Men + Women in Positions of Power

zoro · 17-11-2004 01:59PM #1

First off, I'm not entirely sure if this should be here, or in the Debate section, so apologies if I'm wrong by posting this here.

I was watching a show the other morning (probably Morning:AM or something along those lines) and there was an article about women in the workplace.
I found myself getting increasingly worked up about the idea of guaranteeing a managerial/powerful position for a woman, simply because there aren't that many of them in that particular position.

Then I got thinking, if a managerial spot (or, as was said on the program, the CEO of Dell is a woman - I think) became available, and there were already 3 men in similar roles in the company, why should anyone get preference for the position because of their sex?
She was saying that because of the RATIO of men to women, the obvious choice for the place would be a woman. Yeah ... but this isn't a lottery, where weights can be added to certain numbers to ensure that they come out of the drum first - if one man and one woman were above the pack with regard to taking the place, lets consider them.

Man: 13 years in the company, worked his way up the ladder with relative ease, great people skills, and trusted by his workmates.
Woman: 13 years in the company, worked her way up the ladder with relative ease, great people skills, and trusted by her workmates.

Now, let us also assume that both are identical with all respects to their work ethic, efficieny, and so on... basically, nothing but their sex tells them apart.

What this woman seemed to be pointing out, was that because the ratio was 3 men to 0 women, there was an obligation to put the woman in the place. Or to MAKE a place for the woman, simply because she was in a minority.

That made me angry - Why should she get preferential treatment, if her qualifications to do the job make her no better than her male counterpart?
Well, if the decision came down to the toss of a coin, and the man got in, there'd be uproar because of the apparantly sexist decision, yet if the woman got in, what would be said?

I'm rambling on a bit now, but I basically want to know what the opinion on giving preferential treatment to someone because of their sex is on the boards ... it really riled me up.

Daniel

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 17-11-2004 02:08PM

basically, sexual discrimination is ok as long as women benefit from it.

koneko · 17-11-2004 02:10PM

It's positive discrimination. People think now that because women or certain genders were opressed in the past, they need to make up for it by giving them all the benefits and jobs first. I agree it's unfair. I don't think anyone should get a job because they're a woman or because they're black, the best person for the job should get it.

Kêrmêttê · 17-11-2004 02:18PM

Basically a lot of companies and organisations have adopted this idealistic plan to make margionalised sections of the workforce more promenant, ie. people with special needs, physical disabilities, non nationals etc.
It has become clear in recent years that the female workforce was a margionalised section.

With the whole equal opportunaties system that employers are supposed to practice, they MUST employ a certain percentage of applicants from these groups.

For example: Take a company which has a policy of employing eg. 3% of the vacancies with people who have disabilities. If you have a disability and apply for a position in this company, and you are the only applicant, in this situation you have a head start on everyone else.

Historically, women found it difficult to break the theoretical "glass ceiling". Not many women made it past clerical grades in larger companies. So, to improve the profile of these larger employers, and also utilise the good workers that have be left ignored for too long, they have tried to remove this glass ceiling by introducing this positive discrimination in much the same way as I just described with people with disabilities.

It's not really a bad thing. Managerial teams and Boards of Directors have traditionally been male dominated throughout the histories of many companies. It stands to reason that the habit of promoting men would continue unless a change in the tradition was forced and eventually introduced.

zoro · 17-11-2004 02:26PM

Kermette: I have no qualms about having women in powerful positions, none at all. But what I do have a problem with, is specifically cutting off sections of the board-table for women only. Despite the fact that there may well be a more capable man to do the job.

I'm desperately trying not to come across as sexist

ixoy · 17-11-2004 02:31PM

Zoro, you're not coming across as sexist. I disagree with positive discrimination as it's practiced. The right person for the job - their gender should be irrelevant. I don't see why a woman should get it above a man, unless she's more qualified, because of a need to redress some imbalance.

Do the women of today, the younger generation, the boardsters, feel they've really got less of a chance? After all Ireland used to place women in the home a lot more, which is why they didn't get the same chance to rise. No longer's that the case so maybe now the shift upwards is starting. Certainly in my place the majority of my bosses are female, and I'm pretty sure it's due to their abilities rather than any nonsense like positive discrimination.

zoro · 17-11-2004 02:36PM

Thank you Ixoy

Actually, where I worked for the summer, I had both male and female bosses, and my direct supervisor was female. And I worked in IT, which is considered to be the forte of men moreso than women. I had no difficulties working with a female boss instead of a male one (as I shouldn't have had) - but I too am interested in the views of the women on boards.ie.

