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

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 19:10

          @Frugal Rock:

          Classic.

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

          @syousef:

          I can't refute your arguments without your evidence either.

          But okay, if you want to do this, let's start with this paper. Here is the abstract:

          https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2465902

          Here is the full text:

          http://econ.au.dk/fileadmin/Economics_Business/Research/Semi…

          Why you cannot do this for yourself is absolutely beyond me.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 19:21

          @MissG:

          Have you had a look at the lack of gender diversity at the top of Australian universities? It is interesting that the chancellors and vice-chancellors are happy rejecting male students while not applying the same standard to themselves.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_universit…

          The statistical chances of zero female C-VC pairs. It's pretty funny.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 19:27

          @Frugal Rock:

          Dude, Ziggy Switkowski is the Chancellor of RMIT. If that's not nepotistically hiring mediocrity I don't know what is.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 19:52

          @MissG:

          Why I don't find random papers presenting your point of view that you have not presented and then randomly argue against them on Ozbargain is absolutely beyond you? What could I hope to achieve exactly?

          Now as to your paper…let's take a look

          "Far from being at odds with meritocracy, this quota raised the competence of male politicians where it raised female representation the most"

          This is exactly the argument you made - that the men got better because you threw out the bottom end of the men. It fails for the exact same reason I pointed out before. You haven't improved the men. You've just thrown the bottom ones out. The ones you chose would have gotten in anyway if you did it on merit, unless the women were much better (in which case you have my blessing to choose them!). The assertion is then made that because the quota "raised" (it raised nothing as I just said) the competence of male politicians it is "consistent with meritocracy". False. If the women are a lot better you would have had more than 50% women (and I'd have applauded that) If the women are worse or there is a smaller pool you've thrown out better men and decreased the overall competence of the selected group.

          By the way it's not a peer reviewed paper. And these are economics and political science professors from England and Sweden. The mathematical modeling is interesting but makes some mistakes in the assumptions. The key one is that you are talking about politicians - They come from diverse backgrounds and have no specialist training. Unless there is specialist training you could in fact argue the pool of men and women are roughly equal since there are roughly equal numbers of men and women. And that is why you get away with this. In fact because the pools are equal, removing the bias and doing a blind selection would probably result in a 50/50 mix. And I have no problem with that.

          Now turn it around and take a specialist profession like engineering which isn't balanced. ALL the women will get in. Every single one. Because if there are 20 women in a pool of 1000 candidates to fill 40 positions all 20 will be selected regardless of their abilities (and in this case there are specialist abilities required). What are the statistical odds that all 20 women are good, let alone better than the men.

          The model presented in the paper is complex enough that I've only had a chance to skim but I have read enough taht I am confident that the assumptions fall over for my engineering example. Whenever you have a model this complex you have to be very careful about where it applies!

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 19:57

          @syousef:

          Mate I'm just glad you read it. I'll leave the rest of the literature to you to peruse, should you bother, I really do not have time to paste you links to PDF's to every single article on this subject. Feel free to present me with an article that attempts to back up your arguments.

          Secondly, that's not correct re the pool being so sparse they will only hire women. Employers will not hire someone who doesn't meet their benchmark, even if that means the job goes unfilled. They're not going to hire a woman who applies to a telecoms engineering job if they have a degree in physiotherapy. There are still standards that need to be met and it's a logic error to assume that quotas = incompetence.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 21:22

          @MissG:

          While we've butted heads I glad that you got me thinking about this. I still don't agree with you, but I think I understand. I'll elaborate with a simpler model of my own.

          In the following scenarios the best candidate always chosen within the rules. We set aside that there is no perfect selection criteria or scoring and just give everyone a grade from A to E.

          Scenario 1 - closest to the paper.
          100 candidates for 40 roles as politicians.
          Candidate pool: 50 men. 50 women.
          - Men - 10 grade A, 10 grade B, 10 grade C, 10 grade D, 10 grade E.
          - Women - 10 grade A, 10 grade B, 10 grade C, 10 grade D, 10 grade E.
          Before election:
          - 4 females. 36 males.
          - You have 4 grade A women, 10 grade A men, 10 grade B men, 10 grade C men, 6 grade D men.
          With merit based selection:
          - 10 grade A women, 10 grade A men, 10 grade B women, 10 grade B men.
          With quota:
          - 10 grade A women, 10 grade A men, 10 grade B women, 10 grade B men.
          Analysis: Either quota or merit based selection will equally improve the mix from a male biased pool containing duds. So in both cases you lost 16 duds and gained 16 more qualified candidates and a more equal mix.

          Eureka! See biased gender selection works! Well not quite….

