Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Gender Quotas (and possibly other stuff.)

  • 09-12-2014 1:14pm
    #1
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    ///MOD NOTE///

    This is a spin off thread from the left wing vegan cookies cookies thread.

    Original post below
    ----
    Zillah wrote: »
    jank wrote:
    I am not sure I follow. The sex of a person matters in some instances yet in other instances it does matter. I am sure people can try to make a rational argument regarding that but its just blatant hypocrisy.
    Her position is that gender doesn't matter and people should stop acting as if it does. So when there is a glass ceiling on women getting into board rooms she objects because someone is acting as if gender was a limit on capability. If someone condemns same-sex parenting she objects for the same reason.

    There is no appearance of hypocrisy if you understand the underlying principle.

    Agreed, good position.

    However, introducing quotas effectively says "gender does matter" again. Because in a decision between A and B for a job, where all abilities are utterly and absolutely equal, having a gender quota that needs to be filled means that one of those candidates is discriminated against based on their gender.

    "Wanting" more women in boardrooms in order to disprove the myth that gender matters is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint.

    "Compelling" more women into boardrooms via quotas is however hypocritical as it is saying that "gender does matter".

    (note: jank specifically mentioned quotas originally)


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Proponents of affirmative action would argue that such heavy handed measures are required to combat a recalcitrant and discriminatory system that would prove unresponsive to soft power. Gender shouldn't be a determinant, and in an environment where men are given an unfair advantage providing a similar advantage to women merely evens the playing field, they would argue. It is a crude solution to a crass problem and I'm on the fence.

    Even if you think it is unfair I don't think accusations of hypocrisy are appropriate: the underlying principle is still that the sexes should be treated equally, you can attack the reasonableness of the solution without impugning the woman herself.


  • #3
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    "Discriminate to equalize" isn't hypocritical?


  • #4
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Discrimination is providing an advantage to someone at the cost of others; they would argue they are only counter-acting the advantage that men enjoy.

    To draw a parallel: in 2010 Google made a decision to pay gay employees in civil unions extra so as to result in them having the net income they would enjoy if the tax benefits of full marriage were available to them. So gays get paid more money than straight people (discrimination) but the net result is an equalisation of the playing field.

    You can contest that that is what is achieved or not by quotas, but I don't think it is reasonable to call it hypocrisy, no.


  • #5
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    Zillah wrote: »
    Discrimination is providing an advantage to someone at the cost of others; they would argue they are only counter-acting the advantage that men enjoy.

    To draw a parallel: in 2010 Google made a decision to pay gay employees in civil unions extra so as to result in them having the net income they would enjoy if the tax benefits of full marriage were available to them. So gays get paid more money than straight people (discrimination) but the net result is an equalisation of the playing field.

    You can contest that that is what is achieved or not by quotas, but I don't think it is reasonable to call it hypocrisy, no.

    Could you contest my generalized example above where I show that any gender quotas result in a discrimination against one of A or B?

    If you cannot, then I don't see how it's not perfectly reasonable to say that it's hypocritical as jank has.


  • #6
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    In your scenario you state that all candidates are utterly and absolutely equal in terms of their abilities. Assuming a roughly equal number of male and female candidates then the board should naturally end up being 50/50 male/female. If we see a disproportionate number of men getting the job then a quota would be needed to prevent discrimination. If we do not see any discrimination then the quota doesn't change the situation, it ends up 50/50 anyway. Proponents argue that qualified women are not getting the jobs they pursue because of sexist bias, the quota counteracts that.

    It is an excessively idealised hypothetical though. Let's use an example where a lesser qualified woman is given the job over a more qualified man because of a gender quota. I would say that the policy has failed to achieve its objective rather than accuse the person behind the policy of being a hypocrite.

    Incompetence in pursuing a principle is not the same as betraying that principle.

    (also bear in mind Jank was drawing a contrast between quotas and support of same-sex parenting in the post that grabbed my attention, which I found bizarre)


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Gender quotas are at best a cosmetic fix for an underlying issue. In fact, in my opinion they exacerbate it. Consider the scenario where a woman is given a job in the boardroom where gender quotas are in effect. She'll forever have hanging over her head the potential for the perception of people thinking she's only in the job because she's a woman and they needed to a fill a quota. Whereas, that man, there, he's here on his own merit.

