVE how on ozbargin you can neg a comment. I am a strong believer that many extreme ideologies today would not be as popular if facebook allowed 'dislike'.

  • macrocephalic on 13/02/2017 - 11:54
    +5

    There are two concepts generally thought of as 'equality'. One is equal opportunity; the idea that everyone is born equal, and is treated equally, and their successes and failures are completely their own doing. Of course, this isn't realistic at all. Men and women are generally given preferential treatment in different occupations, and I'll agree that - in the higher paying professions - it's men getting the preference. There are plenty of other attributes which may make you more or less desirable for employment - whether they're relevant to the job or not: Age, skin colour, height, disabilities, even physical attractiveness. These preferential treatments generally get applied from a young age. The other factors completely out of your control are your parents, family wealth, area of birth, etc. Basically, there's no such thing as completely equal opportunity as long as opinions exist.

    The second type of equality is equal outcome; the idea that the outcomes should be the same for everyone - despite an individual's sex, age, race, height, weight, attractiveness, parents, wealth, etc. This is the type of equal opportunity that people often rally against - but it's important. Without some equal outcome incentives, we tend to get cyclical poverty and low social mobility. Is it fair that Australian Aborigines get preferential university access, scholarships, etc? From an absolute standpoint, no, but they already have so much stacked against them at birth that concessions need to be made to try to help them out of the cycle.

    Do I think that choosing females specifically for employment is fair? Probably not. I think this swings a bit too far to the equal outcome side. I would like the equal opportunities to come earlier and the equal outcomes to be applied to lower levels of education and training.

    • goingDHfast on 13/02/2017 - 13:58

      Interesting comments there. How is controlling for equality of outcome ever fair on an individual level? Shouldn't all decisions be merit based or am I living on another planet?

      Focus the training & education benefits towards under-represented minorities but don't directly influence the outcome. This is also a long term solution instead of a short term band-aid (you can't tell me employing people without merit is a sustainable solution long term).

      • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 14:30
        +2

        It doesn't need to be long term, it just has to be a temporary raft until the other elements that stack against girls can also be addressed. Have a look how far women have come in roughly 100 years, not far enough yet, but it is actually quite extraordinary. Given that just over 100 years ago it was considered that women couldn't be trusted with a vote and now we are represented in just about every profession. In 1954 my mother had to give up her job in the Public Service because she couldn't be married and work for the GPO; you tried that crap now days you would be slapped. Sexism is real and all that is happening is trying to provide a pool of talent that doesn't leave because they are continually fighting against the entrenched negatives. I have, mainly, worked with really supportive co-workers and management, and I'm pretty thick skinned, but I have certainly heard my share of horror stories.

  • TimApple on 13/02/2017 - 11:55

    Let me state the more obvious and more common case:

    Restaurant of some cuisines will only hire people of some race (e.g. Chinese restaurant hiring Chinese, Indian restaurant hiring Indians, and Middle eastern restaurants hiring middle easterns only). Just because this is not a white collar job, people ignore the fact that restaurants have been doing this for a very long time because they know they need to look "Authentic".

    Is that illegal?

  • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 12:36
    +6

    This is shocking because it happened to a man. This still happens to women

    • Mike88 on 13/02/2017 - 19:28
      +6

      If female candidates were told a position was only available to men that can be performed equally well by either gender, it would be on the news rather than a bargain forum.

  • nieza on 13/02/2017 - 13:16
    +3

    I call BS.

    1. "My friend told me" - here we go..
    2. "a story" - sounds about right!
    3. "a year ago" - uh-huh…
    4. "a reputable engineering company" - sure.

    ..and all that in just the first few sentences! rolls eyes

    So employers aren't chasing after you, bidding ever-higher salaries to attract you to their firms. Hate to break it to you, but you're not the centre of the world. Don't like it? Suck it up, m8.

    Perhaps take a break from Xbone and gaming, and start brushing up on your grammar.

    Good luck, jerk.

  • herbertg21 on 13/02/2017 - 13:32

    It has something to do with being an equal opportunity workplace - the same applies to applicants who identify as Torres Strait Islander or Aboriginal. It has always been like that with engineering firms (at least all the ones I work for) and in the end is a good thing. More balance in the end of the day and more often than not the eventual candidates are competent enough for the role. If you are implying that your friend couldnt get into the reputable engineering company because he was male then I dont think he would cut it in the industry because thats pretty weak. Just saying

  • Kempe on 13/02/2017 - 13:36
    +1

    I used to work in State Govt and if I applied for a job and heard that women or aborigines had been shortlisted I would withdraw my application and waste no more of my time
    Male caucasian here

  • backpaqer on 13/02/2017 - 13:53

    Gender diversity has some positive goals. However, some businesses will interpret those the wrong way and this sort of stuff happens. If they are just filling roles with a particular gender just to tick a box…imagine how the business runs on a day to day basis! Do you really want to be working for that company as a male or female? You're lucky that being a male that you didn't get the job because of the discrimination and the females are unlucky getting the job because they now get the shitty working environment where dubious management choices are being made.

    Enjoy working for a "real" company!

