The Pink Ceiling: Workplaces Rigged against Early and Mid-Career Men

This is partially to inform but also vent at how rigged modern workplaces are against young men. In my (33M) final year working in the university system I realised how far we have tipped the scales towards favouring women. Part of the reason I quit was I came across information regarding promotion statistics for lecturer, senior lecturer and associate professors in my faculty of science and engineering— men had a 30% chance of promotion within a given cycle while women had 100%. That's right. 100%.

In the past, the figure hovered over 50% for both men and women. This bias (along with other reasons) resulted in a mini exodus in the faculty of early to mid-career male academics into industry. But after speaking with young guys in industry working for larger companies (we are looking at those ASX 200 companies with strong emphasis on ESG points), these discriminatory policies are almost universally adopted to get women into future leadership positions at the expense of men. I don't blame the women for taking advantage of such a rigged system, how could you? But, this young male demoralization will lead to some severe societal consequences.

Honestly, if the game is so rigged, why play it? I don't see these practices disappearing or even lessening in the near future so I'm working for a small company now. But, I aim on founding my own sole-tradership to avoid this whole gender political circus.

So, if your son is entering the workforce in the next 10 years what would you tell them?

Play the game and claim female status?
Recommend they just put up with the discriminatory practices?
Work for smaller companies?

===== Edit ====
Let's clarify a few things because it appears that a trend of name calling and preconceived notions have set root. Typical OzBargain groupthink. I'll clarify the main topics here:

You are making excuses about your own ability, you are terrible at your job.

You can believe I'm incompetent if you want, I won't lose sleep over this.

Look at the official statistics

I've seen the internal statistics at my university. Yes what I'm presenting anecdotal, but that hard ceiling that all young men would encounter at that institution exists whether you shove a booklet in my face or not.

You are an Incel, you are whining like a woman, you are not a man, you are a misogynist, you're an Andrew Tate fan, you are a "gardener" (do you think gardeners are stupid?), you are a liar etc…

Given the reaction here, most people either don't care that I uncovered obvious institutional discrimination or have resorted to name calling. Even if I were an incel or a misogynist or god forbid, an Andrew Tate fan, that is irrelevant. I'm looking out for young guys who have are now on the end of a long line of affirmative actions. Looking out for my son— your sons… It's this societal response which is why so many young men out there are just giving up. Going NEET, going 'incel', going MGTOW, MRA whatever the latest trend is— these movements are destroying men here in this country.

You hate women.

I don't know how this became a preconceived notion— to stand up for young men, instantly means you hate women. Sure.

You don't know how statistics work, was there only one woman.

I should have been clearer. There was a sample size of around 40 women and about 60 men.

Comments

              • +1

                @morse: I'm not bitter, I'm just not letting you insult me while being too disingenuous to present your views honestly.

              • @morse: While you can be a hypocrite and correct at the same time, this just felt ironic

                He was so bitter, calling your work cute and then you leaving. I bet he was really upset

                But if there’s even a sniff of this kind of communication, being persecutory…

                Coming from the person who has been all over this thread mocking and attacking others? For the mere crime of being/supporting men?

                …playing the victim…

                "A colleague did call my work ‘cute’ once - I disappeared from that work unit pretty quick"

                That must've been really hard for you. Hope it hasn't made you bitter or upset

                …and being bitter

                Oh you left the company over it? I bet he was really upset over that. He was so bitter, calling your work cute. And then you leaving. Somebody warn Fisherman's Friend with that guy going around. Might be heading the way of the mirror industry (appears to be in rapid decline)

                • @SpainKing:

                  Oh you left the company over it?

                  lol - no I work for a very large organisation with many work units, I moved work units for a better role, that wasn’t to only weird thing in that work unit, it was a very unhappy work unit, and his behaviours weren’t specific to me. And no, not bitter just have lots of options so can move around. The funny thing is there’s men and women the same as me who get offered lots of opportunities, but there’s some with similar experience that don’t get those opportunities, because their workplace behaviours are known - ‘cute’ guy is one of those.

                  • @morse: Well I'm glad things have worked out for you

  • +6

    I think we should fight for women in the work place for at least 50/50 when filling positions. but instead of starting at CEO positions, let's start with front armed combat, sewerage operators, garbos and plumbers.

    • I literally just saw the first 2 female garbo’s picking up the kerbside bulk pickups yesterday. Women are happy to do the jobs, but I bet there were some men yelling ‘they took our jobs’ in their best South Park impression.

  • +5

    One day people will realise men and women are different physically and mentally, and thats not a bad thing its just way we are, women are way better than men at many jobs, and vice versa.

    • -1

      People have realised this. And they have realised the more diversity of thought in the workplace and in general society, the better. Hence the quotas. Surrounding yourself with people who look and think like you, leads to massive groupthink at best and is just dangerous at worse (e.g. segregation, gay conversion therapy).

  • +6

    Now i am a progressive when it comes to most things. Going through engineering at university we had roughly 20% of the class as women. Hit the workforce and all of a sudden the HR department is pushing for a 50/50 split (just ignore the fact that HR was 100% female for a second…).

