Gender Quotas

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Wolk, Nov 8, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. What is your stance on gender quotas, and why?
    For example: "50% of the leading positions in our company have to be held by (fe)males".
    Please respect each other.

    Personally, I dislike them on principle, as I opine that who the individual (gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.) is should not matter as long as they perform creditably (this is commonly described as equal opportunity). In my opinion, no gender is structurally disadvantaged (in western countries), though individuals of either sex may - and let me stress this - MAY be inherently better at certain tasks than the other, see Gender 101 by @Brovo. I also disagree with the notion that each job needs to have an equal representation of sexes, as sexual dimorphism exists and thus interests may differ. For example, I'm in IT and there's just one female in a group of about 20 - why? She doesn't get it worse or anything, she even holds a representative role. Though in our current society, women just seem less interested in IT than men, despite nationwide efforts to get women interested in male-dominated fields. Perhaps this will change over time, and if so, that's fine - but forcing it is too much for me.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Quotas suck, but I understand the reasoning behind them. We need to attack the issues behind the reason for quotas, and not quotas in and of themselves. Then we'll see it fixed.

    Meanwhile, I'm of the stance that positions of skill or power, in any field, should go to those most qualified. Pure and simple.

    And that's all I got to say about that.
     
    • Love Love x 1
    • Thank Thank x 1
  3. I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
    So no I don't support quotas.

    Given the timing of this though I'm assuming you're asking because of Trudeau's recent move?
    If so, that's possibly the one of a few exceptions to the rule, because it's government positions meant to represent the people.
    But even then he made sure everyone was skilled and qualified for the jobs.

    Other exception I'd say is Acting.
    And even then it's not so much a quota, but certain characters require a certain kind of actor.
    Black character needs a black actor, female character needs a female actor etc.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. I'd think that either sex can represent the other as well, as long as the matter is not gendered (and even so, some people may be capable to do it still). If there is a gendered matter, perhaps it'd be better to ask specialists for the gender that the matter affects.

    The latter point falls under qualification for me. Black actors are inherently good at looking black.
     
  5. True, but one could argue that since they're responsible for laws that effect the nation you want the government to be able to understand/relate.
    Like say a law was being passed related to pregnancy, you'd probably want some of the people be able to relate to that.

    Though, honestly? That's just me somewhat playing devil's advocate.
    I personally don't care too much about keeping a certain balance on there, as long as people are capable and can understand the people/have basic empathy skills.
    It's a nice bonus when the ratio's balance out, but it's not the most important thing either.
     
    #5 Gwazi Magnum, Nov 8, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2015
  6. I can see both sides. On one hand, I think it's wrong to say to anybody "Sorry, but you have the wrong genitalia we're looking for at the moment."

    On the other, you have shit like the Academy Awards or film ratings board where nearly all of them are elderly men and it's like a geriatric version of a boy's treehouse that has a sign saying, "No girls allowed".

    Quotas in general suck, but better representation is needed in a lot of places.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Can the woman do the work better than her male counterparts? Cool. Give her the job.

    Can the woman NOT do the work equal to her male counterparts? Nah. Sorry.

    Don't see women wanting equal representation in construction or hard labor jobs though.
     
    #7 Windsong, Nov 8, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2015
  8. In short, equality of opportunity and meritocracy > equality of outcome and quotas.
     
    • Nice execution! Nice execution! x 1
  9. Trigger Warning
    [​IMG]

    Is joke komrad, don't be mad.


    Okay, so, since my guide was cited, and I was pinged to this thread, I may as well give a reply. A nice, lengthy, overly wordy reply. Before I do, though, I need to quickly address something here.
    This guide was specifically written with role plays in mind, and does not properly address the nuances of the real world as a result. The biological facts represented in that guide do apply to the real world, but the psychological aspects a little less so. It's also extraordinarily broad in that it applies to all men and all women in an extremely dehumanizing, statistical sense of things. Men tend to be stronger, so the guide was written to address that fact, disregarding any individual women who may achieve a level of strength equal to or greater than the average human male. In essence: I wrote a collectivist's wet dream, and an individualist's nightmare.

