"That is not what I meant, at all": How to Connect Respectfully

[Zeta Vandyke]

8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

In some cases, there may be a situation where there is one, clear choice for "the best candidate." But I suspect that in most cases, any one of a number of candidates are likely to be pretty much as good as the other (although they may bring different strengths to the position). In such case, does it not make sense, maybe, to hire the woman, where one is available?

There are very clear cases where its to fill the quota. Based purely on skills and experience if gender was a total non issue, the choice would have been different. But also it is openly said by politicians that female candidates for positions would be favored "because they are women".

15 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I have all sorts of reservations about quota systems, one of which is precisely that it perpetuates the (false) perception that women can't "make it" by their merit alone.

Exactly this

[Akane Nacht]

11 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

In some cases, there may be a situation where there is one, clear choice for "the best candidate." But I suspect that in most cases, any one of a number of candidates are likely to be pretty much as good as the other (although they may bring different strengths to the position). In such case, does it not make sense, maybe, to hire the woman, where one is available?

 

Not necessarily. It's really hard (I'd say impossible) to have a situation where all aspects are equal between candidates. It also depends on the work culture, the team they'll be working with, the management style.. in SMEs especially this is huge - people have to be a right fit and be able to communicate effectively with the team, and with customers if they are customer-facing. That's why most companies have a probationary period, so both candidate and employer see how they work together. This isn't sex-specific, it's about individual temperament and personality. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

There are very clear cases where its to fill the quota. Based purely on skills and experience if gender was a total non issue, the choice would have been different. But also it is openly said by politicians that female candidates for positions would be favored "because they are women".

Well, sure. That's how quotas work. But might it not mean that there were (for example) two equally qualified candidates available, and the deciding factor was gender? One could argue that such cases don't involve an inequity, while at least having the merit of raising the profile of women in fields where they are historically under-represented.

I'm sure that it varies much on the individual case, and that there probably are instances where the man is better qualified. But, again, I've not seen any actual evidence, ever, to suggest that, overall, quotas are leading to less qualified people being hired.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

8 minutes ago, Akane Nacht said:

Not necessarily. It's really hard (I'd say impossible) to have a situation where all aspects are equal between candidates. It also depends on the work culture, the team they'll be working with, the management style.. in SMEs especially this is huge - people have to be a right fit and be able to communicate effectively with the team, and with customers if they are customer-facing. That's why most companies have a probationary period, so both candidate and employer see how they work together. This isn't sex-specific, it's about individual temperament and personality. 

"Not necessarily" is, I guess, sort of what I'm also saying. I'm sure it varies from case to case.

But, again, I'm talking not about individual cases, each of which is likely to be quite different, but rather this common perception that, overall, looking at the big picture, this is a practice that is putting less qualified people into positions. Where's the evidence for this?

One of the things that I find interesting about some people who argue against quotas, be they for women, or POC, or whatever, is that implicit in the case that they make is the belief that there are simply fewer qualified candidates among women, people of colour, etc. In other words, that it's harder to find a "good person for the job" from these demographics. And that implicit belief tends to mask sexism, racism, homophobia, and the like.

All of that said, I do have reservations about quotas. They are an artificial and deeply divisive way of righting historical wrongs. But I'm not convinced by the actual arguments I usually hear against them.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Akane Nacht]

14 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

One of the things that I find interesting about some people who argue against quotas, be they for women, or POC, or whatever, is that implicit in the case that they make is the belief that there are simply fewer qualified candidates among women, people of colour, etc. In other words, that it's harder to find a "good person for the job" from these demographics. And that implicit belief tends to mask sexism, racism, homophobia, and the like.

 I don't entirely buy that argument either,  but I've not dug deep into it so I can't say for sure.

My reservations are based on something quite different.

An example: 

Say you have a couple of candidates. One, a man who meets the criteria and seems easygoing, friendly and willing to learn. Two, a woman who also meets the criteria but seems rigid, argumentative and ambitious. 

Now say the workplace is an easygoing, TQM style that has a great balance of give and take amongst the staff and a high level of interpersonal trust. 

A quota may compel the hirer to hire the woman, though it will probably end in disaster and wasted expense, and maybe cause other team members to lose trust and jump ship.

See, the devil is in the details.

I spent some years on interview panels and some more as a recruiter. There are times I have not recommended even better qualified candidates because their personality was a serious mismatch. When you introduce artificial criteria, you risk ruining the ecosystem.

[KanryDrago]

11 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"Not necessarily" is, I guess, sort of what I'm also saying. I'm sure it varies from case to case.