          Scenario 2 - Engineering class.
          100 candidates for 40 roles as engineers.
          Candidate pool: 90 men. 10 women. (Sadly this is a generous number of women for an engineering class!).
          - Men - 18 grade A, 18 grade B, 18 grade C, 18 grade D, 18 grade E.
          - Women - 2 grade A, 2 grade B, 2 grade C, 2 grade D, 2 grade E.
          Before shakeup: 4 females. 36 males.
          - You have 2 grade A women, 2 grade B women, 18 grade A men, 18 grade B men.
          With quota, and no men filling women's positions:
          - 2 grade A women, 2 grade B women, 2 grade C women, 2 grade D women, 2 grade E women. 10 vacant awaiting women. 18 grade A men. 2 grade B men.
          OR Quota, men filling women's positions if you run out of women:
          - 2 grade A women, 2 grade B women, 2 grade C women, 2 grade D women, 2 grade E women. 18 grade A men. 12 grade B men.
          Fair selection:
          - 2 grade A women, 2 grade B women, 18 grade A men, 18 grade B men
          Analysis:
          With fair selection YOUR MIX OF MEN AND WOMEN DIDN'T CHANGE from what it originally was. It turns out women were occupying positions proportional to their candidate pool and skill level in the first place.
          With either quota system a greater percentage of the men chosen appear to be competent, but a greater number of incompetents made it in overall and the quality of the workforce is considerably diminished. Where you had no grade C, D or E engineers before you now have 6! Worse if you refuse to fill the positions with males you're understaffed by 10!

          Conclusion: It turns out it depends on the size of the pool as to whether you improve or diminish a group when you introduce gender quotas.

          (It also depends on the relative quality of the candidates but I'm assuming here that this is equal for both groups. Which is faire - There is no reason to believe that women can't reason equally well.)

          Fair selection works better. The key is to get enough women interested and competent at their craft BEFORE the selection process! Not to rig the selection process!

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 21:24

          @MissG:

          Btw I have been known on rare occasion to reverse my position completely when someone convinces me I got something wrong. It usually just floors people. Which is a sad indictment of how the human race holds debates. I do not believe you've presented me with strong evidence that would have me reverse my position in this case. But I will at least skim anything that comes my way and assess it critically.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 21:28

          @MissG:

          And one other thing. I'm happy to support a women getting the role over a man if she's more competent. e.g. I can't believe that Trump won. Even though I don't think Hilary's hands were clean, she was more experienced, no less corrupt and certainly no less competent than this disaster of a human being. I just hope we survive him. Felt the same way about Gilard when she was outsted. I didn't like Gilard but Abbott was much worse! But I think Natasha Stott Despoja would have made a much better PM had she gotten a chance instead of being knifed. By any success criteria our current politicans are duds, male and female alike. I certainly don't want Pauline for PM.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 21:29

          @syousef: You don't need to reverse your position although I maintain that this is not as catastrophic as everyone thinks it is. And I completely agree that we need to get women interested and competent before the point of hiring to keep it fair and to be fair that is actually happening (especially in the United States). It's all just going to take some time. I don't think quota's will last and nor do I think they should, but I also don't think they're going to have the devastating impact on quality that people think they will have. If the effect I have is just that people read more about the complex issue this is, then that is enough.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 21:30

          @MissG:

          See my scenarios above. As we're having demonstrated by our politicians it only takes 1 generation of incompetents to set us back to the stoneage in any field if we let them!

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 21:30
          +1

          @syousef: I agree too - personally I wanted Bernie Sanders to be PM! Anyone who says gender discrimination doesn't exist in 2017 needs to pull their head in, or at least read the news. We both have daughters, we both want the same things for them, disagreement aside.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 21:32

          @syousef: There's a lot nepotistic mediocrity in all fields, I like to think imperfect as all this is, even if it does fail, what will come out of it is useful critical analysis that will further drive out incompetence.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 21:33
          +1

          @MissG:

          Bernie's age would have worried me but he's been pretty fiesty since Trump got in. Still don't know if he'd last the distance but he seems a good man (for a politician) and to be blunt a treestump would have been better than Trump!

          Good to end this argument on a positive note.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 21:33

          @syousef: +1

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 22:02
          -2

          @MissG:

          "I'll enjoy reading them in 50 years as a great example of someone on the wrong side of history."

          vis-à-vis:

          "personally I wanted Bernie Sanders to be PM!"

          Sean Spicer might actually be able to pronounce 'Prime Minister Sanders'. :p

          I fixed it for you:

          'I enjoyed reading it in 50 seconds as a great example of someone on the wrong side of THE PACIFIC OCEAN.'

  • OfTheOverflow on 13/02/2017 - 19:12
    +8

    I might be a bit closer to see not be biased, but my girlfriend is studying electrical engineering at uni and makes it clear that engineering is one of most gender discriminate/unbalanced fields out there. The female engineers I've spoken to make it sound like a really difficult field due to the opposition they face, ranging from being assumed incapable, to blatant sexism and harrassment. So I don't think it's an entirely bad thing that some companies are trying to do their part to resolve this displacement.

    Frankly, sounds like your friend should stop being salty about a job interview that happened over a year ago.

    • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 21:06
      +3

      So fix the problems! You need to fix the actual underlying biases and the boys club. You really think that having less capable women beat out men is going to improve the situation? I can only see resentment and competent women being told they are only there because of their gender. Make it a true meritocracy where someone being promoted due to anything but ability is seen as the daft thing it is.

      • em on 13/02/2017 - 21:50

        "The female engineers I've spoken to make it sound like a really difficult field due … being assumed incapable…"

        And then you reply "you really think that having less capable women beat out men is going to improve the situation?"

        Seriously? You realise that OP got this story second hand and it happened a year ago? How do you even know that it is a true story?

        If you interview 15 people and 10 fit the criteria, you can choose who to hire. It does not mean that the 4 who were hired were incompetent.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 22:25

          It's also almost certain that if you use a quota based on gender, you not going to get the most capable people. If you're picking the best 4 out of 15, it should be the best 4. You shouldn't overlook the top 4 if they have a penis and move to the next 4.

