How to achieve gender balance without discriminating against the majority gender?

This Fat Girl Runs

This question came up recently and I'm curious as to what other people think. Mods, if there is a better place for this, please do move it. I wasn't sure where to post the question.

Can an organization or movement address gender imbalance without discriminating (or being perceived as discriminating) against the majority gender?

For example, if a group goes to a school to encourage more boys to take up home economics, or to encourage more girls to take up sciences, is that discriminating against the other gender?

If it is, how can the goal of gender balance be achieved?
If it isn't discrimination, what is the response when others say it is?

Pat Mustard

I'm not sure whether anyone should be encouraged to study Home Economics, male or female.

However, when it comes to STEM (science, technology engineering and maths), according to the 2014 WISE report "The Talent Pipeline from Classroom to Boardroom" (p.19) women represent only 12.8% of those working in STEM occupations.

Clearly, there is a gender imbalance.

Using the pipeline analogy, the UK WISE campaign has a 10-step programme to sustain female talent within STEM fields.

1. Understand the starting point and put plans in place to improve performance and monitor progress
Surprisingly few organisations have robust metrics describing the recruitment, retention, development and engagement of female talent. Without this data it’s almost impossible to measure progress or lack of. It’s equally important to know where you are heading. The most confident and ambitious organisations are setting public targets for the representation of women at senior and Board levels and in technical roles throughout the organisation (eg within the engineering workforce). And whether they chose to use targets or not, more companies need to be explicit about who is responsible and accountable for progress.
2. Educate leaders and give them accountability for change
Tell people why you are doing this and how it will benefit the business. Managers may need support to lead change. Some companies run reverse mentoring programmes for senior leaders, where Executives are mentored by a talented female about the career challenges facing ambitious women in their company. In other companies Executives are accountable for progress on a particular aspect of diversity, or sponsor diversity networks, for instance.
3. Change mindsets by challenging bias and sexism whenever and wherever it occurs
We recognise people will look to those at the top of the organisation to lead by example. Many organisations are taking action to address unconscious bias at an individual level – which is a great starting point. But other types of bias need challenge too. As leaders, we will not tolerate remarks, “banter” or other behaviour which shows a lack of respect for women or any other group. Some companies set up a confidential hotline or other process as a safety net to make sure that people feel able to report incidents of unacceptable behaviour whenever it occurs. We will review our systems and processes to eliminate unintentional bias, starting with the appointments process to senior roles. We will not accept all male shortlists, to make it clear that we are serious about change.
4. Be creative in job design
We have identified that some science, technology and engineering managers have fixed ideas about the kind of person needed to do a job – or the design of a job, or the way in which a job should be done – all based on how it’s been done in the past. This can inadvertently exclude people who do not fit a traditional profile from applying or being considered for a role. We will encourage a more open-minded, creative approach to job design from our managers to drive different outcomes.
5. Make flexible working a reality for all employees
Most organisations have flexible working policies in place but in reality all employees do not feel able to ask to work on an agile or flexible basis, without fear of jeopardising their career prospects. This needs to change, so that all employees (male and female) feel confident in asking for flexibility at work – and most can presume their request for flexibility will be granted.
6. Increase the transparency of opportunities for progression
Women and others not in the "in-group" in an organisation may not be aware of the opportunities available for progression, if they do not have access to the right networks, or a sponsor, or are unable or unwilling to invest time in the politics of self-promotion. Leaders should push for greater transparency about development opportunities, juicy projects, stretch assignments – and invite women and other talented people from under-represented groups to put themselves forward.
7. Sponsor talented women, giving them the same exposure as men and support to develop their career
Some women seek out women-only activities like networks and women’s development programmes. At other times and in other companies what women want and need is individual career development support that takes into account their experience as a woman, but where this doesn’t define them. Beware of making assumptions though, and find out from women themselves what support they need to succeed.
There are talented women working at all levels in the STEM sector – but they are often hidden away, lacking visibility and profile, and their careers can quickly lose momentum. Prevent this by ensuring talented women – like talented men - have a senior sponsor, mentor or coach, and encourage them to talk about their experiences, inspiring others in their turn.
8. Demonstrate to women that we want to retain them through career breaks and beyond
Let talented people know you want to retain and develop them – and follow words with actions particularly for those returning from parental leave or other absences when they may be feeling exposed and uncertain about what lies ahead in their personal and professional lives.
9. Treat the retention of women as we would any other issue affecting our core business
A single action from this list will make some difference. Action on all ten points will be a game changer. Develop and agree a strategic, structured approach as you would for any other business improvement project.
10. Share learning and good practice with our industry partners
Retaining talented women in one organisation benefits the whole industry. Sustaining the pipeline of female talent in STEM won’t be resolved by Chairs and CEOs acting alone. The solution lies in companies, suppliers, communities, employees and their representatives, policy makers, regulators, individual male and female champions all playing a role in making change happen. A more diverse pool of talent at senior levels will benefit the industry as a whole. Now is not the time for competition, but for collaboration.