But, again, I'm talking not about individual cases, each of which is likely to be quite different, but rather this common perception that, overall, looking at the big picture, this is a practice that is putting less qualified people into positions. Where's the evidence for this?

One of the things that I find interesting about some people who argue against quotas, be they for women, or POC, or whatever, is that implicit in the case that they make is the belief that there are simply fewer qualified candidates among women, people of colour, etc. In other words, that it's harder to find a "good person for the job" from these demographics. And that implicit belief tends to mask sexism, racism, homophobia, and the like.

All of that said, I do have reservations about quotas. They are an artificial and deeply divisive way of righting historical wrongs. But I'm not convinced by the actual arguments I usually hear against them.

Sorry but I think that the truism of that is blindingly obvious.

1) Out of all possible candidates for the job there is someone who would be best at it .... agree or disagree?

2) If you have to recruit someone only from a subset of all possible candidates then there is a chance, depending on the size of the subset that the best candidate will not be in that subset....agree or disagree?

3) In those circumstances where the best candidate isnt in the subset you put someone in the job who was sub optimal.....agree or disagree?

Don't get me wrong I don't believe any subset is inherently inferior, I just think that its better to hire the best person and not pass them over for someone not so good because they have the wrong gender/colour/sexuality/creed or ableness.

An approach I have seen that seems to work and I prefer is mentoring, whereby for example a woman in a senior position takes on a junior woman and mentors her to improve her chances at getting that promotion.

[Amina Sopwith]

I don't like the idea of someone getting a job purely for being a woman, but if women (or minorities) have historically been excluded from a field then I do think we need to take action to level the playing field somewhat. It won't be as simple as "give her the job because she's female" but campaigns to encourage women and minorities into, say, STEM are very welcome. It's all very well saying that there are no legal barriers but I've been asked about my family plans in job interviews (and the job went to a less experience and less qualified man when I stupidly gave the honest answer that I hadn't decided). I also know that a lot of capable women will be put off working in a field if they know, for example, that their only representation is going to be planet-boobed porn star calendars on the walls. Orwar has mentioned his experience of harassment and assault at the hands of women; I can't see him or any other man feeling inclined to work in a place where that sort of behaviour, if not actually carried out, is not taken seriously. I wouldn't be.

Men have been getting preferential treatment for jobs and education for many, many years, and this is actually quite a new development. Two wrongs absolutely don't make a right and I'm not suggesting otherwise. But it would be very very disingenuous to suggest that there is no legacy or context to the decision, misguided as it may be.

[Zeta Vandyke]

52 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, sure. That's how quotas work. But might it not mean that there were (for example) two equally qualified candidates available, and the deciding factor was gender? One could argue that such cases don't involve an inequity, while at least having the merit of raising the profile of women in fields where they are historically under-represented.

I'm sure that it varies much on the individual case, and that there probably are instances where the man is better qualified. But, again, I've not seen any actual evidence, ever, to suggest that, overall, quotas are leading to less qualified people being hired.

You know the deciding factor is gender when politicians state they want a woman for the specific functions because of the quota. In these public functions the people suggested for the function are also publicly known, so its not to hard to judge if someone was picked for other reasons than purely on qualifications.

When working with quota's you will by default exclude candidates ignoring their qualifications. I can not see how that is a good thing from any point of view.

I have hired over 50 people myself, and can not imagine how it would be if I had to send people away and hire less qualified ones instead just because of their gender. Not just for myself or my company results, but also for the other employees that know they will have to get their job done with less skilled colleagues.

 

[BelindaN]

This is such a complex and well aired subject. Quotas try to address one issue, by often creating another.

Where I worked, there was equal pay, so a big tick.

But there were lots of other issues which drove dissent in the ranks. It was the typical large office environment, where there was an inner circle of favourites, who generally speaking could do no wrong. The day to day business was intensive ...being audit and investigation....so people found ways to avoid this by doing project work, or managing staff. It was much easier to progress up the grades by not doing the core business, and so many of the senior managers had little knowledge of the core business, and made decisions accordingly which were usually unpopular and resented by the workers......

In that environment, women did very well in terms of progression, but some created an environment of bitchiness, and manipulation of situations for self promotion. There was less of this evident from the men, although there was a clique of hard drinking 'old boys club' going on.

When you don't fit into these groups, it can be hard going at times.

So my own experience is very mixed. Equal pay is good, and still quite unusual. But it didn't create a happy environment. In fact the atmosphere was corrosive and without trust. Some staff took a delight in running to the boss, telling tales!

For a while I did some recruitment, and promotion panels. Gender was never considered, and we were often recruiting for a team based elsewhere, so we couldn't consider how someone might fit in.  There was never a quota.