          And I can tell you haven't done much recruitment. There are often only one or two really good fits to even a junior role.

        • em on 14/02/2017 - 10:57

          @syousef: in which case, again, there's no reason to assume that the four women who got roles were not as good, or better, than the men.

          It's nice that you swallow OPs post hook, bait and sinker, but it's a story of a 'friend of a friend of mine' from a year ago. There are plenty of people in this discussion who think they are hard done by because of their gender and refuse to believe that it's because they weren't as good a fit for a role.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 11:01

          @em:

          Except that I didn't take the bait and am happy to treat OP's story as a hypothetical. I have however seen affirmative action first hand and the story is quite plausible. The probability that you wouldn't get a mix of genders if the ratio is 1:2 is not that high if you assume the quality of the women and men are equal.

          There should be no hint of gender bias. No excuse to think it's anything other than merit based choice. "Affirmative action" means there is doubt!

        • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2017 - 11:10

          @em:
          Given that the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner stars in a video and an open letter advocating the practice, why do you doubt it so much?

          http://malechampionsofchange.com/take-practical-action/avoid…

      • OfTheOverflow on 14/02/2017 - 09:21
        +3

        The problem is syousef, that because it's a boys club, it's often difficult to change the dynamic because women can find it hard to get the foot in the door in the first place. With more women admitted to the roles, that greatly increases the chances of fairer hiring practices (e.g not biased against women) in the future.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 09:26
          -2

          You need to break up the boys club mentality. Shoving more women into the boys club, particularly if you set the bar lower for them is not a good way to do it. If the man interviewing sees gender first, capability second, and you force these rules on him, you aren't going to increase the fairness in future. You're going to see an increase in resentment by that man and every man that lost out to a women because now their abilities are suspect (even the good ones). And you've replaced one unfair hiring practice with another one. This is toxic, and not sane. The good men that you want on your side are the least likely to get the jobs and you'll have mediocre and even incompetent women working alongside them who got in due quota.

          What you need to do is put in place men and women who are both competent and fair minded. You need to break up the boys clubs, starting at college level.

        • OfTheOverflow on 14/02/2017 - 09:34
          +4

          @syousef: I haven't said anything about setting the bar lower. My girlfriend for example is one of the best in her courses, female or otherwise. And I'm not talking about forcing rules on anyone. I'm just saying that those that OP described being hired likely are at least competent, otherwise any sensible company wouldn't have hired them, diversity quota or not.

          I agree that you need to put both competent men and women in place, but as it stands, it is skewed against women. The Women in STEM Uni clubs are in place, run by students like my girlfriend, to encourage females to enter the field and give them advice on how to best prepare for the workforce for example. These aren't run like 'men don't deserve to be hired, we do', they're run with the mentality that 'it's a bit tough, but we just have to work hard enough to prove we're just as worthy.'

          TL:DR, Most female STEM workers ARE looking to get in on their own merits, and I think it's unfair to paint over OP's experience as a norm (although it is frustrating if true).

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 09:40

          @OfTheOverflow:

          If your girlfriend is one of the best in her course she doesn't need a quota and I'm happy for her to get the job based on actual merit. That is exactly how I want to see the percentage of women increased if it does.

          I'm sorry but lots of men have now seen first hand that women are indeed being promoted ahead of men based on quota and regardless of skill. It isn't a made up conspiracy. I know people first hand who have repeatedly been overlooked and had a less experienced woman who did not last placed in the role. It's not how sensible the companies are. It is that if they don't jump on the bandwagon and be seen to do something they are targeted and criticized and that impacts them badly too. I have seen it first hand, and when you have a small percentage of the workforce being women but insist they make up half of the senior roles there is no way to do it than hire the less competent ones, unless you're telling me that every woman in the field is stellar.

          If your girlfriend really is that good, and I have no reason to believe she isn't, would you want her to get a job then be treated as less than competent because hiring is biased to women regardless of skill? You're not doing her a favour! Doing her a favour is removing the real underlying bias.

        • lainey13 on 14/02/2017 - 23:07
          +1

          @syousef: Plenty of men have been promoted over better women for decades and yet it is SOOOO WRONG for women to do the same? Huh.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 23:52

          @lainey13:

          Yes that is right. It is wrong for both genders. Adding more unfairness to the world doesn't fix prior unfairness. It just makes the world a shittier place. What's so difficult to understand about that?

          Or is it just about revenge for you? Because most of the people who wronged you are long gone and you're punishing the innocent because they share a characteristic with them - having a penis.

  • WillKillfor5Cents on 13/02/2017 - 21:24
    +2

    I know in my industry (Finance), diversity is encouraged. Especially in the bigger firms. I.e. Management gets phat $$$ bonus for having good diversity in their team. i.e. hiring to hit those targets so they can line that pocket.

  • mightyfes on 13/02/2017 - 22:01
    +4

    So like, nobody else is curious why they brought in 10 males for the interview when they only wanted to hire females?

  • nedski on 13/02/2017 - 22:19

    Just had a recruitment round in a Federal government department. I was the one guy interviewed with 8 other girls. I did not get the position or get into the merit pool but if the situation had been reversed where there was 8 guys and 1 girl, there would have been hell to pay if the girl didnt get a position.