    Now, because everyone was trying to hit this impossible target, all the females were poached by the companies that paid the most no matter their ability (some deserved it though as they had great grades, others not so much) so that left approximately zero for any other company. Now HR would put it on the division to justify why we should hire another male, when we said there just weren't enough females in the industry we were just met with a passive aggressive "try harder".

    I dont see teaching or nursing subject to the same diversity rules. Seems only the higher paying jobs are in the firing line, you're free to study what you want, just don't complain that its unfair when it pays less.

    I'm now mid career and fortunately in a role that pays a very healthy salary so dont really care about another promotion any time soon. As long as I have enough to not have to budget I'm happy.

    • +1

      I agree that unrealistic quotas aren’t helpful, though quotas are uncommon and targets more common. However now if feel it’s moving more towards strategy as a learning the quota era.

      (some deserved it though as they had great grades, others not so much)

      This is exactly it. It’s 100% true - but also applies to males. Lots of males who’ve scored top gigs who probably don’t deserve it either.

      I'm now mid career and fortunately in a role that pays a very healthy salary

      And this. A great example that men who put in the work and do their job well will always be valued and have opportunities to be successful.

      I’m a female health worker, and no we don’t have targets around gender as a female dominated industry. However a disproportionate number of men are in leadership positions, mostly attributable to woman having career breaks for child rearing, but even this is changing with my employer now giving men and women equal parental leave entitlements and lots of men taking this up.

      • will always be valued

        That's not always the case. Lots of people give their souls to companies, but kept in that lower position because they are too effective at it and cannot easily be replaced. Only for companies to use and dispose of them when they are burnt out. Which is why the idiom, "don't be loyal to a company" exists. Not a gender issue, but definitely a problem.

        Lots of males who’ve scored top gigs who probably don’t deserve it either.

        True, but this type of discrimination is in your face, formalised, "legitimised" and supported by everyone but the young men that have to deal with the consequences of past actions. If some men in leadership want to solve the female leadership crisis, they should quit their position and put their money where their mouth is. But we all know they are hypocrites and would rather hinder future generations instead.

        My wife works in healthcare as well, got formally offered job but got it revoked after the female interviewer learned we had a 6 month old baby. Discrimination comes in all kinds and rightly should be exposed. Which is why it's interesting to see my post get attacked (quite viciously with ad hominem arguments I might add). To me this suggests the world isn't ready to accept that discrimination on the other foot even exists let alone deal with it.

        The longer this goes on— the worse it gets for young men in this world. I only realise today that the scales will have to tip disastrously in the other direction before people wake up.

  • +5

    Unfortunately today's society is a slave to wokeism and overcompensated feminism. Men do the hardest jobs and put in longest hours and receive the least recognition. It's almost like you are penalised for being a man in today's society. A woman/LGBTQ person shows up to work and gets a promotion. Just how things are.

    • -1

      Your ratio of access to a keyboard and insight is off.

  • +1

    Watch this for a reasonably nuanced take.

    https://youtu.be/DBG1Wgg32Ok?si=zDbfsD5iElRgckKn

    Male inequality, explained by an expert | Richard Reeves | YouTube

  • -2

    I work in all male and all white team and it's the best team I've ever been in, we had one woman and she caused extensive problems we have also ha various immigrants, luckily one of the guys is majorly autistic and usually bullies the new arrivals out, I know this won't last long as I am destined for replacing in my own country but I enjoy it while it last and we talk crap like no mans land.

    • +3

      luckily one of the guys is majorly autistic and usually bullies the new arrivals out

      and

      we talk crap like no mans land.

      Men like this be like

      “I can’t understand why I didn’t get that promotion, it must be all these quotas and positive action”

  • -5

    I am surprised this has survived tbh, Australia is worse than China these days and any mention of any challenge to the narrative normally gets things shut down and banned. Exact same as mentioning politics on Weibo.

  • +2

    When I read the title I thought it was referring to homosexual men, and thus possibly about the ABC.

    But in a similar vein there was an article about the town in the US where some "celebrated as their city attracted international attention for becoming the first in the United States to elect a Muslim-majority city council.". And then they banned the pride flag.

    So, yes, while it might seem like a good idea to implement a change in society you can never be sure what the knock-on effects might be and voting for something doesn't necessarily mean that they will support you.

  • depends on the workplace, some know the difference and still favour men because women make emotional decisions and cant handle workplace pressure and tend to break down, maternity leave, family etc

    • +1

      If you choose employees based on a stereotype that is sexism. Even if I take the premise as true and the average male would better suit the job, you are preventing capable women from employment. If this is your attitude you are part of the problem.

      The statistics on male suicide and mental health show that is isn't women who make emotional decisions, men are penalised by society from revealing they also make emotional decisions.

  • +1

    I wouldnt promote you.

    • +1

      I wouldn't employ them

  • +6

    Men appear favoured where I work in ASX10, but there are reasons behind that.
    Women generally aren't willing to compete as hard with their peers for promotion, they won't join a meeting at midnight, and they complain more than men.
    The successful women at the top are either absolutely outstanding, highly manipulative and narcissistic, or sometimes a mix of both.

    • +2

      The successful women at the top are either absolutely outstanding, highly manipulative and narcissistic, or sometimes a mix of both.

      So the same as men then?

  • -1

    'men had a 30% chance of promotion within a given cycle while women had 100%'

    I suspect you are confabulating a simple count of staff with sex discrimination

    without wasting more time - I'll call snowflake on this one

  • +9

    Amazing how many ‘progressives’ can’t wrap their head around the idea that men and women can both be discriminated against in different contexts and ages.

  • +1

    Universities have always been that way

  • -4

    For this to 'be at the expense of men' you would need to do this for the next 100 years at least for it to be remotely equal over time.

    What would I tell my son? I would say to him that women over the last 50 years were held to near impossibly-high standards by the incumbent men just to get a seat at the table. These standards were supposed to be a barrier. What happened instead is that women got angry and decided to meet those standards and continue operating in that way so there could be no argument. And then they raised their daughters to those standards. And what is happening now is that those standards are becoming the expectation so you need to be hardworking, friendly, kind, very tidy, very collabarative, highly organised, and never break a sweat lest you be called emotional.

    • +3

      Why would you lie to your child like that? That's terrible parenting.

      • -2

        It's just the truth. Go and speak to any woman over the age of 50 who was in the workforce when they were young. You don't have to believe me and everyone can downvote but that's just the history of it. Blame your grandads.

        • -1

          Why do you hate men so much?

          My grandmother fought the Nazi's in WW2 then served out a career in the Australian defence forces after immigrating here to Australia. No man ever held her back. It really just sounds like the women in your family chose not to work & as such were completely ignorant to life in an actual workplace. For the generations who lived through the great depression and then war time & post-war time, it was absolutely common place and matter of fact for both genders to work full time or multiple part-time jobs, advancing their careers along the way like anyone does.

  • +4

    This is some really embarassing mgtow dreck. You've created a mind palace where the reason you weren't promoted is invisible discrimination that isn't borne out in the actual numbers, somehow, when the truth is you're obviously noxious and toxic to be around and whatever organisation you were a part of breathed a sigh of relief when you left.

  • +6

    When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

    • -3

      Yeah, it’s highly amusing how men are starting to understand what it’s like to have hiring practices work against them!

      • +3

        So you acknowledge that it's discrimination against men ("…hiring practices work against them!") and would be unfair to them, just like it has historically been for other groups?

        And you're a proponent for it, but only when it's men that are discriminated against?

        Isn't the whole point to treat people the same and lift them up to improve society? Giving one side preferential treatment at the expense of another who had no say in the way things are is inherently unfair. To laugh and be amused because "haha men get a taste of their own medicine" is immature, churlish and reeks of hypocrisy

        • -1

          Yes it is somewhat unfair against men, but it unfortunately necessary since hiring practices are still heavily weighted against women. If the practices were truly unbiased, such quotas would not be necessary.

          Men are upset, but frankly they are complaining about a situation that has only affected them now, when it’s affected women since the dawn of time. I make light of it because of the irony of their complaints being exactly the same that women have had until equality practices were established.

          • +2

            @whatgift: So it's only somewhat unfair against men, but it is a pressing social issue that must be addressed when it's any other group? And because men of the past have had it good, the men of the present should have it bad to equal out the cosmic injustice?

            When women are being preferentially hired and promoted, how are hiring practices still heavily weighted against them?

            If the practices were truly unbiased, there would still be a gender split that isn't 50/50 because different genders have different proclivities in the world we live in. This would drive them to do different roles

            Men are upset, but frankly they are complaining about a situation that has only affected them now, when it’s affected women since the dawn of time

            "Men are complaining about an issue that affects them. I laugh them off and ignore the issue, even though it's the same one I just rallied against and wanted change for."

            Do you believe the son is responsible for the sins of his father? And that an eye for an eye is good policy? I'd like to know how you'd deal with manslaughter and murder in that case. And if the manslaughterer/murderer was dead but had a son (or God forbid, daughter), what should be done to them?

            I make light of it because of the irony of their complaints being exactly the same that women have had until equality practices were established.

            So it only counts when women are complaining? The men just have to sit there, not worry their pretty little heads and let the women sort the world out?

        • -3

          It's not discrimination, it's inclusion that feels discriminatory. It would only be discrimination if it had been going on for the same length of time it's been happening to women for. Until it's that long, it's just inclusion.

  • I had the pleasure to work in sales (I wasn't selling and not anymore). The only criteria of being hired and keeping a job there and progressing are deals closed and revenue generated. Male/Female/Ape doesn't matter. The most equitable of all jobs.

  • +2

    There’s a crucial assumption you had made that has turned this into an issue for you, if you are able to drop that assumption, it becomes an interesting observation (interesting as in, the male seahorse has the baby!?), rather than a problem: it is a zero-sum game.

    The moment you stop seeing the world as a zero-sum game, is the moment you free yourself from all this winning and losing bs, and start to live as part of the whole. We are actually all on the same side, there are many, many pies, you can slice by gender, age, race, blood type, dietary restrictions and whatever, but don’t fool yourself into believing that there is only ever one pie. (They teach you this in schools, people repeatedly tell you this, and it goes on and on and on. Is it correct tho? You get to decide.) The world is infinite, abundant and full of possibilities. You can only ever have a tiny slice of a pie, if that’s all you choose to see.