    That's not my idea of equality.


  • #8
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    There are two candidates for the job. A and B. They have totally equal qualifications and experience.
    There is a gender quota enforced.
    A is the 'wrong' gender for this job as dictated by the quota.

    It's a simple enough problem on purpose. It's general enough to show that quotas are by their nature discriminatory. Just because the test shows an answer you don't want, doesn't mean it's a bad test.

    I don't see why B's gender entitles them the position ahead of A, which is what this quota has managed to do.

    Doesn't this easily demonstrate the hypocrisy of pursuance of gender quotas whilst asking for a gender blind world elsewhere? I'm massively in favour of the second, and really, really not interested in the first.


  • #9
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Your hypothetical lacks context. Why is the quota kicking in? If the quota mandates that person B get the job over A, does that mean that the board is already full of A's? Why is it full of A's? Do the people making the decisions have a bias towards putting A's in positions of power? Have B's been historically treated like children that need A's making decisions for them?

    If so, then B has been suffering discrimination all of her life and the quota is forcing the auld dinosaurs who think the ladies need to stay in the kitchen to stop discriminating.


  • #10
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    It's a generalized problem so as to demonstrate that quotas are by their very nature discriminatory. There is enough information given to demonstrate that this is true.

    Once again, just because the test/problem has a result you're not happy with does not render it a useless or bad test/problem.


  • #11
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Your hypothetical lacks the very components that the proponents of such policies would argue justify them, so it is designed to fail. Your condescending assertions that I just don't like the hypothetical fails to grasp this point.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    Zillah wrote: »
    Your hypothetical lacks the very components that the proponents of such policies would argue justify them, so it is designed to fail. Your condescending assertions that I just don't like the hypothetical fails to grasp this point.

    Okay. Let's get to this stage so. We can build up to the picture with several building blocks.

    I've demonstrated that quotas are by their nature discriminatory. Is that at least accepted?

    Now, add the components that you argue justify this discrimination.

    Does that now mean that gender quotas are not discriminatory?
    Does it mean that we are saying "Discrimination is not allowed .....except in this situation.... "?

    And is twinning that with the gender blindess that we strive to attain not hypocritical?


  • #13
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Being forced to repeat myself makes this rather pointless, but I would refer you to my earlier example of Google paying their gay employees more money than equivalent straight employees to counteract discrimination they face in tax law.

    Unfortunately issues of gender discrimination are not numeric and so are not so easily balanced, but in principle the effort is the same.


  • #14
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    I'll take that as a no comment. I'm not asking you to repeat anything. It's pretty straightforward stuff.

    Either I haven't shown that quotas are discriminatory, or I have. (I believe I have)
    If I have, then people pursuing their introduction are asking for discriminatory policies to be put into place.

    Obviously there's details I've left out (big great whacking books worth of detail, reasoning, mitigating factors, ideals etc) but that perhaps uncomfortable truth remains there in black and white. And I believe that justifies jank's "hypocritical" reference, and shows it to be rational.


  • #15
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,775 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Okay. Let's get to this stage so. We can build up to the picture with several building blocks.

    I've demonstrated that quotas are by their nature discriminatory. Is that at least accepted?

    Now, add the components that you argue justify this discrimination.

    Does that now mean that gender quotas are not discriminatory?
    Does it mean that we are saying "Discrimination is not allowed .....except in this situation.... "?

    And is twinning that with the gender blindess that we strive to attain not hypocritical?

    You're thought experiment misses the point that the quota would only ever kick in order to redress an imbalance that - since As & Bs are identical other than gender - must have been discriminatory in the first place.


  • #16
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    keane2097 wrote: »
    You're thought experiment misses the point that the quota would only ever kick in order to redress an imbalance that - since As & Bs are identical other than gender - must have been discriminatory in the first place.

    Is this always true?

    Example. B is a male nurse.


  • #17
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Your insistence in black and white thinking is the source of our problem here. You simplistically define any regulation to address gender imbalance as discriminatory because it favours women, while ignoring the fact that it only exists to counteract other forces that favour men. If they balance out then how can it be considered discrimination?