    • beatwixkid on 14/02/2017 - 00:34

      And you know this, how?

      • Your Friend on 14/02/2017 - 09:39
        +4

        because he was born on this planet

      • nedski on 14/02/2017 - 20:48

        Because I was an internal candidate and they sent a group email that advised the time of the feedback for all the candidates that had an interview.

    • vicosads on 14/02/2017 - 09:47

      i do alot of contracting to government departments, safe to say make up would be 90%+ female

    • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 19:21

      Rubbish. If the situation was reversed, that's just the status quo.

  • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 13/02/2017 - 22:20
    +2

    This is discrimination. Anytime when people are not treated on merit, but based on who they are, how they look, or their gender, it is discrimination. There are laws and corporate policies against discrimination. If you feel really bad about how you were treated, please lodge an official complaint.

    I have been in offices where women work well, and where they do not work well. Same as men.
    Life is never absolutely fair.

    For example, what gets me is when women are on a same high paying contract as you (which expects you to know your stuff), and you are supposed to pick up the slack as they are not competent enough.
    Conversely, women have to go much further to be recognised - mind you, women are more harsh on other women than men.

    Without naming them, some of the best bosses I have had have been women. And some of the worst peers and sobordinates have been women too. Go figure!

    • misu p on 14/02/2017 - 09:08
      -1

      Why didn't you say "What gets me is when other people are on a same high paying contract as you (which expects you to know your stuff), and you are supposed to pick up the slack as they are not competent enough." Just wondering why you singled out women?

      I believe you proved a lot of people's point right there.

      • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 11:04

        Because in this discussion we are talking about women being promoted ahead of men when they are not as good.

        Why don't you ask the OP if he meant people instead of playing the gender pronoun game to insinuate a bias that may not be there?

        • misu p on 14/02/2017 - 13:18

          Because it is obviously there the bias. He did single out women. If men would have "gotten" to him that entire phrase would not have existed.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 15:55

          @misu p:

          Of course he singled out women. We were talking about an example that included women. Your assumption is just that. I'm sorry that you literally seem incapable of understanding that if you speak about a particular group, you're going to mention that group by name. That is not proof of his bias. Your interpretation and refusal to admit that you would be better off having asked is proof of your own bias and hate. Your logic is twisted.

        • misu p on 14/02/2017 - 16:20
          +1

          @syousef: such a load of crap. Of course it is proof of bias. let me simplify it for you. If you say "women are not qualified". YES that makes you biased. Your logic is "why don't you ask them if maybe he thinks men are not qualified either"? Are you that blind? anyway I will stop wasting time on you now. Beside calling people haters (you did that 2 times now to me) you bring nothing to the conversation.

        • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 14/02/2017 - 19:31

          @misu p:
          I singled out women, because with men, the bosses, as well as me are strict. Because men accept the shortcomings of their work and improve, without complainimg.
          But the women that I have highlighted get emotional, as they are not competent enough, but are making no sincere efforts, and they have "to balance family life" and thus slip away from office to do shopping, but cannot do half the work assigned to them in the time assigned, and then complain that they are working too hard.
          That is what is annoying.
          Does it help clarify my comments? Thanks.

  • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 22:53
    -1

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

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

    Imagine my shock.

    • beatwixkid on 14/02/2017 - 00:35
      +1

      "Struggling to feed a family". Oh please.

    • runtoparadise on 14/02/2017 - 03:15
      +3

      "10 men who probably were struggling to feed a family" all being beaten out by clueless teenage girls for an IT job in this top 5 company in Australia…

      Oh, the humanity!

      #fakenews

    • dengziyi on 14/02/2017 - 03:20
      +4

      Mhmm, like women can't feed families either. Or have any IT knowledge!

    • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 09:57

      And how different would these comments be if it were 10 women and 5 men and the 5 men were chosen. Sexism goes both ways.

    • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2017 - 10:52
      +3

      Oh trigger alert!
      Didn't you read the comment?
      The men were in their 30, 40 and 50s. All well educated and experienced.
      before interview, a few were talking about their families.
      The girls were teenagers and were talking about last party and next party!
      During the interview the girls were clueless and got all of the positions!
      All of interviewers were female too. Imagine this has happened to many men before this too. The company is totally running by females. Where are we going?
      Men should go to construction, collecting rubbish,…
      Isn't it sad?
      Now feminist commandos are on a mission within their safe space! Time to sneak back in the safe space.

      • thriftybunny on 14/02/2017 - 13:18

        Maybe the men were over-qualified? You don't need to play the gender card that hard. Just because it's in IT industry doesn't mean all jobs are senior level and need lots of experience and qualifications.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 15:58
          +4

          Can we make up our minds? Were all the men less competent or more qualified? Seems any excuse.

          Odds of only females being selected by random chances are pretty damn slim. You're reaching.

        • Your Friend on 14/02/2017 - 22:19

          you are so incapable of making a coherent argument its actually pathetic

        • thriftybunny on 15/02/2017 - 03:12

          The job hunting process is never transparent, job descriptions are usually quite broad, unless you know what exactly happened, you are just making excuses for why they weren't hired. Gender is easy to blame, if the successful candidates weren't women you'd probably say you they were discriminated for barracking for the wrong football club or age discrimination. Seems you made up your mind too easily.

