So the AFP are pushing for more women in the recruitment of their officers - you can apply for a position as a male, but women are preferred.
Should a government agency be pushing gender quotas for, let's be honest here, a job that requires the best candidate. Having anyone hired based on their gender rather than their merit can result in societies safety being in jeopardy!
@DaneD: It only diminishes credibility if you decide it does. I don't see it as a lower entry level, I see it as an appropriate benchmark for that cohort to achieve the same outcome.
Entry into medicine is an interesting example. At UQ there's no interview, (exam results only), and males outnumber females. In courses where it is exam results PLUS interview, the number evens out to 50:50. So the guys do better on the entrance exam (which is some seriously esoteric science), but the girls do better on the interview, but which is the lower standard? Those arguing meritocracy will say the exam is the better standard, except there's now evidence to show now that women doctors get higher quality outcomes and are sued far less. Does it have anything to do with entrance requirements? Is it because women are biologically more caring? And do the men who get through the entrance standards of interview + exam then have the same outcomes as women in practice? I don't know.
My point is that entry standards should be cohort dependent anyway and shouldn't compromise quality. Whether or not you think this affects a cohort's credibility is of course up to you, but I'll wait and see how it plays out in the real world before casting judgment.
What you are arguing is mental capacity and I agree women are just as capable as men in this regard if not more so in some circumstances as outlined by you above.
What we are discussing, is physical capability which is an entirely different issue and where physical entry standards reflect physical capacity. There is no second test, you are either fit enough or you are not fit enough for a front line role. An entire sex can't suddenly become genetically equal to another and quoting you 'Women may have less muscle mass'. Therefore, inherently not all women are equally capable as men (some are equal).
@DaneD: My point is do they need to be genetically equal? Or do they need to meet a benchmark? As long as that benchmark is met then the differences become statistically insignificant. The thing that gets conflated with equal opportunity and outcome is this idea of 'equality', that men and women should be 'equal' to do the same things. That's not the goal - the goal is equal opportunity for equal outcome. Men have higher muscle mass and bone density than women and if equally trained, will be able to do more pushups (although I'm sure there's some caveats to that) for sure - but whether or not that translates to a difference in outcome on the job remains to be seen. The police force and army don't seem to think so. It's important to have the benchmarks that reflect the two different capabilities - you don't want to give someone whose capable of achieving a higher muscle mass too low a benchmark, anymore than you want someone with a lower muscle mass capability to high a benchmark. I don't have a problem with cohort-dependent selection criteria, I don't think it will change outcomes much but it does bear close followup.
I have to admit you have confused me with your argument - no they are not genetically equal.
Then you suggest to perform a physical role to the same standard as each other the cadets don't have to be equally as physically capable?
Moreover, you argue that if you have genetic advantages you should be punished and asked to take a harder physical test? Why? Surly if 5 push ups is sufficient to be capable it would be 5 push ups for everyone? Is a man required to do more physical work in the same role and is that equal? Taking that argument further an Olympic athlete should be given a significantly harder test than a regular person because they are more 'capable'.
Why would you offering two different people the same 'opportunity' at a lower standard? That is like saying you could employ someone at $10 per hour who is productive enough to make the business $20 an hour but you should also offer the same opportunity to someone who can only potentially make the business $5 per hour.
@MissG: I think it's safe to assume the tests do affect work outcomes - otherwise, why would the tests be in place?
@btst7000: Because they're benchmarks. They need to meet those benchmarks to do the job.
DaneD - it's a great question, why not ask the army/police force? They clearly think it's appropriate and they'd not do it without justification. It's an acknowledgement of the different capabilities while still aiming for equal opportunity, again it's up to you to decide if that affects credibility or if the two standards for the two different cohorts are 'higher' or 'lower' but thinking about it a binary way doesn't allow any room for considering it any other way.
@btst7000: "I think it's safe to assume the tests do affect work outcomes - otherwise, why would the tests be in place?"
