Off Topic Thread 3.0

matthew8 · 14-12-2016 11:16PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Wthout telling you what I do you've already assumed there are a myriad of reasons why women wouldn't do it? For the record the exact same job with the exact same spec attracted 50% female applicants in Germany. I'm not talking about a conscious bias btw, I am talking about an inconcious bias.

I meant potential reasons. You shouldn't look at a statistic and then jump straight to what you want it to infer. You have to rule out other possibilities. Without knowing the exact job specifications I can't make a judgement on the other factors, but there's a big chance there are other factors at play in the gender imbalance than bias and perception of bias. Saying that a perception of bias reduces the application ratio from 50:50 to 20:80 is an extraordinary claim and requires a lot of evidence.

Stheno · 14-12-2016 11:16PM

molloyjh wrote: »

I think this is something a lot of people here have been guilty of. The debate would be far more productive if people actually bothered to take a breath, a step back and look at things from other people's perspectives. Rather than arguing, it might be good to listen. But maybe I'm just a soft touch....

I'm probably going to add further to the diversity here

I work in IT and have since my early twenties and twenty years later as a women in IT I have three distinct times that I've encountered sexism.

The first was in an interview where I was wearing a wedding band and the interviewer who was male said "you're married, obviously have kids (how I don't know as I'm very slim but was in my thirties), and live 50 miles from the office, how will you balance life and work?"

I informed him I'd no children, got offered the job, and when their female HR director rang to offer me the role I declined on the basis of the interview.

The interviewer lost his job.

The second was an older guy in his fifties who was a toucher and treated all women as objects he just couldn't move past that.

The third was an older guy again in his fifties who refused to believe that a women twenty years his junior could be the trainer leading a class of men working in the same profession.

That's three instances in twenty years.

I genuinely think that for women times have changed since I've entered the workplace, I know that I work and get paid at the same level as the men I work with, in some instances I get paid more, I've managed teams that were purely male, and in one instance I worked in an environment where I managed a team of sixteen, seven of whom had applied for my job, all of them male.

Due to the job I now do, I get to get an awful lot of insight into IT and how it operates in a huge amount of organisations, and it has genuinely become more gender blind year on year that I have worked in it.

That's almost the direct opposite of errlloyds experience in his industry.

However, I don't have and never will have children. I suspect that impedes women an awful lot in progressing at times. I know that due to my travel schedule with work at times, that I've had three suitcases on the go, so when I got home from one foreign assignment on a Friday night, I was ready to go Sunday morning for the next. That's not something you can do with kids, if you are the primary caregiver.

I guess my point here is that things have changed, and will change in the future. Also as a child growing up, my mother and father ran a business, I never knew it was unusual in the seventies (when women in the public sector had to resign when they married) for women to be involved in running a business, so in that regard I had the upbringing that millenials now see as routine.

Stheno · 14-12-2016 11:29PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Either the word had lost all meaning or it's being used in a way I don't understand but how can someone be in a position of privilege (it still means a special right, membership if an elite group, does it not?) yet not able to obtain gainful employment?

It seems like you're defining privilege as the absence of a systematic discrimination rather than the presence of an evident favouritism, which may be what's confusing everyone.

And using the result (the gender ratio of the interviewees) to infer the process that led to it (more male candidates selected because they're male) just seems like terrible logic to me.

If you take my example, I was the only female candidate out of a total of 15 candidates for the job.

I later learned the hiring manager had a bias towards female candidates, in three years he hired primarily female candidates which in IT is almost unheard of.

The hiring process however did include multiple interviews with other managers, iq and personality testing, so it was rigourous enough, but over four appointments women always got the job.

errlloyd · 14-12-2016 11:38PM

matthew8 wrote: »

I meant potential reasons. You shouldn't look at a statistic and then jump straight to what you want it to infer. You have to rule out other possibilities. Without knowing the exact job specifications I can't make a judgement on the other factors, but there's a big chance there are other factors at play in the gender imbalance than bias and perception of bias. Saying that a perception of bias reduces the application ratio from 50:50 to 20:80 is an extraordinary claim and requires a lot of evidence.

