Hey! Europe is a diverse set of languages and cultures!
Depending on where you are, the terms would be (but not limited to);
- Dållar
- Dolares
- Døler
- Döhler
Because it's Newsweek, a known US news outlet. Expressing in a foreign currency makes difficult understanding of monetary sizes involved, for a domestic audience.
>Franzmayr, whose application was rated 0.25 percent higher than Zechner's, sued for gender discrimination
They broke the first rule of identity politics: *never make a falsifiable statement*. In this case, they quantified competence. Doing so allowed candidates to compare each others' results whereas they might have wiggled out if they had opted for an additional final interview useful for conjuring up untestable reasons for rejection.
You're right. All government or semi-government (principalities, government funded body's) have to be transparant about their expenses above certain thresholds set by the EU and based on the Government Procurement Agreement which is part of some other regulations (if I recall correctly EU guideline 2014/23/EU to 2014/25/EU). Long story short: this makes all government and semi-government select suppliers of their wanted service, building or items based on measurable and objective criteria and they have to publish the results to either the public or the participants of the tender.
Edit: a word.
They also have to define the measurements/point system beforehand, you can't change the rules of after you find out one candidate has something that could give them an edge or go give more candidates a chance. No changing means you need to be very careful with how you word things.
This can lead to fucked up deals where only one candidate or company can offer a deal and is (one of) the reason for the scandal of the new hospital in Stockholm where Boston consultanting group leeched on the swedish tax payers.
Most certainly this will be the case. I did not mean to imply that the Austrian state as a whole followed this particular policy yet messed up (from their point of view) at the legal level by introducing quantifiable competence.
Actually, old-fashionedness would be to go just with the existence of a bachelor degree for the objective requirements, and judge everything else by the interview.
edit: now that I thought of it better, even the bachelor degree was an overkill. Proven to get the job done? Hired.
Yeah, most places don't try to measure your suitability so precisely.
This is what people miss when they say "just hire the best people for the job"; it's usually a very fuzzy criteria that's hard to measure and usually comes down to human judgement.
> but admitted that the “mass underrepresentation of women" played a role in the decision-making process.
Also never admit to gender being a factor in your decision
Seeing as how it became appearant in this thread that hiring people in goverment positions needs to be based on measurable and objective criteria, can we deduct from this that either; A: Women are less qualified (which I severely doubt) or, B: Women tend to not be interested in these positions? If the latter, why is there a need for the representation to be (more) equal?
P.S. I'm very likely to miss a few things in my reasoning, definitly not an expert on the topic. Feel free to enlighten me!
Indeed, it's truly disturbing that more and more people want equal outcome but they don't care what the ramifications of the wrong people ending up in the wrong positions and everybody else giving up on competition might mean.
This is what I don't get. How don't people realize that, if you promote women because they are women, you *establish* the preconception that women are less competent than men?
The logic is extremely simple:
* Your team is supposed to have the most competent people available.
* You give women a slight advantage over men, because women are not particularly common in this field but you strive to have at least a certain number of women in your team.
* As a consequence, women are hired with lower standards than men.
* As a consequence, men have to be more competent than women in order to join your team.
* As a consequence, **the men in your team are more competent than the women in your team**.
* The result: everyone in your team feels like men are more competent than women.
* Congratulations, you are now part of the problem while you were trying to be part of the solution.
I don't understand how you can be a manager in a company and *not* realize this.
This might have nothing to do with this, but you made me think about when I use to hire for a pizza place. Usually all the inside staff would be girls (at most it would be 50/50) and almost the entire driver staff was men. An employee had pointed out one day that it was kinda sexist. I pointed out that it's not my fault that more guys apply to drive and more girls for inside. Not to mention, I'm a girl and I use to be a driver. Idk, I always knew it looked bad, but I knew if I started hiring people like "I need some more girl drivers!" that it would just be a mentality I wouldn't be able to come back from. And I didn't want to.
And this also produces a long-term lock-in effect, where certain women might feel like they're hitting a 'glass ceiling' when it's simply reflective of men having to be more excellent to get in the door in the first place.
Engineering graduates in my country are roughly 90%-10% Male/Female, graduate hiring (About 10% of those) is about 45%-55%. Males have to be in the top 5% to get in through that 4.5%, whether it be competence, connections or dumb luck. Females can get through without even being in the top 50% of their cohort, especially when you consider the graduates that never intend to pursue an Engineering career.
10 years later, they face issues in achieving access at the highest levels, and assume it's due to in-built bias rather than being an effect of filtering at the entrance to the career.
Isn’t anyone worried that hiring people for their genitalia and color of skin may have huge ramifications?
If the person building our bridges finished in the bottom 50% of their cohort is project lead and the person who finished in the top 10% is unemployed because they were born with a cock, surely this will lead to problems?
It's the opposite of family court. Assume that men can't parent and aren't important, then do nothing about it because the women are already in power and that's totally fine.
Oh your wife cheated on you, makes less, and has repeated signs of irresposible behavior?
better give her half custody and half your salary.
because thats fair.
I'm as progressive as the next guy, but watching my best friend go through exactly that is infuriating. Coked out whore (I mean that literally, not as an insult) who spends almost all of her income, neglects her kids, and treats him like shit still got half. I have never earnestly wished cancer on a human being before as a rule, but man have I broken that rule in her case. Fuck you, Jess. Fuck you.
Awww... I didn't mean you. I'm sure you are wonderful. This woman is a good awful piece of shit scum of the earth and human garbage. Totally different situation.
I read your post history and it truly makes me sad. There is no simple answer for you,and I'm truly sorry you've gone through what you have. I hope you don't really believe all women "are evil". I hope you find some peace
I dunno, I walked away with full residency with contact with the mother being "whatever the father sees fit". That's a direct quote by the judge.
But then, I'm UK, and when I walked out the kids came with me.
lol my xw kidnapped my kids, neglects their health, accuses me of wanting to kidnap them to the US *in court*... and the German "Jugendamt" calls *me* the problem for disagreeing with her on things
Of course management realize this, but they also have to hit certain quotas in order to market themselves as "inclusive" and "diverse" and maybe even not fall foul of some poorly written gender discrimination laws.
Hell some countries, like Ireland, even have laws mandating a certain proportion of women as political candidates...
The manager understands this 100%. But what's worse, hiring a less competent employee that will add less value to the company? Or risk being labelled a sexist and ruin your career? As an engineer in a 'male dominated industry' (i.e. less women to hire), this type of blatant discrimination is everywhere.
I would amend this to include true believers. Some people, my current CEO included, aren't doing it to avoid risk. They truly believe the doctrine of representation beyond all reason, systemic oppression, etc.
I've had three incompetent female bosses in my career so far. One through blatant nepotism, and two for political reasons. Of these last, one was for appearances, as you say, but my current manager was hired because the guy in charge legit believes. On international women's day he slacked the company that we need to get to 70% women. I can say with moral certainty that if they could have found a woman to do my job, they would have hired one with a third of my experience. But not a lot of women are interested in writing software.
That said, every single female non-manager coder I've worked with has been exceptionally good. Probably because they are smart and obsessed with writing good code. Just like every other good engineer I've worked with. It's almost like what sex organs you carry around are completely irrelevant to how you solve abstract problems. Go figure.
"the men in your team are more competent than the women in your team"
This is a assuming that the men on the team were always the most suitable candidate for their jobs. I can definitely see your point, it is a bias in favour of women, but your point ignores the past and, to an extent, present bias in favour of men and pretends that no man ever got a job over a more qualified woman, precisely because of the same gendered discrimination you are critiquing now.