    In a fiction, this is okay. The only objective of a story is to reasonably approximate a sufficient number of real world conditions in as rapid a period of time as possible with as few words as possible that broad assumptions are more than just acceptable: They're outright tools. Take tropes, for instance. All tropes are vast generalizations of cultures, religions, races (both species and ethnicity), genders, societal roles, professions, and so on. When we're talking about the real world however, that should be reversed. An individual should always be held sacrosanct above a collective, because it is utterly impossible (and I'd argue extremely immoral) to try and disregard the individual experiences of people... To put their societal value, rights, and freedoms, as only equitable to whatever their perceived "class" is based on physical, uncontrollable circumstances of birth, rather than life choices.

    Now that I've addressed my guide and put it into context, I can get on-point.

    Gender Quotas are often the case of "good intentions; poor execution." Remember the earlier point, that I think that individuals should always be held sacrosanct above collectives. There are a number of issues with gender quotas, and I'll just list them below.

    They strip away individual choice: When you attempt to enforce a paradigm based not on individual choices, but based upon perceived injustices based solely on a differentiated statistic, you dehumanize both men and women in the equation. Especially women, as though their individual choices and desires have no meaning or purpose if they don't serve "the greater good" as it were. As an example, take a look at the ratio of engineering degrees taken by women. (You can find more NSF statistics here for those of you who love numbers.) No post-secondary educational facility in the first world worth anything whatsoever is going to bar women from taking engineering courses. Yet, women, in spite of taking home around 60% of all degrees each year, only account for 18.4% of all engineering degrees. Nothing stops them from entering engineering, they simply choose not to. Atop that, it's not like women are stupid and not capable of doing S&E courses: They dominate psychology, and they've edged out over men in biological and agricultural sciences.

    The better question to ask here is "why aren't women taking engineering courses?" What disinterests them about it? What do they want, what do they care about? I'm not going to be a presumptuous dipshit and presume that all women who don't take S&E courses are programmed by the patriarchy: That's dehumanizing all women who disagree into mindless automatons with no free will. At the same time, I'm not going to assume that "dem wimenz just cant cuz' dey' belong in the keetchenz makin' me sammiches, hurr hurr hurr" because there are so many fucking examples against that (say, every woman who is an engineer), that position is both untenable and insane.

    So, let's see. Women who have all the choice, and who outnumber men, simply choose not to take some fields of education. Which brings me to my second point.

    How the fuck do you properly enforce this in some cases?: Look at engineering again. It's fairly plain and obvious that most women don't have an interest in it, for whatever reason. (Again, I'm not going to assume I can read the minds of millions of women. I'm not a dipshit like that.) So... Are you going to force more women into taking engineering courses? Against their will? So that you can empower women into taking more advantageous and better paying careers? Because, if not, how the fuck do you propose fixing a gender gap that significant? Even when women are encouraged into going into the sciences, they rarely pick engineering. It's just not one of their goddamn interests, again, for whatever reason, I'm not going to pretend to know how all women think.

    This isn't even getting into the fact that it dehumanizes all men, and all women, based solely on perceived injustices based on individual fucking choices. This isn't even getting into the fact that it first requires that an all powerful but invisible patriarchy exists which is capable of brainwashing 95% of the population, except those who have gender studies degrees. This isn't even getting into the fact that it would discriminate against you based solely on your sex or race, and would inevitable create a second class citizen of people based on profession. ("Oh, John, I know you've worked with this company for 10 years, but, we have to fire you now, because Tammy just popped out of college, and our female quotas aren't being met. So Fuck You, John.") It doesn't even get into the fact that the reason a lot of careers end up male dominated is because a lot of women choose of their own volition to stay home and raise kids. It doesn't allow any other cultures or beliefs to exist which do not conform to this diversification ideal, even if all participants in said belief are willing.

    Seriously, there are so many things wrong with this point that it could spiral off and spawn a half a dozen debates by itself. I'll just leave this point where it is, though, as I'm sure someone will reply with "but this is a problem that must be fixed!" Which brings me to my next point.