I'd give you a more detailed job spec tbh, but I've probably already said enough for anyone in the industry to work out what I was talking about and I am worried if I say too much more I'll potentially be defaming a company that for the record definitely is not sexist.

I think when something is 80/20 in favour of men the responsibility shifts from me to proving there is an inequality there, to the other side proving there isn't an inequality there. What is very important is that I don't think the employer, or interviewers, or whatever were ever even subconciously sexist. I think society is, and I think it is great when an employer actively tries to even it out again (even though I am always the loser).

irishbucsfan · 14-12-2016 11:39PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Either the word had lost all meaning or it's being used in a way I don't understand but how can someone be in a position of privilege (it still means a special right, membership if an elite group, does it not?) yet not able to obtain gainful employment?

It seems like you're defining privilege as the absence of a systematic discrimination rather than the presence of an evident favouritism, which may be what's confusing everyone.

And using the result (the gender ratio of the interviewees) to infer the process that led to it (more male candidates selected because they're male) just seems like terrible logic to me.

Yes it absolutely has lost it's meaning because it is misused repeatedly. Mostly we have modern internet culture to thank for that.

However diversity is something that we do poorly in Ireland almost across the board, not just in sport. There isn't really anyone out there who does it well across the board but there are countries like those in Scandinavia who've done a great job of bridging the gender gap (even if they struggle racially etc).

As a quick sidebar I'll note that my company operate internationally. Not in Ireland but in the UK as well as in Europe. I've been involved in hiring decisions for around 160 hires at our company (I'm not qualified in the field of HR, I handle the technical side). In the UK, amazingly, I have hired one female candidate. In continental Europe >50% of hires have been female. These are almost identical positions. I have seen the impact that diversity has first hand. I don't need to encourage it in any way in Europe and gender doesn't really enter my decision-making. In the UK I go out of my way in an attempt to find a female candidate but there just aren't any that are remotely close to the standard required for the job unfortunately. I go out of my way specifically because I've learned that greater diversity means for a much better working environment for many reasons, but there is only so much flexibility I can provide. I'm not alone in recognising this, countries all across Europe know this from experience and that is why initiatives like the 30% Club began and its why companies work with great charities like Code First: Girls. But there are other factors at play limiting our hand.

Back on track: The question at hand is about quotas. I disagree with them in this context entirely. Countries who do diversity well in Europe (in my personal experience) have not required quotas. The best moves we've seen towards bridging the gender gap locally have occurred without the requirement of quotas, and there are studies which suggest that the voluntary nature of those movements expedited their success. I agree with those studies based on my experience. Most importantly, and this has to be stressed to candidates as well as employers, the empowerment of women in non-traditional sectors in the UK and Ireland will greatly benefit our economy and that benefit will arrive firstly at the door of the private sector, and this is something that we already recognise. As I said before, we should attempt to replicate the success that the 30% Club had in corporate environments in the field of sport. If a voluntary program fails then maybe we can look into quotas in time.

pickarooney · 14-12-2016 11:46PM

@Stheno anecdotally, I've turned down a couple of well paid job offers for that reason - too much travelling and time away from my kids. There is a perception out there that men would rather spend time at work than with their children and that in a household where only one parent works that the breadwinner is the privileged one. I've never understood it myself but I might be unusual in that I find work stultifying and meaningless and (my) kids fascinating.

But nobody has ever asked me in an interview how I'd cope with being a father and having a job, right enough, and it is a ludicrous question!

Stheno · 14-12-2016 11:47PM

errlloyd wrote: »

I'd give you a more detailed job spec tbh, but I've probably already said enough for anyone in the industry to work out what I was talking about and I am worried if I say too much more I'll potentially be defaming a company that for the record definitely is not sexist.

I think when something is 80/20 in favour of men the responsibility shifts from me to proving there is an inequality there, to the other side proving there isn't an inequality there. What is very important is that I don't think the employer, or interviewers, or whatever were ever even subconciously sexist. I think society is, and I think it is great when an employer actively tries to even it out again (even though I am always the loser).

In my case the disparity was 16/1 in terms of male/female candidates but the female got the job!