    • Cluster on 14/02/2017 - 11:22
      +1

      This story does not sound plausible. Management is opening up itself to discrimination lawsuits by blatantly putting forward their preference for employing one group of people and not even considering the other.

      My employer has been known to want females under 30, but he sure won't publically so. Nobody is that stupid. He'll filter out candidates by name, wants all job applications handwritten so he can see how pretty their writing is, cannot ask if they plan to get pregnant soon but has figured out questions to get around this little problem.

      I know there is a bit of a feeling these days that positive discrimination is a good thing, that straight white men have had it so good for over 2000 years that any discrimination against them is good and deserved, but making up stories isn't helping either.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2017 - 10:23
    +12

    Can anyone spot a pattern here? The diversity is palpable.

    List of Sex Discrimination Commissioners

    Pamela O'Neil (1984–1988)
    Quentin Bryce (1988–1993)
    Sue Walpole (1993–1997)
    Susan Halliday (1998–2001)
    Pru Goward (2001–2006)
    Elizabeth Broderick (2007–2015)
    Kate Jenkins (2016-present)

    You may know Elizabeth from her starring role in the promotional video "Avoiding the ‘merit trap’".

    So if men do encounter sex discrimination, they should make a complaint to the exact same woman who is paid $340,000 a year to advocate hiring women rather than on merit.

    • DaneD on 14/02/2017 - 13:18

      Mr Rock.

      I must say you have made some very logical posts and your arguments are actually well thought out.

      I have logged in just to give you an up vote and a positive comment.

      Thank you for using a non-emotive argument and entertaining me throughout this thread.

  • thriftybunny on 14/02/2017 - 13:12
    +3

    It's good to see people being so passionate about gender discrimination when it happens to men.
    I've rarely seen that kind of uproar when discrimination happened to women, women are just expected to live with it, because it's the "norm", how else did we get to where we are now in the world?
    If all of you were so passionately fighting for equality back when men enjoyed special privileges, we wouldn't be here in the first place.

    • Skramit on 14/02/2017 - 13:42
      +6

      Stop living in 1974, times have changed.

      • thriftybunny on 14/02/2017 - 14:24
        +2

        Yes it has, and it seems most people in this thread don't like it so much.

        • Skramit on 14/02/2017 - 14:56
          +1

          Ah so if it's a male being discriminated against its okay?

          Yeah seems to be a common theme from hypocritical feminists….

        • thriftybunny on 15/02/2017 - 03:17
          +1

          @Skramit: no it's not OK, but from this thread I can see being a young woman in any successful job application will automatically invite you to be hated by all men you beat to get the job and their friends, so pretty sure women are still getting discriminated at work.

        • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 15/02/2017 - 07:19

          @thriftybunny:
          That is a very poor argument without bias. No one was angry with the fact the women got the job. Anger was the fact that the job was advertised, yet when the applicants arrived, males were told that they aren't suitable.
          This is totally different than what you described.
          Let me ask you this- how would you feel if you applied for a job, and at the office you were told that only men are suitable?

          For the record, never passed by any man or women for a job- and often I do the job well. I love working with women as well as men, so this is not a vent.
          How would you feel if for the same pay, the other person does less than half the work? Any man or woman would be justifiably disconcerted if you are the one who has to pick up the slack. I have seen men been performance managed, but with underperforming women, everyone looks the other way as it is hard on them as they have young families.
          Hello, men have young families too!

          In summary, it is unjust and discriminatory to make a decision based on gender. Works both ways. Respect women that make it big based on their abilities.

        • thriftybunny on 15/02/2017 - 10:38

          @varunpant: can agree with everything you said in theory, I don't think women get an easier time at work but maybe a lot of them do at your work place. I more think people who are well connected and know how to manage up (read suck up) get an easier time regardless of gender.
          As long as people don't just jump to assume a woman got hired for any job because she's a female, and give her a fair go from the start. That's all I was saying, because if people automatically discount women when they are successful applicants, they'll still be in an uphill battle to earn any respect at work and that's still unfair.

    • keffola on 14/02/2017 - 14:06
      +4

      To be fair, when the worst of it was going on, its likely that most posting here weren't born back then…

      • thriftybunny on 14/02/2017 - 14:29
        +5

        That's fair enough, but it's left an impact, and we have the current situation at hand where it seems most men don't want to give up any privilege they have inherited from that era.
        I'm pretty sure the original post was trolling, but look at what it's brought out?
        It's like Trump screaming something scary and people quickly got all freaked out and got on the attack.

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

          What privileges are you referring to exactly? What is the current generation trying to avoid 'giving up'? What SPECIFIC examples can you provide that are not circumstantial?

        • Skramit on 14/02/2017 - 14:58
          +3

          most men don't want to give up any privilege

          What privilege in 2017 Australia does a man have over a woman? And lets not recite generalisations. What specific rights or privileges do women not have that men do?

        • thriftybunny on 15/02/2017 - 03:26
          +1

          @DaneD: there are way too many, maybe try Google if you are genuinely interested in educating yourself.

          Specific example is the posts on this thread, you can clearly see women being attacked if they get any job over men, without more information like job description etc, lots of people just jump into the gender battle and assume they must have got the job because they are women. I doubt it will be easy when those women will have to work with people who think they only got the job for being female. They will have to earn respect a lot harder than men, regardless of whether they are actually any good.

