Australia is run by men - what does that say about us?

[jamonwindeyer]

RIP when I get downvoted

It is well within reason for someone to down-vote you if they don't like your conduct or feel the way you present your views (intentional or otherwise) is disrespectful/patronising, irrespective of the actual views you present

ps. this thread has probably been some of the most controversial things i've publicly posted. i respect all of your views/discussion, and i am sorry if i have offended anyone, man or woman. i honestly think you're all great people and nothing, your gender, should stop you from achieving your dreams, whether it be in politics or elsewhere
and i am also sorry to any women/girls here in particular, who have been told that they "couldn't" do things because they're female

Just a shout out, though I disagree with you, massive amount of respect for sharing your views my friend (and of course extended to all above)

[sudodds]

a question to the men/males here: how would you feel if your spot, say, in a future career/job, was taken by a woman, not because she was more competent than you, but simply because she was a woman? would you be okay with it? would you feel discriminated against?
obviously, i'm not saying that men are more competent than women in all areas. there are obviously some women more competent than men.

(not a male soz haha) but I don't really think this is what is being argued. I don't think that we should be firing anyone, or actively replace men with women in the workforce. However, I do think increasing the accessibility of various industries so that it isn't so closed off is a good thing I posted the link to a Harvard study yesterday, which revealed that in many instances employers/interviewers adopted different behaviour with male and female candidates - irrespective of their qualifications - based on implicit bias which can have a critical impact upon interview performance and acceptance. It's not such a black and white "who is more competent" issue.

ps. this thread has probably been some of the most controversial things i've publicly posted. i respect all of your views/discussion, and i am sorry if i have offended anyone, man or woman. i honestly think you're all great people and nothing, your gender, should stop you from achieving your dreams, whether it be in politics or elsewhere
and i am also sorry to any women/girls here in particular, who have been told that they "couldn't" do things because they're female

Tbh I think you have handled yourself really well - we may disagree on a few things, but personally I don't think you have said anything offensive (in fact I'd say the opposite - you've been super respectful in my view) It's super important that everyone gets the opportunity to share their opinion, and you should never feel scared to do so - no matter how "controversial"

[Sine]

It is well within reason for someone to down-vote you if they don't like your conduct or feel the way you present your views (intentional or otherwise) is disrespectful/patronising, irrespective of the actual views you present

I don't mean to drag this on and for what it's worth this thread is well beyond it's expiry date since it's no longer answering OP's question. (lock thread? - many people have asked me)

I'm sorry to any who may have been offended from the way in which i began my posts with "LOL" and "lolololol"

thanks Sine

[appleandbee]

I do respect the views of others, but it does annoy me when people refuse to engage with other people's views (but still like to argue and assert their points), continue asserting the same responses ignoring the context provided in other people's arguments and back away from their responses/become unresponsive when people answer their questions in a way that doesn't follow their hypothesis. People are actively trying to respectfully engage with them, but that isn't reciprocated unfortunately, and thus people are not able to understand their views (which I'm genuinely interested in, especially when it is different from mine).

The concession, acceptance and perpetuation of fucked gendered stereotypes which few members tried to disguise under the labelling of equality in society, claiming that women should be contented because they are employed, is ridiculous. If we really believe that equality is about choice and that people career goals shouldn't be limited by their gender (which is what few members claimed to believe in), the perpetuation of gender/nature stereotypes and the complacency with simply being employed has to improve. It is this kind of attitude that reduces incentive to employ men in childcare or women in engineering and stops progress in the changing perceptions amongst employers, as this stereotype sends the message that by nature, man and women belong in fixed fields (which by the way, few members still hasn't answered the question 'that if nature is such a convincing argument, why doesn't 90% of women go into nursing, early education etc.?) and that they should be happy that they are being employed  in the first place.

a question to the men/males here: how would you feel if your spot, say, in a future career/job, was taken by a woman, not because she was more competent than you, but simply because she was a woman? would you be okay with it? would you feel discriminated against?
obviously, i'm not saying that men are more competent than women in all areas. there are obviously some women more competent than men.

personally, as a woman, I would hate to be told that "oh you're only here cos you're a woman" etc, i want to learn to work hard rather than wait for things to be handed to me.