  • afoveht on 13/02/2017 - 13:56
    +3

    The smallest amounts of bias have cumulative effects in the longer run. For this reason, to preserve any semblance of equity in the real world - a world soaked in various biases - affirmative actions are necessary. The hiring of women in male dominated roles is one such action. Here's some mathematical modelling which, while not about jobs per se, allows you to see what happens if even the smallest biases are not actively counteracted.

    http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segreg…

  • Pinkmoon on 13/02/2017 - 14:35
    +2

    Boo hoo

  • stow5920 on 13/02/2017 - 14:55
    +1

    Australia has a huge feminist problem.

    • Munki on 13/02/2017 - 15:04
      +6

      Yeah. Bring back the 1950s.

    • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 15:10
      +3

      OMG such an incisive argument, back to the kitchen for me then. Thank-you for showing me the error of my ways. If only I had known that earlier I would not have spent most of my life working in a well paid job, and doing it well, so my man and I will be able to retire comfortably - foolish me.

    • stow5920 on 13/02/2017 - 16:09

      See? Look at these women getting upset at even the mention that perhaps this feminist bullshit has gone too far. Ladies, you got equality decades ago. You can stop bitching now and shut up. What you want now is superiority, and you even have that in many cases. Especially divorce. Then you complain that men don't want to get married anymore.

      but yeah, let's continue to demonize and not hire white men, that will surely lead to a bright future for Australia. Oh wait, it will lead to the path of becoming a 3rd world shit hole like Sweden is now becoming.

      • nieza on 13/02/2017 - 16:19
        +2

        You do realise that even something as fundamental as health care is still not equally accessible. And that's not even mentioning the fact that many women (NSW included) do not have full reproductive rights.

        C'mon, man - think before you make stupid false statements!

        • stow5920 on 13/02/2017 - 16:25
          -3

          Oh yes, I forgot. Women demand the right to murder unborn children because they can't be responsible about sex then demand that fathers have no say because they don't have vaginas. Great cause, sickos.

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 16:37
          +3

          @stow5920: You sound really really really angry at women and whatever has happened to you I'm sorry that it has. I don't think being angry at half of society is going to help with that though.

          Most people, men and women, are actually pretty good to each other and about each other. When I see posts like yours it raises some big red flags and I hope for your sake you're just trolling.

        • stow5920 on 13/02/2017 - 16:39

          @MissG:

          Feminists and women are not the same. Feminists are disgusting and perverted the true meaning of it a long time ago. They also don't make up half of society.

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 16:42
          +2

          @stow5920: Firstly you weren't referring to feminists in your post - you were referring to women.

          And secondly, feminist as a blanket term is incorrect because feminists are highly divided on what they believe and who they are. I consider myself a feminist because I believe in equal outcomes for both genders, and I believe that equity means a balance, not stomping on the other gender to prove a point. There are highly unhelpful feminists out there who are awful to men on so many levels and I don't identify with them.

          All I want is the same pay, and to be able to walk down the street at night without having to worry about being assaulted. I want that for men too. That's my brand of feminism, but I don't want to be associated with the man-hating kind because they're just as useful as a sexist man.

        • nieza on 13/02/2017 - 16:43
          +1

          @slow5920:

          "Unborn children" is an oxymoron.

          Mate, the internet's a fantastic resource of information and it's right here at your fingertips. Ain't no excuse for the level of ignorance that you're displaying. Tsk tsk tsk!

        • stow5920 on 13/02/2017 - 16:46

          @MissG:
          "Firstly you weren't referring to feminists in your post - you were referring to women."
          I was referring to feminist women. That was pretty clear.
          "All I want is the same pay"
          You have it.
          "and to be able to walk down the street at night without having to worry about being assaulted."
          That has nothing to do with feminism.

        • stow5920 on 13/02/2017 - 16:47

          @nieza:
          You tell yourself whatever you need to convince yourself you are not killing kids.

        • nieza on 13/02/2017 - 17:02
          +1

          @stow5920:

          LOL

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 17:06
          +4

          @stow5920:

          No it wasn't clear, it was very unspecific.

          I do not have equal pay by a country mile.

          And the overwhelming majority of assault is committed by men so yes it is very much a feminist issue.

          Again, your failures to appreciate these facts ring alarm bells to me.

      • dengziyi on 14/02/2017 - 03:15
        -1

        When do men "stop bitching too?"

        If white aren't hired, how come majority of our parliament are white men? Hm…

  • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 15:06
    +3

    I have worked with a great number of supportive people, both male and female in my jobs, and some really fantastic immediate management. As far as I know I have never been subject to postive discrimination and I have certainly never asked for it. However, I'm also incredible bolshie and won't take crap from anyone; you may be guessed that one by now. My mantra has always been to support people and be a conduit for improvement. Your tech skills are such a small part of the package you bring to a company and they are useless if you can't turn them into something that adds value to your customers.

    I do think that most of you are missing the real problem here, which is many of the larger companies, and probably the small ones as well, are exporting a large number of the tech jobs overseas. While you are quibbling about a few women getting a foot into the door, the backend of the building is being towed away. YOu want to get upset about something, maybe that is where you want to direct your "issues".

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join