Simple, they want people to be fit and healthy. A fit and healthy guy can generally meet a certain set of requirements, a fit and healthy woman can meet another. Set a goal so that the lazy and unfit of either gender do not pass and the fit do.
And yet they have to perform the same physical role to the same physical standard so why the difference?
@DaneD: Because if you are a guy and can only meet the womans standard for fitness you are probably pretty lazy and undisciplined. Seriously, it isn't that hard to meet the mens standard if you are a guy.
You can argue it is sexist to make the requirements in pushups, grip strength ect higher for guys but dont mistake a higher number for greater difficulty.
They want you to be reasonably fit. A reasonable fit guy can do more pushups than a woman, have a much stronger grip strength ect. If you get the average guy to meet the current womans requirements a pretty high percentage will pass with little to no training or effort. If you give the current mens requirements to women you will get very few passing.
IMO they are, and should be, aiming for equality in difficulty. Both men and women should have to put some effort and work in to meet the physical tests assigned. It isnt really equality if you set a test that is significantly harder for females to pass than men.
And really, as a guy, the current mens test is still pretty easy. It isn't that hard for a guy to do 10 pushups.
Having anyone hired based on their gender rather than their merit can result in societies safety being in jeopardy!
So let's see.
Climate changing, rising energy prices and uncertain energy futures, increasing welfare gaps between social classes, and the unclear influence of foreign states on domestic social policy and information channels.
But yes of course, it's the AFP hiring more female officers that will put society in jeopardy.
In an ideal world we'd not need affirmative action but it's not an ideal world.
Mathematical models show that even small biases have massive consequences. Here's a simple example:
The cops have always had a male bias.
The cops have always had a male bias.
Is that because they don't allow women in or because women just don't want the job?
Because they aren't going harder on women in the fitness tests. They are held to a lower standard.
The bias is from the applicants.
Do you really believe that women just spontaneously develop this bias?
In that same vein, do you think that men spontaneously decide to prefer pants and that women spontaneously decide to prefer skirts?
breaks out popcorn for what promises to be a productive thread
Agreeee
I am not falling into this one again!
Oops, looks like you failed to take your own advice.
Unsurprisingly ozbargain is a hotbed of MRA bullshit.
You know that GIF of Homer Simpson backing into a hedge. Totally me right now.
It sounds like they are doing marketing which is the right away to go about it imo.
You should always hire the best candidate who applies, and if you want more females then the best way to do that is to encourage more females to apply through marketing/promotion targeting this group, so the chance of the best candidate being female is higher.
I agree with the above comments that having more females in the policeforce will be beneficial. They are needed to talk to sexual assault and rape victims, and if they are better at defusing situations then that's a huge plus imo.
Why are federal police suddenly handling all the rape cases that state detectives would normally investigate (barring Canberra)?
It sounds like they are doing marketing which is the right away to go about it imo.
It's not marketing. The AFP is not accepting male applicants for the coming months. That's discrimination.
Diversity is definitely key. Homogenous work force populations can be either good or bad depending on the industry. Personally if I see multiculturalism and gender equality represented more I feel subconsciously more welcome and more open when dealing with the entity.
Also not just gender as mskeggs pointed out but also cultural and racial diversity is very important and key especially when some minority or other cultures and races deal with their own specific culture and minority it can work even better in everybody's favour in everyone having an overall much more better contact experience and deeper understanding and overall sometimes improved communications.
I know most people can understand and speak English in Australia as they have to learn to assimilate into this country but for those that don't know English or are still new in this country that increased diversity and overcoming language and cultural barriers go a long way.
For example I read in a askreddit thread about cultural yes's and cultural no no's and learnt so much new information I now have I guess better cultural sensitivity training in some areas etc.
Female federal police definitely have their place in the police force as do many other different demographics except maybe corrupt individuals haha lol and brodens.
Guys….calm down.
No one is saying the jobs will only go to females.
The department has noticed a gap in female participation and wants to address it, I think its reasonable to come out and encourage women to apply.