You have a couple of loaded assumptions in your argument:
a) You yourself have self-created and perpetuated the stereotype that if a girl is employed, gender is a factor
b) A woman probably isn't as competent as a man
c) Women and men are considered on an equal playing field with employers (in the fields of interest) and are perceived in the same way
d) Women would be stealing jobs from men

I'll start with d), and consider it in two parts, 1) How will this be done (taking off from EEEEEEP’s weird logic that politicians and engineers would be fired)?

Quotas or incentives doesn’t result in anyone being fired. Gender balance isn’t an overnight result, it happens overtime when you employ more women into engineering and corporate graduate positions and the skewed percentages evens out after a while. This doesn’t involve firing anyone. As for politics, a career as a politician isn’t designed to be a stable job, an entitlement or a lifelong career. People get careers in politics and manage to stay in it, because they are backed by certain factions and have the right connections within the party at a certain point in time. A person from the same party can challenge the current member in a seat (as Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull did in their respective seats) if they feel that they have the factional and party membership backing. Sexism and the toxic culture which surrounds is often more explicit and prevalent in party factions (in both left and right-wing parties) and the membership base where the ‘old boys club’ culture persist, which prevents female candidates from being supported and nominated in the first place.

The second part, How do guys feel?:

Obviously I’m not a guy, but I am in a few traditionally male-dominated areas. I am a Physics major at uni (as well as a Neuroscience and Philosophy triple), doing a long-term internship at a prominent economics/international politics/societal issues/science magazine, am involved in the university debating society and hoping to train as a Neurologist. I haven’t faced salty men in my fields, and have the support of my debating society’s presidents (who are both male) and got of mentorship at the magazine (mentors and editors are all male). At the Australian and Australasian Intervarsities (which I’ll be attending in July), all university contingents have to be composed of at least 1/3 female/non-cis male in both the debating and adjudicating components. My university’s contingent is about 40-60% female at all recent major tournaments, so the quotas didn’t affect the selection of men. Over-time the representation of females increased due to the greater incentive, encouragement and training resources and the fact that selectors are more open to selecting women because they have been exposed to great female debaters through the use of quotas. I’ve never encountered a salty guy in the contingent.

In the first place (tackling assumptions b) and c) ), women and men in certain fields aren’t even considered on equal footing in employment in certain fields, due to the implicit biases about perceived competency, maternity leave discrimination, lack of exposure in the mainstream that I discussed a few posts ago (you should have read it). You should be asking “How does a women feel?”. The opposite of what you are suggesting is happening, that a women has to appear perfect and be exceptional of be on the corporate executive board, high flying consulting or engineering firm. Quotas are meant to tackle the implicit biases and maternity leave discrimination and provide greater exposure to employers about the abilities of females.

As for politics, people vote in two ways. Firstly, based on the party (nothing wrong with that since broad ideology and overall outcomes are important). As I mentioned before, the explicit sexism and toxic culture in party factions, membership base and well as in feeder areas like trade unions, the IPA and student politics (which are important platforms), prevent many women from being preselected, nominated and supported by the party factions in the first place. The second way people vote, is based on the person, where subconscious and unconscious biases play a major factor, which I discussed in detail a few posts ago. Only a minority of voters actually read policy manifestos, analysis and do fact-checking.

And yes, I would support quotas for men in childcare if there was evidence to suggest that discrimination in the industry or by employers prevented them from being employed, hence why they decided not to pursue childcare. A bit of sexism and gendered perpetuation amongst society exists in regards to male childcare workers, but there is no barriers to them being employed as far as I know of. Gender imbalance is some fields is an issue because it isn’t due to free choice and because barriers exists in entering the field (when there is a fairly even distribution of women studying commerce, international relations and law at university, I'm not too sure how you can suggest that they aren't interested in high-level corporate roles and politics. Sure job skills is different from studying a subjects, but those qualities are honed through experience, internships and opportunities and well as some encouragement to aim for as high as they want).