        • Skramit on 15/02/2017 - 07:37
          +1

          @thriftybunny:

          Give up please. You are arguing the wrong point. Men are not upset a woman got the job. Men are upset men were told they are not valid applicants because they are men. It's a very different argument I'm not sure you grasp.

        • thriftybunny on 15/02/2017 - 10:06

          @Skramit: well if that's the actual thing being debated here, then I can totally understand why men are upset. Women have been that situation where they weren't hired for being a woman for a lot longer than men historically.

          But your previous response to me was it's 2017 women are no longer discriminated, I agree it's been progressive, I'm just pointing out to you women are certainly still being discriminated, to a lesser extent, but definitely still discriminated. And from your last reply you think being discriminated is a bad thing, right?

        • Skramit on 15/02/2017 - 10:55

          @thriftybunny:

          No, I asked what privileges women do not have that men do. Again a different question because you said "most men don't want to give up any privilege".

          Men and women have equal rights (aka privileges) as far as Australian Law goes (except for maternity issues of course). I simply reject the notion that men are more privileged in 2017 than women.

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

          @Skramit: privilege isn't just rights by law, privilege is a lot more than rights, privilege can be the family you were born into, good looks can also be a privilege, the demographic someone falls under, etc etc

          If you are only talking about rights by law, then yes on book it is equal.
          And men do get the same parental leave these days in some companies (and some companies don't even offer women parental leave), which my male friends who have children really enjoy.

        • DaneD on 15/02/2017 - 13:22

          @thriftybunny:

          Hi Thrifty, I am still a little unclear on this. What specific examples of privileges men are trying to avoid 'giving up'?

          The examples you provided could be used for both genders.

          Any gender can be born into a family (I assume you mean a good family?)
          Any gender can have 'good looks' (which is also subjective).

          Any gender can be born into a demographic.

          Also I believe [@Skramit] was referring to, custody laws etc (could be wrong).

        • thriftybunny on 15/02/2017 - 16:44
          +1

          @DaneD:
          Sorry I didn't read [@Skramit]'s response properly, I just re-read it.

          I agree the official policies are equal or even favour women, however, the world we live in has 2 set of laws, laws which people behave by, and the official laws. The official laws/policies is only useful in court/formal HR. In everyday lives, there are still many people who believe women should "know their place", should be paid less, are not as smart, etc etc

          It's hard to measure the exact input/output in many corporate professions, so this type of gender discrimination can easily go unnoticed, and unreported. Women overlooked for key projects, promotions, for pay raises, given team admin responsibilities (even if they share the same job description as the same men in their team - which I personally actually don't mind doing, but some of my girl friends do mind), men are given preference or more money because employers assume they have a family to support (instead of based on merit), and that women are going to work to keep themselves busy (this doesn't just come from men, a girl I know once said "all the married women don't need to work, your husbands can support you").

          The bias is so the bonuses/salary increases should be given to men who presumably have a family to feed either now or later, and over time, the less important work women do, the more likely women will not be promoted/progress in their career - setting them up for a lesser career than men. A male senior manager (not mine) once told me he preferred to hire men because then he didn't have to worry about their safety when he sent them on work trips alone, I think his intention was genuinely good but it also sat a bit funny with me. Anyway that's just a few examples I know.

          It's very hard to explain this type of subtle discrimination unless you've been subject to it, it's really a byproduct of our society and culture. The same subtle discrimination works for racism, religion and sexual pref as well, in hiring policies it's fair, but when it comes to actual hiring the discrimination plays a role consciously or subconsciously, not for all, but for enough hiring managers for it to make a difference. I think if you imagine someone at work being favoured because he barracks for the same footy team as senior management, or went to the same high school as his manager, that's the extent of bias/privilege, not devastating, but certainly does exist and isn't fair.

          What I also find interesting and somewhat off-topic, is the west have obviously decided to pro-gender equality, in countries like Japan, the women generally don't work after they are married and become full-time housewives, and the men are not happy (high suicide rate) about the financial pressure/responsibility they have to uptake simply by being male.

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

          @thriftybunny:
          "it seems most men don't want to give up any privilege they have inherited from that era."

          +

          "good looks can also be a privilege"

          =

          'it seems (some x most) men don't want to give up good looks they have inherited from that era.'

          Is there something we can do, like cut or deface them or something?

        • thriftybunny on 15/02/2017 - 17:17

          @Frugal Rock: the good looks part was when I didn't read skaramit's comment properly
          thanks for the laugh though

        • DaneD on 15/02/2017 - 17:40
          +1

          @thriftybunny:

          That was actually a well thought out, I actually appreciate that response.

          That being said I disagree. As what you described seems more like a 'cultural' issue rather than a privilege that men are trying to avoid 'giving up'. As you self admittedly stated a women you know said "all the married women don't need to work, your husbands can support you". Therefore it is not logical to claim male privilege but rather a cultural issue.

          It actually sounds very similar to workplace bullying which is extremely hard to prove / substantiate if it is done extremely subtlety as described above.

          The real problem I see with this is how do you remove such subtle discrimination? How do you create laws/strategies/plans to remove it? There are already multiple levels of reviews (at least in government) of hiring decisions. So what could actually be done to change it.