While the 10 steps proposed by WISE seek to encourage women to become educated and work in STEM fields, I did not see anything which disadvantages men.

I don't see why encouragement of women must be to the detriment of men.

looksee

Maybe the question should be asked - is gender balance always appropriate?

In situations where girls and boys have equal opportunities for exam subjects, do boys and girls perform equally well? If they do, if they choose subjects in equal numbers and perform similarly, then yes the gender balance in employment may be due to other factors, such as bias and employment opportunities.

If however there are subjects where there is significant preference by one sex, and the exam results follow this theme through, then maybe gender balance is not so important - why attempt to employ equal numbers of each sex in an employment area where there is a clear gender-based preference or ability for the subject. Hire the best for the job.

This may mean that females have a tendency to go into, say, language jobs, and males into science jobs, but so what? If the overall employment balance is equal, why does it matter that the subjects are different? There should be equal opportunities in employment, but creating an artificial filter to achieve equal numbers within each field does not really make a lot of sense.

I have two daughters in the science field, I have various practical skills some of which are considered male territory, Mr looksee is an academic, languages person. Life is not clear cut. Get rid of prejudice certainly, but don't try and force artificial boundaries.

FishOnABike

As the male:female gender ratio for 15 to 65 year olds in Ireland is 1:1 there is no majority gender. One gender, or the other, may be represented to a greater or lesser extent in different roles but so long as this is a result of free choice in an environment of equal opportunity we should not meddle with our preconceived notions of balance.

Positive discrimination to correct a perceived imbalance is still discrimination. We should strive for equal opportunity and let people follow their own free will.

CelticRambler

It's one thing to make sure glass ceilings and other such "traditional" obstacles are removed, but a complete waste of time setting quotas and taking "positive" steps to ensure that those quotas are met by filling them with people who didn't previously have the ambition to fight for the place.

In a different way, you can see the effect of such a policy in third level education, particularly in the US. Supposedly every school leaver should have access to university and course costs shouldn't be an obstacle. They replaced state funding and institutional accountability with never-to-be-repaid student loan, resulting in ever more undergraduates with ever poorer abilities. It'll be the same in the Dáil if Enda gets his way. Why would you want to someone "fighting your corner" for you when they couldn't even fight their own without waving their XX chromosomes at the selection committee?

One of these days, society will wake up and realise that men and women are different. :pac:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

This Fat Girl Runs

Thanks for all the comments and thoughts. Very interesting debate! I need to think things through myself a bit more!

Labarbapostiza

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This isn't really true, the practice, especially in rural Ireland, is to give principalships to men. It's the local parish priest making all those kinds of decisions. I've know what goes on from having family in teaching in grural Ireland. I've seen a young male teacher, with very little experience promoted to principal over women who had decades of experience.

Primary school teaching is far more dominated by women these days not by accident. Which I think you could sum up as women dealing with discrimination against them by bullying men out of the profession.

Arkady

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You don't see a clamber for gender equality in the dirty and dangerous jobs, or in bin collection and sewerage maintenace etc.

hiddenmongoose

I recently had a debate on a similar topic with a female politician knocking on my door.I asked her how could I be sure she was indeed the best candidate her party had to put forward in this area when gender quotas were in force.How could I be sure she wasnt just there due to her being female,?She couldt not answer me!!
Gender quotas and other policies which push one gender ahead of another simply to even numbers is the most ridiculous and self harming idea that could be put in place as it will always put that doubt on the minorities capabilities in the majorities mind.
removing glass ceilings,and fair and open policies/treatment/promotion/opportunities ect is the way forward,not lowering standards,giving preference or enforcing quotas .
How can you ever vote for/work with ect someone with confidence when there is a policy to place them there simply because they are a minority ?

Labarbapostiza

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

How can you ever vote for/work with ect someone with confidence when there is a policy to place them there simply because they are a minority ?