    If you assert that they don't balance out then your objection is not with quotas in principle, merely their execution.


  • #18
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    Zillah wrote: »
    Your insistence in black and white thinking is the source of our problem here. You simplistically define any regulation to address gender imbalance as discriminatory because it favours women, while ignoring the fact that it only exists to counteract other forces that favour men. If they balance out then how can it be considered discrimination?

    If you assert that they don't balance out then your objection is not with quotas in principle, merely their execution.

    A didn't get a job solely because of their gender.


  • #19
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Was A likely to get the job because of their gender otherwise? Is the board already full of A's despite plenty of qualified B's?


  • #20
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,775 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Is this always true?

    Example. B is a male nurse.

    How does that make a difference? If you have 70% females in a set up that mandates 50% females the quota is never activated.


  • #21
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    Zillah wrote: »
    Was A likely to get the job because of their gender otherwise? Is the board already full of A's despite plenty of qualified B's?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    There are two candidates for the job. A and B. They have totally equal qualifications and experience.
    There is a gender quota enforced.
    A is the 'wrong' gender for this job as dictated by the quota.

    ...
    I don't see why B's gender entitles them the position ahead of A, which is what this quota has managed to do.

    ...

    In a totally theoretically quantum fair world, there'd be a "coinflip" (some random reason to choose one or the other) that would result in A getting the job ~ 50% of the time.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    keane2097 wrote: »
    How does that make a difference? If you have 70% females in a set up that mandates 50% females the quota is never activated.

    To give an example of a position where a massive disparity in the number of existing staff in terms of gender can exist without there being any previous discrimination.

    This assumed prior discrimination isn't always the case.


  • #23
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Deleted User wrote: »
    In a totally theoretically quantum fair world, there'd be a "coinflip" (some random reason to choose one or the other) that would result in A getting the job ~ 50% of the time.

    Ok but they don't in the real world, do you understand that? People keep giving men jobs instead of women because they are prejudiced against women. So the board has ten jobs and of the first five positions, men were given four of them, so somewhere along the line there is bias, and the quota tries to block that bias by forcing them to give an equal number of positions to the qualified female candidates.


  • #24
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,775 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Deleted User wrote: »
    To give an example of a position where a massive disparity in the number of existing staff in terms of gender.

    This assumed prior discrimination isn't always the case.

    There is clearly discrimination failed by male nurses in a variety of ways. This point doesn't do anything to help prove that quotas are discriminatory actors I don't think.

    As a quota is designed to only kick in where an imbalance already exists, it is only acting to redress prior discrimination (at least designed correctly).


  • #25
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    Zillah wrote: »
    Ok but they don't in the real world, do you understand that? People keep giving men jobs instead of women because they are prejudiced against women. So the board has ten jobs and of the first five positions, men were given four of them, so somewhere along the line there is bias, and the quota tries to block that bias by forcing them to give an equal number of positions to the qualified female candidates.

    Thus discriminating against any equally qualified males that apply in the future. No? (This is a zero sum game, someone has to lose)
    keane2097 wrote: »
    There is clearly discrimination failed by male nurses in a variety of ways. This point doesn't do anything to help prove that quotas are discriminatory actors I don't think.

    As a quota is designed to only kick in where an imbalance already exists, it is only acting to redress prior discrimination (at least designed correctly).

    But you know that this doesn't make sense. Prior bad decisions are a sunk cost. The fairest, and most non-discriminatory policy would be to instantaneously remove the gender bias, and make the 'best' hiring decision. Which wouldn't involve the gender of the candidates.

    Quotas do not address removal of the bias in the slightest.


  • #26
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,775 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Deleted User wrote: »
    But you know that this doesn't make sense. Prior bad decisions are a sunk cost. The fairest, and most non-discriminatory policy would be to instantaneously remove the gender bias, and make the 'best' hiring decision. Which wouldn't involve the gender of the candidates.

    But sure haven't you just talked yourself around some fairly trivial "definitions" of what quotas philosophically are, deliberately avoiding the context in which they are conceived, only to return to the point we started the discussion, which is that the system is broken, biased and doesn't seem to be interested in or capable of righting itself - i.e. we're back to the context that you were ignoring.

