Great video on the Gender pay gap

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I have a lot of time for Leo Varadkar but reading today that "more women in boardrooms is better as they make better decisions". Sorry, but that's nonsense.

It's playing to the crowd. Making better decisions is not a gender related attribute in business. Experience, qualifications and a certain confidence are the main factors, all of which are available to both Genders. I've known fantastic female managers, and I've known complete idiots.

This focus on women is becoming more than a little retarded. Everyone seems to be stretching to find compliments to justify the sexism involved... and it is sexism when you place one gender so much above another. If the genders were reversed in these statements, we'd be facing a massive wave of protests... It's utterly bizarre that there is so little resistance to this stupidity.

bren2001 wrote: »

That's not what he or anyone is saying. Research shows that there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support the theory that women make worse (or better) decisions than men. In order to promote gender diversity, gender quotas have been proposed here and implemented in other countries.

Which means that it's not really about who is more experienced, or suitable for the position, but rather that there should be more women in these positions.

And business research never presented (in the last 50-60 years since mgt science kicked off) the viewpoint that females were less capable at the work. Only stereotypical male sexists and feminists presented such views as being common. Even if you go back to Drucker, there's little reference to sexism in his views on management theory.

The reason for this is that empirical evidence supports gender quotas in parliament where studies suggest that an increase in the number of female TD's leads to more balanced policy making. This, of course, seems blindingly obvious to me. More women means womens interests are represented better.

But bypasses the electorate. If women wanted more female politicians, then they would be voting for them, and demanding the parties to present more for elections. Political research also shows that women, more often than not, will vote for a male politician simply because they, themselves, do not want a female politician.

Thus, the logic here is:
1. Early research indicates that women don't make any better or worse decisions. However, longer studies are required to see what other impacts they may have. Hence, the requirement to have women on boards ought to not negatively impact on a company. Research into nuns and how they operate support this. Furthermore, metrics commonly used as a means to eliminate candidates have been shown to be lot of hot air and things like s like 20+ years experience not as critical as one might think. The point is that women are restricted from gaining that experience for a variety of factors (some fair, some not) and gender quotas are proposed as a solution.

It shouldn't negatively affect the company itself, but it will affect those men and women who have clawed their way to top management through sheer hard work, commitment and determination. Instead, to enforce the quotas, will require bringing in more women currently available (seeking the roles), and therefore lower the requirements. For them. Not for any women who don't fit the eligible requirements, and any males who are excluded because the roles have been filled.

Society has spent 20 years implementing laws, and regulations to make advancement within the workplace more fair, and now, they're seeking to return to sexism, instead favoring a selection of women.

2. Having women in prominent senior positions provides role-models and figureheads for younger women to aspire to. .

Which is sexist since two of my (I'm obviously male) role-models are female. Role-models shouldn't be specific to a gender type unless you're seeking to promote a particular agenda.

It also reduces the possibility of gender bias in selection criteria for roles within a company

I'm thinking that's utter BS, but would love to see the research that proves it. The vast majority of HR or Admin positions are already occupied by women. Most HR managers in corporations are female. These are the people who develop the company policies for the hiring of staff... and most interview panels I've ever had, contained a fairly even gender split.

So where does the gender bias come in? I suspect only for SME's, but I'd like to see the research.

3. Finally, the view is that there is something wrong with the current system and something has to be done about it. Most peoples view is that the system should fix itself or it is already the optimum solution and nothing should be done. This is clearly not the case. I'd be intrigued to see your alternative solution.

Whats wrong with the current system? Nothing, except that it will require time for women to reach those positions... should they wish to make the necessary sacrifices to do so. The problem with the system is that it's difficult for mothers who want an involvement in their childrens lives to dedicate the time required for these positions. The sexism arises because men also have these problems, but society believes it easier for fathers to give up time with their children... in spite of no evidence shown to support it.

