John Price
Bet
- Sep 19, 2008
- 374,226
- 25,017
Canada may impose gender quotas on corporations if numbers don’t improve
- Thread starter John Price
- Start date
Kairi Zaide
Unforgiven
"We don't like discrimination. Therefore, we are going to put up quotas to favor discrimination, since if you need to hire someone and you have 4 women and 3 men, you will need to discriminate against women in order to hire a man, and if you have 4 men and 3 women, you will need to discriminate against men to hire a woman - even though the available persons of the discriminated gender would be much more qualified for the job!"
Pharrell Williams
watch me whip and nae nae
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I have heard similar concerns expressed about women in leadership positions here in the US.
One concern I have, based on my working experience, is that it's really not clear whether the glass ceiling will apply to women of a younger generation in the same way that it applies to women who are currently in the "executive" stages of their careers.
Anecdotally, I work in an environment where the gender ratio is very evenly balanced. My female colleagues of my own age (under 40) appear to have had no trouble advancing in their careers to this point. Many of them benefited from women's development programs starting in school, then up through college, and into their careers. Mentoring programs and leadership development are openly accessible to them, probably more so than they are to their male colleagues, and are certainly promoted to them more openly.
Yet... if you look at our upper leadership who are all in their 50s and 60s, the vast majority are men. So the question is, is there a glass ceiling in our office, or are we simply waiting for the highly-developed cohort of women leaders to age up into the leadership tier? That's not clear at all, and I'm not confident that the issue would be resolved by promoting a bunch of older women who DIDN'T have that same quality of career experience into executive positions.
One concern I have, based on my working experience, is that it's really not clear whether the glass ceiling will apply to women of a younger generation in the same way that it applies to women who are currently in the "executive" stages of their careers.
Anecdotally, I work in an environment where the gender ratio is very evenly balanced. My female colleagues of my own age (under 40) appear to have had no trouble advancing in their careers to this point. Many of them benefited from women's development programs starting in school, then up through college, and into their careers. Mentoring programs and leadership development are openly accessible to them, probably more so than they are to their male colleagues, and are certainly promoted to them more openly.
Yet... if you look at our upper leadership who are all in their 50s and 60s, the vast majority are men. So the question is, is there a glass ceiling in our office, or are we simply waiting for the highly-developed cohort of women leaders to age up into the leadership tier? That's not clear at all, and I'm not confident that the issue would be resolved by promoting a bunch of older women who DIDN'T have that same quality of career experience into executive positions.
KrisLetAngry
MrJukeBoy
I don't like it.
Feminists may then say I'm being a privileged male. However I don't care who gets hired male or female. Your good at your job boom promoted. Idc.
Feminists may then say I'm being a privileged male. However I don't care who gets hired male or female. Your good at your job boom promoted. Idc.
I get paid the same as women, minus the 30 percent they subtract from every woman coworkers paycheck for not having a penis.
Wow Zaide your opinion is incredibly unique. Did you develop that carefully crafted, one in a million opinion all on your own or did you parrot it from the other 10,000 times you read it on the internet
Kairi Zaide
Unforgiven
I don't see what's wrong about it, however.
Equality in jobs would come from giving women and men the same opportunities to reach their dreams, and not discriminating at all regarding sex, origin, etc. And obviously, by offering equal salaries for the same jobs.
But forcing a "ratio" like that is not giving opportunities like I mean; it's handing them. Let's say I'm one of those companies, and need to hire/promote 8 new board employees. Assume that this is a company that has no history of sexism, xenophobia, whatever. They want the 8 best employees possible for those jobs. After weeks of interviews, they come to the conclusion that out of all interviewees, 6 men and 2 women are the most qualified, by far, above the rest (ie the 9th most qualified doesn't even come close to the 8th). What is fair, in that case : Hiring the 6 men and the 2 women, since they are the most suitable for the job, or telling 2 of the men "Sorry, we would have hired you, but because of that ratio law, we will have to hire 2 women that are much less qualified than you" ? You can apply the scenario the other way around, if you want (6 women and 2 men).
Obviously, by offering equal opportunities to grow as a worker (starting at school), this is not likely to happen in the futur, but could. The only things that should matter for getting a job should be your resume, and nothing else. Not your age, not your gender, not your race, not your size, etc.
KesselBuiltMyHotrod
Registered User
Just to be clear Zaide I wasn't commenting on the legitimacy of what you said, moreso the originality.
We don't need cookie cutter opinions around here. Let's keep things fresh.
We don't need cookie cutter opinions around here. Let's keep things fresh.
Kairi Zaide
Unforgiven
The truth is sometimes cookie cutter then I guess. At my work in my department we only had 1 female out of 50, just hired another recently who knows if she'll stick around. Of 10 or 11 new hires only 1 was female. Truth is some jobs you just aren't as likely to get women.
After reading outliers on audiobook, I'm on the affirmative action bandwagon. Highly recommend it.
Yes, I've read the criticisms, but I feel those criticisms are caught up on semantics and miss the forest for the trees.
Yes, I've read the criticisms, but I feel those criticisms are caught up on semantics and miss the forest for the trees.
BigMac1212
I feel...alone.
Fire Everyone
Especially you
- May 17, 2006
- 5,812
- 0
More identity politics! Yay!
What the hell is a "policy on diversity" anyway? Is that just a euphemism for hiring discrimination against white people and men? Picking the best person for the job is the only policy any company should have (regardless of whether that person is a white cisgender man or a blasian dwarf transgender woman).
If there really is discrimination (and I don't doubt that there is in certain cases) against women (or blacks or any other group) then address that problem in a meaningful way. Settings targets or, worse, quotas doesn't do that.
Last edited:
dogbazinho
Registered User
Quotes are unnecessary. Corporations that do not hire the best people in the positions that most suit them should be ground to dust via competition.
Legionnaire
Help On The Way
Dr Pepper
Registered User
Because it's [the current year], you guys.
Whoops, did I say "you guys"?
My bad, didn't mean to assume anyone's gender.
I meant to say "fellow forum posters".
Sorry.
Whoops, did I say "you guys"?
My bad, didn't mean to assume anyone's gender.
I meant to say "fellow forum posters".
Sorry.
Ad
Latest posts
-
WCSF | Vancouver Canucks vs. Edmonton Oilers | Round 2 - FIGHT!- Latest: HockeyWooot
-
-
Upcoming events
-
-
GAME 7 - North Bay Battalion @ Oshawa Generals - Series tied 3-3Wagers: 2Staked: $850.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Series Winner Florida Panthers vs Boston BruinsWagers: 11Staked: $109,041.00Event closes- Updated:
-