The problem is they are lowering the standards to get the police job(or any job) for females, while stardards for males stay put. And this is the problem, and reason why some are screaming out "sexism"
You're saying that the women being hired to meet diversity targets even though they're below the standard required for the job, and there are men above the standard who aren't being hired. What makes you think that?
FEEEEEEEEEEEEMALES
Of course a government agency should be promoting gender balance and diversity as a police force needs to be reflective of the community it operates in.
Private organisations will not do it as they are only interested in profit and screwing over employees
Wow, that was a broad stroke.
Of course there are exceptions but to few to bother with.
In Victoria there is a recently added public holiday for the AFL Grand Final. All we hear from business groups is how it costs money blah blah blah. Nothing from them about spending time with friends and family and come back refreshed and recharged etc.
It's all about the dollar these days.
On that basis, the AFL should have a gender balance quota and hold the Grand Final on the designated public holiday on Friday - oh, and forget keeping the score, then no one gets upset win or lose. It's more about spending time with family and friends at the MCG /pub /TV room, not points on a scoreboard.
@MITM: as I said above I want 50% of all women's magazines to feature men. Average unattractive gross men.
I want TJ Millar to be the next face of cover girl
Quotas are never reached. See Labor party (but may have given us our first female PM).
If a quotas gets more recruits into the force - that's got to be a good thing. It's a tough gig and getting tougher. eg You can now tell the Police to F*** off and it's OK according to the courts.
I see it as a good thing, but then I don't really consider the police my friends..more enemies of my enemies
Passing over the best candidates and discriminating against them on the basis of their gender? Seems kind of regr- I mean, progressive, yes, well done.
the best candidates
The criteria for the "best" candidate is different for different positions within the AFP. For example, the AFP may need more female officers because they feel women are better communicators who can defuse or de-escalate a potentially dangerous situation without resorting to violence.
need more female officers because they feel women are better communicators who can defuse or de-escalate a potentially dangerous situation without resorting to violence.
Ahhh yes, those brutish men all severely lack communication skills and constantly resort to violence, as is their neanderthal nature. Wonderfully progressive thinking once again!
While we're stereotyping people on the basis of their sex, let's make sure any technology related jobs equally discriminate against women, as we all know women lack logic and are predisposed to becoming hysterically emotional instead of behaving rationally. Truly, thanks to your kind of thinking we are on our way to a progressive utopia now!
If the force has decided the roles they are trying to fill are best filled by women, then the 'best candidate' for this position will not be a man unless no women apply.
The question becomes, is having female police officers more important than getting high marks on an entry exam (or whatever criteria establish "best candidate" if they assess all applicants without regard to sex)?
It sounds like the police management have identified the large majority of male officers is leading to less than ideal outcomes, so they are trying to correct that by employing the best candidates for these roles.
It sounds like the police management have identified the large majority of male officers is leading to less than ideal outcomes, so they are trying to correct that by employing the best candidates for these roles.
I think sometimes the "less than ideal outcome" is more about management's appearance of being "progressive" (or lack thereof) than actual on the job outcomes.
Do we have studies or stats on this or are you just making a broad generalised statement based off your own view?
Double post N/A
There's been what effectively amounts to a pro-male bias in job recruitment in Australia for the last couple of hundred years.
This is slowly changing - but not quickly enough. And the glass ceiling is always present - it hasn't really changed much in the last couple of generarions.
I see no problem at all with organisations taking positive steps to redress this long-standing bias - so long, of course, that the females that are selected are effective at carrying out the duties of the position.
I'm sure that there'll be sufficient qualified female applicants to ensure that any that are selected are just as capable of doing the job as any male!
When you need a fireman to carry you down 5 flights of stairs but some 50 kilo female turns up because of quotas you may rethink.
Is carrying somebody down five flights of stairs a qualification for the fire brigade? DO the current male recruits meet that standard? Do the current female recruits meet that standard?
I could equally say "When you need a firefighter to pass through a narrow gap to save you, and a large burly male turns up, you might wish there was a diversity in the brigade so you could have been rescued."