How can you ever vote/work for someone who only has they job because who they're related too?

You're worried about gender quotas in politics, when the normal feature with the agricultural parties is to pass seats like family farms. I know agricultural people prefer this system, as much as they fear and loathe parvenus attempting to rise in the world.

Eeden

Arkady wrote: »

You don't see a clamber for gender equality in the dirty and dangerous jobs, or in bin collection and sewerage maintenace etc.

You don't see a clamber for gender equality in almost any jobs which are considered suitable for women only, e.g. childcare, care of the elderly, care, care, care, care of any kind. Cleaning up crap. Every day. Nappies, dirty dishes, toilets. Badly paid jobs, by and large.

Women only want a fair share of the elite jobs? Why shouldn't they?!

Speedwell

Gender neutrality is not the same as gender parity is not the same as gender fairness. The first is, "We'll make the tests all the same, and if there is a tendency for one gender to do better than the other, well, that's just how it works out, we didn't play favorites." The second is, "We need to have equal numbers because equality means equal numbers". Gender fairness is, "If we need to make reasonable accommodations to erase the impact of irrelevant issues based on biology, or to fix the damage done by past prejudice, that is what we will do."

If there is a majority in a given situation, and that majority has now and/or has had a history of privilege in that situation, it is nonsense to talk about "discriminating against" that majority. Reflect that even a member of the privileged majority can have other issues that make them individually disadvantaged in that situation.

Labarbapostiza

Speedwell wrote: »

If there is a majority in a given situation, and that majority has now and/or has had a history of privilege in that situation, it is nonsense to talk about "discriminating against" that majority. Reflect that even a member of the privileged majority can have other issues that make them individually disadvantaged in that situation.

In Ireland women are in fact the majority gender. This is largely due to manual occupations occupied by women in Ireland; washing dishes, and changing nappies, though being far more onerous than manual occupations dominated by Irish men, accrue lower fatality rates.

This is nothing to do with male dominated occupations being more hazardous, more that women are superior at anything they do. I once knew a man who loaded a dishwasher to please his wife. He was sucked into the mechanism and shredded. Washing machines are as equally hazardous. All those ads on television, where the man can't figure out the machine. I blame that on the fact all washing machines are designed by women, and the women designers neglected the fact that men are not technically minded, and are more dependent on their interpersonal skills and their nurturing instinct. The way women design these machines...the radical idea, that men are people too, never crosses their minds. That there other people in the world, who might navigate through life with their emotions and building relationships, rather than borderline autistic engineering skills. How many men must die, leaning too far into tumble dryers, and getting tumbled to death, before women tumble dryer designers realise that #MensLivesMatter.

#menzlivesmatter

Pat Mustard

Labarbapostiza, the use of irony clouds your message to the extent that it is difficult to discern your point. Could you just make the point plainly?

Labarbapostiza

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Labarbapostiza, the use of irony clouds your message to the extent that it is difficult to discern your point. Could you just make the point plainly?

It's a debating technique. To expose logical inconsistencies and fallacies through exaggerated agreement. It's not to everyone's taste.


What actually happens in the work place. It depends. In the middle-class world of corporate bureaucracies, the "work" is mostly social grooming. In a typical company whose business is in the STEM field, the people with the hard skills are generally at the bottom, and all the layers to the top are occupied by "soft" skills people. The HR department is nearly exclusively women, and it's in fact rare to find a woman working in HR with actual qualifications in HR (even though the subject is bogus). They use their wimmin's intuition. They're usually horrific people by any standard, let alone gender.

What's been happening all over the western world for decades is pretty young women have been far more employable in "soft" skills fields, than young men. The much heralded out performance by young women in education over men, has been due to their success at "soft" subjects, like literature. This isn't even because they have better insights into literature, it's that Charlotte Bronte's Emma, is an absolute work of torture, that could only appeal to twee upper-middle-class girls. It's a 19th century trash romance novel. It's not about any "skill". If you have Emma in the leaving cert and you score a high mark, it's either that you have the heart and soul of a twee deeply cherished middle-class girl, or you are a twee deeply cherished middle-class girl. A corollary to that fact, you're probably quite thick. But that's a good thing; you don't want your "soft" skills turning "hard".

