3 ms·

> Honest question: is the goal really to have a 50/50 split To answer honestly; anything other than a 50/50 split prompts questions as to the cause of that dis

> Honest question: is the goal really to have a 50/50 split To answer honestly; anything other than a 50/50 split prompts questions as to the cause of that discrepancy, and whether that cause involves unfairness (that would hurt both the individual and the organisation). There's a lot of evidence for bias in both hiring and performance evaluation, so it's not unreasonable to look for those things in fields where the gender or racial split is skewed. > And why is positive discrimination justified? Your question assumes that the status quo is a level playing field, which is demonstrably not the case. Positive discrimination is NOT a great solution, because it can create resentment/mistrust among those who feel threatened and feel that the "bar" is being lowered (it isn't). However it's a solution that's easier to administer than increasing merit through bias reduction, which can be quite labour intensive. [Edit: gender 'or racial' split]

Yetanfou 9y ago
If 50/50 is a goal it would be easier to start in jobs which don't require extensive field-specific knowledge for new recruits to be gainfully employable. Once this goal is achieved there the field would be levelled for those jobs which deviate from the 50/50 target. I suggest starting with the following jobs: * garbage collectors * butchers * construction workers * loggers * fishermen * miners All these fields are heavily male-dominated. All of them are heavy jobs, some of them include challenging work environments. While many jobs need specific training, most of these fields allow beginners to gain experience on the job without having to spend a long time and a lot of money up-front. If the reaction is "but women don't want to work in those fields" I'd like to know whether this is more important than the strive for 50/50. After all, many men work in fields they're not exactly enthusiastic about. They work there because those were the jobs which where available when (and, sometimes, where) they needed one. An interesting observation can be made here: the more freedom people - man and women alike - have to choose where to work, the more the sexes differ in their choices [1]: "Regression analyses explored the power of sex, gender equality, and their interaction to predict men's and women's 106 national trait means for each of the four traits. Only sex predicted means for all four traits, and sex predicted trait means much more strongly than did gender equality or the interaction between sex and gender equality. These results suggest that biological factors may contribute to sex differences in personality and that culture plays a negligible to small role in moderating sex differences in personality.". This study is cited in the first part of the Norwegian 'Hjernevask' documentary series [2], titled 'The Gender Equality Paradox' [3]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18712468 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18712468 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask [3] http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8
- richmarr 9y ago
  > "If 50/50 is a goal..." Stop right there. There is no "goal" other than fairness. What there is is evidence of bias in hiring processes, which is (a) unfair on individuals, and (b) reduces the productivity of companies. If you want to talk about the evidence, fine. If you want to talk about strategies for assessing candidates without bias, great. Everything else in your post is irrelevant.
  - Yetanfou 9y ago
    True, there is bias in hiring processes, this is one of the main points the author of the 'manifesto' (for lack of a better word) addresses. Maybe he does not address it in ways you agree with, but address it he does.

Yetanfou 9y ago

If 50/50 is a goal it would be easier to start in jobs which don't require extensive field-specific knowledge for new recruits to be gainfully employable. Once this goal is achieved there the field would be levelled for those jobs which deviate from the 50/50 target. I suggest starting with the following jobs: * garbage collectors * butchers * construction workers * loggers * fishermen * miners All these fields are heavily male-dominated. All of them are heavy jobs, some of them include challenging work environments. While many jobs need specific training, most of these fields allow beginners to gain experience on the job without having to spend a long time and a lot of money up-front. If the reaction is "but women don't want to work in those fields" I'd like to know whether this is more important than the strive for 50/50. After all, many men work in fields they're not exactly enthusiastic about. They work there because those were the jobs which where available when (and, sometimes, where) they needed one. An interesting observation can be made here: the more freedom people - man and women alike - have to choose where to work, the more the sexes differ in their choices [1]: "Regression analyses explored the power of sex, gender equality, and their interaction to predict men's and women's 106 national trait means for each of the four traits. Only sex predicted means for all four traits, and sex predicted trait means much more strongly than did gender equality or the interaction between sex and gender equality. These results suggest that biological factors may contribute to sex differences in personality and that culture plays a negligible to small role in moderating sex differences in personality.". This study is cited in the first part of the Norwegian 'Hjernevask' documentary series [2], titled 'The Gender Equality Paradox' [3]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18712468 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18712468 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask [3] http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8

richmarr 9y ago
> "If 50/50 is a goal..." Stop right there. There is no "goal" other than fairness. What there is is evidence of bias in hiring processes, which is (a) unfair on individuals, and (b) reduces the productivity of companies. If you want to talk about the evidence, fine. If you want to talk about strategies for assessing candidates without bias, great. Everything else in your post is irrelevant.
- Yetanfou 9y ago
  True, there is bias in hiring processes, this is one of the main points the author of the 'manifesto' (for lack of a better word) addresses. Maybe he does not address it in ways you agree with, but address it he does.