    Is this even really a problem?: I mean, before I get pitchfork'd into oblivion, please hear me out. Every individual person has their own culture and beliefs, right? The basis of diversity, of multiculturalism, is to build a society upon which as many differing beliefs can coexist as possible without violating the basic individual rights we all share, right? Well, each culture and belief has its own values. Some cultures value some things more than other cultures. It's often epitomized as "one man's trash is another man's treasure." If women tend to prefer work that pays less, why should you give a fuck? Let them have their own lives and their choices. Women tend to dominate the education fields, especially as teachers. Teachers don't get paid well, they're overworked quite a bit. They often get unpaid hours marking coursework at home. What if they happen to enjoy most of this, or feel compelled to do it out of a sense of obligation? What if they, and their personal beliefs, don't mind sacrificing a CEO position so they can work a job they actually feel passionate for?

    What if, on some level, men and women are different, and have different values as a result? What if, on some level, say, biological, there can be observable statistical curves that exist as a result of what sort of chemicals course through your mind?

    Individualistically, women and men should be allowed the same opportunities. Ideally, they should be allowed to pursue whatever it is most interests them. If that means most women become nurses, and teachers, and psychologists, and most men become construction workers, and doctors, and businessmen, is that truly evil? Is that really wrong, or just an expression of nature? We're all born differently, we're all born taller, or shorter. White, or black. Man, or woman. Straight, or gay. We all hold beliefs that can vary from the far communistic left, to the lasseiz-faire right. From worshiping God five times a day, to holding a loathing for a false idol. We're all born curious, or cautious. Inclined to happiness, or sorrow. With a desire to be social, or left alone. To be famous, or quiet. To be rich in wealth, or rich in pleasure, or rich in divinity, or rich in wisdom, or rich in numerous other values.

    We're all gloriously different from each other, in a thousand different ways. Some you're born with and can't change, some you adopt later on in life, and which can always be changed. So long as an individual--man or woman, white or black, tall or short, strong or weak, happy or sad, sociable or a loner, left wing or right wing, religious or irreligious--can pursue what we each find individually valuable, only impeded by the obstacles of effort and knowledge, is there anything wrong? There are women who are businessmen, women who are doctors, women who are politicians. Hell, one of Great Britain's most (in)famous prime ministers was a woman. There are female engineers. At least 18.4% of all engineering degrees are handed out to women, who chose against the statistical curve to pursue their own individual interests and desires.

    At the end of the day, life is nuances. You can't create equality by forcing everyone to be the same: Not all women want to be engineers. Not all women want to be doctors, or teachers, or lawyers, or politicians, or construction workers, or soldiers, or police officers, or numerous other professions. Women have their own individual choices, and trying to take that away from them so that you can "improve" their lives via the singular value of wealth, strips them of any and all other potential values. Some women want to be stay at home mothers. Some women want to raise children, and spend their lives doing everything they can to give their children everything they need to succeed at life. Are you going to tell those women that they're all wrong? All brainwashed by the patriarchy? That their individual values have no meaning because they fail to generate profit?

    Is that really what we want to build gender equality upon? I don't think so. Let women choose to be who they want to be, and if what they choose makes less money than what most men pursue, that's their choice. Their choice. They're not retarded, they're not children, and they're not mentally lesser to men: They're capable of seeing how much money they'll make between two careers, and choosing the one that interests them most, even if it doesn't pay them as much as the other career would have.

    I'm likely going to get into the security industry. Security doesn't pay well at most levels, but it interests me. That's all that matters to me. It's all that should matter to anyone who takes any career: Does it interest you? Does it drive your passions? If it does, fuck the naysayers, pursue it. If society steps in the way because of your physical qualities (gender, race, height, et cetera), scream to the world that you won't back down. Not "as a woman", but as "Samantha", or as "Tammy", or as "Gloria", or whatever name you legally identify yourself by. If society truly stops you from being an engineer because you're a woman, I'll stand by you every time as an individual and tell society to stop fucking you over for that.

    Because we're all different.

    No amount of gender quotas will magically turn us all into a grey goo that can all agree on everything.

    Equality is not about equity, it's about opportunity.

    The sooner we can hammer this into people, the sooner we can tackle actually fucked up shit, and not byproducts of individual choice.
     