I'll get back to the over all point in a second but first I need to explode a popular gender myth; Men are more task orientated, they solve problems by attacking them, women solve problems by building relationships, and they have much greater interpersonal skills. It's a myth, but it describes the world of "soft" skills. Men in "soft" skills jobs, by building relationships and through interpersonal skills. They do exactly as the women do; maybe in a slightly different style dependent on culture. What are these interpersonal skills, they're grooming, bullying, exclusion and inclusion, lying, and simply; social class. Management is not approached in the sense of developing concrete efficient processes and tasks. More, on feelings. A system of heuristics; if it feels good, it is good, if it feels bad, it is bad. They fire people because they feel they no longer feel right in the office.

Back to the main point. Young women in the soft skills world, find themselves initially more employable, also more rapidly promoted then young men, then a funny kind of thing happens, they either find themselves permanently stalled or even fired.

Polly Toynbee, Guardian journalist and long time feminist activist has a good take on this. In her article No Women Over 50 allowed

She has a quote from Harriet Harman that says something not only about women, but the "soft" skills environment in general.

There are, says Harman, three ages: men have three primes, as young thrusters, as virile fathers, then valued for age and experience. But young women are treated as ditsy decoration, mothers too distracted to be reliable and finally after 50, they're past it – so when exactly is their moment?


You'll have to pardon me here, as I need to use some of the French language.

The Young Thruster, you know the type; gelled hair, sharp clothes, likes sport, gets on great with the "lads" (the other Young Thrusters), a little conservative, not too bright but compensates with their "thrusting", and "interpersonal" skills. Invariably an unbearable wanker. (there goes the French).

The Virile Father. Even more conservative, drives a luxury family salon, has a lovely wife. Knows his status; he is "successful", has achieved in life, and more success lies ahead...Another unbearable wanker.

Mr Age and Experience. This guy is so conservative, you'd need a power hose to unblock his rectum. And this is where attending an "elite" private school like Blackrock comes in handy. He's meant to call his pals in similar positions in other companies, and arrange reciprocal purchase agreements, which aren't anything to do with real profitably business but shams to bloat balance sheets. I needn't employ la langue Francais here, as there's no reason to over labour the point.

The Ditzy Decoration. A young woman, could be in HR, if they're exceptionally pleasant they're always introduced to clients. I even worked at a come where we had a whole team of these ditzies to act as a buffer between our clients and our engineers. They had incredibly little work to do, and they weren't even that good at that. Their "interpersonal" skills were just to good, lying to both our engineers and our the clients, because they were too flaky to do the two little tasks they were employed to do; pass messages accurately, and sweet talk the client, mostly male (undoubtedly Young Thrusters), when there were delays in delivery.

These people are all loathsome individuals. They are hell on earth to deal with. There's a class dimension to this too; upper-middle-class men often do light clerical work for very high wages, that could be done by a school leaver for minimum wage. That's not really their job, their job is the occasional meeting with other upper-middle-class men, who are clients, and make business decisions on heuristics; This Virile Father, is same class as myself, my Theory of Mind tells me they're just like me, and I'm fantastic, so they must be fantastic, and a safe pair of hands for my business. That's how it works. The guy is likely a cretin, making production decisions and enforcing them on the basis of like how little dogs like to widdle out their territory. "Hard" skills people lower in the hierarchy find themselves under constant stress to deal with the widdle that's all over everything but they can't clean off.

The whole premise of any equality movement is that invidious discrimination, on gender, race, etc, is not a good thing or fair, and for a better world should be eliminated. But you must be joking, if women who firmly believe in invidious discrimination on grounds of class, etc, ask for support in their struggle for "equality". I have personally taken great pleasure in following up the careers of revolting HR women I've had to deal with. Many do get turfed out as the approach their 40s. It is ultimately ironic, they eventually fall victim to the unfair dismissals they spend their careers engineering and facilitating. How could anyone have anything more than disgust and hatred, for people who'll sack you on a flimsy whim, or block your way to employment because they don't like the way you look in the office, or don't think you're the right "fit", or assist in engineering a "managing out" campaign, to get rid of someone who is faultless in their execution of their job, but because of some foible or scapegoating has to be fired. Bullies, snobs, selfish, evil clowns. These people are the reasons we have things like racism and gender discrimination in the first place.

So, when Ditzy the decoration, is no longer all that decorative, and gets thrown in the bin, it's a bit rich to attempt to elicit sympathy and make a case for social justice.