          Such subtle discrimination will always be present as after all we are human. For example, very good looking people (as pointed out by you before) are generally going to be treated better than average looking people. Culturally we value looks (at least initially). The discrimination exists but how do you remove it or avoid it or change it. You really can't. Until the whole culture goes HEY looks are not everything!

          Lastly, I am not sure you can make broad generalising statements such as "there are still many people who believe women should "know their place", should be paid less, are not as smart". While this may or may not be true, it is an opinion not a fact so it dilutes your argument.

        • thriftybunny on 16/02/2017 - 10:29
          +1

          @DaneD:
          I gave it more thought and I agree it's not something men can easily choose to give up or not give up. I appreciate your comment. I think when I read this thread there was a lot of emotions, and my comment was emotion-fueled and directed at other commentators who were angry and suggesting women at work have it easy these days - I don't think that's quite the case from my observations and personal experience, and I worry sentiments like that will push our society backwards.

          If we have in fact, as a society achieved workplace gender equality to the extent we desire, it would still be a fragile state because real change takes time - what I am trying to say here is just because we have reached, say, 50:50 ratio of female and male employees for a couple years, doesn't mean that we have solved all the workplace gender bias issues, it may on the surface and in certain stats, but real change can take a lot longer. And perhaps this change is the cultural change that you are talking about.

          I think if at this stage, we lose support from society because of the backlash aroused by the story OP posted (and a few other stories throughout the thread), we could risk going backwards - I do agree some policies are unfair, but I think it's kind of like taxing the rich more, it started with men dominating work places, so policies are put in place to intentionally change that to advance women. Have we gone too far? Do we still need those specific policies? Are those policies outdated? I am not sure. I suppose that's up to individual work places or industries to review. And maybe new policies that more appropriately address current issues should be put in? I don't know, I am not an expert in that area.

          So I also think it's beneficial to revisit why we want equal gender rights at work places, or equal earning power. Is it so that single mothers can support their children? Is it so that daughters would receive the same attention from their parents (I recall reading because of the one-child policy in China and how their culture favour men, many baby girls were abandoned at birth)? Is it so that men can stress less about finance and even pursue their passion if their women can support them (funny enough I do know a few male friends who hope to become house-husbands and pursue their hobby interests as soon as their wives can earn enough to support their families, let's face it a lot of people don't actually like the work they do.) or is it women can marry for love instead of for the best meal ticket? The social benefit is pretty broad, and I'm sure there are economical benefits too.

    • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 15:59

      What you can't see these posts? Plenty of men and women supporting women, sometimes irrationally.

      • thriftybunny on 15/02/2017 - 03:34

        It's a good thing for women to be supported, they are probably more likely to be discriminated for being woman evident from this thread, I'm hearing a lot more of "she got the job because she's a girl" than "nah mate she's actually good at what she does"
        This is an old line but, imagine if those women are your family and friends.. What would you have said? If people said your daughter got a job she was qualified for only because she was female? Do you think she would do well at her work place when her colleagues think that of her?

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 07:29

          Yes it is a good thing for women to be supported. It's also good to be rational. If you're going to see quotas pushed you're going to see a lot more "she got the job because she's a girl" since that is actually what the policy is.

          If you read elsewhere this is exactly why I don't like the policy. I don't want that said of my daughter. I don't want my daughter put in a position she hasn't earned. It's not good for her. It's not good for any of us.

          Someone said elsewhere in this discussion "equality is equality of outcome not equality of opportunity". I strongly oppose equality of outcome and strongly support equality of opportunity. I genuinely want to see attitudes towards women change and I see these quota policies as an own goal. I want to see women respected and the idea of overlooking a woman because she is a woman seen as the ridiculous thing it is.

        • thriftybunny on 15/02/2017 - 10:28
          +2

          @syousef: I can actually agree with pretty much everything you've said, I'm a female professional and I've been "used" to tick the "female applicant interviewed" box a few times (they already had a preferred candidate but had to interview female to complete the process), and it's been pretty frustrating - I'm not saying I was better for the jobs I'm just saying my time was intentionally wasted. Those policies can be pretty useless in helping promoting the very thing they want to promote and also piss off a lot of people. From my experience it pisses more people off than helping.

          Tho I can understand why they exist, most managers in there past were men and let's be honest, merit isn't always the thing that gets you the job, personality matters, lots of other things can matter. If you work in a team you want to get along. I suppose men like to hire men because they find them easier to work with, they can hang out easier and worry less about being appropriate.. So they put out those policies trying to speed up the gender balancing process by forcing companies to hire more women. I'm not sure where they should draw the line.

          I think it's good for our society women get good jobs, all the single mothers can better look after their kids, women go into marriage for love than just wanting a meal ticket, less financial stress on families where both parents work..

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 11:48
          +1

          @thriftybunny:

          I can only tell you what I'm like. I've been on hiring panels and often recommend women. Sometimes it is because they'll bring a much needed set of skills to the team that many men in IT don't find appealing.

          The 3 most important women in my life are my mother, wife and daughter (listed in the order in which they came into my life).

          My mother worked hard jobs that included ticket sales but also scrubbing toilets. And I am aware of her experiencing some sexual discrimination and mild harassment. (Obviusly I'm not aware of what I've been told). She was the main breadwinner for a long time and without her I wouldn't be where I am today. She managed to get me through uni without a HECS debt.