The are of IT I work in was traditionally very male dominated and still is to about the same ratio that you have, in part imo women need to choose to work in these areas.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes it absolutely has lost it's meaning because it is misused repeatedly. Mostly we have modern internet culture to thank for that.

However diversity is something that we do poorly in Ireland almost across the board, not just in sport. There isn't really anyone out there who does it well across the board but there are countries like Scandinavia who've done a great job of bridging the gender gap (even if they struggle racially etc).

As a quick sidebar I'll note that my company operate internationally. Not in Ireland but in the UK as well as in Europe. I've been involved in hiring decisions for around 160 hires at our company (I'm not qualified in the field of HR, I handle the technical side). In the UK, amazingly, I have hired one female candidate. In continental Europe >50% of hires have been female. These are almost identical positions. I have seen the impact that diversity has first hand. I don't need to encourage it in any way in Europe and gender doesn't really enter my decision-making. In the UK I go out of my way in an attempt to find a female candidate but there just aren't any that are remotely close to the standard required for the job unfortunately. I go out of my way specifically because I've learned that greater diversity means for a much better working environment for many reasons, but there is only so much flexibility I can provide. I'm not alone in recognising this, countries all across Europe know this from experience and that is why initiatives like the 30% Club began and its why companies work with great charities like Code First: Girls. But there are other factors at play limiting our hand.

Back on track: The question at hand is about quotas. I disagree with them in this context entirely. Countries who do diversity well in Europe (in my personal experience) have not required quotas. The best moves we've seen towards bridging the gender gap locally have occurred without the requirement of quotas, and there are studies which suggest that the voluntary nature of those movements expedited their success. I agree with those studies based on my experience. Most importantly, and this has to be stressed to candidates as well as employers, the empowerment of women in non-traditional sectors in the UK and Ireland will greatly benefit our economy and that benefit will arrive firstly at the door of the private sector, and this is something that we already recognise. As I said before, we should attempt to replicate the success that the 30% Club had in corporate environments in the field of sport. If a voluntary program fails then maybe we can look into quotas in time.

I agree that there are other factors than pure gender division and diversity as per your bolded post, I'm involved with girl geeks which is a group to encourage women in IT to network more.

I'm not a fan of quotas at all.

To bring it back to sport, I recently joined a yacht club as I sail, we'd an introductory night, and I expressed an interest in learning how to do race management.

Sent the senior race management guy an email, and within hours had an email back asking me to get involved when I could.

And again as a fairly free person, that's fine, but if I had a family and was working full time and was a primary care giver, that would be tough.

As for minority communities that's out of scope here for me, for me it's how adversely affected women are by having kids.

As an aside though, as a women with no kids/family commitments, I've been chosen to be the one to travel constantly compared to a male peer who has a young family, so I'm probably an extreme example of equality of gender in operation

Stheno · 14-12-2016 11:50PM

pickarooney wrote: »

But nobody has ever asked me in an interview how I'd cope with being a father and having a job, right enough, and it is a ludicrous question!

What I found most progressive about that situation, was that then the HR director called to offer the job, and I explained why I wouldn't accept it, the interviewer was fired (I can only presume for gross misconduct) I was somewhat surprised they took it so seriously, he was let go within the same week.

Could have been a case of they were looking for a reason, and no one had spoken up before (I wouldn't be known for keeping my mouth shut)

pickarooney · 14-12-2016 11:56PM

Stheno wrote: »

What I found most progressive about that situation, was that then the HR director called to offer the job, and I explained why I wouldn't accept it, the interviewer was fired (I can only presume for gross misconduct) I was somewhat surprised they took it so seriously, he was let go within the same week.

Could have been a case of they were looking for a reason, and no one had spoken up before (I wouldn't be known for keeping my mouth shut)

Did they tell you they'd fired him and ask you to reconsider the offer?

Stheno · 15-12-2016 12:04AM

pickarooney wrote: »

Did they tell you they'd fired him and ask you to reconsider the offer?

They asked me to reconsider, told me they would take action, and a week later I went to an industry conference and he was there and unemployed. I ended up sitting next to him as it was crowded.

