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

Your Friend on 14/02/2017 - 22:15

+3

Some of the most disgusting things I have ever heard in my life came from feminists.

Even the name "feminism" is contradictory, if you were really fighting for equality it would be called "equalism" but equality was achieved a long time ago. I dare you to mention the "gender pay gap" what a load of shit http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-… . But I guess forbes is run by sexist males, oh wait the article was written by a female. A smart educated female. You lot who call yourselves feminists honestly need to take a cold hard look at yourselves

I was working in a big 4 and a mate of mine was trying to get an internship position. I heard directly from the recruiters mouth that he wasn't chosen because they only had 2 positions and one of them was going to a male so they decided for "diversity" sake that they would pick a girl instead.
mp3police on 15/02/2017 - 02:32

+5

Tasmania Police added a photo and a video.
11 hrs ·

Our first Course of Recruits for 2017 were inducted into the Tasmania Police Academy this afternoon.

With a 10/10 split of males and females, the 20 new Recruits have exciting and challenging times ahead over the next 31 weeks.

We look forward to watching their progress as they embark on a fulfilling, rewarding and life-changing career as a member of our force.

Congratulations inductees of Recruit Course 1/2017!

Wonder how many good male's they had to turn down to get that 10/10 split
- goingDHfast on 15/02/2017 - 09:41
  
  +6
  
  Here is the list including their backgrounds:
  http://www.police.tas.gov.au/news-events/media-releases/firs…
  
  Tasmanian's should feel extra safe being protected by hairdressers, receptionists and waitresses…
  - Davo1111 on 16/02/2017 - 12:29
    
    +2
    
    Tasmanian's should feel extra after being protected by hairdressers, receptionists and waitresses…
    
    IMO policing these days seems to be more on how you interact with people, rather than your ability to wrestle/fight.
    
    If you're able to meet the job requirements, complete the training to the expected standard, i see no reason why they shouldnt be able to do it.
    
    IMO my question is what was the applicant pool ratio, and how does that compare to whom was hired.
    - montorola on 17/02/2017 - 17:01
      
      complete the training to the expected standard
      
      There's different standards for men and women in police training too.
      
      Where's the equalism there??
- Skramit on 15/02/2017 - 11:00
  
  +5
  
  Victoria Police has been through the gender quota thing already with recruitment thanks to Christine Nixon and her feminist leftist agenda. As a result they had to lower the physical standards required to pass the recruitment course.
  
  Meanwhile in Victoria, crime skyrockets….
  - goingDHfast on 15/02/2017 - 12:08
    
    +1
    
    Don't worry, we'll send a waitress or a hairdresser to defend citizens against youth crime gangs…
- victinini on 15/02/2017 - 18:26
  
  +1
  
  I’m not disputing that males were turned down, but I want to question why police work should be a man’s job? The police are there to maintain order and uphold the law, not get into wrestling matches. A well-trained police officer de-escalates the situation, and has adequate physical and firearms training to control the situation. There’s nothing about this job that seems inherently male to me.
  
  How many men would rather do work that are female dominated rather than police work? Teaching, childcare, nursing? These jobs will open up when the male dominated ones slowly take all the women. The move for diversity frees us to do whatever we want, rather than be boxed into masculine roles. As soon as it is just as easy for a woman to get the job as it is for men, we can relax and let the real ratio balance out.
  - Davo1111 on 16/02/2017 - 12:38
    
    +1
    
    The move for diversity frees us to do whatever we want, rather than be boxed into masculine roles. As soon as it is just as easy for a woman to get the job as it is for men, we can relax and let the real ratio balance out.
    
    If you've got a pool of applicants thats 90% male, then you acquire a talent pool of 50% male, you've either got an inherit bias (or your advertising is wrong).
    
    Hiring people on the basis of creating diversity is a great way to belittle the work of the minority you're trying to attract.
    - victinini on 16/02/2017 - 15:33
      
      That’s one way of looking at it sure, but I really don’t think it has to be that way as long as you look past what happens now, and instead look further into the future. Your pool of applicants is 90% male. Does it have to be? What steps can we take to change that number in the future? Hiring more females now is a first step into creating that future. In that sense, it’s not the quotas themselves that is the problem, but that not more is being done to create a talent pool that can live up to that quota. What steps can we take to remedy that?
      
      I have to agree with you that personally I don’t feel like I’m being given a fair shake, but I also feel that we’re missing the forest for the tree. We want to look at everything in a integrated sense, and look at what we can do to create the future that we want to have.
      
