4 ms·

Some comments here focus on transgender and gender fluid people, but that's completely missing the point; those are such a tiny percentage of the population the

by mcv 4y ago

Some comments here focus on transgender and gender fluid people, but that's completely missing the point; those are such a tiny percentage of the population they don't figure in these quotas at all. The point of these quotas is that some companies, even after decades of society striving for more gender equality, banning sex discrimination, etc, still prefer to hire one gender over the other for some functions, and especially for executive roles, this often happens through old-boys networks that exclude women. They may claim that they can't find women suitable for the role, but that's because the networks they hire from tend to exclude them. It's also been known that people tend to hire people who look like the people already working in that particular role. Even when the people doing the hiring do not look like that. Even when they are aware of this effect. If we want people to be hired for their ability and not their gender, we need a way to rid ourselves of these effects. For men and women to have the same opportunities to get hired, they already both need to be represented in the pool of people that have already been hired. And they need to be equally represented in the pool that people are hired from. These sort of quotas are an ugly way to accomplish that, but so far, nobody has been able to come up with a better way of reaching that goal. Don't like quotas? Come up with something better. Because not doing anything is clearly not fixing the issue, and perpetuating the existing inequalities.

trabant00 4y ago
> Don't like quotas? Come up with something better. This assumes quotas are better than what we already have in place, which is equality of opportunity, not of outcome. That assumption is exactly what is being debated here.
- mcv 4y ago
  Where do you live that equality of opportunity is already in place? I can't think of anywhere where this is really true. Maybe Scandinavia? Probably not even there.
  - AdrianB1 4y ago
    For example, Romania. Equal opportunity is a reality here.
    - illiac786 4y ago
      I think I peed myself a little because I laughed so hard. You clearly are a male, is my bet. I happen to have a Romanian female roommate (we do not live in Romania) and this is not at all the picture she is painting. I’m not saying Romania is particularly bad. But equality of opportunity is still very far away. To add some factual information: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2021/country/RO https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2021/country/RO
      - AdrianB1 4y ago
        I did IT recruiting for half a decade and hired dozens on women during that time; that is a lot more data points than one roommate.
        hotpotamus 4y ago
        Did you also hire dozens of men in half a decade?
        AdrianB1 4y ago
        Yes. There were a bit more women than men hired during that period of time for my department and about 4 females for each male for another department I helped recruiting.
IanCal 4y ago
Even then the quotas here are extremely mild. If you don't meet them you need to show how your selection process isn't biased, and in cases where there's not a clear winner you need to go with the underrepresented gender. How this then goes into law in the countries is a different thing, but the directive seems like a reasonable nudge. The linked report talks about the effectiveness of quotas: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_22_7078 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_22_... And the page with more details about the law here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/equality-between-women-and-men-decision-making/eu-action-promote-gender-balance-decision-making_en#legislation-proposal-on-gender-balance-in-company-boards https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-r...
AdrianB1 4y ago
> still prefer to hire one gender over the other for some functions, and especially for executive roles Have you considered maybe they hire based on qualifications only and not gender? There are 2 implications from such thing: - genders have different preferences in work and do not apply for some jobs (not just CEO, but also coal miners have even larger gender imbalance) - some people do not want to make the insane effort to become a CEO. Men usually are the one sacrificing a lot for some goals (including life on the battlefields), women tend to be wiser and think if it is worth
- mcv 4y ago
  > Have you considered maybe they hire based on qualifications only and not gender? If you're only hiring from one specific gender, you're most likely not hiring based on qualifications, or the qualifications you're hiring on include gender. This at least has been the case with most single-gender boards. Now if you can show that there really are not any qualified women available at all, of course you should hire another man for the job. But I think it's not unreasonable to expect companies to demonstrate that first, and not simply allow them to blindly use it as an excuse for gender discrimination. > genders have different preferences in work and do not apply for some jobs (not just CEO, but also coal miners have even larger gender imbalance) True, but there's no shortage of women complaining about a glass ceiling. The women are there for the CEO jobs. I don't see a lot of women complaining nobody will consider them for a coal mining job. > some people do not want to make the insane effort to become a CEO. Men usually are the one sacrificing a lot for some goals (including life on the battlefields), women tend to be wiser and think if it is worth This is all baseless assumption to justify gender discrimination. Women sacrifice plenty.
  - WithinReason 4y ago
    > I don't see a lot of women complaining nobody will consider them for a coal mining job. There is an absolutely enormous gender difference in preferences for a coal mining job (unless you think it's due to discrimination). Could preferences also explain the differences in some other jobs, like CEO? How many women vs. how many men want to become CEO? Is it the same number? Saying that some women want to is not an argument, it's about relative numbers.
whyoh 4y ago
The goal of a corporation is to make profit, that's all the shareholders care about. To suggest that they're hiring sub-optimal candidates, just to hire one gender over another, is a bit far-fetched. But that's actually very likely to happen if gender discrimination is mandated by law.
- mcv 4y ago
  And yet there's tons of evidence that for example VCs, who also supposedly only care about their ROI, are much more likely to finance white men than women or minorities, to the point that black founders have taken on a white co-founder in order to get financed. Don't pretend people in charge of financial decisions are completely rational. They quite clearly are not. There's nothing far-fetched about they idea that they hire people who look the part, rather than people who have been objectively tested to have the best skills.
ekianjo 4y ago
> Don't like quotas? Come up with something better. Because not doing anything is clearly not fixing the issue, and perpetuating the existing inequalities. Please apply quotas in hospitals too so that we get 50% of men who are acting as nurses, by all means. And let's also make sure that women are adequately represented at 50% for construction work and car mechanics. If you want to be silly, we can be two.

by mcv 4y ago

trabant00 4y ago

> Don't like quotas? Come up with something better. This assumes quotas are better than what we already have in place, which is equality of opportunity, not of outcome. That assumption is exactly what is being debated here.

mcv 4y ago
Where do you live that equality of opportunity is already in place? I can't think of anywhere where this is really true. Maybe Scandinavia? Probably not even there.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  For example, Romania. Equal opportunity is a reality here.
  - illiac786 4y ago
    I think I peed myself a little because I laughed so hard. You clearly are a male, is my bet. I happen to have a Romanian female roommate (we do not live in Romania) and this is not at all the picture she is painting. I’m not saying Romania is particularly bad. But equality of opportunity is still very far away. To add some factual information: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2021/country/RO https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2021/country/RO
    - AdrianB1 4y ago
      I did IT recruiting for half a decade and hired dozens on women during that time; that is a lot more data points than one roommate.
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        Did you also hire dozens of men in half a decade?
        AdrianB1 4y ago
        Yes. There were a bit more women than men hired during that period of time for my department and about 4 females for each male for another department I helped recruiting.

IanCal 4y ago

Even then the quotas here are extremely mild. If you don't meet them you need to show how your selection process isn't biased, and in cases where there's not a clear winner you need to go with the underrepresented gender. How this then goes into law in the countries is a different thing, but the directive seems like a reasonable nudge. The linked report talks about the effectiveness of quotas: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_22_7078 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_22_... And the page with more details about the law here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/equality-between-women-and-men-decision-making/eu-action-promote-gender-balance-decision-making_en#legislation-proposal-on-gender-balance-in-company-boards https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-r...

AdrianB1 4y ago

> still prefer to hire one gender over the other for some functions, and especially for executive roles Have you considered maybe they hire based on qualifications only and not gender? There are 2 implications from such thing: - genders have different preferences in work and do not apply for some jobs (not just CEO, but also coal miners have even larger gender imbalance) - some people do not want to make the insane effort to become a CEO. Men usually are the one sacrificing a lot for some goals (including life on the battlefields), women tend to be wiser and think if it is worth

mcv 4y ago
> Have you considered maybe they hire based on qualifications only and not gender? If you're only hiring from one specific gender, you're most likely not hiring based on qualifications, or the qualifications you're hiring on include gender. This at least has been the case with most single-gender boards. Now if you can show that there really are not any qualified women available at all, of course you should hire another man for the job. But I think it's not unreasonable to expect companies to demonstrate that first, and not simply allow them to blindly use it as an excuse for gender discrimination. > genders have different preferences in work and do not apply for some jobs (not just CEO, but also coal miners have even larger gender imbalance) True, but there's no shortage of women complaining about a glass ceiling. The women are there for the CEO jobs. I don't see a lot of women complaining nobody will consider them for a coal mining job. > some people do not want to make the insane effort to become a CEO. Men usually are the one sacrificing a lot for some goals (including life on the battlefields), women tend to be wiser and think if it is worth This is all baseless assumption to justify gender discrimination. Women sacrifice plenty.
- WithinReason 4y ago
  > I don't see a lot of women complaining nobody will consider them for a coal mining job. There is an absolutely enormous gender difference in preferences for a coal mining job (unless you think it's due to discrimination). Could preferences also explain the differences in some other jobs, like CEO? How many women vs. how many men want to become CEO? Is it the same number? Saying that some women want to is not an argument, it's about relative numbers.

whyoh 4y ago

The goal of a corporation is to make profit, that's all the shareholders care about. To suggest that they're hiring sub-optimal candidates, just to hire one gender over another, is a bit far-fetched. But that's actually very likely to happen if gender discrimination is mandated by law.

mcv 4y ago
And yet there's tons of evidence that for example VCs, who also supposedly only care about their ROI, are much more likely to finance white men than women or minorities, to the point that black founders have taken on a white co-founder in order to get financed. Don't pretend people in charge of financial decisions are completely rational. They quite clearly are not. There's nothing far-fetched about they idea that they hire people who look the part, rather than people who have been objectively tested to have the best skills.

ekianjo 4y ago

> Don't like quotas? Come up with something better. Because not doing anything is clearly not fixing the issue, and perpetuating the existing inequalities. Please apply quotas in hospitals too so that we get 50% of men who are acting as nurses, by all means. And let's also make sure that women are adequately represented at 50% for construction work and car mechanics. If you want to be silly, we can be two.