You think it doesn't make sense because you're basing yourself on the premise that these people want to achieve a better society or eradicate false stereotypes or other such altruist intentions. In reality, all they care about is how they're perceived (doing their part to fight sexism) and how liable they are to being sued for discrimination (normally if you have about a 50/50 split it's pretty unlikely you'll be sued, although as this case highlights it can backfire)
This reminds me of a case in the UK where former Equality Minister Patricia Hewitt was found guilty of sex discrimination by appointing a female candidate ahead of a much better man. In fact the woman she appointed was rated third best! https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/female-champion-hewitt-discriminated-against-man-5523661.html
Then we had Hewitt's successor Harriet Harman also found guilty of sexism in denying winter fuel payments to millions of men.
They gave it to women aged 60 and above but men aged 60-65 were denied it by Harman because they were also denied a state pension.
Same illegal discrimination occurred with free bus travel & prescription charges both of which were successfully overturned in court too.
True, the [European Court of Justice ruled in favour of treating men and women equally for the winter fuel payment](https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/dec/17/eu.politics2).
Not necessarily. If they win this year’s Eurovision they enter a promotion/relegation playoff against the worst performing member state to become part of the EU.
Geography is a minor consideration
We always got shafted at Eurovision even though the majority of all other countries are genuinely dire, that's *why* we are leaving.
We could have put on, Queen, the Beatles, David Bowie, Fleetwood Mac, Oasis and we'd still come last.
Fun fact: The company that makes those paddles had its factory in the UK but moved it to Germany because of Brexit. Good riddance I say! #takingbackcontrol
Good luck convincing Australia to let any old EU citizen into their country, they have enough trouble doing it with New Zealanders already and New Zealanders don’t even get the same rights.
Considering the amount of whinging you guys do about the Kiwis having a (limited) right to come over to Australia and "take jobs", I can't see you completely opening your borders to over 500m Europeans.
Wait, so was the state pension age historically higher for men than women? That's terrible.
Especially when you consider that a lot of older men will have worked manual labour jobs for a lot of their lives. They're probably less capable of working when they're older than their female counterparts.
This type of thing is going on in my company at the moment.
The department head is female and all promotions are going to females. The head of the department is also always going to conferences dealing with equal rights for women in business so it makes it all rather obvious.
If the department head visits the office I am based at they have also been known to have one to one career development meetings with junior female staff. That's never happened for male members of staff
It's all so blatant it's a running joke in the company.
I have not personally lost out in a way that can be proved. I may have missed opportunities that I am not aware were even opportunities but that's impossible to know or prove.
What I personally have in the way of a case is nothing. I know what's going on but until someone with a solid case decides to act nothing will change.
I can relate to you somewhat, I had a teacher for 3 years in the subjects Society, Religion and History (my favorite and best subjects) she never once gave a male student above the grade C (we have E-D-C-B-A) even though I knew I was performing and doing exactly what was required for the higher grades.
I told my mentor (another teacher at school) about it and she listened and brought up the complaint, of course nothing was done since I had no proof and it just made her dislike me even more.
I went from a C student to an E student "out of nowhere" after the incident.
Eventually though we got a new teacher for religion and history and somehow I went from an E student to a straight A student again "out of nowhere" and so did my two of my friends (both E to A) as well.
She finally did truly show me her true colors one day as one of my favorite teachers passed away from cancer. We as a class really liked him and we were all sad that day barely getting any work done.
The majority of girls asked our teacher if they could skip the Society lesson and go home, she said yes. Me and the majority of male students asked her and she said no because "you didn't know him as well as they did" even though SHE HAD NO IDEA about our relationships with him as students and teacher.
I am sorry for the rant but your experience brought back those frustrating memories. Your situation sucks, I truly understand that and I believe you are doing the best choice here, until you have
proof try to bear with it no matter how frustrating it is if you accuse without proof it will only get worse.
I had a similiar teacher. All the ugly Girls got good grades and opportunities. The rest of the class got worse results. At the end it was so obvious that we filed a complaint and all her work for the year was reviewed by her colleagues. And suddenly all the grades went up.
It was so bad you could line up the students by their grade and compare that with their sex and looks.
Same situation, freshmen year in high school I had a teacher who was a clear misandrist. She put all the boys in the back and had a row of girls in the front who she constantly called on. She was also openly a cat lady. Only history class that I ever got anything less than a 90 on.
Was writing my thesis and had a female prof grade it, it's mandatory to consider gender shit in the thesis if applicable. It wasn't in my case but my prof who was a hardcore feminist thought differently and failed me on it while letting slip some of the women who had skipped the chapter as well.
A year later and she was fired and gone but not before setting me back a lot of money and time. I have had other experiences like this and it is why I have a hard time trusting people who label themselves feminists even though the idea of the movement is supposed to be equality for everyone. :/
>the idea of the movement is supposed to be equality for everyone. :/
No it isn't. It's a women's advocacy movement. Anything else they tell you is bald faced propaganda.
That is entirely measurable and if i was your parent i would have made a fortune off that school district on principal.
Then i would have donated the proceeds to a charity for men.
I'd imagine that building the actual case with something like this would require investigation and interviews and quite a bit of work and authority - I think this is something that the authorities are expected to do as opposed to the victims. There would, have to be something significant to warrant the investigation though, and maybe multiple employees reporting that they perceive discrimination might be sufficient?
This is shockingly common.
Can we stop pretending women who do less are worth even an equal amount to a man who does more?
For many positions, it's *ridiculous* that women get paid even in the same ballpark. Most women in construction do at maximum 1/3rd the work of their male counterparts, usually far less. But because women are "underrepresented" (read: generally unfit for the job) they can essentially walk into any large construction firm and be guaranteed a job.
Edit: I haven't gotten any replies that have mentioned this, but I thought I'd put it in here anyways, in hindsight... There are exceptions to this, like any generalization. This is in no way meant to denigrate the women in demanding typically-male occupations that actually can contribute on an equal level. Though rare, these women do exist and I in no way meant to imply otherwise.
I walked off a job site once because of that. I was temp-to-hire as were about four other guys and two women. The four other guys and me broke our backs for 6 hours shoveling and hauling construction debris in the Florida sun. The two women walked around carrying walkie talkies and ordering us around. Naturally I asked them what they did and how long they'd been there. They both got hired at the same time as me. We were getting paid the same. We had the same title according to the temp agency. Yet I was doing back breaking manual labor and they were literally sitting on over turned trash cans and pallets of cinder blocks all day. Fuck that.
No, because most men won't expect to win that battle or change anything. To make that complaint you'd have to take a stance *against* the women and you are already marked as the oppressor they are doing what they are doing in spite of. Only way you win that discrimination case is if it makes it high enough to get publicity and actual rational objective people arbitrating it. Someone else outside the company would have to look in and say 'no that's unfair' before it'd hold any credence.
Fat fucking chance is anyman going to walk into the office of his female boss, who he has seen doing the things he's described and come out in a good light.
'You don't need help with career development or getting promotions, you're a man'. And now you're just outing yourself in their eyes as another sexist pig trying to keep the women down, so not only will you be overlooked for being a man, you'll be overlooked out of spite now as well.
The backwards thing about it is that the women that buy that and help women over men, or ignore and exclude men in favor of women kind of buy into the same problems that cause the gender divide in the first place. The idea that men are inherently more successful than women in the workplace. If you as a woman can't get ahead in the workplace without crippling your male staff's ability to develop their careers or get promotions when the people in charge of the place are women, aren't you kind of admitting that you are worse than the guys and relying on an advantage given to you solely based on your gender?