    • +1

      As we're currently bound to resources from this solar system (primarily this planet) it kind of is a zero sum game. The number of resources may be very high but it is finite and we can't all have everything. Otherwise that thought experiment of the computer that wants to make everything in to paperclips would have a flawed premise

      Whilst they can just print more money (to a point), they can't just create new jobs so women can rank highly and get paid well. Doing so nationally would tank the economy

      With this in mind it is a zero sum game. These high level positions are not infinite just as our resources aren't. The unfortunate thing is our resources are distributed so unequally that the world is forced to compete against itself when all our needs could be catered to (hopefully without communism)

      • You have assumed that:
        1. We are unable to create new resources.
        2. We are unable to create more higher level positions.
        3. We, as individuals, are entitled to an equal share of the all the resources combined.

        I’d like to offer the following:
        1. We didn’t have plastic until 1907. The majority of the ocean is unknown. Someone is building a spaceship to Mars.
        2. The op mentioned he is creating his own business. Who would be in the top position in his organisation?
        3. This one can only hold if your first assumption holds. If the sum doesn’t exist (being infinite), it then comes down to how big a slice you perceive there is available to each person, limited by how big a pie you think there is. Think everyone has plenty as opposed to everyone has the equal amount would be a lot better. Some people need more to feel the same amount of security as their neighbours do, so you allow them more, there’s simply plenty for everyone. Wether that’s driven by some kind of negative traits like greed, is beyond the scope. We are complex beings, it’s impossible for you to you to have the full picture, put that energy towards someone you have the full picture: yourself.

        I understand where you are coming from, I was there for a long time. It’s in school we were taught to think there is one pie by turning everything into a percentage, in economy 101 we were taught that resources are scarce, and in testing we were taught to operate around Murphy’s Law. It took me a long time to unlearn those, along with a whole bunch of statements that limited how I perceive the reality. I’m not saying my now way of being is superior, but it is superior for me because it’s a lot easier to operate and above all, I learned to do things from the heart and first principal, as opposed to some dead guy’s secondhand opinions. Dating and having children can train heterosexual men to have more of an ‘us’ mentality, but it takes time and you can get stuck in tribalism too. You see it here as well, the ozb’ers are proudly subsidised by ‘outsiders’.

        Anyhow, I believe it’s my responsibility to be as virtuous as I can be, and I fail a lot too, because it does get really hard. Ozb can be very triggering 😅 In that enterprise of virtues, I might be in the top positions, I might not, but I win more when there are more people above me 😇

        • +1

          I appreciate how you've conveyed your points

          I'll try and clarify what I actually believe my assumptions to be

          1. We are unable to create new resources

          Matter can not be created or destroyed by conventional means. There is no free lunch or perpetual motion machine. As such our resources are finite and so is our energy production. I maintain this as true until we find an infinite source of anything (which can't exist, because if it was infinite it would take up the entirety of the universe and then some)

          1. We are unable to create more higher level positions.

          We can create more high level positions. The more you create and the more arbitrary and useless they are the less value that job holds. You can make everyone the boss of their own business but that doesn't make each position/person equal

          1. We, as individuals, are entitled to an equal share of the all the resources combined

          Nope, that's communism. Doesn't work. Certain people deserve more resources because they will use them more effectively than another. A person with no legs is going to utilise a wheelchair better than one that has working legs. A person with an industrial mining rig is going to do better than Dazza with a shovel. We should try to cater to everyone as best we can without disenfranchising others

          To address your points:

          1. We didn’t have plastic until 1907. The majority of the ocean is unknown. Someone is building a spaceship to Mars.

          We can only create so much plastic because our fossil fuel resources are finite. I think they have plant based ones but plants too, are finite. Whilst the ocean is quite unexplored I don't think we'll find an infinite source of energy or useful resources. Mars will likely face similar problems

          1. The op mentioned he is creating his own business. Who would be in the top position in his organisation?

          I like to believe in OP enough to say they'd be qualified for the top spot of their one man business. If it's that easy I technically ran a business. I had an ABN and everything. That was doorknocking for solar panels. I can tell you now, the business wasn't making sizeable profits even if I technically owned it and was in the top position. Being the boss of a company doesn't mean you automatically get a fat salary

          I don't think the ladies would be happy if you told them "Hey love, you said you wanted more high-level positions? We just created a new company and you're the boss! (also you're no longer working for us) Now get to building your empire." What they are proposing is disadvantaging men so they can get well paying, safe jobs which is what most people want anyway

          1. I will not quote it as it's quite long and my reply has enough length already

          Unfortunately I don't know if I'm willing to give up on my belief of things being finite as they're founded in the ideas of conservation of mass and there not being a way to produce energy with no net loss.

          I think there's a very big pie with enough for everyone to share right now. The slices just aren't being appropriately given out. The way women are advocating to fix this is to give out small slices to men who never got a big slice in the first place while they take large slices for themselves. That doesn't feel fair and fairness is something I hold close to my heart

          I'm happy to see you're an individual with their own unique perspective that it seems like you've formed with introspection, learning and time (and maybe some hallucinogens?). It seems like you're a good guy and I hope you're putting good in to the world. Thanks for sharing but unfortunately I don't see us agreeing on this today so we can agree to have different perspectives

          Being virtuous all the time is impossible (especially with the way people act anonymously on OzBargain), we just have to do our best and make up for the times we haven't acted to our own standards

          • @SpainKing: It’s all good, we don’t have to agree on any of these things. It’s the (profanity) and opinions stuff. I’ve never met any business owner who aren’t in it to make money until I’ve become one. My experience and thought process needs to only make sense for me.

            But no, I’ve never done hallucinogens of any kind (not from the lack of trying though, it just wouldn’t happen 🤣 People literally disappear from my life, it’s been five times now); you don’t need them to get there, if you believe you do, it’s just another trap.

            I see ozb as the right environment to train myself, because I can withdraw when it gets too much, then come back. I don’t see myself learning to be graceful if I lived an stress-free life on a mountain top all by myself.

            • @frugalftw: This is the discussion I came here for

              • @Austere: Lol DMT and psilocybin? Heard so many good things about them 😜

  • +2

    Yeah this is getting more common now, especially in larger corporations where American management styles have seeped in. The solution is to show no loyalty & be as cut-throat as they are. Earn as much as you can, invest it early, make enough from investments that you can take risks hopping from company to company seeking promotions.

    Corporations never realised how much value they derived from loyal staff that genuinely believed they had a future if they just knuckled down. All that is being blown away.

  • +3

    The topic you started is really interesting and I agree with you on how the system is so rigged.

    I worked in Government in past and since the Gladys came to power (thank god she left) they introduced or at least I see it that way that there is some how much bigger push to get Women in to director roles against males and many female were promoted without having experience to male counter parts neither having higher education as well so it was literally just do it for the sake of statistic and get the brown point in the performance review. All this done on the name of diversity where meaning and definition of diversity was killed in my opinion. Diversity is not about male & female.

    Mostly voter think liberal as male dominated party so to change this opinion there was this big drive to put up on women in senior management at the expense of male with higher education and experience and world wide when competency judged based on gender/ethnicity or any other type of biased view will always results into poor performance in my opinion… !

    • I worked in Government in past and since the Gladys came to power (thank god she left) they introduced or at least I see it that way that there is some how much bigger push to get Women in to director roles against males and many female were promoted without having experience to male counter parts neither having higher education as well so it was literally just do it for the sake of statistic and get the brown point in the performance review.

      I think this might be your perception rather than being grounded in reality
      https://www.psc.nsw.gov.au/culture-and-inclusion/diversity-a…
      * women are 65% of the NSW Government sector workforce and 40.3% of senior leadership*

      Yes there are strategies to support women with merit to achieve leadership positions, but it would seem there are still plenty and more men being successful in achieving higher paid and leadership roles.

      Your comment around higher education is telling - I think you may be getting stuck on having qualifications vs being qualified for the role. There are are whole lot of skills and experience that might make someone without qualifications more qualified for a role, regardless of their gender. Self awareness of this is what will help people grow and be successful in their career, again regardless of gender. I can say this as a women who works for government with a bunch of qualifications who has sometimes lost out to someone (both male and female) who from the recruiters role is a better fit - learning from this and focusing on capabilities has helped me grow. I’d recommend any men feeling cheated from a recruitment process who want to further their careers a) ask for feedback from the recruiter b) seek out mentoring in the area they want to grow their career.

      • +2

        well, not sure your rational to put up with 2 year old statistics. Also, the same page also says

        The points are as below from this webpage. now looking at first point, do we start recruitment drive to have more men in the government job then female as female are 65% of the NSW Government workforce ? obviously not because that will be gender discrimination but when promoting women on higher position purely for the purpose to meet KPI isn't gender discrimination in the view of so called advocate of women in senior leadership.. !

        second on that same website you put in says .. "women and men from diverse backgrounds are less likely to be represented in senior leader positions" … so did we start recruitment drive to have male & female from diverse backgrounds ? absolutely not. I still remember secretary in my government department with more than 20,000+ employee one day bullshitting about diversity but his narrow thought of diversity was limited to male and female and it didn't went outside this two gender. he like many other killed definition of diversity and every HR person female and male knows that but still only Caucasian people sit on the senior leadership reporting that same secretary … he doesn't have aboriginal person reporting to him, he doesn't have male/female from non-Caucasian background, he doesn't have male/female with English as second language reporting to him … luckily liberal government who promoted him also sacked him… !

        third point of statistic says … "women are still overrepresented in traditionally female industries and occupations" … so did we started more men recruitment in the traditionally female industries and occupations to impower men to work in there ? …. !

        forth point says … :"men dominate higher paid roles but are less able to access flexible working and caring support arrangements." … so have we started policy change to allow men to access more flexible working and caring support arrangement which were not provided to them ?

        skill and experience may work better then educational qualification when you talk about trade or lower level management roles but not when you talk about CEO position managing 10000+ workforce where decision do require engineering or medical or economics or account qualification… there is no substitute of education with work experience. It is only in Australia any one without college degree can be general manager of engineering section … ! obviously, having college education do not guarantee success but is necessary to have one with that level of understanding of the business.

        I have worked with a female director in past who every morning ask question to another male counter part who reports to her but he has worked there for 20 years…. about what do we do now? how do we respond to this request? … basically the male is running the show but he wasn't given the job purely because someone wanted to play with the statistics or some other workplace political reasons… ! now, this female director has no education related to the industry, do not have any experience what so ever on senior management before or mid-level management and all of a sudden got this plum job… ! how lucky ? obviously, in government there are probably many such small or large team under performing and it still works as government business don't run to make profit.

        so again, my statement to say "when competency judged based on gender/ethnicity or any other type of biased view will always results into poor performance in my opinion…" remains true for any team or department.

        current secretary in our government department has 18 direct reports with 10 female and 8 male … hurray to the KPI bonus linked to fake diversity which don't look at aboriginal, don't look at disabled, don't look at non-Caucasian participation, don't look at migrant with English as second language.

        If you are in HR so here the link you should have posted to tell me what is diversity: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explaine…

        Diversity, equity, and inclusion are three closely linked values held by many organizations that are working to be supportive of different groups of individuals, including people of different races, ethnicities, religions, abilities, genders, and sexual orientations.

      • +1

        Promoted with not enough experience is how experience is created. The reason the pool of experienced women is limited, is because they have been historically excluded. Create experience, create mentorship, and then things even out.

  • Serves men right imo. I can't remember the name of it, but as a kid I read a science fiction book where women take over the world and kill all straight men, and imprison the gay men because they are deemed not as bad as straight men. So you should consider yourself lucky the worst of your problems is you can't take a promotion for granted.

    • What you have described is not a sci fi film, it's the ABCs current social engineering business plan.

    • +1

      Have you read the Three Body Problem trilogy by Liu Cixin ?
      If not, I recommend it and don't read below :)

      Third Book Spoilers Below:

      Something like this happens in the third book (Remembrance of Earth's Past).
      The aliens influence our culture to feminize all the men so that we're more compliant and easier to invade.
      Humans have something setup similar to nuclear deterrence to prevent us from being invaded with a man holding the button, but social justice movements put pressure on this and have him replaced with an indecisive woman…

  • +2

    most people either don't care that I uncovered

    You make it sound like this is some kind of profound piece of investigative journalism. It’s not. Sure some universities and workplaces practice positive action - this is not a secret.

    There are men with successful careers everywhere, most based on their own merit. Be one of those men and stop worrying what everybody else is doing.

    Source: mother of a boy and wife to a husband who has a self made successful career in a female dominated industry.

  • +5

    It's funny how it's not all the male managers who have already reaped the benefits of inequality for many years that are suffering the consequences.

    They just need to tell the new generation of young male workers to suffer for them in their behalf while enjoying their already established roles.

    • I think that's because it would be cost-prohibitive to figure out every man that was hired due to his innate privilege of having testicles

      How would you feel if you'd been promoted anywhere from a week to a decade ago, doing your job diligently and satisfactorily, then someone comes in and says "hey, actually you've been demoted. There's a 0-100% chance you were put in this position you're doing a fine job at because you're a man. This may have made up between 0 and 100% of the hiring managers decision"

      It would be impossible to enforce fairly and you'd have some proper outrage not only from men but the women they're with whose finances have been messed with through no fault of their own

      • I agree with you that you can't just fire male managers. This still doesn't make it fair to discriminate new male workers.

        What I think is that you shouldn't force companies to have a 50/50 when the managers are already like 80/20 by unfairly treating new recruits. You should just enforce that companies recruit new employees fairly regardless of their gender and let time do its magic, so that eventually when the managers retire the new "fairly" recruited workforce should be closer to 50/50.

        • I think we both agree with the first 2 sentences of your comment? I don't think it fair to discriminate against the men currently in management, or the ones that could potentially be there in the future when these complaints revolve around men of the past. Perhaps we should just try to treat everyone fairly going forward and the system will work itself out? If we attempt to correct injustice with injustice that goes in the opposite way you'll just have a yoyo effect with everyone feeling persecuted

          I agree, the deciding factors for who gets hired should be fair and not discriminate based off all the things the LGBTQI++ crowd are proud of (being transgender or gay or trans or a woman (or a man)). Same with race. Blind hiring practices may be beneficial for this

          Honestly the identity politics of today are exhausting and I'd prefer if we were acting to be more people first than [I AM THIS AND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, YOU CANNOT TALK AS YOU ARE OUTSIDE MY GROUP]. If everything was truly fair the randomness of life would never have a 50/50 gender split across all workforces (though it may be closer than what we currently have)

  • +2

    I understand your concern. I'm early career in the university sector and over the last couple of years have seen how hard gender equality has been pushed.

    Unfortunately we are having to deal with years of sexism that came before us within academia. Look at all the professors and higher execs (even nobel prize winners). The large majority are old white men.

    I'm not saying all the men in these positions didn't deserve this but academia was absolutely exclusionary to women and women did not have the same opportunities as men. The system is now forcing a change and unfortunately we are dealing with it.

    I don't think it will last two long. Soon gender equality will be met and then I see it returning back to normal.

    Blame those before us who got us into this position. Female academics cannot be blamed, cause as you say, why the hell wouldn't they take advantage.

    • -1

      what point you trying to make with "Look at all the professors and higher execs (even nobel prize winners). The large majority are old white men." ? did someone stopped women with notable contribution and selected men instead ?

      what do you mean by this " I'm not saying all the men in these positions didn't deserve this but academia was absolutely exclusionary to women and women did not have the same opportunities as men. " ???

      just putting some gender in higher position by discriminating against other gender of higher credential will never create equitable society ….. !

      if you really do need women in higher position in various fields then start from school encouragements , get more women in to being electrician, plumber, tiler, maths teachers, physics teacher, medicine (not just nurse but also as a specialist doctors) etc etc … then time will take it course to get the right person in right position … but simply discriminating someone before of their gender (male/female) isn't ideal either… !

      • +1

        ? did someone stopped women with notable contribution and selected men instead ? <

        Yes, this is well known to have happened in academia. It's the whole reason why we are currently seeing the push for gender equality and Athena Swan initiatives.
        Wondering if you work in academia? It's blutantly obvious.

        Academia isnt simply grabbing any women and putting them into higher positions. They are promoting women into higher positions. Everyone still needs to climb the ladder. There are usually a limited number of promotions. More are now going to women to correct the gender imbalance that has come from years of sexual discrimination in the sector.

        Your last point is exactly what the university sector is doing within their sector. OP post is about promotions but new positions (junior positions) are also going to women. I agree, it would be good to see this across all jobs. Universities are usually change makers within society.

        • +1

          More are now going to women to correct the gender imbalance that has come from years of sexual discrimination in the sector.

          This would imply that the two candidates are exactly equal and the only deciding factor at that point should be their gender (and favouritism should be exerted over whichever gender is further from 50% represented). This fails to consider that men and women may have different proclivities naturally

          You don't correct an injustice by perpetrating it the other way. If I poke your eye out you poking mine out doesn't magically fix my eye, just like how we don't have the death sentence for manslaughter

          How are we going to correct the imbalances that arise from sexually discriminating against men? Those ones that are passed over for positions they're suited to (and maybe more so) for being born wrong. The loss of career progression alone could impact whether he can make ends meet or doesn't have food to eat. When do we stop discriminating against men because we're finally equal and can all be wage slaves together? Is it when the men have had enough and start complaining on social media?

  • +2

    I work for a company that's part of a large American conglomerate - so there is a heavy American corporate culture.

    We are mainly engineers, and it's been pretty obvious that our hiring and promotion practices are heavily skewed towards filling diversity quotas.

  • +12

    Really surprised at how much you get downvoted and how woke the forum despite being Australian and not American.

    Been trying to get an Engineering job as an immigrant dude and it's been nigh impossible. Been working for 7 years in two manufacturing positions, both technical. Recently a Process Engineering job was just advertised in my company and I match most of the requirement plus I've been doing technical stuff in the same company for 2 years. They posted the job ad, which I applied within a day. Lo and behold, within 3-4 working days they already shown this fresh female graduate around for the new job. The timing, the actual work experience required (states ~7 years manufacturing required), tells me this is either cost saving hire, or diversity hire. Probably the latter because the new engineering related anything is always female in my company.

    What makes it really bullshit is, the former Process Engineer (that's leaving soon) was in the exact same position as I was before SHE became a Process Engineer. I am treading the same path as her in the company, but I did not even get an interview, it makes no sense. I used to have the 'no PR' hurdle which I got over, but now I have to also go over the 'I'm not female' hurdle lol. And these things are real, few of my former colleagues experienced the same thing.

    One was saying how he was annoyed that a lot of female engineers they recruited in mine are very underqualified. This makes sense because if you have an 80:20 male:female distribution of engineer graduates and you FORCE a 50:50, you are going to get more bad female engineers. One was also told that "your qualifications are a match for us, but we are looking for a female".

      • +3

        You reckon there needs to be more balance in stores like bras N things too?

  • +1

    I'm stupid and believe in a meritocracy. I don't care what is our isn't between your legs or colour of your skin. Where I work iys 70/30 in favour of women (front line staff). There are no "strategies" in place to balance it to 50/50. Leadership however, they are definitely doing what they can do increase number of women. Shit like this annoys me to no (profanity) end.

    • +1

      The problem with meritocracy though is who defines it. If those defining merit are a group of people who are diverse then fine, but when it's the same flavour of people setting the standard, it is inherently biased.

      • +2

        Yes sirreee!
        Look at the Trump meritocracy model . Ppl who accepted gangster-ism is OK, hot young women, grovelling sycophants, and swamp dwellers. Or at the LNP, model via the 'minders', employ by hard right ideology. No wonder the Teal movement is growing and will continue to grow.That says a lot about the men in womesn bodies of the LNP. Some are still there and heading up, some recently left. All are servants of the male white bully boy party

        • That says a lot about the men in womesn bodies of the LNP

          I don't understand this bit

          • @idonotknowwhy: Do you seriously think LNP women are 'womens women' or just puppets of the blokes?

            Have a look at the disgraceful behaviour of the bint who approved Adanis mine.And the timing of it. She was a token minister. They threw her a bone and she took it. It's pattern of LNP govts state and feds.
            They love giving enviro portfolios to women too, because they don't consider it a serious portfolio, just a road blaock to their dystopian dreams
            Look at Mackenzie. She blatantly pork barrelled and now she claims she's a high ethics victim. I think the narrative has been furthered by the "severely lost" ABC

  • Also need to consider that some fields in academia are just naturally more female dominated. Like psychology, 100 years ago it was male dominated, but maybe females just have more interest in it and today, or as of five years ago in the US, female psychology students and doctoral graduates outnumber males 3 to 1 (https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/12/datapoint#:~:text=Commen….). And in my class over five years ago in Australia it felt like more than 75% of students and lecturers were female.