At interview, generally speaking the women were better prepared, and more articulate than the men. Generally speaking!

My experience is solely in big offices, and I was relieved to get away from the politics which gets very hard to stomach, day after day.

[KanryDrago]

8 minutes ago, BelindaN said:

This is such a complex and well aired subject. Quotas try to address one issue, by often creating another.

Where I worked, there was equal pay, so a big tick.

But there were lots of other issues which drove dissent in the ranks. It was the typical large office environment, where there was an inner circle of favourites, who generally speaking could do no wrong. The day to day business was intensive ...being audit and investigation....so people found ways to avoid this by doing project work, or managing staff. It was much easier to progress up the grades by not doing the core business, and so many of the senior managers had little knowledge of the core business, and made decisions accordingly which were usually unpopular and resented by the workers......

In that environment, women did very well in terms of progression, but some created an environment of bitchiness, and manipulation of situations for self promotion. There was less of this evident from the men, although there was a clique of hard drinking 'old boys club' going on.

When you don't fit into these groups, it can be hard going at times.

So my own experience is very mixed. Equal pay is good, and still quite unusual. But it didn't create a happy environment. In fact the atmosphere was corrosive and without trust. Some staff took a delight in running to the boss, telling tales!

For a while I did some recruitment, and promotion panels. Gender was never considered, and we were often recruiting for a team based elsewhere, so we couldn't consider how someone might fit in.  There was never a quota.

At interview, generally speaking the women were better prepared, and more articulate than the men. Generally speaking!

My experience is solely in big offices, and I was relieved to get away from the politics which gets very hard to stomach, day after day.

Sadly office politics is the bane of all our lives and too often it is who you suck up to that gets you promoted rather than competence but that is a whole different problem.

Surprised you say equal pay is unusual, here it is a legal requirement and companies can and do get fined for it.

[AyelaNewLife]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

One of the things that I find interesting about some people who argue against quotas, be they for women, or POC, or whatever, is that implicit in the case that they make is the belief that there are simply fewer qualified candidates among women, people of colour, etc. In other words, that it's harder to find a "good person for the job" from these demographics. And that implicit belief tends to mask sexism, racism, homophobia, and the like.

I couldn't disagree more. It's a matter of basic statistics, in almost all of these cases - although admittedly it does depend on the specific field.

Easy example; my STEM field is churning out 2 male graduates for every 1 female graduate. Across the relevant employment sector, that turns to a 3 to 1 ratio (due to the historically larger gender imbalance in graduates). If you have a gender-blind recruitment process for an entry-level position (and assuming an even competency distribution for both genders), then you'll be hiring 2.x men for every woman. Hiring at a 1:1 ratio means that, statistically speaking, you are overlooking superior male candidates in favour of less qualified female candidates to meet your quota. 

That is not a good thing.

Let's take this example one step further. The gender ratio for the relevant A-level for this field is slightly in favour of men, but near enough equal (and balanced by the slight edge women have in grades in this field); therefore the schooling system is producing qualified candidates for this degree at a 1:1 ratio. 1:1 ratio at the end of this step in their development pathway, 2:1 at the start of the next. We have our problem! If we can 'fix' the reasons why women who study this field until 18 are half as likely to study that field at university, then we'll have a roughly equal ratio of people graduating in this field and therefore applying for these jobs. Yay for equality!

...except that's discounting the existing population of people employed in this field (3:1 ratio) and those graduating now (2:1 ratio). So you'd need to reach a perfect 1:1 ratio of graduates, and then wait 45 years for the existing employees to retire off, before you'd reach a perfect gender balance in the workplace.

...except of course that girls both outperform boys at every level of education and are more likely to study in higher education, so if you make men and women equally likely to study a degree in this field then you end up with more-and-better-qualified women applying for these jobs, so then you'd need to start setting male quotas to ensure equal representation in the lab. In an engineering-based STEM field.

...except then you also have to factor in the fact that, even if we had compulsorily equal paternity and maternity leave by law, women are more likely to take unpaid sabbaticals from their career to raise their children than men. So this smaller number of less qualified men would end up having more seniority on average than the larger number of women with better qualifications, which might balance out? We're into "who the heck knows" territory here.

...except all this relies on the core assumption that, if you remove all hard and soft barriers that prevent or discourage women from entering this field, that we'd end up with a perfect 1:1 ratio of interest. Which is nothing more than a theory, one backed up by "there's no real evidence for this, and no way of knowing until we try". The evidence we do have points to legitimate differences in life choices being in part down to biological factors, and not 100% societal problems that can be 'fixed'.

I've started waffling, but you get my point. In short:

• Almost all high-paid careers are pyramid-based. If you don't have equal representation at the bottom of the pyramid, you probably can't have equal representation at the top without intentionally choosing inferior candidates because they tick diversity boxes. Fix the bottom first.
• It takes decades, if not longer, for equality to work its way up the chain. Patience is required.
• Perfect equality of outcome is still unlikely, due to basic differences in the choices men and women make, statistically speaking. We've still got progress to make in terms of equality of opportunity due to soft pressures, of course.

Here endeth the sermon.

[AyelaNewLife]

And that's without even beginning to touch on how utterly soul-destroying it is to be seen as the 'diversity hire', regardless of how I got the job.

[Orwar]

1 hour ago, AyelaNewLife said:

Here endeth the sermon.

    In nomine Diabolus et Temerator et Spiritus Sceleratis.

[Luna Bliss]

8 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

These tests at general are sad, because they still compare genders. One in favor of men, other women. Its all a bunch of crap imo.

When looking for a leader position, you look for what is needed in that specific role and position, the environment, and then pic the person with the best matching skills and personality. No matter the gender. 

Well yes, I'd agree that stereotyping is annoying and I wish it did not occur, but these tests measure the way people generally operate psychologically. We may wish people did not operate in this way, and you may be free of prejudice in this instance, but the tests demonstrate that indeed people are very prejudiced.
Typically the tests are not as overt as you might imagine -- they do not straight out ask something like "would you pick a man or woman for the job?", but instead ask the test participant if they believe the subject being evaluated has certain qualities, and then later the participant is asked something like "what qualities in an individual are best for a leadership role?". So the results are obtained in a more convoluted manner, and reveal that the MAJORITY of people end up attributing what they believe are leadership qualities more often than not to men.

8 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

Saying woman are the ones with empathy and men the tough warriors is quite stereotyping in itself.

I never said any particular man could not be more empathetic than a woman, or that any particular woman could not have 'tough warrior qualities'. If I had said this it would be a stereotype (oversimplified perception), but tests have shown that (on average) women display more empathy, and that men (on average) have more concerns about being strong or tough. And so women do make better leaders, on average, as some savvy business owners are discovering -- a good leader is able to empathize with employees in order to facilitate cooperation.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

5 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

When working with quota's you will by default exclude candidates ignoring their qualifications. I can not see how that is a good thing from any point of view.

In the debate over quotas what I like about both sides of this debate is the desire to achieve fairness. One side seems more concerned that an individual not be shortchanged, while the other side appears to be more concerned about the group as a whole (and, of course, the individuals that comprise the group).
I'm willing to possibly shortchange the few for the good of the many, because at least more people are treated fairly in the end. If there were a way for all to be treated in an absolutely fair manner I'd support it, but there's not. Quotas are the best we can do at this time.
The above is rather moot though for the most part, because in most cases, past and present, both male and female applicants were/are equally qualified for a leadership position -- typically there is no big difference in ability between male/female. However, preferential treatment has typically been given to the male (less so today, but prejudice still exists), so why not give preferential treatment to women until less prejudice exists?     Again, because more people end up being treated fairly this way.

[Zeta Vandyke]

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

typically there is no big difference in ability between male/female.

I think the whole problem is this reasoning. There should be no talk at all about male or female. The ability is not based on their gender.

Its based on the candidates personality, education, past experiences, and so on. Each candidate for a postilion should be judged on the requirements of that specific function and the one with the best qualifications and best fit within the environment where they need to function should be hired. And if the one that suits best is a guy but get passed by because we need to fill a woman quota, that's bollocks.

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

22 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

typically there is no big difference in ability between male/female.

I think the whole problem is this reasoning. There should be no talk at all about male or female. The ability is not based on their gender.

Its based on the candidates personality, education, past experiences, and so on. Each candidate for a postilion should be judged on the requirements of that specific function and the one with the best qualifications and best fit within the environment where they need to function should be hired. And if the one that suits best is a guy but get passed by because we need to fill a woman quota, that's bollocks.

But the reality is that people operate with prejudiced attitudes. The human brain categorizes experience in order to understand it better/faster. We have an unconscious/subconscious mind that can influence attitudes and decisions.

The reason we need to "talk" about it is to try and change the stereotypes so that more are treated fairly.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Luna Bliss

[Selene Gregoire]

24 minutes ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

I think the whole problem is this reasoning. There should be no talk at all about male or female. The ability is not based on their gender.

Its based on the candidates personality, education, past experiences, and so on. Each candidate for a postilion should be judged on the requirements of that specific function and the one with the best qualifications and best fit within the environment where they need to function should be hired. And if the one that suits best is a guy but get passed by because we need to fill a woman quota, that's bollocks.