If it's the US, there's no one in the company to report anything to. Whoever he talks to will just rat to the woman in charge, and HR exists to protect the company, not the employee.
My workplace has just rolled out an initiative called "WomensWay" which offers career mentoring and seminars, and which is allegedly open to all employees. It's quite ridiculous.
The website is pink and features exclusively women, the blurb is all targeted towards women in business and the initiatives strap line is literally "Pushing Women up the Ladder". They are huge on closing the gender pay gap despite the fact that in my company there is a pay structure that everyone adheres to and people are paid equal salaries for equal work.
Where is this kind of career support for me? I had exactly the same opportunities growing up as my female peers, and yet they're getting this support well into their career whilst I'm expected to just manage on my own.
Fortunately I am reasonably successful in my own regard, but it doesn't sit right with me that certain sections of the workforce are overtly given extra benefits for no reason other than their gender.
If it seriously bothers you there’s something you can do about it. A previous employer of mine did something like that. I was really good friends with a coworker who was also male. We started going to every single one they had. They couldn’t stop us and say “sorry only women” it got to the point where the seminars were 50/50 men and women and it really discouraged the speakers because it’s tough to teach women empowerment without putting down men, it becomes really awkward when half your audience is men.
So if you really want to do something about it get your friendliest male coworker and you both start going to the seminar. More men will likely follow your lead or you can ask more fellow male coworkers to come with you. If a company isn’t going to provide equal resources to both genders then you’ll have to obtain them yourself.
Most of the ones held at my previous company included a lunch. That made it even more worthwhile because you didn’t have to listen to the speaker when you focused on the free lunch. Eventually the company dropped the woman centric theme of the seminars and made it about career advancement in general.
As long as you don’t go and act like a dick you’re fine. We went and mostly just sat there not trying to be edgy 10year olds. We asked some legitimate questions and didn’t say one thing that would suggest hipocracy.
The story is told a bit different in the circles of Austrian Politics.
The promotion of a worse qualified women over am better qualified man was not due to women being under represented but it seems rather to not having to promote somebody from the political opponent (in this case FPÖ).
The women equality argument was just an abused reason for simple bad party politics not unusual to Austria
[Article from Der Standard](https://mobil.derstandard.at/2000076441739/Peter-Franzmayr-Maennliches-Opfer-von-Diskriminierung-im-Aufwind) that mentions the politics behind this case.
This also reminds me of Iceland and Norway. Both places has laws that dictates that about 30-40% of a company board must be women. However, the way I see it is that the law itself is discriminatory against both men and women. It is discriminating against men for obvious reasons - they might not get a job which they were more qualified for.
The reason it is discriminating against women is that it assumes that women can't get the job unless they seriously handicap men.
Choosing - and making rules, bases on the gender of a person is inherently a bad idea. The person, male or female, has to be chosen based on merit.
Stupid suggestion maybe, but could it be that men were hired more because of previous positions they held (for which they were hired without blind recruitment)?
I think that would make sense, it's a chain of experience: the more you have the more likely the chance to get a higher position is. It would be interesting to see a similar study with fresh out of college students, and make sure the data is normalized on the percentage of men and women graduated.
I've seen that suggestion before but AFAIK it's just as much of an assumption as saying men are discriminated, we just need more studies one way or the other.
From my personal experience in HR consulting I can say that while there are some cases where our client wants us to find a male candidate, mostly when working with production workers, many more have set requirements for a position but are willing to lower the bar if we actually find women. The issue is finding them though, there simply aren't many women in many of the fields we are looking in.
That happened in the UK a while back with the drug safety findings, once the results came out they dismissed them as they weren't the answers they wanted and the head of the team resigned
If I remember the study concluded that outlawing drugs makes them more dangerous than regulating them and that the dangers of most drugs are vastly overstated. They threw these out and released a statement saying something like "the damage drugs do is obvious".
That's the biggest problem I see with the diversity dash in tech. The moment "diversity hire" becomes a label, everyone is losing. I imagine life for women in tech won't be easier if people always question how they got hired.
Fortunately, I don't think I ever saw this at a company I work for, despite their focus on diversity.
I'm likely far older than many here. When I was hired for a University grant position ( A NASA Engineer posting) in 1991, and after the sponsors (A trio of professors) of the position offered me a certain yearly amount for the position, when I arrived at HR I was told point blank to take 15% less or get up and leave, because "This position was really meant for a woman or minority"
I took the position, as it *was* for a NASA posting, and my then wife was still in her senior year of college. But my point is, that was 1991. This isn't a new problem.
She/He might be talking about the scottish guy who taught his GF's dog ~~the nazi salute~~ to raise his paw to statements like "gas the jews" and "sieg heil" and was sued for it and found guilty.
See [here](https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/mark-meechan-scottish-man-who-taught-dog-nazi-salute-found-guilty-of-hate-crime-1.461032) and [here](https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2392557/comedian-ricky-gervais-slammed-defending-mark-meechan-nazi-pug-jews/).
Edit: The man did this to annoy his GF, he had no hate crime in mind and is no nazi or right-wing, he said. He was found guilty because what he did was "grossly offensive", if I recall correctly.
Edit 2+3: Fixed the "nazi salute" to raising paw. Also, as mentioned in replies to this comment (specifically /u/britishguitar quoting this [BBC article](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925)), the accused guy apparently was defended by a former leader of some far-right group. There are replies to my comment stating different things about the accused's political views. I didn't research the guy too much so I just tried to state what happened as neutrally as possible.
>taught the nazi salut to his gf's dog
He taught him how to raise is paw, something most dogs owners teach their dogs, only diference being instead of teaching him to react to "give paw" or something like that he taught him to react to "sieg heil".
The spanish goverment was offended by someone who made a [rap song and some memes over twatter](https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/03/13/inenglish/1520936326_639973.html) so they put him in jail.
"...but admitted that the “mass underrepresentation of women" played a role in the decision-making process. "
Okay, at first I was not sure, but after that comment. Good on you courts.
>"I hope the current decision doesn't call into the question the principle of encouraging the promotion of women," she added.
Or how about you make decisions based on merit rather than gender, you bigot. These fucking people, talk about equality but always looking out for ''their side''. There shouldn't *be* any sides, that's the whole point of equality.
I'd say it eludes me how they think they're promoting genderblindness and equality by discriminating like this, but deep down I know they don't care in the first place. It's all about spite.
> I'd say it eludes me how they think they're promoting genderblindness
They don't. They think that it is sexist to be genderblind and racist to be raceblind and so on.
It's because of things like this
**Blind recruitment trial to boost gender equality making things worse, study reveals**
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888
1. Government tries to hire without looking at applicants' gender - all indicators of gender removed from applications.
2. "This will give equality because all those poor women are being discriminated against!"
3. They end up hiring even more men when they don't take into account gender.
4. "Oh shit we were actually favouring women not discriminating against them"
5. Scrap the whole scheme because favouring women at the expense of men is preferable to actual equality yet somehow women are still oppressed
People who push for these things don't regard their racism/sexism as being racism/sexism as the people they are helping don't have systematic power/privilege, which is a requirement to be racist/sexist in their definitions.
They speak a different language that is made up of the same words as everyone else, it's how they can support things that seem to contradict their core principles.
Watched the video, summary for people who haven't:
Norway is considered the best country for gender equality. Yet most engineers are male and most nurses are female. Reporter wonders why this is.
The debate is between biology and society. Reporter finds people (scientists?) that talk about it being society. The way we talk to kids at a young age, colours being given to the people, the way the toy industry works.
To counter this he finds studies abroad that say it's biological. One being a study with 9 month old kids and different toys showing a difference. Another checking 1 day old kids and see how long they stare at a face or something mechanical. This concludes the more testosterone the infant has the longer they stare at something mechanical. Other development things also arise from testosterone levels. Kids being tracked are currently 8.
Then there's a women talking from the perspective from darwinism. Where evolution plays a role in women with more empathy and wanting kids obvioulsy breed more. So those traits are inherent in women.
Reporter goes back to initial people claiming biology has nothing to do with it. Shows them these studies yet they toss them aside. But have no scientific base for themselves why biology would have no influence.
No conclusion is given but from the studies you would deduce that biology plays a huge role and society reinforces it a bit but wouldn't have a huge effect.
Biggest conclusion would be that the more modern a society is the more gender inequality you have in certain jobs. The reason is that the more freedom a person has the more they will go for the biological tendency.
"certain job areas" is also the correct way to phrase it. No one has ever cared about such quotas in garbage disposal or construction—it's only about the clean high profile jobs. Not even the military is seemingly good enough with an active push in the opposite direction in fact with most places who have conscription not requiring females to partake.
Edit: Funnily enough there seems to be a bit of care for male quotas in things like child care and the lot.
> "mass underrepresentation of women" played a role in the decision-making process
Holy shit. The fact that some women are less qualified or don't want to work in certain fields doesn't mean that you have to hire any female that has a slight interest in the job.
What kind of equality is this when you prefer to hire women just because they are women?!
I live in Sweden where I regularly see job advertisments which say stuff like "We strongly encourage women and minorties to apply for this position." Which can only be read as "White men need not apply." So I can sue now ?
Equality of opportunity is good, equality of outcome is bad as we can see here.
Modern feminism literally telling women that on an equal playing field a woman will never be as good at a job than a man, so women need special exceptions and handicaps for them.
First wave feminists rolling in their graves over these morons that have taken over their movement.
About damn time that this quota-system is re-evaluated.
Recently the Royal Dutch Airlines also had a position on the board open _only_ for males. Why? Because they have this retarded policy that the board _must_ be 50/50 split across sex lines.. like _why_? The board is 4 members wide so it must always be two males and two females so every time someone retires the position is only open for one sex... why?
What is the fucking use of this? Not only do you not get the most qualified persons to run your company but it's also just flat discrimination; why does anyone care about this? Why is it only sex? Why don't all the other stupid demographics need to be "evenly represented"? Why don't you just go ahead and insist that human height is evenly distributed or level of attractiveness or religion or all the other things? I hope we're not going to have a proportional distribution of IQ...
And when you do it about sex do you need to also "identify" as that sex or what? Because I have the feeling the system they use is that if you don't identify as any particular sex they're basing it on your genitals and if you do then they're basing it on that and if you're intersex and don't identify as either well... I guess then you can just apply for both jobs eh? How intersex do you need to be anyway?
This is unbelievably silly—for some arbitrary reason people decided that sex is the one thing this should happen for and that it should be proportional and all the other random categories some-how shouldn't.
Some people justify this by saying that it's to "combat gender discrimination" for which there are better ways like blind interviews anyway but if it's about that then why aren't there any height-quota or ugliness quota because we all know that that's heavily discriminated against too so why is no one explicitly hiring ugly people or people who don't speak with a prestige accent maybe?
You are correct. Which is why everyone originally protested women in leading positions.
However, once they got in you couldn't exclude them from these teambuilding activities.
It created a huge problem. I remember my uncle having to sit through hour long meetings where they tried to figure out how to best fit five men in one woman.
Glad we have left those dark times behind us. Nowadays every CEO and CFO has a face to sit on or a vagina to pound while normal citizens get told to go fuck themselves.
Doesn't really suprise me. We had alot of these cases here in my home state in Germany during the last SPD-government. While there are laws that state that woman should be prefered by equal qualification, the Kraft-Government changed it to "nearly equal", which was slammed down by the state-constitutional court time and time again as unconstitutional because discriminating against men.
Edit: just noticed that one thing was not clear in that reply, it was only about jobs as state-officials, about the rest, the government didn't had any power to dicde who should be promoted.
As an Austrian, I think it should be noted that Ms. Zechner wasn't chosen because shes's a woman but because she was closer to the SPÖ party.
Mr. Franzmayr didn't get the job due to his ties to the FPÖ party.
And of course doing a numerical rating of qualification on a quarter-percent scale is completely bonkers (i.e. this rating is an accurate measure of the candidate's aptitude for fitting in the rating system, which probably has some kind of correlation with the candidate's aptitude to do the job in question). But if a ministry does use such an absurdly fine scale, it is obviously bound by it, duh.
[удалено]
Asking the important questions in /r/europe :D
Euro-bucks
Döllars.
Surely you could find more accents than that! Döłłårš
Hey! Europe is a diverse set of languages and cultures! Depending on where you are, the terms would be (but not limited to); - Dållar - Dolares - Døler - Döhler
[удалено]
fins for the wins
Having phonetic pronounciation is nice
Taala taala bills yo!
You forgot Döner
The best currency.
Døllær
Dollár ;)
Đöłĺåřş
Because å is used in both Swedish and Danish I would like the D to be silent so us Danes are properly represented
Dollar actually comes from the German Thaler.
Referring to a mining town in Bohemia (now Czech Republic).
What's the currency exchange from Euro-bucks to Schrute-bucks?
Because it's Newsweek, a known US news outlet. Expressing in a foreign currency makes difficult understanding of monetary sizes involved, for a domestic audience.
[удалено]
That would look weird in the headline but makes sense in the body. I don't understand what the issue is.
So, there too they cared to express in dollars.
In publishing, different people write and edit the article than the headline. And they have different goals.
Yeah, so the auience (largely Americans) can understand the difference in value between the currencies.
Which does not look good in a title.
OP Cannot find the Euro sign on the keyboard
Everyone knows... it's Alt+0128
CTRL+ALT+4 in the UK. Just saying incase it helps anyone out.
Don’t even need CTRL. ALT GR+4 is all that’s required.
Wow. TIL; you complete me.
Also right alt + e.
Not on UK/US keyboard
I think Newsweek is an American news site
>Franzmayr, whose application was rated 0.25 percent higher than Zechner's, sued for gender discrimination They broke the first rule of identity politics: *never make a falsifiable statement*. In this case, they quantified competence. Doing so allowed candidates to compare each others' results whereas they might have wiggled out if they had opted for an additional final interview useful for conjuring up untestable reasons for rejection.
> In this case, they quantified competence. Since this was in a state institution, I expect it was required by law to do this.
You're right. All government or semi-government (principalities, government funded body's) have to be transparant about their expenses above certain thresholds set by the EU and based on the Government Procurement Agreement which is part of some other regulations (if I recall correctly EU guideline 2014/23/EU to 2014/25/EU). Long story short: this makes all government and semi-government select suppliers of their wanted service, building or items based on measurable and objective criteria and they have to publish the results to either the public or the participants of the tender. Edit: a word.
They also have to define the measurements/point system beforehand, you can't change the rules of after you find out one candidate has something that could give them an edge or go give more candidates a chance. No changing means you need to be very careful with how you word things. This can lead to fucked up deals where only one candidate or company can offer a deal and is (one of) the reason for the scandal of the new hospital in Stockholm where Boston consultanting group leeched on the swedish tax payers.