Actually there are physical requirements that are quite arduous to be a fire fighter. Funnily enough they have been relaxed for female applicants so they can 'encourage' more to join. Also the case for the State Police & Army/Navy/Air Force.
Lack of physical standards is what we need!
@DaneD:
As long as they can still carry fully grown adults on their shoulders from a burning building
I'm not sure how many many carries happen these days, but if it does occur I certainly hope so.
Yes I find it funny men complaining about this now when there's been an unconscious bias FOR men for years now in many industries and jobs.
Evidence?
Or is it lack of female applicants for certain jobs? Particularly the crappy or dangerous ones because the onus is still on the male to do whatever job it takes to support his family.
I can't believe I just read this comment!
Still living happily in the 1950s, Ozzy?
Do you really think men make greater politicians than women? Objectively? Men have dominated politics since the beginning of Australia.
The lack of female applicants stems from societal expectations of women. Women aren't meant to do the hard jobs, men should open the doors, lift the heavy things - that's an idea present in both men and women. Women in engineering? Never seen that before so they must not be good.
During World Wars, women showed they were completely capable of taking on laborious and sometimes dangerous work. When men came home, all the jobs that women held we given back to men?
Throughout history, women have usually been considered as the child bearers, their first job was to raise children, not earn money. And god forbid, a female can get pregnant and this would reduce her productivity, creates another bias against women.
Men have been preferred for most of time, just no one has noticed because most of society, including females, have accepted that this is how the world should be.
Two high profile examples recently where female officers have taken down terrorists.
One in London she fired from the back seat of the patrol car across a male officer whose gun had jammed and hit the suspect.
Yes, female officers do have desirable qualities.
Yes, I forgot females have a trait that allows them to meld and become one with the mind of their gun, causing it to jam less because of their deep understanding on a soul level with their firearm.
FEEEEEEEEEMALES
No they are more focused and less distracted by their ego.
Many guys react to a jam by panicking.
Ah I see how this works, let me have a try!
Women are more caring and nurturing, but lack critical thinking skills and problem solving ability.
Oh wait, can't say that! It's sexist!
[@4sure]
Glad you used a logical argument there.
you can't say that because it is wrong
What you said about men is wrong too, but that didn't stop you from saying it. Stop being a hypocrite and start practising what you preach.
@Drifter: I think I have seen enough guys panicking in a combat situation when they encounter a jam to know what I am talking about. How about you?
You're being selective in recalling what you said. Let me remind you what you said:
they [women] are more focused and less distracted by their ego
You're saying that men are more distracted by their ego. You're wrong. My earlier comment about you being a hypocrite remains true. You also said:
Many guys react to a jam by panicking
This is a logical fallacy and it shows how biased you are against men. You say that some men react to a jam by panicking and you deliberately don't mention the fact that women also react to a jam by panicking.
Many guys react to a jam by panicking… I have seen enough guys panicking in a combat situation when they encounter a jam to know what I am talking about.
Many women lack critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. I have seen enough women failing an analytical test at my job to know what I'm talking about.
You see what I did there? I took your reasoning and applied it to something else so that you can see how biased and illogical your reasoning is.
@Drifter: You seem to be expending a great deal of energy on a subject that has little relevance to your life. Now that is illogical.
Now you're stooping to emotional appeal because you can't defend your comments using intellect or logic. How typical.
And another thing. You're here expending your energy too. That's another logical fallacy from you.
@Drifter: But it is a subject that is highly relevant to me: I thought that was fairly obvious. I fear that you have used up your allocation of brain cells.
The subject is relevant to me too. This invalidates whatever point you're trying to make.
As for the personal attack, it just shows that you are childish and immature.
I would like to think female police will be less violent, but that's kind of the point of police so I doubt it
Worked well for Hawthorn.
I think the major issue with this is they are ONLY hiring females just like the army. The real issue is if these applicants were acceptable to pass in the first place, why do they only have to hire women, why can't they just hire both? Is it just to reach an arbitrary quota?
If 1000 male applicants apply per year and 100 female applicants apply it will take quite a number of years to reach a 50/50 ratio that is desired while a large number of I assume perfectly acceptable male candidates will be rejected. We should be promoting merit not randomly deciding that gender based hiring is the way to go. Moreover, MOST of the crimes people have suggested that females will help with are 90% state level crimes (just an FYI at least in a number of states there is already a large uptake for female firefighters and police officers).
Not to mention, the fact it is a very noticeable trend that a lot of the physical requirements (have been lowered to support entry for female members only) which were not that taxing in the first place.
I honestly don't understand how we think discriminating against a whole sex to hire another sex is reasonable and just. Base applications on merit and encourage all people to apply.
My friend completed reserves training at the start of the year, he said the few women there could not even complete the obstacle course and other training exercises amongst other things and were still passed. They were also excused from carrying any heavy gear and other men had to pick up their slack and carry extra stuff. So to who it is beneficial to, well, who knows.
I think the best candidates should be be chosen according to the specific ability of that particular person, if their gender happens to give that particular person a certain advantage so be it, but it's not right to assume or generalise that ALL people of a certain gender have an enhanced ability in certain areas just because of that agenda, whether that is generally true or not.
Having said that, the article contradicts itself on whether the Marketing for recruits is aimed at women as the target demographic, or if the actual positions themselves are women-only.
Women preach against discrimination and then they turn around and defend a recruitment program that discriminates against men. How hypocritical.
Um, they're still hiring men.
they're still hiring men
Not for the coming months. And since when does discrimination have a time requirement? Discrimination is discrimination whether it happens for a day, a year or months (as is the case here - the AFP is not accepting male applicants for the coming months).
Because they've filled their quota of men though right, i.e. they've hired all the men they want to. Discrimination would be not hiring men at all. And it's not like they want more women than men, they want it to equalise, not skew the other way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in love with the idea but it's a temporary push to drive up recruitment of women, not a permanent one. And while it's a blunt and imperfect tool, it's a push that may need to happen to drive out the unconscious bias that's there.
Discrimination would be not hiring men at all. And it's not like they want more women than men, they want it to equalise, not skew the other way.
Likewise, they haven't been discriminating against women then. Since "discrimination" would be not hiring women at all, and they clearly already do have some.
Why do they need to "equalise"? It's good to have diversity but it does not need to be strict 50/50, considering the army/police force requires more people with physical strength than people with… nurturing traits, it's reasonable to expect more men than women in those roles. Forcing 50/50 doesn't help.
@Omitsuki: Perhaps you should ask them why they need to equalise, or research their justification for it. They clearly believe it is important, I wonder why?
That could have many reasons for believing it to be important, such as trying to improve their social image.
The important question is, does it provide the best outcome/greatest work efficiency. Official spokesman/press would not tell you things that are negative. This is why discussions are good, not just simply asking officials and accepting it as is.
On a (somewhat) separate note
When I graduated from uni, I wanted to apply to the Fed Police given a Bachelor Degree (of any sort) was a requirement.
I didn't proceed when I was advised (at the time) most of the new agents were deployed at Xmas Island and PNG due to the current situation. So I withdrew my application as I didn't want to end up as someone's dinner there.
Fast forward 5 years, I spoke to a Fed Agent through a mutual contact and we had an informal chat, we discussed the salary for starting agents and he said anywhere between 68K - 74K which is the Average Income. I thought this was bit low given the responsibility, danger, and shift-work hours involved.
Moral of the story?
State Police and Fed Police are paid peanuts, the agent even advised that there were many intelligent applicants that turned down the application offer when salary couldn't be negotiated higher. Meanwhile, the Government is happy to throw our Tax Money to idiots like Julie Bishop to fund their AFL visits and Melbourne Cup appearances but keeping Pedos and Druggos off our street with smart working agents is low priority, go figure.
Unless you all raise a complaint, your Tax Money is constantly squandered through loop holes like this where politicians feel the need for a private jet or an AFL event, just use the tax bill.
Yes, the starting salary isn’t great for the level of responsibility. However in 7-8 years you would be on $100k as you get yearly increments as well as yearly pay rises. The EA with pay rates is publicly available online. Starting salary is currently $77,470 according to the EA including the 22% composite allowance.
IMO, it is fine as long as they qualify and are the best applicants. Males should not be turned down to 'allow' a less qualified female to take the job and vice versa.
If a person can do a job, gender is irrelevant.
However, in saying that, for this particular quota exercise it is dangerous because in a violent confrontation a female officer is usually less physically capable (anatomy) of defending herself or risk being out powered. What occurs is that the male counterpart will have to defend her and himself. That to me poses a significant risk, equality in this case = unfair.
Self defence training should solve that problem. You don't have to be stronger than your opponent to beat them.
It's called reverse discrimination. There's even an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination
And its been discussed alot in this thread before https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/291998
8 pages of it, probably time for guys to start acting instead of discussing
The term reverse discrimination is in itself discriminating. Should just be discrimination imo.
So, why are the ratios not 50 50 already?
If 50% of applicants are not female, then it's going to be difficult to have a 50 50 ratio without discriminating against males.
Let's also look at job roles which have a majority female and start blocking female applicants too.
Let's also get more females risking their lives in dangerous jobs like fire fighting, military, oil rigs, logging, etc etc.
"If 50% of applicants are not female, then it's going to be difficult to have a 50 50 ratio without discriminating against males."
I think the hope is that advertising campiagns such as this will raise the proportion of female applicants. i.e. the theory is that simply by saying they are targetting women and really want women, more women will apply, which will increase the proportion of female applicants and therefore increasing the number of female hires even if the hiring process itself doesn't discriminate against males (although it still could).
Noq we just have to allow sporting teams to be mixed as a mainstream without discrimination. We should choose professionals to play on the team without the need to look at their gender. So if the whole team becomes women because they are better talented then so be it
there goes the whole mens afl ;)
Organisations shouldn't judge/hire applicants by what genitalia they have…
If your gender doesn't fit hiring requirements, just choose a new one.
Facebook has 71 to choose from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10930654/Face…
I'd choose Two-Spirit. What is that? I have no idea. But I'd feel like a woman so the AFP should be happy.
Companies should hire the best person for the job regardless of their gender. If say 77% of Australia federal police (AFP) are male then this could be explained by the ratio of men and women applying to the AFP and not directly related to gender inequality.
While an even ratio of male and females in the AFP could have advantages, it's not a creative field like Engineering, writing, politics in which different mindsets are important.
It's like asking if I'd prefer to hire a male accountant or a female accountant, I'd give the job to whoever performs the best.
Now for the joke:
If the employment of female police were to increase, I'd believe there would be an increase in pistol discharge.
I apologise for the joke, I'll shut up now.
They'll do better if they weed out all the unhealthy officers in service currently.
No they shouldn't. But just sit at bear it men, every organisation with over a hundred employees or so seems to be heading this way.
Pure discrimination but its ok against men ok.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the men!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know right,
Suicide
Murder
Death in the work place
Courts
Family courts
Sinking ships
@MissG:
I don't believe there are any examples as of yet as front line roles have only recently opened up in the defence forces.
Regarding the police, they would not publish these figures (even for men) - so I would only be able to speculate (which means nothing).
I agree that entry levels do not necessarily reflect on the job standards. However, if both participants are doing the same job (front line roles) why would the entry standard / physical requirements be different? In reality they should be exactly the same, if both parties are equally capable to perform the role (Merit). It would actually diminish females credibility (even though I would assume there would be a LARGE number that could easily perform to the same entry standard).
I agree that no published evidence is out there so at this point in time (nor do I think there will be) so all we can do is speculate. Although, having a lower entry level influences perception (correctly in this case) and diminishes female candidates credibility even upon entry.