    • Love Love x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  10. I always tell this little tale when gender equality in the workplace comes up:

    I knew a buddy that worked in the motorpool in the Army. Two-man teams on most every job. Most of it was skilled work, but there was a good bit of hard work involved. Hard work meaning, lifting a goddamn several hundred pound engine block out of a truck or hummvee using a chain pullee. Usually you had your buddy there with you to help you get the damn thing in or out, so ultimately it wasn't that bad.

    That is, unless you worked with the chick that decided she wanted to be a mechanic in the Army.

    Now, I'm not saying chicks shouldn't be mechanics, or mechanics in the Army. But when she can't contribute to lifting that goddamn engine block out of the vehicle in any way, and has her buddy work that thing solo? Or lifting any large piece of equipment for that matter? Everyone hated working with her. Not because she wasn't skilled enough necessarily, but because she couldn't do half the work. It made their job harder for no reason.



    The moral of the story is, if a woman, or a black person, or anybody can do the damned work, let 'em. But if they can't: fuck off!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. If you gonna do hard labor style work, you gotta have the strength. YOu'd think she'd hit the weights for it...
     
  12. You think. Apparently she could do the work and had the hands, but she just couldn't haul or lift jack shit. And made no attempt to fix it. And Army, so nothing got done.
     
  13. Now if only we could convince the screeching minority of this position. Unfortunately they'd probably just accuse us of perpetuating the patriarchy. Sigh.
     
  14. *Sighs.*

    Obviously, gender quotas are stupid. I don't think anyone will passionately debate to the contrary with any authority.

    So, here's the thing. In my house, I made a poster for Rules of the Sink and put it up on the kitchen wall. The rules partly revolve around where dishes can and cannot go, but also include the use of a plastic tub that is sitting in front of the sink. Instead of piling dirty dishes up in the sink, the rule is to put them in the tub... and if the tub is full, well, time to wash dishes. This is obviously a really stupid, immature, lazy thing. People should just wash dishes in the first place. But it keeps the sink clear and will hopefully eventually encourage proper dishwashing habits.

    To quote the last lines of the poster: "THE TUB IS REALLY LAME, GUYS. LET’S BE PEOPLE WHO DON’T NEED A TUB."

    These quotas are kind of like that. They're patronizing, unfair, and shouldn't even have to exist. But if we live in a world where people insist on not hiring women or are going to have a shitty attitude about them, then those people might have to get stuck with a tub quota.

    As to why women pursue some fields more than other: It's not true that women are all brainwashed by the patriarchy, of course. But there are societal pressures and lenses through which a woman entering one field or another are viewed. Some fields are easier, socially speaking, for women to go into- whether it be because of the "old boys" mentality of that field, or the cultural perception as a whole (because girls aren't good at math, rite) or blah-blah-blah. Some women can stonewall that shit, others can't. On the chance that they're even interested in the first place, they then have to have the ability, and THEN they have to get the gumption to do it, and THEN they have to beat out all the boys and face resistance from the people who don't think she'll last or don't want her to. That's a few extra hurdles to get past. I couldn't even deal with the fairly normal pressures of college so I'm not going to belittle anyone who couldn't stick it through all that. Mad props to anyone who can.

    Also, @Windsong that's bullshit. I know women who have gone into construction and factory labor who WANTED TO BE THERE and I know all about the crap they deal with from their coworkers. And that crap has little to nothing to do with their actual job performance. Do you have hard evidence that NO women or even MOST women don't want women to have equal shots at manual labor jobs, or are you spouting opinions with no real basis?
     
    • You Get a Cookie You Get a Cookie x 3
  15. Except nobody starves to death if they don't do the dishes in your house. Also, nobody gets paid to wash the dishes in your house. Also, doing the dishes does not determine whether or not you can even live in a house. At least, I'm assuming this. So it's very different between "rules of house etiquette" and "rules of whether or not you can acquire the profession of choice so you can afford to have a house to have etiquette in." :ferret:
    Except it's already illegal to discriminate in hiring practices based on gender or race, and has been since the 60's in the US. (Since the 70's in Canada.) That's about half a century now. You can't hammer down a social value any harder than emboldening in law. Unless, of course, one wants to start throwing away concepts like meritocracy and presumption of innocence. However, I do not want to live in that world.

    'Tis better to assume that if a woman did not get a job, that she was simply either not qualified or one of her peers was more qualified, than to automatically assume that there must be malicious intent involved. Especially since thousands of living, breathing examples in every supposed "sexist career" spits in the face of such a theory.
    Some people can stonewall pressure, others can't. That's life in a nutshell.
    So... Like any career for anyone? You have to have the ability, have the determination to overcome all the obstacles in the way of acquiring it, then beat out all your potential competitors for various job positions. This also still assumes there is a conspiracy on the level of tens of thousands to not hire women in each and every career where women do not equal men in terms of employment numbers. A conspiracy which is suspiciously silent and incredibly well constructed, at least on the level of the fake moon landings. Otherwise, failing to have a conspiracy theory, you have to believe in a world where tens of thousands of employers can be blatantly sexist and not get slapped by the law of the land and the massively dissenting public opinion toward sexism. :ferret:
    Mad props to anyone who can get through any sort of dramatic pressure to achieve a career in a field where they'll be a minority. On the individual level. Because I can't pretend to know what the mindset of all women or all men is.
    I believe he's referencing the fact that when collectivist feminists go on a rant (which is all the time), they often talk about how women don't equal men only in high paying, rather comfortable careers. Think CEO's, for instance. They never appear to complain about how men dominate industries like garbage collection. I've yet to see an article or argument get screamed at into the mainstream about feminists wanting more female garbage collectors. Never seen it. Not once. If you can happen to find one that isn't some extremely obscure blog, I'd appreciate that.

    EDIT

    As a quick rebuttal (for the sake of devil's advocacy on my part) about "women being pressured into X and Y", everyone is. Everyone. Men, and women. Religious, and irreligious. Right wing, and left wing. So on and so forth. Social pressures are a normal part of life. Hell, even feminism itself is a social pressure group. Its primary (and perhaps only) weapon is attempting to convince people of its points of view through social pressure. So... This falls under the "I'm not even sure this is wrong" category. So long as it's not obviously sexist. Like telling a woman she can't be a doctor because "hurr durr wimenz cant maths" is obviously sexist, for example.
     
    #15 Brovo, Nov 8, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thank Thank x 1
  16. Er, the point wasn't about whether washing dishes is the same as holding a career. It was an example of how forcing hands on an issue is sometimes necessary to achieve a desired outcome.

    Anywho, I'm not actually advocating for gender quotas. Just offering an explanation for the logic behind them.

    I also feel like you're putting words into my mouth here. Just because a woman doesn't get a job definitely doesn't mean she was passed over due to her gender, and I definitely don't assume that until it's proven otherwise. That's crazy. o___o However, it is true that people are biased to varying levels and it does contribute to both the way that women approach careers and the way people respond to these women. And no, you can't change that via law. All you can do is try to prevent that discrimination from occurring and try to educate society, then hope for social change to progress.

    I'm also not claiming there's any kind of conspiracy. Again, that's nuts. I'm talking about way more subtle cultural nuances (note: NOT NECESSARILY OVERT SEXISM) and obviously the individuals who happen to hold power and be assholes.

    And yes, everyone has those hurdles to face in their career. But you can't seriously claim that men encounter the same kind of adversity that women face or you have not paid any attention to your female coworkers. o__o Or history. Sure, it's less, but it's not GONE. (But yes, props to anyone who works hard for their career? Duh?)

    And why would anyone want or need to advocate for more people in jobs that don't pay well? Ideally, everyone wants to get a job that they can make a living off of and be successful in. Of course, garbage workers and other menial jobs should definitely get better pay, but that's another issue. (Although garbage workers make decent pay compared to say, retail or food service.)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Ja. I noticed the attempt at explaining the logic behind them in spite of your disagreement with the position I'm fine with that. I was simply rebutting it. :ferret:
    I'm using the word "you" in the generalized sense of whoever is reading, not really "you" as in Ozzie Chanter. "You" as in Ozzie Chanter are a well adjusted individual who happens to have differing values to my own, as I've mentioned in past discussions. Sorry, that didn't seem to be conveyed properly on my part. I won't really feign to know what you believe until you come out and state it, which, you have. You've stated you disagree with gender quotas, so we're on the same side.