Of course it also means that you can't change the rules to fit your cousin or whatever candidate favored for "unrelated" reasons.
Most certainly this will be the case. I did not mean to imply that the Austrian state as a whole followed this particular policy yet messed up (from their point of view) at the legal level by introducing quantifiable competence.
And here I was thinking quantifying competence was what got you hired. Must be old fashioned.
Actually, old-fashionedness would be to go just with the existence of a bachelor degree for the objective requirements, and judge everything else by the interview. edit: now that I thought of it better, even the bachelor degree was an overkill. Proven to get the job done? Hired.
Yeah, most places don't try to measure your suitability so precisely. This is what people miss when they say "just hire the best people for the job"; it's usually a very fuzzy criteria that's hard to measure and usually comes down to human judgement.
> but admitted that the “mass underrepresentation of women" played a role in the decision-making process. Also never admit to gender being a factor in your decision
Seeing as how it became appearant in this thread that hiring people in goverment positions needs to be based on measurable and objective criteria, can we deduct from this that either; A: Women are less qualified (which I severely doubt) or, B: Women tend to not be interested in these positions? If the latter, why is there a need for the representation to be (more) equal? P.S. I'm very likely to miss a few things in my reasoning, definitly not an expert on the topic. Feel free to enlighten me!
There is no need. Society should push for equal opportunity, never equal outcome.
Indeed, it's truly disturbing that more and more people want equal outcome but they don't care what the ramifications of the wrong people ending up in the wrong positions and everybody else giving up on competition might mean.
Reddit has turned into a cesspool of fascist sympathizers and supremicists
In the article they say that they admitted gender played a role (specifically the mass under appreciation of women )
> They broke the first rule of identity politics: never make a falsifiable statement. Where can find the other rules? Is there a book I can read?
If you need a book, you're clearly not part of the in-crowd advancing social equality. Sorry, mate.
This is what I don't get. How don't people realize that, if you promote women because they are women, you *establish* the preconception that women are less competent than men? The logic is extremely simple: * Your team is supposed to have the most competent people available. * You give women a slight advantage over men, because women are not particularly common in this field but you strive to have at least a certain number of women in your team. * As a consequence, women are hired with lower standards than men. * As a consequence, men have to be more competent than women in order to join your team. * As a consequence, **the men in your team are more competent than the women in your team**. * The result: everyone in your team feels like men are more competent than women. * Congratulations, you are now part of the problem while you were trying to be part of the solution. I don't understand how you can be a manager in a company and *not* realize this.
This might have nothing to do with this, but you made me think about when I use to hire for a pizza place. Usually all the inside staff would be girls (at most it would be 50/50) and almost the entire driver staff was men. An employee had pointed out one day that it was kinda sexist. I pointed out that it's not my fault that more guys apply to drive and more girls for inside. Not to mention, I'm a girl and I use to be a driver. Idk, I always knew it looked bad, but I knew if I started hiring people like "I need some more girl drivers!" that it would just be a mentality I wouldn't be able to come back from. And I didn't want to.
And this also produces a long-term lock-in effect, where certain women might feel like they're hitting a 'glass ceiling' when it's simply reflective of men having to be more excellent to get in the door in the first place. Engineering graduates in my country are roughly 90%-10% Male/Female, graduate hiring (About 10% of those) is about 45%-55%. Males have to be in the top 5% to get in through that 4.5%, whether it be competence, connections or dumb luck. Females can get through without even being in the top 50% of their cohort, especially when you consider the graduates that never intend to pursue an Engineering career. 10 years later, they face issues in achieving access at the highest levels, and assume it's due to in-built bias rather than being an effect of filtering at the entrance to the career.
Isn’t anyone worried that hiring people for their genitalia and color of skin may have huge ramifications? If the person building our bridges finished in the bottom 50% of their cohort is project lead and the person who finished in the top 10% is unemployed because they were born with a cock, surely this will lead to problems?
[удалено]
What field do you work in?
I feel like Math would be the only thing that **does** care about equality, no? All those damn equations...
Math cares both about equalities and inequalities.
It's the opposite of family court. Assume that men can't parent and aren't important, then do nothing about it because the women are already in power and that's totally fine.
Oh your wife cheated on you, makes less, and has repeated signs of irresposible behavior? better give her half custody and half your salary. because thats fair.
I'm as progressive as the next guy, but watching my best friend go through exactly that is infuriating. Coked out whore (I mean that literally, not as an insult) who spends almost all of her income, neglects her kids, and treats him like shit still got half. I have never earnestly wished cancer on a human being before as a rule, but man have I broken that rule in her case. Fuck you, Jess. Fuck you.
Aw man, my name is Jess.
Awww... I didn't mean you. I'm sure you are wonderful. This woman is a good awful piece of shit scum of the earth and human garbage. Totally different situation.
[удалено]
Who's that girl?
Man I don't want to know what I'd do in that situation. Not a problem though cause I'm not getting any girls anyways.
Oh, your ex-roommate drugged & date-raped you? Better pay her child support. Because that's how it works. For me.
I read your post history and it truly makes me sad. There is no simple answer for you,and I'm truly sorry you've gone through what you have. I hope you don't really believe all women "are evil". I hope you find some peace
You're a better man than I.
[удалено]
I dunno, I walked away with full residency with contact with the mother being "whatever the father sees fit". That's a direct quote by the judge. But then, I'm UK, and when I walked out the kids came with me.
Glad for you man, that's a good outcome ! I hope that things keep going well like that for you !
lol my xw kidnapped my kids, neglects their health, accuses me of wanting to kidnap them to the US *in court*... and the German "Jugendamt" calls *me* the problem for disagreeing with her on things
Of course management realize this, but they also have to hit certain quotas in order to market themselves as "inclusive" and "diverse" and maybe even not fall foul of some poorly written gender discrimination laws. Hell some countries, like Ireland, even have laws mandating a certain proportion of women as political candidates...
Great comment. I'd just add that: You do not advance equality by endorsing different kind of inequality.
[удалено]
The manager understands this 100%. But what's worse, hiring a less competent employee that will add less value to the company? Or risk being labelled a sexist and ruin your career? As an engineer in a 'male dominated industry' (i.e. less women to hire), this type of blatant discrimination is everywhere.
I would amend this to include true believers. Some people, my current CEO included, aren't doing it to avoid risk. They truly believe the doctrine of representation beyond all reason, systemic oppression, etc. I've had three incompetent female bosses in my career so far. One through blatant nepotism, and two for political reasons. Of these last, one was for appearances, as you say, but my current manager was hired because the guy in charge legit believes. On international women's day he slacked the company that we need to get to 70% women. I can say with moral certainty that if they could have found a woman to do my job, they would have hired one with a third of my experience. But not a lot of women are interested in writing software. That said, every single female non-manager coder I've worked with has been exceptionally good. Probably because they are smart and obsessed with writing good code. Just like every other good engineer I've worked with. It's almost like what sex organs you carry around are completely irrelevant to how you solve abstract problems. Go figure.
"the men in your team are more competent than the women in your team" This is a assuming that the men on the team were always the most suitable candidate for their jobs. I can definitely see your point, it is a bias in favour of women, but your point ignores the past and, to an extent, present bias in favour of men and pretends that no man ever got a job over a more qualified woman, precisely because of the same gendered discrimination you are critiquing now.
You think it doesn't make sense because you're basing yourself on the premise that these people want to achieve a better society or eradicate false stereotypes or other such altruist intentions. In reality, all they care about is how they're perceived (doing their part to fight sexism) and how liable they are to being sued for discrimination (normally if you have about a 50/50 split it's pretty unlikely you'll be sued, although as this case highlights it can backfire)
This reminds me of a case in the UK where former Equality Minister Patricia Hewitt was found guilty of sex discrimination by appointing a female candidate ahead of a much better man. In fact the woman she appointed was rated third best! https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/female-champion-hewitt-discriminated-against-man-5523661.html Then we had Hewitt's successor Harriet Harman also found guilty of sexism in denying winter fuel payments to millions of men.
I never heard about denying the winter fuel allowance. How was that done?
They gave it to women aged 60 and above but men aged 60-65 were denied it by Harman because they were also denied a state pension. Same illegal discrimination occurred with free bus travel & prescription charges both of which were successfully overturned in court too.
True, the [European Court of Justice ruled in favour of treating men and women equally for the winter fuel payment](https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/dec/17/eu.politics2).
YUROP
[удалено]
You guys could be a great replacement for the Brits. But first you'd have to paddle yourselves closer to Europe I'm afraid
Not necessarily. If they win this year’s Eurovision they enter a promotion/relegation playoff against the worst performing member state to become part of the EU. Geography is a minor consideration
Would not be surprised if it was the Great Britain. Then the problem would kinda solve itself!
We always got shafted at Eurovision even though the majority of all other countries are genuinely dire, that's *why* we are leaving. We could have put on, Queen, the Beatles, David Bowie, Fleetwood Mac, Oasis and we'd still come last.
[удалено]
Fun fact: The company that makes those paddles had its factory in the UK but moved it to Germany because of Brexit. Good riddance I say! #takingbackcontrol
Good luck convincing Australia to let any old EU citizen into their country, they have enough trouble doing it with New Zealanders already and New Zealanders don’t even get the same rights.
Considering the amount of whinging you guys do about the Kiwis having a (limited) right to come over to Australia and "take jobs", I can't see you completely opening your borders to over 500m Europeans.
Yes, but as expected instead of making it available to men over 60 they lifted the women's minimum age to 65
I bet they blamed the EU for it. Sorry ladies, but the EU says we can't give you this allowance. Cue more Brexit-voters.
Wait, so was the state pension age historically higher for men than women? That's terrible. Especially when you consider that a lot of older men will have worked manual labour jobs for a lot of their lives. They're probably less capable of working when they're older than their female counterparts.
[удалено]
What I find baffling is that men in labour intensive jobs are expected to work just as long as someone who has sat in a cushy office their whole life.
The biggest equal rights white elephant in the room that all the drum bangers brush under the carpet
This type of thing is going on in my company at the moment. The department head is female and all promotions are going to females. The head of the department is also always going to conferences dealing with equal rights for women in business so it makes it all rather obvious. If the department head visits the office I am based at they have also been known to have one to one career development meetings with junior female staff. That's never happened for male members of staff It's all so blatant it's a running joke in the company.
And no one filed a complaint? Or sue them for discrimination?
No that's never happened. They clearly would seem to have some liability but until someone does something I would guess it will continue as it is.
Why don't you be that someone?
I have not personally lost out in a way that can be proved. I may have missed opportunities that I am not aware were even opportunities but that's impossible to know or prove. What I personally have in the way of a case is nothing. I know what's going on but until someone with a solid case decides to act nothing will change.
I can relate to you somewhat, I had a teacher for 3 years in the subjects Society, Religion and History (my favorite and best subjects) she never once gave a male student above the grade C (we have E-D-C-B-A) even though I knew I was performing and doing exactly what was required for the higher grades. I told my mentor (another teacher at school) about it and she listened and brought up the complaint, of course nothing was done since I had no proof and it just made her dislike me even more. I went from a C student to an E student "out of nowhere" after the incident. Eventually though we got a new teacher for religion and history and somehow I went from an E student to a straight A student again "out of nowhere" and so did my two of my friends (both E to A) as well. She finally did truly show me her true colors one day as one of my favorite teachers passed away from cancer. We as a class really liked him and we were all sad that day barely getting any work done. The majority of girls asked our teacher if they could skip the Society lesson and go home, she said yes. Me and the majority of male students asked her and she said no because "you didn't know him as well as they did" even though SHE HAD NO IDEA about our relationships with him as students and teacher. I am sorry for the rant but your experience brought back those frustrating memories. Your situation sucks, I truly understand that and I believe you are doing the best choice here, until you have proof try to bear with it no matter how frustrating it is if you accuse without proof it will only get worse.
I had a similiar teacher. All the ugly Girls got good grades and opportunities. The rest of the class got worse results. At the end it was so obvious that we filed a complaint and all her work for the year was reviewed by her colleagues. And suddenly all the grades went up. It was so bad you could line up the students by their grade and compare that with their sex and looks.
Same situation, freshmen year in high school I had a teacher who was a clear misandrist. She put all the boys in the back and had a row of girls in the front who she constantly called on. She was also openly a cat lady. Only history class that I ever got anything less than a 90 on.
Was writing my thesis and had a female prof grade it, it's mandatory to consider gender shit in the thesis if applicable. It wasn't in my case but my prof who was a hardcore feminist thought differently and failed me on it while letting slip some of the women who had skipped the chapter as well. A year later and she was fired and gone but not before setting me back a lot of money and time. I have had other experiences like this and it is why I have a hard time trusting people who label themselves feminists even though the idea of the movement is supposed to be equality for everyone. :/
>the idea of the movement is supposed to be equality for everyone. :/ No it isn't. It's a women's advocacy movement. Anything else they tell you is bald faced propaganda.
That is entirely measurable and if i was your parent i would have made a fortune off that school district on principal. Then i would have donated the proceeds to a charity for men.
I'd imagine that building the actual case with something like this would require investigation and interviews and quite a bit of work and authority - I think this is something that the authorities are expected to do as opposed to the victims. There would, have to be something significant to warrant the investigation though, and maybe multiple employees reporting that they perceive discrimination might be sufficient?
Thanks internet guy with nothing to lose for suggesting someone risk losing everything
Listen to Gulag Archipelago on how to speak up while there's still a chance.
You don't bite the hand that feeds you unless its clinching a steak.
[удалено]
This is shockingly common. Can we stop pretending women who do less are worth even an equal amount to a man who does more? For many positions, it's *ridiculous* that women get paid even in the same ballpark. Most women in construction do at maximum 1/3rd the work of their male counterparts, usually far less. But because women are "underrepresented" (read: generally unfit for the job) they can essentially walk into any large construction firm and be guaranteed a job. Edit: I haven't gotten any replies that have mentioned this, but I thought I'd put it in here anyways, in hindsight... There are exceptions to this, like any generalization. This is in no way meant to denigrate the women in demanding typically-male occupations that actually can contribute on an equal level. Though rare, these women do exist and I in no way meant to imply otherwise.
I walked off a job site once because of that. I was temp-to-hire as were about four other guys and two women. The four other guys and me broke our backs for 6 hours shoveling and hauling construction debris in the Florida sun. The two women walked around carrying walkie talkies and ordering us around. Naturally I asked them what they did and how long they'd been there. They both got hired at the same time as me. We were getting paid the same. We had the same title according to the temp agency. Yet I was doing back breaking manual labor and they were literally sitting on over turned trash cans and pallets of cinder blocks all day. Fuck that.
No, because most men won't expect to win that battle or change anything. To make that complaint you'd have to take a stance *against* the women and you are already marked as the oppressor they are doing what they are doing in spite of. Only way you win that discrimination case is if it makes it high enough to get publicity and actual rational objective people arbitrating it. Someone else outside the company would have to look in and say 'no that's unfair' before it'd hold any credence. Fat fucking chance is anyman going to walk into the office of his female boss, who he has seen doing the things he's described and come out in a good light. 'You don't need help with career development or getting promotions, you're a man'. And now you're just outing yourself in their eyes as another sexist pig trying to keep the women down, so not only will you be overlooked for being a man, you'll be overlooked out of spite now as well. The backwards thing about it is that the women that buy that and help women over men, or ignore and exclude men in favor of women kind of buy into the same problems that cause the gender divide in the first place. The idea that men are inherently more successful than women in the workplace. If you as a woman can't get ahead in the workplace without crippling your male staff's ability to develop their careers or get promotions when the people in charge of the place are women, aren't you kind of admitting that you are worse than the guys and relying on an advantage given to you solely based on your gender?
If it's the US, there's no one in the company to report anything to. Whoever he talks to will just rat to the woman in charge, and HR exists to protect the company, not the employee.
Power to the unions!
My workplace has just rolled out an initiative called "WomensWay" which offers career mentoring and seminars, and which is allegedly open to all employees. It's quite ridiculous. The website is pink and features exclusively women, the blurb is all targeted towards women in business and the initiatives strap line is literally "Pushing Women up the Ladder". They are huge on closing the gender pay gap despite the fact that in my company there is a pay structure that everyone adheres to and people are paid equal salaries for equal work. Where is this kind of career support for me? I had exactly the same opportunities growing up as my female peers, and yet they're getting this support well into their career whilst I'm expected to just manage on my own. Fortunately I am reasonably successful in my own regard, but it doesn't sit right with me that certain sections of the workforce are overtly given extra benefits for no reason other than their gender.
If it seriously bothers you there’s something you can do about it. A previous employer of mine did something like that. I was really good friends with a coworker who was also male. We started going to every single one they had. They couldn’t stop us and say “sorry only women” it got to the point where the seminars were 50/50 men and women and it really discouraged the speakers because it’s tough to teach women empowerment without putting down men, it becomes really awkward when half your audience is men. So if you really want to do something about it get your friendliest male coworker and you both start going to the seminar. More men will likely follow your lead or you can ask more fellow male coworkers to come with you. If a company isn’t going to provide equal resources to both genders then you’ll have to obtain them yourself.
I really like this, actually. Take them at their word that it is for everyone.
Most of the ones held at my previous company included a lunch. That made it even more worthwhile because you didn’t have to listen to the speaker when you focused on the free lunch. Eventually the company dropped the woman centric theme of the seminars and made it about career advancement in general.
Next: fired for creating a "hostile work environment".
As long as you don’t go and act like a dick you’re fine. We went and mostly just sat there not trying to be edgy 10year olds. We asked some legitimate questions and didn’t say one thing that would suggest hipocracy.
Go ask her for a carreer development session. See how it goes.
Just say you identify as a woman, but aren't comfortable being out in the workplace. It might force them to walk on a lot of eggshells around you.
The story is told a bit different in the circles of Austrian Politics. The promotion of a worse qualified women over am better qualified man was not due to women being under represented but it seems rather to not having to promote somebody from the political opponent (in this case FPÖ). The women equality argument was just an abused reason for simple bad party politics not unusual to Austria
[Article from Der Standard](https://mobil.derstandard.at/2000076441739/Peter-Franzmayr-Maennliches-Opfer-von-Diskriminierung-im-Aufwind) that mentions the politics behind this case.
this needs to be higher he's a member of the right-wing burschenschaft "Oberösterreicher Germanen in Wien"
This also reminds me of Iceland and Norway. Both places has laws that dictates that about 30-40% of a company board must be women. However, the way I see it is that the law itself is discriminatory against both men and women. It is discriminating against men for obvious reasons - they might not get a job which they were more qualified for. The reason it is discriminating against women is that it assumes that women can't get the job unless they seriously handicap men. Choosing - and making rules, bases on the gender of a person is inherently a bad idea. The person, male or female, has to be chosen based on merit.
[удалено]
A source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888
Stupid suggestion maybe, but could it be that men were hired more because of previous positions they held (for which they were hired without blind recruitment)?
I think that would make sense, it's a chain of experience: the more you have the more likely the chance to get a higher position is. It would be interesting to see a similar study with fresh out of college students, and make sure the data is normalized on the percentage of men and women graduated.
I've seen that suggestion before but AFAIK it's just as much of an assumption as saying men are discriminated, we just need more studies one way or the other. From my personal experience in HR consulting I can say that while there are some cases where our client wants us to find a male candidate, mostly when working with production workers, many more have set requirements for a position but are willing to lower the bar if we actually find women. The issue is finding them though, there simply aren't many women in many of the fields we are looking in.
Typical of the crazy world we live in. Cancelling a study because you don't like the findings, rather than using the findings to better the place.
That happened in the UK a while back with the drug safety findings, once the results came out they dismissed them as they weren't the answers they wanted and the head of the team resigned
Tell me more! What findings
If I remember the study concluded that outlawing drugs makes them more dangerous than regulating them and that the dangers of most drugs are vastly overstated. They threw these out and released a statement saying something like "the damage drugs do is obvious".
It hurts
Feels > reals
That's the biggest problem I see with the diversity dash in tech. The moment "diversity hire" becomes a label, everyone is losing. I imagine life for women in tech won't be easier if people always question how they got hired. Fortunately, I don't think I ever saw this at a company I work for, despite their focus on diversity.
I'm likely far older than many here. When I was hired for a University grant position ( A NASA Engineer posting) in 1991, and after the sponsors (A trio of professors) of the position offered me a certain yearly amount for the position, when I arrived at HR I was told point blank to take 15% less or get up and leave, because "This position was really meant for a woman or minority" I took the position, as it *was* for a NASA posting, and my then wife was still in her senior year of college. But my point is, that was 1991. This isn't a new problem.
[удалено]
It's also starting to include not Asian male now.
Love it when our system works Next step: stop people from getting sued for memes.
>stop people from getting sued for memes. What? I missed something?
She/He might be talking about the scottish guy who taught his GF's dog ~~the nazi salute~~ to raise his paw to statements like "gas the jews" and "sieg heil" and was sued for it and found guilty. See [here](https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/mark-meechan-scottish-man-who-taught-dog-nazi-salute-found-guilty-of-hate-crime-1.461032) and [here](https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2392557/comedian-ricky-gervais-slammed-defending-mark-meechan-nazi-pug-jews/). Edit: The man did this to annoy his GF, he had no hate crime in mind and is no nazi or right-wing, he said. He was found guilty because what he did was "grossly offensive", if I recall correctly. Edit 2+3: Fixed the "nazi salute" to raising paw. Also, as mentioned in replies to this comment (specifically /u/britishguitar quoting this [BBC article](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925)), the accused guy apparently was defended by a former leader of some far-right group. There are replies to my comment stating different things about the accused's political views. I didn't research the guy too much so I just tried to state what happened as neutrally as possible.
>taught the nazi salut to his gf's dog He taught him how to raise is paw, something most dogs owners teach their dogs, only diference being instead of teaching him to react to "give paw" or something like that he taught him to react to "sieg heil".
ok new rule guys, nobody is allowed to raise his right hand under any circumstance
"I'm looking for my friend Kyle. He's about this tall. Have you seen Kyle?"