    • +1

      As a man who has studied psychology, could you explain how the cognitive dissonance of wanting equality between the sexes and accomplishing this by discriminating against one of those sexes doesn't tear the brain in twain

      To help clarify I was also considering wording it "correcting oppression with more oppression"

      • +3

        OZB borked and lost my reply. But rest assured it was long, drunk, and really struck at all the points you raised.

        • +2

          Darn it, those are my favourite ones! Hate when OzBargain does that. I've started periodically copying everything I wrote when I feel it's gonna be a long rant

          I have a mouse with a back button on the side and when I accidentally press that near the end of a long reply 😭🔫

  • +3

    What’s fascinating about this discussion is that while it’s somewhat true that gender equality policies are unfair, hiring practices have been favouring men unfairly since the dawn of time - the only difference now is that it’s overt and part of policy! How often have men been hired who were not the best person for the job?

    • Exactly! And it may not have always as discriminatory as first thought (though i'm sure many times it was). Especially when you consider that women were expected to stay home and raise the kids and many were happy doing this. Today, not only are people having less kids but women are also not as interested in being housewives and are interested in building their professional career. So here we are.

      • -1

        Especially when you consider that women were expected to stay home and raise the kids

        Many men still believe this, some openly admitted to this belief on ozb. If they were a hiring manager, what's the chance they would hire a female based on this.

    • +3

      So it's revenge then?

      • Not at all - it’s balancing the equation in a fashion that is unfortunately not significantly fairer than the situation before it.

        • +6

          But you aren't balancing the equation, you are favouring one group of a different generation because a different group from an older generation was previously favoured. The current generation group doesn't deserve the unfairness anymore than the previous one did.

        • +1

          That sounds like revenge, trying to fix a wrong with another wrong

        • The 20 year old male getting rejected early in the career gets nothing from having 80% mail boomers at the top positions in the company.

          Within his generation, it would be mostly women getting promoted to 'balance the equation'.

          Then you'll have the opposite in 30 years when the boomers die. Mostly women running companies, 50 year old men with low end wage slave jobs.

          The better solution would be to stop the discrimination now, leave it in the past.

  • +1

    May be this is just applicable to the speciality you’re in op because I find it hard to believe this as the common practice across general academia. I have friends in that industry (male:female ratio is 9:1) and the respective staff ratios in the depts are also mostly male dominated (i highly doubt its because of how the system is designed to but rather how it plays out … )

    Without concrete evidence of what you’re saying I think it might be hard for anyone to give any advice on it.

  • +1

    'This is partially to inform but also vent at how rigged modern workplaces are against young men'

    I recently read that conspiracy theories are more likely to be believed by narcissists -

    https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/people/2023/09/15/narcissist…

  • +2

    Going NEET, going 'incel', going MGTOW, MRA whatever the latest trend is— these movements are destroying men here in this country.

    If you step off the internet for a sec you'll realise these movements barely exist.

  • OP are you an academic or a are you employed on the support side of things? Despite making a lot of money Universities don't tend to pay that well. Just move out of the sector you'll be amazed at how many more opportunities etc. there are for hard working employees.

  • -1

    2023 it doesn't matter if you can do the job it only matters what the company can promote you as.

    White male qualified for the job will always lose to a insert other race here who thinks they are a transformer and cant actually do the job.

    • Blame greedy businesses wanting to scam the unsustainable cheap labour by dodgy resume migration process.

      Then there's the other (worse) model of shipping jobs offshore to unknown crooks in offshore call centres. These setups are why our phones,emails and landlines are constantly bombarded, via leakage of our personal details.

  • This is a solved discussion IMO, Jordan Peterson says it best.

    Cue the flames

    • He is what happens when you don't get breast fed, the bottled stuff goes sour, you are not socialised when young and when you chew your pencils.
      He probs still wets the bed,too. I blame his nanny

  • Its amazing why NOBODy here is questioning why corporate board members etc are getting paid above the average person in the first place considering they do the least.

    American media and the present SMH have brainwashed people well so well in fact that nobody here sees this problem.

    • +3

      Why does everyone think it's OK to lynch mob an incompetent QANTAS head (man) and yet the OPTUS CEO ,who was directly responsible for the security of customers data (via her chosen appointee and model to the security role) still keeps her job?

      The protection of incompetents is far more important than the balancing of the gender equation because the number of victims, lots revenue etc, has deeper reach. I'm all for breaking down gender ceilings, but the penalties for failure should be equal.

      • Why do i have to list every possible person in the world to make a point about corporate leaders ?

  • yep very true, all of it, sadly you will get torne to shreds ,.. burnt as a witch at the stake if they could get away with it too… disgusting human behaviour - best they can do now is just try to cancel you.

  • -3

    Oh cheers, that's a solid dose of comedy for the morning! Keep it up!

  • Vic po recruiting is exactly the same, a certain % has to be female. She could be the most retarted recruit to ever enter the academy but would pass with flying colours to become a law enforcment officer, just because of her gender.

Login or Join to leave a comment