      In other words, in your words belittling a few minorities might be the way to pave the road for the worthy ones to step up (it’s not just about the work anyway - i.e. women figuring out how to contribute effectively to the workplace, and the workplace figuring out how to create an environment that brings the best out of people from different backgrounds are important things to work on that increases a company’s productivity and capability in the long run, even if some of the work suffers in the short term. Transitions are difficult no matter what it is). Because right now not even then good ones aren't given a chance - I don’t mean that they aren’t given a chance to apply and interview for jobs, but that they have never been given the opportunity to even dream about having those jobs because of the current status quo environment. I think that we can’t have a good conversation about this until you, me and all of us truly understand how the current system has been set up (not necessarily on purpose) to keep everyone in their place. I believe that it is out collective duty to use what we have to pull others up, because I have had help every step of the way as well - I just didn’t recognise it until it was pointed out to me.
    - [Deactivated] on 16/02/2017 - 15:52
      
      @victinini:
      
      "women figuring out how to contribute effectively to the workplace"
      
      Most condescending award, right there. Next step is head patting. I give MissG permission to use the term 'mansplain' three times and to mock 5 disappointments.
    - victinini on 16/02/2017 - 16:19
      
      @Frugal Rock: I don’t need to defend myself when you haven’t made it clear what your problem with the statement is. So take it however you like, but I don’t want to end the conversation just because you didn’t like one thing I wrote.
    - Davo1111 on 16/02/2017 - 17:43
      
      @victinini:
      
      What steps can we take to remedy that?
      
      Firstly i'd research the countries ratio for that particular discipline, and if you were in line with that, i'd stop there.
      
      IF the company has a bias outside that, then i'd be inclined to understand why the pool has a bias. The first thing i'd do is speak to everyone (not just women), and ask what they think could make the company more attractive.
      
      In this case, I don't think forced integration is a solution, all that does is belittle women/devalue their work.
      
      Everything outside that falls into socieities values/education system etc, and should be handled by the government. Even if it was a situation where women were expected to become housewives, i don't think it's a companies job to skip the talent pool and hire that person. At best, the company should provide scholarships to genuinely disadvantaged people, and help them reach the talent pool required standard.
      
      Case in point: the mine i used to work at wanted to attract local "talent" rather than just hiring fifos. I think it would be better to spend that money on education and training for the general community so that they can meet the talent pool standard (being locals they would be at an advantage), rather that just selecting a few, and pushing them into positions which they dont have the training for. Forced integration is a bandaid solution, to make your statistics look good
    - victinini on 17/02/2017 - 12:34
      
      @Davo1111: I think branding it as a forced integration is not giving these initiatives the most generous interpretation. Sure, I think that many disciplines are going to have an imbalance in the gender ratio. But we need to know how much of that is natural, and how much of that is structural. Furthermore, even if it is natural how do we as a society shape these natural desires? Those are important questions, and I honestly believe that it is not whether or not we should give people from non-traditional backgrounds a leg up, but how we should do it. It’s a much more powerful thing than you give it credit for to be able to have your parents point at someone who looks like you, who comes from the same background as you and tell you that one day, you can be like that too.
      
      It’s really pointless in my opinion to just match the ratio for any particular discipline. You’re ignoring all the structural and social aspects that contribute to that ratio! I may as well just ask 1000 children what they want to do for a living when they grow up and base the required ratios on that. We need to recognise that these effects act on all decisions that children and young adults make to prepare for their careers. Parents tell their children what to study in school, girls come into engineering class and see it filled with boys and leave, the same thing for boys in psychology. What you’re proposing is what we would do if things were a blank slate, but unfortunately we have to work with what the world is like right now.
      
      I think you have some good ideas, but these solutions don’t have to be a choice. I think that maybe having a strict quota right now may after all be asking too much, but maybe to set rising ratios over years, and spending on increasing the talent pool through scholarships, community incentives and changing social norms could help in the long run. The only thing I have to completely disagree with you is that we can get by doing nothing until something obscenely racist/sexist happens.
    - Davo1111 on 17/02/2017 - 17:51
      
      @victinini:
      
      thats why you look at the wider talent pool? If theres a 50/50 ratio of people graduating with a suitable degree, and your company has a 90/10 split, then there is an inherit company bias.
      
      But we need to know how much of that is natural, and how much of that is structural
      
      It's not the companies job to try and change the community bias. IMO Parents and early education are the main influencers. In fact, i'd rather my [future] kids to be taught by all female teachers who are good, rather than some crappy males, because we want "diversity". Same applies to nursing in the emergency room - I'd rather a steady handed female inserting the catheter than a shakey non-caucasian male nurse who helps bring diversity.
      
      I think we're past the point in the education system where we are open about our life choices (the perfect example being "ethics" classes over religion).
      
      increasing the talent pool through scholarships, community incentives
      
      I'm really not a fan of scholarships personally. I'd rather ALL people get the opportunity to learn that selecting a few people for a short term gain.
      
      For example, in the mines they want to attract local talent. I'd rather they donate money to a TAFE or something to get people into the required standard, then grabbing a few people and sending them interstate for training. It's a long vs short term vision.
    - victinini on 17/02/2017 - 19:22
      
      @Davo1111: As I keep saying, I think our disagreement comes from the fact that we’re coming from different sides when we see the world. I don’t think the community bias or whatever is natural, and I don’t think that catching students when they are graduating helps that balance. I do think that it’s the collective responsibility of all companies, as important members of a society to help that society reach the goals we set. I think that you don’t realise it, but punting responsibility round and round just gets nothing done. For example, why would parents and early childhood teachers encourage kids to study for a job where the statistics say they won’t be hired? It all works together.
      
      I’m sure you don’t mean to do this, but you’ve presented a series of false dichotomies that I just don’t see. For example the idea that you’ll get crappy workers if you specifically try to hire from a small talent pool. That is statistically true, I will agree. There’s been a lot of talk about bell curves and that a smaller talent pool with the same mean will result in lesser quality if the same number of applicants from both groups should be hired. There are two problems with that argument. Firstly, if the job requires higher education there is going to be a minimum level of competence required to pass a course. The bell curve is cut off at some point (which by the way would result in a greater percentage of the smaller talent pool than if we compared the entire population), where the teachers deem a student to be competent. If your fear is that female students are given an easy pass at uni (which is not true when it comes to simply passing), then we can attack the problem from both sides. For example, did you know that universities actually work very closely with representatives from various industries to help design courses that teach students the minimum skills to perform a job? Thats why degrees do still mean something. Secondly, it assumes that there’s only two types of workers: good or bad. We all know the truth is that most workers are just competent. Most nurses are just competent, most engineers are just competent. Companies don’t hire only superstars, they hire people who can fit in and do the job, to prove that they can be superstars. And we’ve all seen people hired in places who are incompetent at the start and either have to learn on the job, or stay for far longer than they deserve to be before they are let go. We’ve never had the standards that you require when it comes to hiring when it’s for jobs that are “normal” for the gender/race, and I hope you can understand why some women feel like we are shifting the goalposts to suit ourselves when it comes to STEM jobs.
      
      Also, we know that most jobs aren’t advertised. It’s well known that people mostly get jobs by knowing someone who works at the company. How is a man supposed to get a job at a place where mostly women work if they are a man who mostly spends time with other men? There at least needs to be a way for us to get in the door without playing that game. The entire culture of hiring practices needs to change.
      
      I also believe that there is inherent value in bringing on board people from different backgrounds, and having input from people who have different ideas who are empowered to give them can only be a good thing for a company’s bottom line. It isn’t just for the sake of women, it’s for men too. For example, I wouldn’t want a female counsellor guiding me through my prostate cancer (she would know nothing about what I’m going through), and I think many women would prefer a female doctor to conduct any invasive procedures. In addition, speaking a different language and/or understanding how things work in different ethnic backgrounds can only be an asset for any job.
      
      There’s no choice to be made here. We don’t have to choose one way or another, we just have to make sure it all fits together. Society works on many different levels, so we should solves these problems on many different levels as well. The trick is to find the right balance, not throw it all out and deflecting responsibility when one thing doesn’t go our way. For example, instead of hard quotas we could require companies to pay a certain tax for every year that they don’t hire a certain % of women/minorities, but waive that tax if they make an effort to increase those talent pools i.e. donating, offering scholarships and internships. We need to make this a conversation about what happens in the real world and the hurdles that need to be overcome, rather than what the world should be.
      
      I think you (and all of us) underestimate how much the environment impacts on people’s decision making. I find it hard to believe that engineering for example is inherently a 90% male dominated course simply because girls don’t like engineering. When you insist that everyone should be treated equally at this point it ignores the fact that some groups have fallen behind because of everything that has happened before. It’s not payback, and it’s not really even about men versus women. It’s about people who have reached a good place recognising that we’ve had it pretty good and that things have always gone our way, giving a hand to the people who aren’t quite there yet. I’m 100% certain that the more people are pulled up, the more energy we will all have in the future to push everyone forward.
- MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 19:25
  
  Jesus you're assuming all the women hired were incompetent.
boomramada on 15/02/2017 - 11:58

+1

Well known IT Business provider in Adelaide did that years ago.
And there is a real estate agent in Canberra, still only hire females.
Price Line - Sisters Club, isn't that bit sexiest?
- victinini on 15/02/2017 - 18:21
  
  +3
  
  I’m a proud male priceline sister.
zine21 on 15/02/2017 - 12:10

+5

you guys really have no idea what woman face within the industry outside of the interview stage if this is being discussed without context. I know several female engineers and yes a lot of companies especially government based jobs have a target - where they have to meet a certain number of female employees. BUT once they get the job the dynamic changes. They weren't given actual jobs other then to fill some space. The company ends up hiring contractors to perform the job while the female workers they just hired are sitting around looking for things to do.

And NO woman do not like this arrangement. They don't like sitting around doing nothing other than filling some target number for the company. They dont enjoy not being given a chance to do their job. Its assumed a man will do a better job so a contractor is hired instead

Ive heard so many complaints within the engineering field regarding how the company and workers negatively treat them, that it actually makes sense that they're creating bs target levels to make themselves look better in the event of a lawsuit, through having female employees. "we can't be sexist, look we hired female workers"
- syousef on 16/02/2017 - 12:25
  
  You need to change the underlying attitude. Quotas won't fix this - in male dominated industries it actually makes it harder as the sexist men dig their heels in.
ProggerPete on 15/02/2017 - 16:43

+1

This scenario is clearly discrimination against men, but I'd argue companies should be allowed to discriminate all they want.

If an engineering firm decided they are only going to hire knockout 10/10 women I have no issue with it at all. The engineering firm is likely to struggle to survive against other firms hiring based on competency. (Although their may be a niche for client who care more about seeing hot women then getting actual results.)
- Davo1111 on 16/02/2017 - 00:05
  
  +3
  
  That's fine, but I want them to be open about it. Why waste my time applying for a job where all you're going to do is trash it instantly. Same with jobs being advertised even though they have someone working in that higher level position successfully for the past few months.
  - ProggerPete on 16/02/2017 - 09:51
    
    They can't be open about it because the law would punish them for doing so. Get rid of the law and market forces will punish any business that consistently overlooks better qualified women for a men and vice versa.
    - Davo1111 on 16/02/2017 - 12:38
      
      thats true.
Atlaspin on 15/02/2017 - 17:47

+1

I find a heresay account about your friend job interview from a year ago, who was probably bitter about not getting the job, and the friend's friend getting the job, not great evidence of a supposed problem.

I find something similar happens in Psychology, which is predominantly female. Male students seem to be more likely to be accepted into post-graduate training, whether or not they are more suitable for clinical work than female competitors. Leveraging representativeness has some benefits so I understand why, despite the fact it irks me.
- victinini on 15/02/2017 - 18:19
  
  +1
  
  I’m in postgraduate psychology and at my institution there are definitely more female than male students. We’ve also got an even 50:50 gender split on professors in the department.
  
  What I’m saying is that a concerted effort to increase diversity helps, when it is drilled into everybody that it is important. It’ll be painful for a while but good for the society in the long run I believe.
Gershom on 15/02/2017 - 18:00

-1

This post is utter bullshit.
victinini on 15/02/2017 - 18:16

I’m in support of increasing diversity in the workplace, but it’s just plain rude to waste someone’s time like that. They are trying to get a job and make money for a living, they aren’t your puppets to toy around with as you please.
darkmattersunB6c0MV on 15/02/2017 - 19:24

Any job that are restricted for a particular sex ( male or female) should be declared upfront, and advertised as such.

Once eligibility criteria has been established, then all jobs should have unbiased selection process.

All successful candidates should be treated equally with respect to their job obligations - both for recognition and rewards, as well as performance management for non- performing employees. (E.g., for the same role, paying the same money, same opportunity to grow and shine should be provided, and same commitment and accountability rules should apply.)

All evaluations should be outcome based, and any impediments should be removed that prevent the outcomes from being realised.

A fairer workplace will lead to happier and higher performing employees 😀
- airzone on 15/02/2017 - 20:26
  
  Any job that are restricted for a particular sex ( male or female) should be declared upfront, and advertised as such
  
  Generally it's illegal to discriminate like this unless given an exemption by whatever employment regulator is in charge of your state.
  
  Most sensible companies just bin the applications with female / male / ethnic / short-sounding / homosexual (delete as required) names and don't bother exposing themselves to lawsuits so openly. Any who slip through the cracks to get to their first interview are probably not a "fit for company culture".
  - darkmattersunB6c0MV on 15/02/2017 - 21:15
    
    At times, there are specific requirements- say, as a model for a bra, the company may advertise only for women.
    Conversely, for a moustache curler, only men with moustaches may need apply.
    There will be exceptions - which you agree to as well, so no disagreement.
    