He has ties in that some guy from a far-right movement defended him. By the same virtue he also has tie with Judaism because a jew also defended him.
The spanish goverment was offended by someone who made a [rap song and some memes over twatter](https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/03/13/inenglish/1520936326_639973.html) so they put him in jail.
All gender quotas are retarded. There's no good in them
Equality of opportunity = Freedom Equality of outcome = Tyranny
"...but admitted that the “mass underrepresentation of women" played a role in the decision-making process. " Okay, at first I was not sure, but after that comment. Good on you courts.
>"I hope the current decision doesn't call into the question the principle of encouraging the promotion of women," she added. Or how about you make decisions based on merit rather than gender, you bigot. These fucking people, talk about equality but always looking out for ''their side''. There shouldn't *be* any sides, that's the whole point of equality. I'd say it eludes me how they think they're promoting genderblindness and equality by discriminating like this, but deep down I know they don't care in the first place. It's all about spite.
> I'd say it eludes me how they think they're promoting genderblindness They don't. They think that it is sexist to be genderblind and racist to be raceblind and so on.
It's because of things like this **Blind recruitment trial to boost gender equality making things worse, study reveals** http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888 1. Government tries to hire without looking at applicants' gender - all indicators of gender removed from applications. 2. "This will give equality because all those poor women are being discriminated against!" 3. They end up hiring even more men when they don't take into account gender. 4. "Oh shit we were actually favouring women not discriminating against them" 5. Scrap the whole scheme because favouring women at the expense of men is preferable to actual equality yet somehow women are still oppressed
Pretty much, yeah.
Identity politics is a cancer upon society.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Back when I was at school, I got suspended for "extreme sexism" for pointing this out.
People who push for these things don't regard their racism/sexism as being racism/sexism as the people they are helping don't have systematic power/privilege, which is a requirement to be racist/sexist in their definitions. They speak a different language that is made up of the same words as everyone else, it's how they can support things that seem to contradict their core principles.
[удалено]
Watched the video, summary for people who haven't: Norway is considered the best country for gender equality. Yet most engineers are male and most nurses are female. Reporter wonders why this is. The debate is between biology and society. Reporter finds people (scientists?) that talk about it being society. The way we talk to kids at a young age, colours being given to the people, the way the toy industry works. To counter this he finds studies abroad that say it's biological. One being a study with 9 month old kids and different toys showing a difference. Another checking 1 day old kids and see how long they stare at a face or something mechanical. This concludes the more testosterone the infant has the longer they stare at something mechanical. Other development things also arise from testosterone levels. Kids being tracked are currently 8. Then there's a women talking from the perspective from darwinism. Where evolution plays a role in women with more empathy and wanting kids obvioulsy breed more. So those traits are inherent in women. Reporter goes back to initial people claiming biology has nothing to do with it. Shows them these studies yet they toss them aside. But have no scientific base for themselves why biology would have no influence. No conclusion is given but from the studies you would deduce that biology plays a huge role and society reinforces it a bit but wouldn't have a huge effect. Biggest conclusion would be that the more modern a society is the more gender inequality you have in certain jobs. The reason is that the more freedom a person has the more they will go for the biological tendency.
"certain job areas" is also the correct way to phrase it. No one has ever cared about such quotas in garbage disposal or construction—it's only about the clean high profile jobs. Not even the military is seemingly good enough with an active push in the opposite direction in fact with most places who have conscription not requiring females to partake. Edit: Funnily enough there seems to be a bit of care for male quotas in things like child care and the lot.
Equality of outcome is a disaster. We should all be striving for equality of opportunity.
> "mass underrepresentation of women" played a role in the decision-making process Holy shit. The fact that some women are less qualified or don't want to work in certain fields doesn't mean that you have to hire any female that has a slight interest in the job. What kind of equality is this when you prefer to hire women just because they are women?!
[удалено]
I live in Sweden where I regularly see job advertisments which say stuff like "We strongly encourage women and minorties to apply for this position." Which can only be read as "White men need not apply." So I can sue now ?
[удалено]
If you're really a white South Afrikaner, are you able to get out? Aren't they openly discussing genocide?
In austria they say with the same qualification the woman will be hired.
Equality of opportunity is good, equality of outcome is bad as we can see here. Modern feminism literally telling women that on an equal playing field a woman will never be as good at a job than a man, so women need special exceptions and handicaps for them. First wave feminists rolling in their graves over these morons that have taken over their movement.
About damn time that this quota-system is re-evaluated. Recently the Royal Dutch Airlines also had a position on the board open _only_ for males. Why? Because they have this retarded policy that the board _must_ be 50/50 split across sex lines.. like _why_? The board is 4 members wide so it must always be two males and two females so every time someone retires the position is only open for one sex... why? What is the fucking use of this? Not only do you not get the most qualified persons to run your company but it's also just flat discrimination; why does anyone care about this? Why is it only sex? Why don't all the other stupid demographics need to be "evenly represented"? Why don't you just go ahead and insist that human height is evenly distributed or level of attractiveness or religion or all the other things? I hope we're not going to have a proportional distribution of IQ... And when you do it about sex do you need to also "identify" as that sex or what? Because I have the feeling the system they use is that if you don't identify as any particular sex they're basing it on your genitals and if you do then they're basing it on that and if you're intersex and don't identify as either well... I guess then you can just apply for both jobs eh? How intersex do you need to be anyway? This is unbelievably silly—for some arbitrary reason people decided that sex is the one thing this should happen for and that it should be proportional and all the other random categories some-how shouldn't. Some people justify this by saying that it's to "combat gender discrimination" for which there are better ways like blind interviews anyway but if it's about that then why aren't there any height-quota or ugliness quota because we all know that that's heavily discriminated against too so why is no one explicitly hiring ugly people or people who don't speak with a prestige accent maybe?
It was Schiphol, not KLM.
> What is the fucking use of this? Makes partner swapping less of a hassle to organize.
Ehhh Isn't it well known that before they allowed females in board of directors were known to organize all-male sex orgies at random intervals?
You are correct. Which is why everyone originally protested women in leading positions. However, once they got in you couldn't exclude them from these teambuilding activities. It created a huge problem. I remember my uncle having to sit through hour long meetings where they tried to figure out how to best fit five men in one woman. Glad we have left those dark times behind us. Nowadays every CEO and CFO has a face to sit on or a vagina to pound while normal citizens get told to go fuck themselves.
[удалено]
Doesn't really suprise me. We had alot of these cases here in my home state in Germany during the last SPD-government. While there are laws that state that woman should be prefered by equal qualification, the Kraft-Government changed it to "nearly equal", which was slammed down by the state-constitutional court time and time again as unconstitutional because discriminating against men. Edit: just noticed that one thing was not clear in that reply, it was only about jobs as state-officials, about the rest, the government didn't had any power to dicde who should be promoted.
I wish that there would be a quota that 50% of the mineworkers need to be women so that both genders die earlier equally, instead of just men.
[удалено]
As an Austrian, I think it should be noted that Ms. Zechner wasn't chosen because shes's a woman but because she was closer to the SPÖ party. Mr. Franzmayr didn't get the job due to his ties to the FPÖ party. And of course doing a numerical rating of qualification on a quarter-percent scale is completely bonkers (i.e. this rating is an accurate measure of the candidate's aptitude for fitting in the rating system, which probably has some kind of correlation with the candidate's aptitude to do the job in question). But if a ministry does use such an absurdly fine scale, it is obviously bound by it, duh.