That is how it should be. In reality, in the US, it is not. I lost count of the number of times I was the best candidate for a position and was passed over because female and lost the position to a man. 

Only once did a company wake up and realize the mistake they had made. I ended up working for them for 10 years. I wish that company still existed. I'd still be working there and getting ready to retire. Something I doubt I will ever get to do.

[Zeta Vandyke]

3 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

That is how it should be. In reality, in the US

Yeah I have to keep that in mind when venting my opinion

Mine is based on the situation over here. And sure there's gender discrimination, or other forms of, but not as rampant that it warrants quota's (imo!). From my point of view, quota's itself are a form of gender discrimination. Let the government invest in informing, educating and motivating, but not enforcing in this particular field. If there's one thing governments are incapable of its running efficient well functioning organizations. (at least, that's how I view Dutch (local) governments)

[Selene Gregoire]

2 minutes ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

Yeah I have to keep that in mind when venting my opinion

Mine is based on the situation over here. And sure there's gender discrimination, or other forms of, but not as rampant that it warrants quota's (imo!). From my point of view, quota's itself are a form of gender discrimination. Let the government invest in informing, educating and motivating, but not enforcing in this particular field. If there's one thing governments are incapable of its running efficient well functioning organizations. (at least, that's how I view Dutch (local) governments)

How do you know it isn't as "rampant" in Nederland as in other countries? Got any links I can take a look at? I don't doubt that it may not be as prevalent as in some countries but I have the feeling it is worse than you believe. I'd love to see something that shows me otherwise. 

[KanryDrago]

19 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

How do you know it isn't as "rampant" in Nederland as in other countries? Got any links I can take a look at? I don't doubt that it may not be as prevalent as in some countries but I have the feeling it is worse than you believe. I'd love to see something that shows me otherwise. 

Because naturally Selene knows better about how things are in someone elses country. We in europe aren't american. Our employment laws are not like yours which is why american companies are constantly screwing up over here and paying compensation to staff. Don't judge the rest of the world by US standards you have no employee protection whatsoever as far as I can see

[Selene Gregoire]

18 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

Because naturally Selene knows better about how things are in someone elses country. We in europe aren't american. Our employment laws are not like yours which is why american companies are constantly screwing up over here and paying compensation to staff. Don't judge the rest of the world by US standards you have no employee protection whatsoever as far as I can see

That is one hell of a wild assumption.

Perhaps it would be best if I just remained ignorant of how things are in other countries. And what the differences are between the US federal and state labor laws and the labor laws of other countries.

 

On second thought... eff you, the horse you rode in on, the horse you ride out on and any horse you ever ride.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Selene Gregoire

[Luna Bliss]

I am really down on the U.S. in so many ways. We've got a huge population of Evangelicals that believe man should be the head of the house and women should know their place, and that marriage should be only between men and women. And of course, the Rump.

But...when I was living in an Ashram I met people from all over the world, and there were some horribly prejudiced people from other countries who visited the ashram, both men and women. The majority were not prejudiced, but enough were for me to know that it's bad everywhere. Most shocking in this case because they were supposed to be into Yoga and believe in love, and because meditation's aim is to reduce the conditioned thought patterns that contribute to prejudice.

[KanryDrago]

11 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

That is one hell of a wild assumption.

Perhaps it would be best if I just remained ignorant of how things are in other countries. And what the differences are between the US federal and state labor laws and the labor laws of other countries.

 

On second thought... eff you, the horse you rode in on, the horse you ride out on and any horse you ever ride.

Its not a wild assumption at all. You came in and told a dutch woman that she must be mistaken about how things are in holland because it didn't fit your world view.

Some american's do seem to believe how america is, so the rest of the world must be. Now I have worked for american companies that have offices in Europe and I know one of the first thing the american management moan about is European labour laws and why can't they just fire people when ever they want, why do we get more than 10 days holiday etc....

So forgive me my "assumption" is based upon a certain amount of experience....your assumption that Zeta must be wrong seems to be based on "This is how things are in the states so they must be the same for you and you are just not realizing it". You were incredibly condescending to her

[Orwar]

   One month's notice and 25 days holiday minimum by law, in Sweden. Often modified by collective agreements by the unions.

   Edit: Additionally, a work week may be no longer than 40 hours (short periods of increased workload are allowed, but every hour beyond those 40 must be paid as overtime AND deducted from a later week, and at no time may a worker be scheduled in such a way that they do not have 11 hours of respite before the next full-time shift).

Edited June 28, 2019 by Orwar