    Quotas aren't conceived in a vacuum.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Quotas do not address removal of the bias in the slightest.

    This is an assertion and doesn't appear proven to me. I would think a pro-male bias in a male-dominated sector would seem very likely to rapidly lose the pro-male bias if the population of women in the sector went from 5% -> 50%.


  • #27
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thus discriminating against any equally qualified males that apply in the future. No? (This is a zero sum game, someone has to lose)

    An equal number of men and women should lose. Whatever system results in that happening is the one with the least discrimination. Quotas can force biased people to stop acting in a biased fashion.

    You've basically decided that if you can shoe-horn the word "discrimination" into a sentence then that means quotas are wrong, that's all the argument you're making (repeating) now. I might return if you have something less reductive to say.


  • #28
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    Zillah wrote: »
    An equal number of men and women should lose. Whatever system results in that happening is the one with the least discrimination. Quotas can force biased people to stop acting in a biased fashion.

    You've basically decided that if you can shoe-horn the word "discrimination" into a sentence then that means quotas are wrong, that's all the argument you're making (repeating) now. I might return if you have something less reductive to say.

    This is exactly it. And quotas clearly get in the way of that!

    You are repeating the same sunk cost issue that keane2097 did previously.

    A company that currently has 120 people, 20 of whom are A, have a turnover of X staff per annum. For the next Y years, they will have to hire a disproportionate amount of A compared to B in order to approach an equal proportion.

    This is the classic two wrongs to make a right issue. Instead of asking them to discriminate against B in order to reach the quorum they should be aiming to hire a fair distribution from this day forward. They should not "go wrong to get right", they should just "get right". This means a slower progress, but ultimately we don't encourage discrimination to get there. We should probably try to avoid doing what we're trying to prevent in order to prevent it.


  • #29
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    I have no problem with it being a gradual process. As long as hiring and promotion practices from this day forward are like flipping a coin between A and B where they are equally qualified then I have no problem. That has not, however, been the case thus far, and I see no reason to think that will be the case later without intervention; one form being quotas.


  • #30
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    keane2097 wrote: »
    But sure haven't you just talked yourself around some fairly trivial "definitions" of what quotas philosophically are, deliberately avoiding the context in which they are conceived, only to return to the point we started the discussion, which is that the system is broken, biased and doesn't seem to be interested in or capable of righting itself - i.e. we're back to the context that you were ignoring.

    Quotas aren't conceived in a vacuum.
    Not sure I'm guilty of any of this.
    I've quite simply showed that quotas in their nature are discriminatory.
    And am yet to have been corrected on this.
    If that premise breaks down, the rest of my argument falls with it.

    I began this (semi rant at this stage) argument in order to demonstrate that jank should be entitled to call quota support by egalitarians hypocritical. I'm yet to be convinced that there's anything wrong with that statement.
    keane2097 wrote: »
    This is an assertion and doesn't appear proven to me. I would think a pro-male bias in a male-dominated sector would seem very likely to rapidly lose the pro-male bias if the population of women in the sector went from 5% -> 50%.

    The pro-male bias on the hiring side may be removed (I concede), but that doesn't mean that the other factors/bias that would be at play with a sector that has a disparity that size to begin with would be removed by a quota. Ultimately would we be looking to remove the quotas (in the long run?), and allow the natural market forces resume to find their 'natural equilibrium'? (which may or may not be 50%)


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Agreed, good position.

    However, introducing quotas effectively says "gender does matter" again.

    Quotas work. Hoping that the old boys network voluntarily disbands itself doesn't.

    That is why imposing quotas is a good thing. We come back to the situation that people often won't do whats good for society, or even their company, because it has a slight negative impact on themselves personally. Thus the only way to get things done to ensure better standards for all, equality regardless of gender, people not being sold poisons, &c. is compulsion backed by effective imposition of penalties.


  • #32
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Quotas work. Hoping that the old boys network voluntarily disbands itself doesn't.