    I have no issues with working with people with their sexualities and sexual preference, and often am the last one to hear about these things, as I do not engage in office gossip.
    Having said that, my perception of a person's work is not affected once I am made aware of any such information. What you do outside office is none of my business. Niether is any preferential treatment afforded, just because they are discriminated against. I make sure that my treatment is not based on sex, colour, race or sexual preference ( amongst others).
    My criteria is that you complete the work assigned to you in a reasonable time, up to the quality that one expects.
    - airzone on 15/02/2017 - 21:54
      
      Sure there are. In NSW, these are the organisations that have legal exemptions. The general theme is aboriginal / torres strait specific roles, organisations looking for females specifically, and defence companies. Anyone else is breaking the law. Each state is different in the application to exemptions, but it follows the same general process.
      
      http://www.antidiscrimination.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/adb1_…
      
      Most models are on contract, not employees. You can get away with a lot more. Especially if you work through an agency.
MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 19:36

+2
General opinions I have learned from this thread:

Gender quotas are bad and are going to rob all men of jobs, society of safety, and end of civilization as we know it because equalising the workforce and getting rid of nepotism is discrimination similar to apartheid.

Only merit matters and if only men have the merit on paper, it must mean all women are incompetent, or at least, most women have no merit and this is because they just naturally aren't as capable as men. If women are hired based on quotas, they must be incompetent by default.

Women aren't discriminated against anymore.

All feminists are the same and are evil.

There is no complexity to this issue, it is very black and white. Men are right and women are wrong.

FrugalRock likes Wikipedia.

Now let's all go and cry into our tea for the state of society, for different reasons.
- [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 19:56
  
  Was that your Joan of Arc eMartyr moment?
  - MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 19:57
    
    -1
    
    Do you ever make sense?
    - [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 20:00
      
      You should read Dunning and Kruger's work. Seated.
    - MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 20:02
      
      @Frugal Rock: Since you're clearly an expert and an excellent representative of the Dunning-Kruger effect, I have no need :)
    - [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 20:27
      
      @MissG:
      My antivirus is generating plagiarism errors on your response.
    - MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 20:28
      
      @Frugal Rock: Don't blame me for walking into that one :)
    - [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 20:33
      
      @MissG:
      Yeah, you certainly did.
    - MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 20:35
      
      @Frugal Rock: And now my suspicion that you are indeed an 8 year old primary school student has been confirmed. Well done :)
    - [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 20:36
      
      @MissG:
      Tinfoil suits you. Matches your teeth.
    - MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 20:41
      
      @Frugal Rock: I've covered my house in it. They could be watching you know.
- airzone on 15/02/2017 - 20:19
  
  A day without learning something is a day wasted. ;)
  - MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 20:19
    
    Well I certainly can't argue with that. My eyes have truly been opened.
    - [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 20:42
      
      -1
      
      Quelle faux surprise!
    - MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 20:47
      
      +2
      
      @Frugal Rock: Sadly not faux. I am incredibly surprised that in 2017, I am reading some of the commens I've read on here.
    - [Deactivated] on 16/02/2017 - 13:18
      
      @MissG:
      Passive aggressives cry limp, throwaway surprise and disappointment like Peter cried wolf. It gets old, quickly. I think you should focus all that disappointment on the unsophisticated 2017 mind trick you are attempting that only works on the suggestible, validation clingy and already converted. Save the hand model waving for Sale of the Century. The future can work out itself and doesn't need your crystal ball pantomime. Yes, yes, you saw an idyllic future and men spoiled it.
    - MessyG on 16/02/2017 - 20:47
      
      @Frugal Rock: You have a very dim view of people.
    - [Deactivated] on 16/02/2017 - 23:56
      
      +1
      
      @MissG:
      "In the 70's, women were not even allowed bank accounts and home loans. "
      
      Well, you have a credibility problem after saying women couldn't hold bank accounts in the 70s in one of your armchair suffragette rants. Australian women have had the ability to hold bank accounts since the late 19th century. You selectively chose the UK, where women could hold bank accounts, but only in their own name post '75. You are wrong even in the UK, as women could hold bank accounts in the 70s. As you did not even say the UK, by deliberate dramatic omission, Australia is default and you are off by the better part of a hundred years. Numbers never were your thing, really.
    - MessyG on 17/02/2017 - 07:13
      
      @Frugal Rock:
      
      A woman needed her husbands permission in the 1970s to open a bank account. To me, that's not being allowed to hold a bank account.
      
      Your assumptions about my ability based off a few posts on here, and the way you speak to that, is very telling about what sort of person you are. Sticks and stones dude, I've seen far worse than you.
    - [Deactivated] on 17/02/2017 - 09:40
      
      +1
      
      @MissG:
      Only in the UK, which you still conveniently fail to mention, and not after 1975, huh. Englishmen were required to own and practice a longbow 2 hours a week up until 1960. It's still illegal to mind a cow while drunk there. Your academic abilities, and lack thereof, are very much self-evident.
      
      Could an Australian woman hold an Australian bank account in any and every year of the 1970s? Yes or no. You are totally scrambling.
- hangdog on 16/02/2017 - 12:12
  
  Annabel Crabb said it well:
  
  http://www.smh.com.au/comment/men-will-sleep-easier-if-there…
  
  "Can you imagine how dreadful it would feel – how soul-sapping – for a human being to suspect on any level that their success was attributable to their genetic equipment rather than their merit?
  
  It would be paralysing. Imagine the shame.
  
  I certainly hope nothing like that ever occurs to the 97 per cent of chief executives of major Australian companies who are male. Or to the 90 per cent of cabinet members who happen, thanks to an – I'm sure – entirely unrelated coincidence, also to have been favoured at birth not only with superior merit, but also with certain crucial dangly bits.…
  As a society, surely we owe it to men to relieve them of this crippling burden of self-doubt. Tell you what: Let's call it 50/50, eh? That way, everyone can relax."
[Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 22:06

+4

Overlooking half the population, males, who may actually be equally as qualified and motivated, but who aren't considered because they have a penis.

Dress it up whatever way you like. When you overlook a better candidate because of a gender bias then that plain and simple is discrimination.

What is really stupid is employing half your workforce purely on gender bias rather than talent or ability.

What's next, 20% must be gay/lesbian/transvestite? What about ethnic split while where at it? Or religion? Should your employment depend more upon your ethnicity, gender or sexual preference than your suitability to actually do the job? No only an idiot would think that.
- airzone on 15/02/2017 - 23:02
  
  You're beginning to sound like corporate America.
  - [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 23:05
    
    +2
    
    Imagine if affirmative action was put in place at the Olympics. All the clean athletes should be able to take drugs to catch up to the cheats. You don't solve one problem, you create another.
    - vlahka on 16/02/2017 - 06:52
      
      +4
      
      They've been trialing affirmative action up here in darwin. At my previous job they specifically were only hiring people with any amount of aboriginal in them, this being a government branch btw. My boss at the time was telling me about how they were forced to keep hiring, going through something like 8 or 9 applicants who either didnt bother turning up again or just not caring enough till they were let go. She said its an absolute annoyance because it keeps them short. I would like to add there was 1 aboriginal girl who was working with us, been there for a number of years. She's brilliant. Very friendly.
      
      On the topic of women in the workplace, a little thing I didnt add in about my previous job what I was let off because of a funding shortage, was that they had at that time about 6 girls off on maternity leave. Those 6 had been replaced with another 6 girls. One of them also got pregnant and was a couple months away from taking her leave before I left. So they were paying 12 people for 6 positions. I guess thats why they couldnt afford to keep me. Despite me being the only one there who couldnt get pregnant. Zero logic.
Davo1111 on 16/02/2017 - 00:09

+7

Seen it many times, mining industry and government. Makes me sick.
[Deactivated] on 16/02/2017 - 04:58

+4

Give it a year and this crap will be legal, race discrimination in the employment process was made legal a few years back… This is next.

At this stage, this is currently illegal though - it is still classed as discrimination.
- Davo1111 on 16/02/2017 - 12:16
  
  race discrimination in the employment process was made legal a few years back…
  
  how?
  - [Deactivated] on 16/02/2017 - 13:38
    
    +1
    
    https://www.humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12047 sums it up.
    
    For government positions I believe it was clarified as legal in legislation in 2013. Apparently it's always technically been legal, though it's been made clearer and abused more in recent times.
  - [Deactivated] on 16/02/2017 - 13:43
    
    +1
    
    Large corporations negotiate tax incentives with government in exchange for buzzwords, like diversity. At universities there is a Government $50mill+ Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund to compete for with diversity ratios.
    
    Imagine you are running a large bank or university. If you go cap-in-hand to the government for funding or tax breaks, you are going to need some Hollywood. What better way than looking to Madonna and Brangelina's adoption patterns and United Colours of Benetton advertising as a basis.
    - [Deactivated] on 16/02/2017 - 13:54
      
      I never minded much back when universities were looser with requirements based on race, I don't mind affirmative action with education as education is a human right and something we all deserve access too… But it's literally public sector jobs we're now seen offered to people based more on race than skills or knowledge. Tax and/or council money going towards this type of stuff…
    - [Deactivated] on 16/02/2017 - 14:25
      
      OK, so Australian banks have only been publicly floated for a few decades, Commonwealth as an example around 1991. Before that, the branches were inefficient and operated like post offices. The first lengthy job for the bank CEOs, to provide maximum shareholder profits and growth, was to go on a firing binge. The firing binge lasted decades. Senior bank execs are not nice people. They have nicknames like 'Mack the knife' for firing people. When you see bank CEOs sitting at roundtables talking about diversity, it means that all the cold offshoring and firing has dried up. They've run out of unprofitable branches to close and employees to fire. The thought of banking execs all synching a conscience is laughable. If they go to government together, they can negotiate a tax break for a feel good story that warms the cockles of gullibles. Who is also part of this diversity initiative? Why, it's Alan Joyce who loves nothing more than firing and whose yearly million+ bonus grows fatter with a corporate tax break. Diversity is not about about social conscience or workplace efficiency, it's about corporate tax breaks and funding. Have a look at the who's who lineup involved :)
Boscojack on 16/02/2017 - 16:09

+5

I have been on the other side of this as a female in a male dominated industry (Geology) there have certainly been times when my gender has been an issue. I remember one job interview where I was specifically told that I was not getting the job because I was female. I was more than qualified and they no issue with my interview or aptitude testing, the issue was it was job on a off shore oil rig and it would cost them too much to provide facilities for a female. the job went to a mate of mine who I had gone to uni with who was nice enough but I know I had better grades and experience than him at the time. I just sort of accepted it at the time and as upsetting as it was I was grateful that they were at least honest with me, but ultimately it changed the entire course of my career. I wanted to work in the oil and gas industry and at the time it was the only real way in (no where near as much onshore drilling as there is now back then) and I ended up in exploration geology. It would just be nice if people were hired based on ability but it doesn't seem like that is going to happen. People will be discriminated against for one reason or another and then they will over correct trying to fix the issues resulting in discrimination against another part of the community.
- syousef on 16/02/2017 - 22:44
  
  See now there's something I could get behind. Make it a requirement for a company to have facilities for females. That then SUPPORTS hiring on merit.
- outlander on 24/02/2017 - 16:29
  
  What the hell are facilities for women? Makes it sound like there was one big toilet, and everyone had to go at the same time.
  
  Pretty sure it wasn't about facilities, it was because they were worried about you getting attacked. That's what would be on my mind in that position.
rr64 on 16/02/2017 - 17:57

Why would they interview the male candidates after stating that they had no intention of hiring them? Just to humiliate them even further?
How people like this become HR managers is beyond me.
tallmantim on 17/02/2017 - 12:42

So much misogyny in this thread.

I have worked in IT my whole working life and there has been less than 10% of my colleagues who were female. I embrace and applaud the efforts in providing STEM scholarships and efforts to create workplaces friendly to women.

Old school thinking means the bright and capable females go into other work - and the shortfall is often filled by skilled migrants (rather than just local males missing out on roles).
- [Deactivated] on 17/02/2017 - 13:14
  
  +1
  
  Do you understand PID controllers and how affirmative action in no way resembles one?
KRM123 on 17/02/2017 - 13:20

+3

I actually noticed a job advert in my linkedin the other day with the below headline;

Expression of Interest – Indigenous and Female Employment Opportunities
•Opportunities for Female and Indigenous Australian candidates

I'm actually surprised to see a company openly declare a role for a gender or persons origin. I imagine if a similar advert was posted requesting candidates be Caucasian or male, it would soon make its way into mainstream news.

I'm all for increased diversity, but I do often wonder about targets set up by companies, of say aiming for 40% females in engineering workforce. In reality if you look at the gender split for graduates on an engineering course in University, then you may expect only 10 or 15% of the class to be female. It would seem a more realistic target to have a similar % of women working in a particular field to the % that study in that discipline.

If we are worried about a lack of representation in a specific field, then I think we need to work from the ground up, and firstly encourage people of a specific sex/race to study in that discipline. If you work on increasing numbers in the workforce first, then it may lead to sub optimal candidates being hired as you have a lower pool of people that fit the criteria.
fuzor on 17/02/2017 - 13:51

+2

I would have thought this was normal and even expected in this country. Women obviously have more power in Australia. Just ask anyone whos been through the family courts. We're the land of pu**ies.

I remember a couple of years back there was this massive divorce settlement of a rich couple. The husband desperately wanted the case heard in Asia as he's not gonna be hindered by some bullshit ideal. Had a good chuckle at that one.
ChrisWolf on 17/02/2017 - 16:25

+3

I was looking at job adverts and I found this.

"Cisco is an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer and all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, genetic information, age, disability, veteran status, or any other legally protected basis."

How is it possible to be both AA (discriminatory) and be EO (non-discriminatory)?

On a side note I believe the only form of discrimination if any should be based upon socioeconomic status not race or gender, but this would be more applicable for acceptance/scholarships into educational institutions.
[Deactivated] on 17/02/2017 - 16:52

+1

Here is the University of Sydney Department of Gender and Cultural Studies Academic Staff List.

It's their job to study and understand gender balance and diversity, all the while maintaining a shocking imbalance themselves.

Dr Fiona Allon
Associate Professor Ruth Barcan
Professor Catherine Driscoll
* Dr Liam Grealy
Dr Jennifer Hamilton
Associate Professor Anna Hickey-Moody
Dr Jessica Kean
Associate Professor Tess Lea
Associate Professor Natalya Lusty
Professor Meaghan Morris
Dr Astrida Neimanis
Dr Jane Park
Professor Elspeth Probyn
* Associate Professor Kane Race
* Dr Guy Redden
Dr Anthea Taylor
Associate Professor Lee Wallace
- [Deactivated] on 17/02/2017 - 19:34
  
  +1
  
  It's official. The Ku Klux Klan has more racial diversity than the University of NSW Women's and Gender Studies Department has gender diversity. No men. No male scholarships to address the student imbalance.
  
  Dr Helene Bowen Raddeker
  Emeritus Professor Rosalyn Diprose
  Professor Louise Edwards
  Dr Ayxem Eli
  Dr Joanne Faulkner
  Professor Anne O'Brien
  Associate Professor Diana Palaversich
  Ms Sophie Robinson
  Professor Mina Roces
  Dr Caroline Sheaffer-Jones
  Dr Zora Simic
  Associate Professor Haiqing Yu
jazzcomp on 18/02/2017 - 15:49

Personally experienced this as well. A lot of female employees have been promoted in my field where the males have suddenly dropped out of jobs and left the company after a really long time.
[Deactivated] on 18/02/2017 - 22:18

The amount of places looking for diversity hires/amount of positions given to men first, hence the need for deliberate diversity hire …. hmmm. If you are shit hot, you will be head-hunted, you can beat discrimination forward or reverse by getting good.
Question on 27/02/2017 - 08:08

Gender equality sounds like a really nice thing until you realise that it is only applied in a biased manner.

As people have pointed out, you never see companies with male quotas when they have more female employees than males. Nobody ever wants to talk about this. I have never seen this mentioned by any serious media article (opinion pieces by random people dont count). Its like the elephant in the room.

Wage gap is another thing that only gets applied to one gender. There is never any mention of why a female dominated HR company would deliberately pay female employees less, or why none of the females in HR have become whistle blowers and exposed company memos/directives ordering that females be paid less. There is usually just a subtle implication that there is some kind of misogynist conspiracy at work to make sure female employees get paid less. There is never any mention of how men are expected to work longer hours or do more tasks based on their gender.

I have personally been told that I had to work overtime because of my gender. Female employees were all exempted because "you can't really expect us to ask the ladies to work overtime right?". All the self proclaimed feminists in the office kept quiet and did not protest that this was grossly unfair. Funny that. Female employees were also given (unofficially) longer breaks and lunch hours. Any male employee who pointed out this was discrimination was gender-shamed. No female employee EVER pointed out that this was unfair and requested to be treated with equal standards. Whenever we got supplies, all the men had to help out with unpacking and moving them while the female employees were again exempted.

Stories like this are never allowed to get printed in the media. You will notice how the media only prints stories of sexual harrassment or females getting paid less…they never print anything like the above. Blatant discrimination there.

My favourite story was when I read this article by some self-proclaimed feminist author or some such…who complained that when she was in university, her professor didnt encourage her to continue to do an academic career. She was absolutely convinced it was because of her gender. She actually went back to confront him years later, and he was stunned and said "I almost never encourage students to become an academic…because it takes a very particular person to be an academic, it's not for everyone.". She was STILL convinced it was because of her gender. She then told that story to an audience at some female empowerment event and was then applauded for it.

How many people here were ever encouraged by a professor or teacher to take up a particular career? Unless you are a top student or show some amazing talent for something, that's not very likely in the first place.

The definition of discrimination is completely different when used by different people.
[Deactivated] on 28/02/2017 - 18:58

This, I have seen many times that gents were asked to leave the building because the employers have decided to hire a female for the said position. For me, it is totally a heck to first invite the males then kick them out afterwards.

Employers should decide before they post their advertisement for recruitment and if they are looking forward hiring a female only then they should mention it within the ad that the position is for ladies only!
- ozhunter on 28/02/2017 - 23:56
  
  That's discrimination which is why they don't do it.

Gender Discrimination (Employment) - Female Gender Bias

Comments

New Forum Topics