          My wife is a casual teacher and I find the way teachers in general treated is appauling. Constant recertification with rules that make it incredibly difficult for a casual as you need one school to sponsor you and there's little incentive for them to do so. I find there's also ageism as young casuals are cheaper to hire. That isn't a female issue as such except that it's a female dominated industry. She also chose to stay at home for several years while the kids were young and I supported her. But I've also supported and encouraged her return to work. They certainly don't make it easy to come back after a leave of absence.

          As for my daughter I can only hope the very best for her. And the very best won't come unless she's encouraged and given opportunities to learn and eventually to get a job. They worked hard and without them I wouldn't be where I am today. It's not okay for them to be put down.

          I also have a son, and I don't want to see him work hard only to miss out based on gender either.

          For me anything that is wasteful of human beings is idiotic. It has to be based on merit and we can't afford to throw people away. The world has become a very complex place. No sexism, in either direction, is okay with me. But when I say that I'm about genuine equality of opportunity and respect, not equality of outcome. I don't want to see half measures or stop gaps that look progressive but do nothing to address the underlying issues and create new problems including more unfairness.

        • thriftybunny on 15/02/2017 - 17:15
          +1

          @syousef:
          Hi Syousef

          Thank you for sharing your personal stories. I wasn't expecting such a good discussion, so thank you for that as well.
          I think we are pretty much on the same page when it comes to this topic :)
          It is a complex world that's unfair by default, and people are trying to solve the problems the best they can, unfortunately not everyone can win.

          Anyway, thanks again.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 17:18
          +1

          @thriftybunny:

          Happy to end on a non-confrontational note. All the best.

  • runtoparadise on 14/02/2017 - 15:11
    +1

    I wonder just how many people in this thread are actual engineers. A lot of engineering workplaces have very very few women engineers especially in senior roles.

    It sucks working in a workplace where the only female is the admin person. I find it fascinating/sad that with just one woman in the room even the most obnoxious male will typically tone it right down and let more civilised discussion prevail.

    • Tech and cars on 14/02/2017 - 16:28
      +1

      Where I work - in the R&D Team - (Engineering firm) - There is a female bathroom in our R&DD building but all of the staff are male.

      No one uses the female bathrooms. I'm sure the cleaners are loving this gender imbalance!

      • runtoparadise on 14/02/2017 - 16:36
        +2

        Hahahaaa yep I've noticed that too in a lot of places the women can literally have their own individual toilets with a few to spare… or all of them in your case! (female bathrooms also typically have 2x the toilets as well as in the mens half are replaced by urinals)

        Can you imagine that listed as an employee benefit - "your very own private toilet"

        • JajaMinx on 14/02/2017 - 18:32
          +3

          In my office, there's a transgender bathroom because the women complained about having "her" in the same bathroom as them.

          It's only discrimination when it involves women.

        • enzioFirenze on 14/02/2017 - 20:10

          @JajaMinx: bloody hell, seriously?

        • JajaMinx on 14/02/2017 - 22:28

          @enzioFirenze: Serious, no joke.

      • dufflover on 14/02/2017 - 21:47

        Our office a long time ago had something like this. Few dozen guys, maybe only 3 women. But small male and female toilets, with only 2 cubicles in the women's, or for the men one urinal one cubicle.
        Lucky them :P

    • Your Friend on 14/02/2017 - 22:17
      -3

      Probably because engineering is one of the few professions that hasn't been completely infected with this "forced diversity" bullshit and they actually hire based on MERIT not whether you have tits or not

  • Panama on 14/02/2017 - 16:21
    +5

    All the male babyboomers are going to retire or die out soon, then companies are gonna be left with ridiculously skewed numbers due to these female employment initiatives. By the time the damage is reversed, our youth will be gone along with our career prospects. A tad dramatic, but it sure is looking to be headed that way.

  • BookerDeWitt on 14/02/2017 - 18:43
    +8

    This happens all the time in the modern IT industry. I've seen it occur in IT departments across three different businesses over the last seven years.

    Indoctrinated feminism is a thing and a lot of people are infected. This thread makes that fact abundantly clear as some people are actually defending male discrimination with a straight face. Crazy. Thankfully the masses are slowly becoming more self aware. This won't be a thing for much longer.

    • Your Friend on 14/02/2017 - 22:20
      +2

      Yep, feminists are some of the most sly and disgusting people I have ever met who wont stop until men are left grovelling at their feet.

  • akastyl13 on 14/02/2017 - 20:20
    +2

    And because of that "diversity" women lose credibility when they are hired.
    My partner is an IT Engineer and she is truly highly skilled and has the right attitude and even her is getting tired of that diversity wave happening in her company. Hiring women at all cost will only discredit women that deserve the job they got or have.

  • dufflover on 14/02/2017 - 21:04

    "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."

    As soon as they said this did a lot of the people just walk then? Otherwise it sounds like a bit of a troll story. Or just incredibly dumb (maybe only in hindsight) decision to stick around anyway.

    Unless they played the nothing-to-lose-card and thought by still participating and making a good impression they might get put onto some callback list for a different position.

    (the men/women/legalities thing I won't get into as that's been very well covered already hehe)

  • Geoff-bargain on 14/02/2017 - 21:48
    +3

    I used to work in a bank and they were very open about this and that women would be hired and promoted before men because they wanted to improve diversity. Needless to say I couldnt see the point in sticking around if I was going to be discriminated and not get ahead in my own career.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join