At the time I'd three job offers in a week so I took one of the others. He's not worked in the industry since tbh, it's a very small sector.

irishbucsfan · 15-12-2016 12:06AM

Stheno wrote: »

They asked me to reconsider, told me they would take action, and a week later I went to an industry conference and he was there and unemployed. I ended up sitting next to him as it was crowded.

At the time I'd three job offers in a week so I took one of the others. He's not worked in the industry since tbh, it's a very small sector.

Oh damn that's stone cold

Yeah_Right · 15-12-2016 12:19AM

errlloyd wrote: »

But when ever I see one of the lads groups whatsapp sharing some nude video of a drunk girl with her top off in a bar acting a bit slutty I always really struggle not to get in a fight with the group. Because the narrative is always the same, she's a slut, and the lads benefiting are gas craic. When in reality she's a victim. I don't understand how many of my males struggle to grasp how their reaction is an indication of the deeper problem.

Hold on. She is in a public place and has chosen to take her top off and act slutty and she's a victim!?! WTF! If she is doing this of her own free will and is having fun then good on her and there's no way she can claim victim status.

awec · 15-12-2016 12:24AM

I am pretty sure this is the most serious conversation that has ever happened in the rugby forum.

What happened to talking about beer lads and lasses?

Yeah_Right · 15-12-2016 12:29AM

You miss the discussions about the NFL don't you Awec.

Stheno · 15-12-2016 12:29AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh damn that's stone cold

It was pretty horrible alright.

awec wrote: »

I am pretty sure this is the most serious conversation that has ever happened in the rugby forum.

What happened to talking about beer lads and lasses?

Let this be a lesson to those who use this thread to introduce weird fetishes such as ****ting on other's chests?

awec · 15-12-2016 12:41AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You miss the discussions about the NFL don't you Awec.

Oh yea,well done the welders on touching down 18 times in the red zone. Totally Awesome.

Teferi · 15-12-2016 12:47AM

awec wrote: »

Oh yea,well done the welders on touching down 18 times in the red zone. Totally Awesome.

I'm surprised you don't like American football tbh. Every decision a ref makes is reviewed and they're regularly dragged over the coals by their employers, the media and the fans.

irishbucsfan · 15-12-2016 12:49AM

The Buccaneers are the best team in the world again

thomond2006 · 15-12-2016 01:12AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The Buccaneers are the best team in the world again

Big game on Sunday night!

The Bears season is long since finished. At least they can move on from Cutler next year.

Yeah_Right · 15-12-2016 01:23AM

thomond2006 wrote: »

Big game on Sunday night!

The Bears season is long since finished. At least they can move on from Cutler next year.

Another disappointing season for the Bears :mad:

But for once my AFC team is going well. Raider Nation!!

pickarooney · 15-12-2016 07:14AM

So, Dr. Farah Palmer becomes the first woman ever elected to the board of New Zealand rugby, unanimously.
Also a minority and three time world cup winner.

Seems like a good role model.

mfceiling · 15-12-2016 07:52AM

I think women at the top of their field is great. My wife is pretty much at the top of her game and is basically running her company (boss makes no decisions before running it past her).
She tells me of these "alpha males" coming in to run divisions that run parallel to hers. Telling her from the off that they've secured deals that she could only dream of. Then the end of the financial year comes and she's hit figures up to 800% more than theirs!! The tail goes right back between the legs!!

As a father of 3 girls I want them all to succeed and do well so it's important that they see women as equals and doing well in the workplace.

Felix Jones is God · 15-12-2016 09:27AM

What I get from all this mfceiling is that you're a kept man?

Buer · 15-12-2016 09:30AM

Stheno wrote: »

However, I don't have and never will have children. I suspect that impedes women an awful lot in progressing at times.

My wife is going back to work at the moment and is encountering this in a significant way.

She's worked in the finance industry for a decade and knows it's high pressure and long hours. But there is absolute fear from those within at getting "stuck" with a new mother and having to carry them. And they've no qualms about letting people know their concerns even if it puts them in muddy waters.

The funny thing is, she's the career person out of the two of us and the successful one. I'd be out of my job like a hot snot at 5pm and she'd be taking the laptop home and busting her ass whilst juggling two babies. It's a preconceived notion that the woman is going to look to bail and look after the kids and the husband is going to earn the corn.

My brother has a recruitment company with an office in London and an office in NYC. Companies aren't shy about telling him that they don't want any female candidate aged 25-35 in either city.

awec · 15-12-2016 10:04AM

Teferi wrote: »

I'm surprised you don't like American football tbh. Every decision a ref makes is reviewed and they're regularly dragged over the coals by their employers, the media and the fans.

I do not know where my reputation for being anti referee has come from.

Podge_irl · 15-12-2016 10:14AM

"Straight, white me" is far, far too large a grouping to point blank claim they are privileged. A steelworker or miner with a significantly shortened life expectancy and pretty limited career options is unlikely to view himself as having a privileged existence compared to a female worker in the City and if he is continually told he does he's obviously unlikely to become particularly interested in the larger societal argument.

b.gud · 15-12-2016 10:20AM

mfceiling wrote: »

I think women at the top of their field is great. My wife is pretty much at the top of her game and is basically running her company (boss makes no decisions before running it past her).
She tells me of these "alpha males" coming in to run divisions that run parallel to hers. Telling her from the off that they've secured deals that she could only dream of. Then the end of the financial year comes and she's hit figures up to 800% more than theirs!! The tail goes right back between the legs!!

As a father of 3 girls I want them all to succeed and do well so it's important that they see women as equals and doing well in the workplace.

mf isn't it your wife who is the spit of Amy Adams? And now you're telling us she has a high powered job and is at the top of her industry.

We're all thinking it so I'm just gonna come out and say it. What the hell is she doing with you?

sullivlo · 15-12-2016 10:27AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Hold on. She is in a public place and has chosen to take her top off and act slutty and she's a victim!?! WTF! If she is doing this of her own free will and is having fun then good on her and there's no way she can claim victim status.

Just because she takes her top off, doesn't mean that she is willing to be filmed.

How about a woman who is sunbathing topless on a beach - is it okay to film or photograph her?

The double standards are ridiculous amongst certain cohorts. I don't think its something that many will understand or accept. The old saying of don't judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. I'm willing to bet that 99% of the male posters on here haven't ever experienced what its like to be a female in society. In the same way that I've never experienced being a male in society.

Yeah_Right · 15-12-2016 11:25AM

sullivlo wrote: »

Just because she takes her top off, doesn't mean that she is willing to be filmed.

How about a woman who is sunbathing topless on a beach - is it okay to film or photograph her?

The double standards are ridiculous amongst certain cohorts. I don't think its something that many will understand or accept. The old saying of don't judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. I'm willing to bet that 99% of the male posters on here haven't ever experienced what its like to be a female in society. In the same way that I've never experienced being a male in society.

I understand what you're saying but if you strip off and act the maggot in a public place then I believe you can't complain about being filmed. If a guy took his top off and started dirty dancing on a table in a pub does he have the right not to be filmed and laughed at? What about a streaker at a rugby game or through a university? (streaking through the quad!!!)

If the public place had a rule about no filming or pictures then yes they would be a victim but otherwise it's the individuals own fault. Most nudist beaches have signs saying no pictures. But if a girl goes topless at a public beach then yes she can be photographed. Same as if I decided to go sunbathing in a thong on a public beach.

Just to be clear, I'd think anyone taking pictures of someone sunbathing topless to be a disgusting creep.

errlloyd · 15-12-2016 11:31AM

The high profile cases in Ireland from a few years ago (Slane girl etc) were absolutely disgusting. Lads completely taking advantage of someone vulnerable while other lads filmed and laughed. When my friends shared those videos I was pretty disappointed.

Again, it just ties back to the double standards. Guy acts maggot, legend. Girl acts maggot slut. Recommend Asking for It by Louise O Neil. It's not brilliantly written (it's really written for teenage girls) and it's a worst case scenario, but it's the kind of thing we read about a lot.

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Comments