How would you view a situation like this if it was yourself in the place of the woman in my first post?

logic1 · 17-11-2004 02:39PM

I'm with you man, I hate women aswell.

.logic.

Kêrmêttê · 17-11-2004 02:40PM

zoro wrote:

Kermette: I have no qualms about having women in powerful positions, none at all. But what I do have a problem with, is specifically cutting off sections of the board-table for women only. Despite the fact that there may well be a more capable man to do the job.

I'm desperately trying not to come across as sexist

As I stated already it is positive descrimination. There must be a certain percentage of women in all areas of work in any given company area now or else the employer is in breach of the equality laws.
It's the law.

It's also fairer in the sense that if there is a certain amount of women in charge they will be more sympathetic to promoting a woman to replace an outgoing member of staff and argue that fact with fellow male counterparts...
if there is exclusively men there, men will be more likely promoted with free reign. Traditionally this is how the work force was for centuries.

Women are needed for balance and equality.
This is a time of change.. and change always brings chaos, turmoil and dissention. When this system becomes accepted no one will think twice about it.
Traditionally, men have always held the reigns and called the shots.
Surely there's nothing wrong with finally having a bit of competition now, is there?

[edit] I must add that I have worked in male dominated industries and companies since I started working 13 yrs ago and I have only started to see this positive discrimination in action in just the last 2 years.
I fully agree with having the right person with the correct qualifications in the right job, but certain industries have been monopolised unjustly by men and it's only now that things are starting to change.
It sometimes takes a forceful kick to initiate a change in practice and at the beginning of a change sometimes there is an element of unfairness... but in due time this should balance out. [/edit]

zoro · 17-11-2004 02:44PM

Heh - nice rant Kermette

I've said that I've got no problem with a woman getting the position if she deserves it - I just don't agree with choosing one instead of a man simply because he's unlucky enough to be male

Hagar · 17-11-2004 02:45PM

How many women have advanced their careers by being a women?

Sleeping your way to the top has long been an advancement technique used by some women.

Don't all yell at once. I'm only saying it because its true.

ixoy · 17-11-2004 02:46PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

Traditionally, men have always held the reigns and called the shots. Surely there's nothing wrong with finally having a bit of competition now, is there?

Nothing whatsoever. I just don't like the idea that if I go for a job and I'm up against a woman and we've roughly the same qualifications, she'll get the job before me. How's that fair on me when I never practiced discrimination and would never do so?

Also men favor certain industries more than others because of their mindset. Mens minds tend to work better in mathematical areas and are drawn to disciplines such as engineering/IT in greater numbers. Do we need a 50/50 balance in these areas when college numbers clearly show that women aren't as interested in these jobs? And shouldn't the system work in reverse too - should male nurses, for example, not get a job over female nurses to redress the imbalance there?

logic1 · 17-11-2004 02:47PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

There must be a certain percentage of women in all areas of work in any given company area now or else the employer is in breach of the equality laws.
It's the law.

Umm I don't think this is true. You have to have equal opportunities for both genders under the gender equality legislation but I don't think there's any onus on a company to employ a certain % of men or women.

Please link to relevant sites that state the percentage rules.

.logic.

ToxicPaddy · 17-11-2004 02:50PM

Ive worked in companies where I too have had both male and female bosses
and to be honest its not something that would bother me at all. The right
person should get the job no matter what age, sex, religion or race and those
who hold these prejudices in the first place should be where they are..

However, I do agree that the whole sexism thing can be carried a bit too far
when it comes to giving a woman or man for that matter a position simply
because that area is either dominated by one sex and they feel a need to
balance this out or because of some company strategy.

I do know of a few women who work in senior managerial positons and as a
result they constantly feel they have to prove themselves to their male
counterparts and bosses simply because these guys are old school and like
some have said here already, when these guys started in business you rarely
saw a women outside of an admin dept in a company which I feel is just wrong.

Its fairly bad alright when someone is going for a job and they company has
essentially already made their decision on whether its gonna be the best
person gets the job or whatever sex is needed simply to balance things
out on the office floor.. they dont really stand a chance no matter how good
they are..