    I'm mostly just shootin' the shit with you. Devil's advocacy and all that. Call it "attempting to increase the amount of stuff I know by discussing it with someone I think is smart."
    I agree completely.
    True. If I was a male teacher accused of rape, that would instantly terminate my career without due process, even if said accuser later rescinded it.

    There's pressure on both sides of the coin that has to be overcome. My comment is more that I'm not going to assume what life a man or a woman has had that has driven them to that point. Granted, a woman could have been told she can't ever be an astronaut, and thus she chose to be a teacher instead. Or, that woman had a vague interest in being an astronaut, recoiled when she saw the work involved, and chose to pursue something more in line with her interests, and became a teacher. Or, that woman never really had an interest in being an astronaut, and pursued becoming a teacher. Or, because of her own personal values and ethics, she has a deeply vested interest in seeing children's lives improve, and thus chooses a career related to child development.

    I can't assume anything about their life until they come out and say it. I prefer cases to be dealt with on an individualistic basis. Ergo, I agree with you about education, for example. Electives, advertisement campaigns, so on. I disagree with using gender quotas, because they don't address the individual, they only broadly club a perceived problem to death, and any individuals negatively affected as a result are irrelevant.

    Basically, it's the mindset, if you get what I mean. I can't and won't assume that women don't enter engineering courses because of "underlying subtle societal pressures" unless it's somehow proven, and that's admittedly a very difficult thing to prove. Instead, a better question to ask is "why don't you enter engineering courses?" Asking individuals that question. Especially individuals who pursue degrees that don't pay off well in the end, like gender studies, or philosophy: Why not an S&E degree? Why not engineering, why not sociology? Why not finance? :ferret:
     
    • You Get a Cookie You Get a Cookie x 1
  18. Gotcha dude. You might need to work on how you approach your general "you"s and voicing your opinions, because your tone often sounds like you're jumping on the person you're responding to. It might help avoid the misunderstandings. (The quoting contributes to the appearance of individualized arguments, I think.)

    And yeah, males have the pretty harsh reality of rape accusations destroying their career (and life in general). That is definitely a male-majority problem, and it's a severe one. This is another example of how gender issues in society are fucking people over.

    By the way, I don't assume that all women don't enter those careers due to social pressures. I just believe that it is a factor. I believe that more research should be done to answer that question of "Why?", absolutely. I also don't think that lower-paying jobs are less valuable, and in some cases it is a positive that women might tend to gravitate toward certain careers- because there is value in being a child development therapist, for example. I also think it would be good if men tended toward those same careers.

    Honestly, the way that society values certain jobs versus others is kinda fucked in general in a way that has little to do with gender tradition.

    Another point: Women who cry sexism when they're passed over for a job in order to pursue a lawsuit are probably sometimes just moneygrubbing opportunists, and I hate that. It makes it harder for the women who are actually encountering discrimination to be taken seriously. It's similar to the women who falsely accuse men of rape; they make it that much harder for actual rape victims to come forward. But on the other hand, there will also always be the people who claim that firing or not hiring a woman was legitimate to excuse their sexism, just as there will always be men who claim that their victim is lying or consented to the assault. It's a tricky, messy thing and it's not always possible to figure out for sure who was telling the truth. There's not really a good solution for this.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. @Brovo Yeah, sorry. Should've clarified that myself.
     
  20. It'd be nice to give the men and women who do succeed in fields typically dominated by the opposite sex a little extra attention for the sake having role models for those insecure in their chosen career path. Look at this awesome and brave female astronaut. Look at this great and caring male nurse. I mean it can be pretty intimidating to enter a field where most of your peers are of the opposite sex for the first time, so for those who would be scared away it'd be nice to see their aspiration take a more concrete form; ie that role model.

    Other than that, though, I'm just another echo in the chamber. I just find it very unfortunate. Why must we hold our egos and narratives higher than feelings and desires of the people we claim to be fighting for?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.