    That is why imposing quotas is a good thing. We come back to the situation that people often won't do whats good for society, or even their company, because it has a slight negative impact on themselves personally. Thus the only way to get things done to ensure better standards for all, equality regardless of gender, people not being sold poisons, &c. is compulsion backed by effective imposition of penalties.

    Work to achieve ... ? Please fill in that gap. I've also not refuted that they can get us to "equal" levels of diversity if they're chosen to do so.

    Given that this thread has been pulled apart from the previous without the original post that Zillah was responding to, it might be easy to forget that this has all stemmed from the term "hypocritical". I'm still not sure anyone's shown how it's not hypocritical to support Gender Quotas whilst calling for gender bias / egalitarianism. If it's simply an uncomfortable truth that people have dealt with, that's their opinion, but it doesn't make the hypocrisy any less.

    There was a pretty good debate on PrimeTime about this recently btw.
    http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2014/1125/20687847-are-gender-quotas-the-way-to-smash-the-glass-ceiling/

    Don't forget, that something works is not a good enough argument for it's use.


  • #33
    sozbox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,399 ✭✭✭sozbox


    Zillah wrote: »
    In your scenario you state that all candidates are utterly and absolutely equal in terms of their abilities. Assuming a roughly equal number of male and female candidates then the board should naturally end up being 50/50 male/female. If we see a disproportionate number of men getting the job then a quota would be needed to prevent discrimination. If we do not see any discrimination then the quota doesn't change the situation, it ends up 50/50 anyway. Proponents argue that qualified women are not getting the jobs they pursue because of sexist bias, the quota counteracts that.

    It is an excessively idealised hypothetical though. Let's use an example where a lesser qualified woman is given the job over a more qualified man because of a gender quota. I would say that the policy has failed to achieve its objective rather than accuse the person behind the policy of being a hypocrite.

    Incompetence in pursuing a principle is not the same as betraying that principle.

    (also bear in mind Jank was drawing a contrast between quotas and support of same-sex parenting in the post that grabbed my attention, which I found bizarre)

    This wouldn't hold true in industries that predominately attract males, software development for example. But I think the solution isn't quotas but to address the underlying reason why women find such industries unattractive.


  • #34
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,474 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Somebody said quotes force biased people to act in an unbiased fashion, I don't think this is correct. It causes them to flip their bias, not remove it. It actually could be correct to say that quotas cause unbiased people to act in a biased fashion.

    I think in a secular society (for lack of a better word, 'secular' here meaning blind to preference) it's incredibly important that public policy avoids all kinds of prejudice, even affirmative, once equal access standards are met.


  • #35
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    What is the aim of Gender quotas? Is it an aim of itself or is it a process towards achieving something if so what? No one has made the point WHY the basis of Gender quotas is a positive one.

    http://mises.ca/posts/blog/gender-quotas-to-what-end/
    To say that gender quotas “work” one must first define what the word “work” means. If it means that forcing companies to hire more women resulted in companies hiring more women, then yes, we can say it worked. But why is that an end goal in itself? You could mandate that grocery stores stock the same number of apples and pears, and crow that your policy had been a success without ever explaining why equality between apples and pears was desirable in the first place.

    If your goal is equality of outcome, you can, to a certain extent, achieve this through mandates, but it is incumbent on policymakers to explain why equality of outcome is the goal to begin with. If gender quotas move towards an equality of outcome scenario, they move away from three other, in my view, more valuable goals. These goals are 1) individual liberty, 2) equality of opportunity, and 3) general economic prosperity.

    Regarding the myth that they 'work' (work in what way?), well its a myth.
    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/the-gender-diversity-delusion

    Finally, no one has even come close to the hypocrisy of fighting for state legislation which discriminates based sex, while fighting for new legislation that neuters the sex of a parent to it being irrelevant.


  • #36
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Quotas are obviously discriminatory. It is the wilful and intentional choosing of one person over another based on a particular value, in this case sex. Of course it is discrimination. But there are two types, unjustifiable and justifiable. Quotas are an attempt to combat the former by utilising is considered (by some) to be the latter.

    And remember, we are not just talking about coin toss decisions here. We are talking about cases where a man has secured a position when a female competitor for that position was more qualified and more experienced.