Tox

Kêrmêttê · 17-11-2004 02:51PM

zoro wrote:

Heh - nice rant Kermette
I've said that I've got no problem with a woman getting the position if she deserves it - I just don't agree with choosing one instead of a man simply because he's unlucky enough to be male

I agree with that.
Another example: If one particular woman isn't suitable for a position which is to be filled by 5% of the female applicants she should be turned down and the next person considered. If there are no suitable applicants, the post should be advertised again.

This actually happens in many situations... but as we all know human nature is a tad corrupt so there will always be individuals breaking protocol and practicing nepatism etc.

As I mentioned before... It's an idealistic plan... but one that works nonetheless!

seamus · 17-11-2004 02:52PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

As I stated already it is positive descrimination. There must be a certain percentage of women in all areas of work in any given company area now or else the employer is in breach of the equality laws.
It's the law.

Link? What if women don't apply? Go onto any building site in Dublin, you'll be hard pressed to find a reasonable percentage of women, if you find any at all (labouring that is). There's equality, and then there's being ridiculous. Some jobs men are naturally better at, other jobs women are naturally better at. If no women apply for the male-oriented jobs, the employer can't abide by these equality laws you speak of.

It's also fairer in the sense that if there is a certain amount of women in charge they will be more sympathetic to promoting a woman to replace an outgoing member of staff and argue that fact with fellow male counterparts...
if there is exclusively men there, men will be more likely promoted with free reign. Traditionally this is how the work force was for centuries.

I disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right as they say. You can't counteract male biase with female biase, if either things exist. Traditionally, sure, Men were regularly promoted simply because they were men, but no so anymore. Attitudes have changed a lot. If there is anyone out there who still firmly believes (and not just jokes about it) that all women belong in the home, then they're seriously in the minority. Some companies are even tied up in so many PC knots that men are afraid to promote other men for fear of being whacked with the discrimination stick.

Women are needed for balance and equality.
This is a time of change.. and change always brings chaos, turmoil and dissention. When this system becomes accepted no one will think twice about it.
Traditionally, men have always held the reigns and called the shots.
Surely there's nothing wrong with finally having a bit of competition now, is there?

But it's not like this is something new. Equality exists. Women are no longer oppressed, they have free reign. The change has taken place, but some women just can't see that. They are continuing to fight for "rights" which even men don't have. That's not equality.

seamus · 17-11-2004 02:54PM

Another example: If one particular woman isn't suitable for a position which is to be filled by 5% of the female applicants she should be turned down and the next person considered. If there are no suitable applicants, the post should be advertised again.

You see, I think that's a load of crap. If there are ten positions to be filled, and on interview, 10 men turn out to be better than all of the women, then why shouldn't those ten men be picked? Companies should be forced to turn down suited applicants simply because of their sex? Sounds like discrimination to me.

Trojan · 17-11-2004 02:55PM

Also known as affirmative action.

I understand the reasons behind it, and they make it sound justified. I am against it. If people campaign for equality, let them have _equality_, no less, no more. This makes a joke of "equal opportunities" hiring campaigns which are weighted against certain applicants.

Otherwise call a spade a spade, and lets allow employers to discriminate against people on the basis of age, race, gender and religion.

Lemming · 17-11-2004 02:58PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

As I stated already it is positive descrimination.

It's positive until it gets abused. Which will be pointed out in a moment .....

It's also fairer in the sense that if there is a certain amount of women in charge they will be more sympathetic to promoting a woman to replace an outgoing member of staff and argue that fact with fellow male counterparts...

and ...

if there is exclusively men there, men will be more likely promoted with free reign.

I'm going to call a discriminatory spade a discriminatory spade here. What you've just adovcated is women doing to men what men have done to women in the past.

Wow. That's progress .....

Women are needed for balance and equality.
This is a time of change.. and change always brings chaos, turmoil and dissention. When this system becomes accepted no one will think twice about it.