EDIT: I do not believe, that women are obligated to vote for female politicians because there are many considerations involved. I myself, would have have voted for Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton had he ran for President (though if Janet Yellen, the Reserve Bank governor ran, it would have made my choice more complicated), because of his focus on the most economically and socially disenfranchised. I'm just saying saying that given that most people vote for a politician based on the party banner or their perception/media construction of the person rather than actual polities, it is important that we reduce the bottlenecks in party politics preventing and persuading women from being nominated as well as the subconscious and unconscious biases of voters (through more exposure in the mainstream), in order to allow voters to make a more informed choice (for themselves, I'm not suggesting a certain outcome) and improve the structures/mechanisms within parties.

[peterpiper]

You have a couple of loaded assumptions in your argument:
a) You yourself have self-created and perpetuated the stereotype that if a girl is employed, gender is a factor
b) A woman probably isn't as competent as a man
c) Women and men are considered on an equal playing field with employers (in the fields of interest) and are perceived in the same way
d) Women would be stealing jobs from men

I'll start with d), and consider it in two parts, 1) How will this be done (taking off from EEEEEEP’s weird logic that politicians and engineers would be fired)?

Quotas or incentives doesn’t result in anyone being fired. Gender balance isn’t an overnight result, it happens overtime when you employ more women into engineering and corporate graduate positions and the skewed percentages evens out after a while. This doesn’t involve firing anyone. As for politics, a career as a politician isn’t designed to be a stable job, an entitlement or a lifelong career. People get careers in politics and manage to stay in it, because they are backed by certain factions and have the right connections within the party at a certain point in time. A person from the same party can challenge the current member in a seat (as Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull did in their respective seats) if they feel that they have the factional and party membership backing. Sexism and the toxic culture which surrounds is often more explicit and prevalent in party factions (in both left and right-wing parties) and the membership base where the ‘old boys club’ culture persist, which prevents female candidates from being supported and nominated in the first place.

The second part, How do guys feel?:

Obviously I’m not a guy, but I am in a few traditionally male-dominated areas. I am a Physics major at uni (as well as a Neuroscience and Philosophy triple), doing a long-term internship at a prominent economics/international politics/societal issues/science magazine, am involved in the university debating society and hoping to train as a Neurologist. I haven’t faced salty men in my fields, and have the support of my debating society’s presidents (who are both male) and got of mentorship at the magazine (mentors and editors are all male). At the Australian and Australasian Intervarsities (which I’ll be attending in July), all university contingents have to be composed of at least 1/3 female/non-cis male in both the debating and adjudicating components. My university’s contingent is about 40-60% female at all recent major tournaments, so the quotas didn’t affect the selection of men. Over-time the representation of females increased due to the greater incentive, encourage and training resources and the fact that selectors are more open to selecting women because they have been exposed to great female debaters through the use of quotas. I’ve never encountered a salty guy in the contingent.

In the first place (tackling assumptions b) and c) ), women and men in certain fields aren’t even considered on equal footing in employment in certain fields, due to the implicit biases about perceived competency, maternity leave discrimination, lack of exposure in the mainstream that I discussed a few posts ago (you should have read it). You should be asking “How does a women feel?”. The opposite of what you are suggesting is happening, that a women has to appear perfect and be exceptional of be on the corporate executive board, high flying consulting or engineering firm. Quotas are meant to tackle the implicit biases and maternity leave discrimination and provide greater exposure to employers about the abilities of females.

As for politics, people vote in two ways. Firstly, based on the party (nothing wrong with that since broad ideology and overall outcomes are important). As I mentioned before, the explicit sexism and toxic culture in party factions, membership base and well as in feeder areas like trade unions, the IPA and student politics (which are important platforms), prevent many women from being preselected, nominated and supported by the party factions in the first place. The second way people vote, is based on the person, where subconscious and unconscious biases play a major factor, which I discussed in detail a few posts ago. Only a minority of voters actually read policy manifestos, analysis and do fact-checking.

And yes, I would support quotas for men in childcare if there was evidence to suggest that discrimination in the industry or by employers prevented them from being employed, hence why they decided not to pursue childcare. A bit of sexism and gendered perpetuation amongst society exists in regards to male childcare workers, but there is no barriers to them being employed as far as I know of. