A quota for women?

[Phoenix84]

Recently elected Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently filled his cabinet with 15 men and 15 women.  When asked why he did this he explains "It's 2015.

Is this right for America?  Should there be a quota system for women in top spots in government and business?

Some other countries already do this, Norway, France, and Germany require a certain percentage of women to fill important positions.

So, should congress or board positions or CEO's be say, 50% women by law?

www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/opinions/spicer-women-quota/index.html

[swamp]

By law?  No.  

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2015 19:02:57 GMT -5 swamp said:

By law?  No.  

I agree.  It shouldn't be codified by law.

At the same time, I do believe in affirmative action, and not because I am a woman.  Teaching is a pink-collar profession, anyway.  No one has ever had trouble being hired as a teacher because she is a woman.  As an administrator?  Probably.

So I think it is super that he is actively looking for competent women to fill these positions.  

It would be less super if he put a woman in a position just because she is a woman.

That is the same way I feel about men.  There are a lot of guys who aren't as competent as the women who work for them.  I wonder how they become the boss.

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

It's about opportunity. People naturally associate with those who are similar to them. So, when it's always a white guy in charge, it's white guys who get the supporting roles for the white guy in charge. Actively looking for those who are dissimilar give both those who are an opportunity not previously available and the person in charge the opportunity to hear and work with different opinions and skills. 

[Phoenix84]

Nov 7, 2015 20:37:39 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

Nov 7, 2015 19:02:57 GMT -5 swamp said:

By law?  No.  

I agree.  It shouldn't be codified by law.

At the same time, I do believe in affirmative action, and not because I am a woman.  Teaching is a pink-collar profession, anyway.  No one has ever had trouble being hired as a teacher because she is a woman.  As an administrator?  Probably.

So I think it is super that he is actively looking for competent women to fill these positions.  

It would be less super if he put a woman in a position just because she is a woman.

That is the same way I feel about men.  There are a lot of guys who aren't as competent as the women who work for them.  I wonder how they become the boss.

Not to turn this into a affirmative action debate, but doesn't affirmative action fly in the face of equality, by making certain identified groups more equal than others?

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2015 21:57:15 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Nov 7, 2015 20:37:39 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

I agree.  It shouldn't be codified by law.

At the same time, I do believe in affirmative action, and not because I am a woman.  Teaching is a pink-collar profession, anyway.  No one has ever had trouble being hired as a teacher because she is a woman.  As an administrator?  Probably.

So I think it is super that he is actively looking for competent women to fill these positions.  

It would be less super if he put a woman in a position just because she is a woman.

That is the same way I feel about men.  There are a lot of guys who aren't as competent as the women who work for them.  I wonder how they become the boss.

Not to turn this into a affirmative action debate, but doesn't affirmative action fly in the face of equality, by making certain identified groups more equal than others?

Some people ARE currently more equal than others. This is an attempt to correct that.

[Phoenix84]

Nov 7, 2015 22:14:17 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Nov 7, 2015 21:57:15 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Not to turn this into a affirmative action debate, but doesn't affirmative action fly in the face of equality, by making certain identified groups more equal than others?

Some people ARE currently more equal than others. This is an attempt to correct that.

So, I take it you believe in the quota system?

[quince]

To me, there is a difference in believing in a system for hiring quotas...and believing that the candidates interviewed for a position should be a representative sample of local demographics, and that situations where positions of power are not occupied in a demographically representative fashion should be examined.

I personally do NOT believe in legally mandated quotas (actually, not a fan of institutionally mandated quotas, either.). I am a fan of a hiring policy at  prior employer that specified that if your panel of candidates for a position did not include a member of a minority, you would need to provide a reason. No special reason needed not to hire a minority, just a reason why you did not interview one. (And yes, no qualified applicant resumes was a good reason, but if this is your explanation for every time you advertise a position, I would expect that some extra review of the resumes you've passed over will occur.)

This sort of thing helps with the existing, proven bias that hiring managers have shown against "ethnic" names on resumes, while not going so far as the objectionable idea that someone is given a job by a policy that specifies that you need a number of minority employees. I think hard quotas for actual hiring are detrimental to minorities because even if they are qualified, people believe they are not (minorities and women ALREADY can have this problem, even if no such policy exists at their company, because the idea of it exists, and the kind of people who don't think minorities/women are equal human beings are also the kind of people who will look for any excuse not to acknowledge that someone not like them is qualified.) Paying attention to this kind of thing and shining a light on it- very, very important.

A lot of times, there are reasons for discrepancies that while possibly problematic, should not be the problem of the hiring company to fix. (If the specialty has 10% female graduates, no one should be surprised if a company does not have a 50/50 ratio of men to women in those positions.) On the other hand, if your company is 90% female, but positions above supervisor are 75% held by men? Maybe some closer looking is recommended.

[busymom]

I think a better question is: why hasn't anyone done this earlier?   

England had it's first woman Prime Minister years ago (during the Reagan-era), and it always seems like the US is way behind other nations when it comes to women in positions of power. 

[bobosensei]

After I married DH a couple of the partners at the place I worked for suggested I put a picture on my resume so people would know I was white.  DH's last name is Italian, but a lot of ignorant people think it is mexican.  Especially if they see DH's first name which is also very italian.  Like so italian it makes people a little uncomfortable when they hear the full name.  First they get this confused look, then they don't say anything at all.  He was once accused of having stolen an ID to get into a bar because the bar tender couldn't believe that was actually DH's name.  We were like 27 and looked it and my id had his last name on it too, but some people are so biased that they would rather believe that this white looking guy that has no accent stole someone's driver's license to get into a bar because they can't conceive of him having such a "funny sounding name."  And my first name is an uncommon spelling, whereas the most common spelling has the name end in et mine is ette.  It's an Irish name, but the spelling makes it look more like the french version.  It's just my name so I don't think about it, but now with DH's last name I worry about bias.

After we moved here I had to go to DH's work.  I met some of his co-workers and one of them said "oh, you do speak english" and I was like, uh, yeah.  And he said, yeah, the wives usually get together and I asked them why they never invited you, and they said you didn't speak english.  And I might have just disregarded that, except when I finally met the guys wife I could tell that it was true.  Now we did have some trouble when we moved here, because NATO military members work here too.  Apparently people in the us army kept kicking his information over to the person who coordinates the Italian army so we experienced extra delays.  But even with that how it could have translated into someone thinking that I don't speak english is beyond me.  These people decided that I couldn't speak english because DH has a foreign sounding name.

So now I am extremely sensitive to name bias.  Kids can't help what their parents name them.

[zibazinski]

Actually they can. They can change their names and tell their parents why. There's a great guy at the bank where normally everyone wears name tags with first and last names. His has first initial and his last name so you know he was stuck with some horrible first name that could harm him career wise. Just because bias shouldn't occur doesn't mean it doesn't and you can bet he won't saddle his children, if he has them, with names that can possibly hurt their futures. I wonder if he has a middle name he can use but figured if he did, he would already be using it.

[Phoenix84]

I oppose the quota system.  All it does is encourage compliance with the regulations, not diversity.

Furthermore, in many fields, there just isn't a representative sample of minorities/women with that particular profession.  Take nursing for example.  Are 50% of practicing nurses male?  I don't believe so, so a employer would have a hard time filling the roles

Or take my field, health physics.  Yes, there are women in those fields, but it's inherently "lop sided."  In addition, my particular job requires a lot of travel.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find 50% women to do it. 

Regarding promotions, women generally prefer to prioritize family over career, as compared to men.  Women work fewer hours than men.  In addition, women are far more likely to take time off to have/raise kids.  If you're a manager at a company, and you have a new management position available, are you going to give it to a woman who works fewer hours than her male counterparts, and took an extended leave of absence to have/raise kids, or a man who didn't do those things?

I'm not saying women should be "punished" for these behaviors, but in the business world, you give the top jobs and the raises to your higher performing employees.  If women want to prioritize family time over career, they should be free to do so.  The same idea goes for men, too.

Obviously, I'm generalizing here.  I know there are many women dedicated to their careers, and they should be rewarded.  I believe that people should be hired/promoted on their merit and character, not what color their skin is or what's in their pants.

And I'd be extremely opposed to any system of government that required a certain percentage of elected officials to be women and/or minorities.  That would be directly in violation of the founding principles of our country, that the people are free to elect their own representatives.  

[Shooby]

Do quotas really work anywhere?  

[milee]

Nov 8, 2015 9:48:19 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

my particular job requires a lot of travel.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find 50% women to do it. 

Regarding promotions, women generally prefer to prioritize family over career, as compared to men.  Women work fewer hours than men.  In addition, women are far more likely to take time off to have/raise kids.  If you're a manager at a company, and you have a new management position available, are you going to give it to a woman who works fewer hours than her male counterparts, and took an extended leave of absence to have/raise kids, or a man who didn't do those things?

I'm not saying women should be "punished" for these behaviors, but in the business world, you give the top jobs and the raises to your higher performing employees.  If women want to prioritize family time over career, they should be free to do so.  

The sentiments you express here are the exact problem.

I will hold off on writing a response because until I cool off a bit, what I write might get me banned. Suffice it to say that attitudes like yours are why it is difficult for women to be promoted or hired for executive positions.  Preconceived - and erroneous - bias prevents women from having an equal chance.  It's why at my consulting and Director level positions I had to work twice as hard and many more hours, yet still lose out on promotions and raises to men with lesser skills and work ethic.

[Shooby]

As for hiring, there is bias everywhere. Good looking people are often preferentially hired.  Thin people versus obese. Tall versus short. Men with beards versus clean shaven.  Tattoos and piercings versus not.   Young versus old and on and on. There is no way to make the world "fair" no matter how much people wish it to be so.

[Shooby]

  Why isn't the NFL or some of these teams actively seeking to engage women?  The NBA is very supportive of the WNBA and has hired Becky Hammon and is really trying to promote womens' basketball and have women more engaged in the sport. I see no reason why there are NO women referees at the very least other than they are not given an opportunity. And, you can't use the "physical" as an excuse because there are lot of old men referees that would be killed by an accidental hit.   Of course ESPN's answer is to hire women as props with scantily clad clothes sitting beside men in suits. My only thought is that I bet she is darn cold sitting in that studio!

[Phoenix84]

Nov 8, 2015 9:54:53 GMT -5 milee said:

Nov 8, 2015 9:48:19 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

my particular job requires a lot of travel.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find 50% women to do it. 

Regarding promotions, women generally prefer to prioritize family over career, as compared to men.  Women work fewer hours than men.  In addition, women are far more likely to take time off to have/raise kids.  If you're a manager at a company, and you have a new management position available, are you going to give it to a woman who works fewer hours than her male counterparts, and took an extended leave of absence to have/raise kids, or a man who didn't do those things?

I'm not saying women should be "punished" for these behaviors, but in the business world, you give the top jobs and the raises to your higher performing employees.  If women want to prioritize family time over career, they should be free to do so.  

The sentiments you express here are the exact problem.

I will hold off on writing a response because until I cool off a bit, what I write might get me banned. Suffice it to say that attitudes like yours are why it is difficult for women to be promoted or hired for executive positions.  Preconceived - and erroneous - bias prevents women from having an equal chance.  It's why at my consulting and Director level positions I had to work twice as hard and many more hours, yet still lose out on promotions and raises to men with lesser skills and work ethic.

But Milee, this isn't a "preconceived" or "erroneous" bias, it's born out by research and data.

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

"In spite of its narrowing, the gender pay gap persists. Why is this? In our survey, women were more likely to say they had taken career interruptions to care for their family. And research has shown that these types of interruptions can have an impact on long-term earnings. Roughly four-in-ten mothers say they have taken a significant amount of time off from work (39%) or reduced their work hours (42%) to care for a child or other family member. Roughly a quarter (27%) say they have quit work altogether to take care of these familial responsibilities. (Fewer men say the same. For example, just 24% of fathers say they have taken a significant amount of time off to care for a child or other family member.)"

Here's some additional statistics from the bureau of labor statistics.  

www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm

In total, women, on average, work almost 1 hour less per day than men in the workforce.  8.1 hours vs. 7.3

I'm sorry you faced gender discrimination.  It's awful, and I never said it doesn't exist but I'm speaking on a macro scale here.  On average, women work fewer hours and take more interruptions for their career.  But the thinking seems to be this shouldn't matter, that women should be unilaterally equal to men in managerial positions.

The point I'm trying to make is, women want equal pay for equal work, but on a macro level, women are putting in fewer hours and taking more interruptions for their career.  So it stands to reason that men will get more promotions and bigger raises.  

[milee]

Nov 8, 2015 10:20:24 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Nov 8, 2015 9:54:53 GMT -5 milee said:

The sentiments you express here are the exact problem.

I will hold off on writing a response because until I cool off a bit, what I write might get me banned. Suffice it to say that attitudes like yours are why it is difficult for women to be promoted or hired for executive positions.  Preconceived - and erroneous - bias prevents women from having an equal chance.  It's why at my consulting and Director level positions I had to work twice as hard and many more hours, yet still lose out on promotions and raises to men with lesser skills and work ethic.

But Milee, this isn't a "preconceived" or "erroneous" bias, it's born out by research and data.