If a woman thinks women are oppressed because they have to wash a few dishes in the sink, or that by changing a nappies (which is only something, that unless they belting out a child a year for their entire fertile life, is something they'll only have to do for a short few years at most.) Personally having had jobs where I've literally had to shovel tons of excrement, by comparison the changing of a nappy, all two minutes of it, is a nearly pleasant exercise. You will find women who do shovel dirt, but they're a rare exception. If a woman complains of the torture of washing dishes, she's probably kind more comfortable pottering around and office in a black trouser suit; smoking fags and chivying the clean ladies, growing bitter and obese through the sedentary nature of their occupation, and being a little to scary for her male superiors to fire.

ancapailldorcha

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Polly Toynbee, Guardian journalist and long time feminist activist has a good take on this.

If there is anyone who is unqualified to talk about equality, it's the trendy, Guardian feministas.

Labarbapostiza

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If there is anyone who is unqualified to talk about equality, it's the trendy, Guardian feministas.

Polly has been around a very long time. She started writing when there were actual legal discriminations against women. So, she's in a completely different class to the Guardian feministas, who hysterically cry oppression every time Matell launch a new Barbie. You don't like the skinny barbie, we give you a fat one, you don't like that either, you complain that Barbie isn't realistic, but she's made of plastic, and the dolly tea parties little girls have with their Barbies aren't all that realistic either. Teddy bears only bear a passing resemblance to real bears.

Or my other favourite they do; bras are so uncomfortable because they've been designed by men.....Does that even make the slightest bit of sense...the idea that bras remain uncomfortable through the years because, the men designing them, shoe away the seamstresses, when they come with little suggestions on how to make them more comfortable.

But it's falling to a completely new low. Any criticism or challenging of soi dissant spokespersons for all women, on logical and general inconsitencies, is harassment. Hate speech even.

It's gone all loonie tunes. Going from a reasonable argument for not punishing women who make false rape allegations too severely, to giving them complete Carte Blanche. They gave space to Lucy DeCoutere recently to repeat lies, after she has been found by the Canadian courts to be a liar. Ghian Ghoomeshi was facing decades in prison, in something reminiscent of the Salem witch trials. Very similar in hyperventilating and embittered women dishonestly conspiring to have an innocent man hanged, except not with shrill cries of witchcraft, but rapist.

Pat Mustard

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

It's a debating technique. To expose logical inconsistencies and fallacies through exaggerated agreement. It's not to everyone's taste.

Thank you for this explanation.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

They use their wimmin's intuition.

Although your post is offensive to both men and women, use of this spelling of the phrase above, in this context, is specifically designed to belittle in a sexist way and it falls short of the standard of posting required in this forum.

Please change your style of posting in this forum.

ancapailldorcha

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Polly has been around a very long time. She started writing when there were actual legal discriminations against women. So, she's in a completely different class to the Guardian feministas, who hysterically cry oppression every time Matell launch a new Barbie. You don't like the skinny barbie, we give you a fat one, you don't like that either, you complain that Barbie isn't realistic, but she's made of plastic, and the dolly tea parties little girls have with their Barbies aren't all that realistic either. Teddy bears only bear a passing resemblance to real bears.

Or my other favourite they do; bras are so uncomfortable because they've been designed by men.....Does that even make the slightest bit of sense...the idea that bras remain uncomfortable through the years because, the men designing them, shoe away the seamstresses, when they come with little suggestions on how to make them more comfortable.

But it's falling to a completely new low. Any criticism or challenging of soi dissant spokespersons for all women, on logical and general inconsitencies, is harassment. Hate speech even.

It's gone all loonie tunes. Going from a reasonable argument for not punishing women who make false rape allegations too severely, to giving them complete Carte Blanche. They gave space to Lucy DeCoutere recently to repeat lies, after she has been found by the Canadian courts to be a liar. Ghian Ghoomeshi was facing decades in prison, in something reminiscent of the Salem witch trials. Very similar in hyperventilating and embittered women dishonestly conspiring to have an innocent man hanged, except not with shrill cries of witchcraft, but rapist.

I haven't read a lot of Polly Toynbee but I've read enough of other Guardian columnists to know what the attitude of the overall paper must be. It's sad as I of course want the world to be a fairer and better place for everyone. I got involved with the Green Party here in 2014 for this reason and left due to what I can only call misandry. It's just so unnecessary. Can we not make the world a better place for everyone without resorting to sniping and hate speech. It's as if the internet is the equivalent of putting everyone in a room where each person shouts the loudest, most shrill, hateful things they can think of just for attention.