    Life is full of justified, or justifiable, discrimination.

    I am not sure as to the effectiveness of this kind of policy. To me it seems like it is likely to get more women into these positions, and I guess that by doing that perceptions probably will change. Those people that may have discriminated against women before might change their view. That said, did I not read somewhere that women in positions of power discriminate against other women as much as men in power do...?

    So anyway, complex subject on the whole, but that quotas are discrimination seems fairly obvious to me.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Zillah wrote: »
    ...I would refer you to my earlier example of Google paying their gay employees more money than equivalent straight employees to counteract discrimination they face in tax law.
    Looking at this a bit closer, the situation there seems to be very nuanced.

    What Google is offerring is "benefits in kind" which we would normally think of first as a company car, but in a country without a national health service, the primary "benefit in kind" people want is health insurance for themselves and their family. By offering to pay "domestic partner benefits" to an employee's long term partner, Google can attract a particular demographic; young but stable. If this money is provided to cover health insurance, then it should be enough to cover the insurance, whether the partner is gay or straight.
    So the money is not simply a bonus payment, it is there to provide a specific benefit.

    I'm not in favour of so-called "positive" discrimination, which includes quotas that discriminate on grounds of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion etc.

    And I don't think the gender quotas that we see politicians embracing are being put in place out of any sense of fairness. They are being put in place because half of the electorate are female, and a female candidate has an advantage in attracting those votes.
    In the past female voters often preferred to vote for male politicians, thinking them more capable, but this lack of confidence in their own gender has all but disappeared nowadays.


  • #38
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Completely against gender quotas.
    The best person for the job should get it regardless of gender.
    Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

    If the best person isn't getting the job then more needs to be done to make sure that this doesn't happen.


  • #39
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,516 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    The composition of the Dail is not at all representative of the people, but gender is probably the least of its problems in that regard.

    How about a Dubliner quota, or a non-teacher quota?

    Scrap the cap!



  • #40
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,190 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    The composition of the Dail is not at all representative of the people, but gender is probably the least of its problems in that regard.

    Or how about allowing people to vote for whom they wish?

    Or are we to be restricted to voting for candidates who are like us?


  • #41
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,516 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I don't agree with quotas, just questioning the point of acheiving more gender balance in the Dail by filling it with daughters of TDs and rural ex-teachers.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Those rural ex-teachers are a renowned scourge in fairness, and having just the right number of them can be a terribly difficult proposition.


  • #43
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Actually, we do have quotas in the Dail - geographical quotas. The country is divided into districts, and so many deputies have to be chosen by the voters in each district. You don't have to live in the constituency to stand for election there, of course, but in practice this works to ensure that deputies are returned who live in different parts of the country.

    If you think about it, there is no reason why things have to be this way. The country could be one single electorate - it sounds cumbersome, but Israel manages it - or voters could be divided other than on geographical lines. You could if you wished have separate male and female electorates and, as long as each was fairly represented according to the number of voters in it, I don't see that there would be anything particularly undemocratic about that. You wouldn't be confined to standing in the constituency appropriate to your gender, but in practice . . .

    You might see a shift from parish pump issues to gender issues. Would that be an unqualified bad thing?


  • #44
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    The best improvement for the Dail would be to have a national list system as well as the local electoral area system. Something like New Zealand, but with people on the national list instead of parties.

    If Enda Kenny fails to deliver in Castlebar, lets say he chooses to do something that is good for the country overall, but bad for Mayo, then he would be out the door in the next election, party leader or not. It should be possible for people outside Mayo to re-elect him in that scenario. If he got too many votes, they would get transferred to his pre-nominated person on the list.


  • #45
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You might see a shift from parish pump issues to gender issues. Would that be an unqualified bad thing?
    Yes it would.
    Threads on gender based issues on this site usually end up becoming very heated and eventually get locked.
    Replicating that in every day political discourse, would turn people off politics in their droves.


  • #46
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,775 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Yes it would.
    Threads on gender based issues on this site usually end up becoming very heated and eventually get locked.
    Replicating that in every day political discourse, would turn people off politics in their droves.