I sincerely hope that *this* system doesn't get accepted because it's the opposite side of the same coin Kermette. How about we advocate a "no bull****. Best person for the job" mentality? That'd be equal opportunity rules. The current system, as well meaning as it is, isn't equal opportunities. It's equal opportunities up until the %-threshold is crossed and then you're into gender-discrimination ground.

pickarooney · 17-11-2004 03:05PM

Trojan wrote:

Otherwise call a spade a spade

Now now, none of that, they're African-Americas, whether or not they come from Africa or America.

zoro · 17-11-2004 03:10PM

Come on now you lot, keep the tempers down and keep this thread at least semi-serious

tovalee · 17-11-2004 03:22PM

My point of view as a woman in IT: Im a student in a field of male majority. (programming/electronic engineering) Being the only woman in my program, i find i am discriminated against all the time. Thing is, they dont even realise they're doing it. If I do something really well, the attitude i get is "ooo she's really good, I'm so surprised!" if i mess up, its "well, what did you expect?". Its infuriating. I dont want to be held back or favored because of my sex. I just want a fair chance. I dont know whether ive ever missed a job opurtunity because im a woman. But when i was working as a pc tech, i noticed the same type of attitude...other than that, my male coworkers/ fellow students have all treated me very well. Again i dont think they even realise they're doing anything wrong, and im not into confrontation, so i just stew in private

Kêrmêttê · 17-11-2004 03:27PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

I agree with that.
Another example: If one particular woman isn't suitable for a position which is to be filled by 5% of the female applicants she should be turned down and the next person considered. If there are no suitable applicants, the post should be advertised again.

Ok, I throw my hands in the air here... this is a procedure of the personnel dept where I work... and the requirement to have a certain ratio or percentage of men and women is also not a legal requirement but an inhouse rule.
Apologies for the misinformation.
Other companies and organisations work this way too though.

lemming wrote:

I'm going to call a discriminatory spade a discriminatory spade here. What you've just adovcated is women doing to men what men have done to women in the past.

Wow. That's progress .....

It appears to me that one point I was making has been misunderstood.
When I said that women should be on a board of directors to argue the point of female promotion, I was not suggesting that they take over and turn the tables completely. Heaven forbid that any company or industry should be either female or male dominated. What I meant was, that if there were both female and male members that neither would be in a position to dominate. I did use the prase "argue the fact" not "take over". Both men and women should be there to keep the other in check so to speak.

seamus wrote:

Equality exists. Women are no longer oppressed, they have free reign.

Equality doesn't exist in all industries in this country I'm afraid. I've many years experience working in different male dominated environments and the women employees are still seen as "just a secretary".

seamus wrote:

Some jobs men are naturally better at, other jobs women are naturally better at.

Ioxy wrote:

Also men favor certain industries more than others because of their mindset. Mens minds tend to work better in mathematical areas and are drawn to disciplines such as engineering/IT in greater numbers. Do we need a 50/50 balance in these areas when college numbers clearly show that women aren't as interested in these jobs? And shouldn't the system work in reverse too - should male nurses, for example, not get a job over female nurses to redress the imbalance there?

This is exactly an example of where positive discrimination would aid an applicant who traditionally might have been disregarded because they were either male or female... eg. a girl wanting to work on a building site or a man applying for a nursing position.
These positive discriminating recruiting procedures have given people a foot in the door to careers that years ago might have been closed off to them.
All applicants have to be considered for every job... but it's the individual employers policy to decide if he wants to employ a certain percentage of females to males in any position.

ixoy · 17-11-2004 03:35PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

but it's the individual employers policy to decide if he wants to employ a certain percentage of females to males in any position.

As a matter of interest, how does this stand legally with the Equality Act? I remember a position was advertised as being "suitable for a young woman". On principle a work colleague complained about the ad being discriminatory and the ads wording was changed. If challenged on a legal basis can these positive discrimination elements stand up?

Trojan · 17-11-2004 03:46PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

These positive discriminating recruiting procedures have given people a foot in the door to careers that years ago might have been closed off to them

That's what I was talking about when I said previously that it sounds justified. Even given this positive outcome it is still a form of inequality and discrimination and thus cannot be considered as a real policy promoting "equal opportunities".

"Site supervisor required for city centre apartment block development site. Please send your CV to XYZ. Applicants who are female , Muslim, curling-players, or Western Samoan more likely to succeed."

Aside:

There's a question in ethics which goes something along the lines of:

If you could cure all the diseases in the world, thus saving hundreds of millions of lives and ending pain and suffering, by killing ONE child, would you do it?

What about 10 children? A hundred? Compared to the hundreds of millions you'd save, a hundred is nothing!

A moral stance is a moral stance, there cannot be "exceptions" to rules like equality.

pickarooney · 17-11-2004 03:47PM

Didn't we have this thread in Politics a while back? Why does it matter how many men/women there are doing a particular job? There's not a direct correlation between a company with an 80% male workforce and a woman being refused a job there because she's a woman. What's the point in someone who's not directly involved asking why things are the way they are? If you're not someone who's applying for a job and feel you were unsuccesful because of an employer's gender bias, there is no sense in campaigning for equality of numbers of male/female employees.

Kêrmêttê · 17-11-2004 03:47PM

ixoy wrote:

As a matter of interest, how does this stand legally with the Equality Act? I remember a position was advertised as being "suitable for a young woman". On principle a work colleague complained about the ad being discriminatory and the ads wording was changed. If challenged on a legal basis can these positive discrimination elements stand up?

I know that a certain airline were publicly in trouble a few years ago for advertising a position for females only. (maybe this is what you're talking about too ioxy?) They had to change the way the vacancy advertisement was phrased. As a result, all job oppertunities have to be open to both men and women.
As regards the actual selection procedure to fill the vacancies... I'm not sure how that works tbh. I'm neither a personnel nor a legal person.
I'm stuck below the glass ceiling and this positive discrimination hasn't worked for me. I am but a lowly secretary!

seamus · 17-11-2004 03:52PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

This is exactly an example of where positive discrimination would aid an applicant who traditionally might have been disregarded because they were either male or female... eg. a girl wanting to work on a building site or a man applying for a nursing position.
These positive discriminating recruiting procedures have given people a foot in the door to careers that years ago might have been closed off to them.
All applicants have to be considered for every job... but it's the individual employers policy to decide if he wants to employ a certain percentage of females to males in any position.

OK, you've clearly misunderstood our point (although I accept I didn't make mine very clear). The point is, for certain industries the opposite sex simply don't apply for the work. Now, while there will always be women applying for say labouring jobs or piloting jobs, they are areas where a quota cannot be enforced, because it may not be possible to fill that quota with the volume of applicants they get.

A major airline in the US was asked (after it was noticed that 97% of their pilots were men) why they don't have more female pilots. Their answer - "They don't apply for the course".

At the end of the day, it's the most qualified applicant who should win. Even if it's a woman in a male-dominated industry like piloting, it's the most competent applicant who should get the job. A woman shouldn't be weighted in her favour simply because she's female or because she needs to "get a foot in the door".

Kêrmêttê · 17-11-2004 04:03PM

seamus wrote:

At the end of the day, it's the most qualified applicant who should win. Even if it's a woman in a male-dominated industry like piloting, it's the most competent applicant who should get the job. A woman shouldn't be weighted in her favour simply because she's female or because she needs to "get a foot in the door".

I agree completely with this. If only one woman applies for a pilots job and she can't even cycle a bike let alone understand the principles of flight, of course she shouldn't get the job!!
On the other hand, if a girl, (fully skilled with an excellent work history behind her), applies to be a brick layer on a building site and she is refused because she cannot physically carry as many bricks up the scaffolding as the other male brickies then she should not be refused.
She can still do the job... it just might take her longer.

Capable and competant people should be considered rather trying to match figures on a plan. But it still happens that certain employers are biased and sexist and would never consider a female (who is qualified for the job), purely because they would be a minority or they've never had a female in that position before.
It is in this situation that the ideal works perfectly.

Cake Fiend · 17-11-2004 04:06PM

logic1 wrote:

I'm with you man, I hate women aswell.

I too find it hard to see past the evil.

logic1 · 17-11-2004 04:20PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

On the other hand, if a girl, (fully skilled with an excellent work history behind her), applies to be a brick layer on a building site and she is refused because she cannot physically carry as many bricks up the scaffolding as the other male brickies then she should not be refused.
She can still do the job... it just might take her longer.

So this Girl with an excellant work history and fully skilled takes longer to carry bricks up a scaffolding.

Hence it may take her 20 trips to carry the equivalent amount of bricks as a man who takes 10 trips.

She's is 50% less effective at the job than the male and therefore costs the company more money to maintain.

And you think she should be taken on against a male that's effectively better at the job because he has more of the necessary attributes (strength)

That's ridiculous.

.logic.

Men + Women in Positions of Power

Comments