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

"In spite of its narrowing, the gender pay gap persists. Why is this? In our survey, women were more likely to say they had taken career interruptions to care for their family. And research has shown that these types of interruptions can have an impact on long-term earnings. Roughly four-in-ten mothers say they have taken a significant amount of time off from work (39%) or reduced their work hours (42%) to care for a child or other family member. Roughly a quarter (27%) say they have quit work altogether to take care of these familial responsibilities. (Fewer men say the same. For example, just 24% of fathers say they have taken a significant amount of time off to care for a child or other family member.)"

Here's some additional statistics from the bureau of labor statistics.  

www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm

In total, women, on average, work almost 1 hour less per day than men in the workforce.  8.1 hours vs. 7.3

I'm sorry you faced gender discrimination.  It's awful, but I'm speaking on a macro scale here.  On average, women work fewer hours and take more interruptions for their career.  But the thinking seems to be this shouldn't matter, that women should be unilaterally equal to men in managerial positions.

The point I'm trying to make is, women want equal pay for equal work, but on a macro level, women are putting in fewer hours and taking more interruptions for their career.  So it stands to reason that men will get more promotions and bigger raises.  

As a percent of the population more black people are in prison than white people.  It's a fact.  Does that fact mean that we can conclude that all black people are criminals and should not be hired or promoted?

As a percent of the population many more men than women commit violent crimes and are in prison.  It's a fact.  Does that fact mean that we can conclude that men are dangerous and should not be hired or promoted?

And if you haven't gotten the point yet - you cannot generalize characteristics across an entire group, even if significant portions of that group exhibit similarities.  That's the heart of bias and discrimination.  What you are expressing is biased and discriminatory, even if there are facts that imply that your assumptions are correct for some of the group you're discriminating against.

[emma1420]

Nov 8, 2015 10:20:24 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Nov 8, 2015 9:54:53 GMT -5 milee said:

The sentiments you express here are the exact problem.

I will hold off on writing a response because until I cool off a bit, what I write might get me banned. Suffice it to say that attitudes like yours are why it is difficult for women to be promoted or hired for executive positions.  Preconceived - and erroneous - bias prevents women from having an equal chance.  It's why at my consulting and Director level positions I had to work twice as hard and many more hours, yet still lose out on promotions and raises to men with lesser skills and work ethic.

But Milee, this isn't a "preconceived" or "erroneous" bias, it's born out by research and data.

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

"In spite of its narrowing, the gender pay gap persists. Why is this? In our survey, women were more likely to say they had taken career interruptions to care for their family. And research has shown that these types of interruptions can have an impact on long-term earnings. Roughly four-in-ten mothers say they have taken a significant amount of time off from work (39%) or reduced their work hours (42%) to care for a child or other family member. Roughly a quarter (27%) say they have quit work altogether to take care of these familial responsibilities. (Fewer men say the same. For example, just 24% of fathers say they have taken a significant amount of time off to care for a child or other family member.)"

Here's some additional statistics from the bureau of labor statistics.  

www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm

In total, women, on average, work almost 1 hour less per day than men in the workforce.  8.1 hours vs. 7.3

I'm sorry you faced gender discrimination.  It's awful, and I never said it doesn't exist but I'm speaking on a macro scale here.  On average, women work fewer hours and take more interruptions for their career.  But the thinking seems to be this shouldn't matter, that women should be unilaterally equal to men in managerial positions.

The point I'm trying to make is, women want equal pay for equal work, but on a macro level, women are putting in fewer hours and taking more interruptions for their career.  So it stands to reason that men will get more promotions and bigger raises.  

The question I would have is how many women want to take those career interruptions or work fewer hours?  And why should all women be discriminated against because other women take time off and may work less hours?

i have also found that in some places that I have worked that women don't get the opportunities to work more or get the big projects because they are women, not because they aren't competent.  And, I feel like I do have to work harder and be better than some of my male counterparts in order to advance, and so does my female boss.

[milee]

You're also forgetting the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

If women are already being discriminated against and being paid less for similar work, doesn't it stand to reason that they might throw up their hands and say, "Fine, if one of us has to take time off to care for _________, it might as well be me since I'm already making less money, have fewer opportunities and everybody already penalizes me by assuming I will." In other words, if you aren't going to be promoted regardless of what you do because the guy in charge assumes you're a ticking time bomb just waiting to ______, you might as well be the one in the couple that takes that role on.

You're assuming that women's actions are driving the difference in pay. I think in many professional positions, it's the opposite. The women get frustrated with already being penalized by the assumption that they will do those things and after a while, in disgust that no matter how hard they work they're still perceived as working less, they give up and do something else.

Your biased assumptions are a self-fulfilling prophecy. You assume something, based on those (often erroneous) assumptions you treat women a certain way and after a while the women conform to those expectations because of your treatment.

[Bonny]

Phoenix,

It's a hot button for me too. After giving my mother a very hard time about joining the workforce (I won't get into how bad it got) within two years my mother was making more money than my father. She worked VERY hard and was easily putting in 60+ hours a week. When the Federal Government didn't renew the contract my father was working on (they thought they could do it in-house) he turned down the transfer back to the East Coast. He tried getting into the same business as my mother (real estate) and couldn't cut it. He was about 40 (1976) and never made more than about $20k after that.

Do you think he helped out around the house with cooking or cleaning? No, because that was "womens' work and it got dumped on me. Worse yet he would actively encourage my brother and he to gang up on me and tell me what a terrible cook I was because I had a limited repertoire of meals. Sorry but I was attending school (gifted program) on a sports team and working outside the house and didn't have hours to research new and exciting meals. Did he or my brother step up to the plate and help out? Nope! I finally had enough and quit. That led to more family and financial dysfunction with lots of prepared foods and eating out.

I will NEVER understand that attitude and understand why many women are so VERY angry.

[Bonny]

Nov 8, 2015 10:33:25 GMT -5 milee said:

You're also forgetting the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

If women are already being discriminated against and being paid less for similar work, doesn't it stand to reason that they might throw up their hands and say, "Fine, if one of us has to take time off to care for _________, it might as well be me since I'm already making less money, have fewer opportunities and everybody already penalizes me by assuming I will." In other words, if you aren't going to be promoted regardless of what you do because the guy in charge assumes you're a ticking time bomb just waiting to ______, you might as well be the one in the couple that takes that role on.

You're assuming that women's actions are driving the difference in pay. I think in many professional positions, it's the opposite. The women get frustrated with already being penalized by the assumption that they will do those things and after a while, in disgust that no matter how hard they work they're still perceived as working less, they give up and do something else.

Your biased assumptions are a self-fulfilling prophecy. You assume something, based on those (often erroneous) assumptions you treat women a certain way and after a while the women conform to those expectations because of your treatment.

I didn't see your post before I posted mine.

Well said Milee!

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Phoenix84, please step back for a moment and try to understand, not agree, but understand what Milee and I are saying. 
Yes, you have statistics. Statistics are easily manipulated and correlation and causation are often ignore simply to support the dominant party's opinion. Go back and read my original response. You have white privilege (as do I), and it is difficult for a white male to understand the lack of opportunity provided to females and non-white males. 

[MJ2.0]

Phoenix, If you're still trying to find a SO I'm gonna need you to never express any of those views to any prospect - especially if she is a smart, independent, and career driven woman. You need a nice girl who just wants to please her man and pop out babies.

[MJ2.0]

Nov 8, 2015 11:59:19 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Phoenix84, please step back for a moment and try to understand, not agree, but understand what Milee and I are saying. 
Yes, you have statistics. Statistics are easily manipulated and correlation and causation are often ignore simply to support the dominant party's opinion. Go back and read my original response. You have white privilege (as do I), and it is difficult for a white male to understand the lack of opportunity provided to females and non-white males. 

Don't say that! Now you'll look like you're pulling the gender card!!!!

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Nov 8, 2015 12:06:55 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

Phoenix, If you're still trying to find a SO I'm gonna need you to never express any of those views to any prospect - especially if she is a smart, independent, and career driven woman. You need a nice girl who just wants to please her man and pop out babies.

I had this thought too!

[TheHaitian]

Phoenix I will just say in the words of Voila Davis:

"You cannot win an Emmy for roles that are simply not there. "

A woman or a black woman/man (any minority you choose) cannot get an executive position or any position of power if the people making the decision already had their mind made up what physical attributes the executive should have (penis and white).

[TheHaitian]

Also looking at the Prime Minister picks and reading their bio; He did not just pick them because they were women or a minority... They also happen to be more than qualified to do the job!

So maybe what it means by it being 2015 is let's pick the best and most qualified person to do the job wether they are male/female/ minority/ gay or lesbian etc.

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2015 22:37:27 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Nov 7, 2015 22:14:17 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Some people ARE currently more equal than others. This is an attempt to correct that.

So, I take it you believe in the quota system?

Yes. I know the ones that lose their privilege because of steps like this always freak out, but too bad. The PM had no problem finding more than enough well qualified women to fill the positions. The question isn't why did he do it now, it is why wasn't it happening before?

[Deleted]

I believe that people should be hired/promoted on their merit and character, not what color their skin is or what's in their pants.

So why do you oppose attempts to change the system to one where that happens instead of one where the white guy gets the job? You seem to be okay with the unofficial quota system that favours the men.