    That's presuming that politicians are on the same level as the sort of droolers you see arguing about feminism all day long on After Hours. I know people don't think much of politicians in this country, but they aren't quite at that level of teenage social justice warrior.
    recedite wrote: »
    The best improvement for the Dail would be to have a national list system as well as the local electoral area system. Something like New Zealand, but with people on the national list instead of parties.

    If Enda Kenny fails to deliver in Castlebar, lets say he chooses to do something that is good for the country overall, but bad for Mayo, then he would be out the door in the next election, party leader or not. It should be possible for people outside Mayo to re-elect him in that scenario. If he got too many votes, they would get transferred to his pre-nominated person on the list.

    Would you mind explaining a little more about how a list system works? I've tried googling it before but wikipedia explanations etc seem to get very technical very fast for someone just looking to understand the basics!


  • #47
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Yes it would.
    Threads on gender based issues on this site usually end up becoming very heated and eventually get locked.
    Replicating that in every day political discourse, would turn people off politics in their droves.
    Whereas parish pump politics has inspired us all to fervent patriotism and an unqualified commitment to the common good? :)


  • #48
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Completely against gender quotas.
    The best person for the job should get it regardless of gender.

    And the problem is, that in an unregulated system jobs tend to go to the worst persons for them, because jobs are dependant on patronage and old boys network's and not on ability or aptitude. Until we develop as a mass of humanity, to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of employment (i.e. everybody gets jobs as to their ability to perform them with no other criteria) a strict constraint has to be imposed (just like there are restraints on what food producers can put into their animal's diets, or what safety standards car manufacturers have to adhere to).

    And as Norway found out, in the medium to long term, imposing gender quotas is not alone beneficial to the women now having an opportunity to climb the greasy pole, it is also beneficial to the companies themselves, because they had to start implementing hiring procedures which emphasised talent and ability. Not alone did the quality of their boards overall increase, but also the quality of the male members of said boards. So much so that many companies themselves are now advocating the quotas be implemented.


  • #49
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    keane2097 wrote: »
    That's presuming that politicians are on the same level as the sort of droolers you see arguing about feminism all day long on After Hours. I know people don't think much of politicians in this country, but they aren't quite at that level of teenage social justice warrior.
    Politicians in our current system have held women only meetings.
    I could only imagine the kind of policies they'd have to think up if the could ignore half the current electorate.

    I wasn't just referring to AH either, there are several others forums where gender based issues lead to heated discussions and threads being closed.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Whereas parish pump politics has inspired us all to fervent patriotism and an unqualified commitment to the common good? :)
    I'm no fan of the current system either. I'd prefer a national list system like the type Recedite was talking about.


  • #50
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    And the problem is, that in an unregulated system jobs tend to go to the worst persons for them, because jobs are dependant on patronage and old boys network's and not on ability or aptitude.
    What are you basing the above on?
    Until we develop as a mass of humanity, to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of employment (i.e. everybody gets jobs as to their ability to perform them with no other criteria) a strict constraint has to be imposed...
    So we work towards this goal by giving people jobs solely based on their gender. That doesn't sound fair at all.

    As a society we need to work towards all organisations employing the best person for the job. A lot of companies are already there.
    Auditing of organisations that aren't to make sure that they hire/promote women who are the best fit for the job is what's needed.
    Sanctions need to be brought in for those that don't.


  • #51
    Alexzander Rhythmic Window
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alexzander Rhythmic Window


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    ..
    Auditing of organisations that aren't to make sure that they hire/promote women who are the best fit for the job is what's needed.
    Sanctions need to be brought in for those that don't.

    Following from this, people should be aware that it is already illegal to discriminate against someone based upon their gender. Are there many cases brought? (not a breeze!)
    Equality Act 2004: This legislation makes significant amendments to the Employment Equality Act 1998 which prohibits discrimination in a range of employment-related areas. The prohibited grounds of discrimination are gender, marital status, family status, age, race, religious belief, disability, sexual orientation and membership of the Traveller community. The Act also prohibits sexual and other harassment. The Equality Act also amends the Equal Status Act 2000 to extend the definition of sexual harassment and shift the burden of proof from the complianant to the respondent.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0024/index.html


  • Advertisement
Advertisement