Women right groups want these positions allocated (not just made available) to women without the competition and sacrifice involved. Which naturally changes the roles themselves... although that's not likely to become a serious issue until a little later.

If you have not read any actual research regarding this area, may I suggest the following and references therein as a starting point. There are better studies but this is quite accessible:

V. Silva, A. Gonzalez and J. Hagendorff, "Women on board: Does boardroom gender diversity affect firm risk?," Journal of Corporate Finance, vol. 36, 2016, pp. 26-53.

I have read extensive research on Management science, both as a manager (over a decade ago), and when I studied for my MBA (6 years ago). I've also lectured Business Management abroad at university level (for the last 5 years), and had access to research to prepare my courses. Lastly, I am still in contact with many people of both genders who work in the top management of their respective industries.

Quotas and gender diversity programmes ignore the uniqueness of the people who do these positions. These people are the top 0.5 % of any population, and are generally freaks of nature. We are not talking about a 9-5 job here, but a job that requires you to be on call 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for decades. It's not for the faint of heart or the uncommitted... and the quotas seek to bypass all of that.

newport2 wrote: »

This.

Of the reasonably small percentage of people capable of reaching CEO or director level in big companies, I'm betting a significant number of them are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do it. I wouldn't if I was among them. So we've a smaller number again who are willing to work 70+ hour weeks, give up time spent with children and family and have very little time for social activities for years on end to reach the top. I'm guessing the majority of people who are willing do this and are willing to put their careers above everything else in life are men.

I worked in Business/Finance (credit control) for over a decade, and I did pretty well. I had a knack for the work itself, and did well as a manager as promotions happened. I got the chances to move higher within two international companies which specialised in Debt recovery, and I took those chances until I reached middle management. I fooled myself into thinking I wanted to go for associate or possibly partner. My sales were excellent, my reputation flawless, and I enjoyed the management aspect. I went ahead and competed with a number of other professionals for just under a year for a single position, and I burned out. Quit and moved into teaching.

The thing is though... the level of commitment, excellence and hard work required for that year wouldn't have stopped had I survived the competitive period... It would have continued with other pressures heaped on top of it. And the competition itself wouldn't have disappeared because I would have always needed to show myself to have high value for the company.

In Finance, women are extremely well represented. From the floor to middle management, women are there in large numbers, but from middle management to top management , it's mostly men. It's not sexism. The opportunities are there for women, but they just don't want the workload/responsibilities involved.

Quotas and gender diversity seek to bypass all of that. To place women in positions of authority due to their gender. They might have the experience, or qualifications, but they won't have done the hard work to get there. They won't have shown the commitment and they won't have proven themselves to their colleagues.

Management is about respect. The respect shown to the best suited for the work involved. You get bad managers but they're usually rare.... however, this focus on quotas and helping women will place women in positions they have not earned, and their colleagues will not trust them. Plenty of careers other than the manager themselves rely on the performance of those above you...

But hey! We need gender diversity. Now! Not in 20 years. Now!

Which is why forced gender diversity and gender quotas are sexist. We already have a relatively fair and equal workplace.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Minority candidates who deserve to be there arent applying for positions anymore because they can see the tokenism, candidates who don't deserve to he there are all too happy to take it and be smug about it like theyre anything more than pr fodder, when the world goes the right way again you'll have a load of women and minorities finding themselves unable to secure a job at the level they were wrongly elevated to.

I've seen no indication of this happening in Western countries. There's just too much pressure to conform to the wave of female empowerment. It's infected just about every level of employment and is state sponsored.

Don't get me wrong... I believe that women can be just as good at a job as any man if they have the right skills/experience... (no not qualifications), but this movement is an infection to place women in positions they're barely qualified for and any criticism is met with a wave of hate and labels.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

"We promote the economic independence of women by providing workwear, a network of support and career development tools"

So always wanting a unlevel playing field ???

Ahh but that's what equality means.... :rolleyes: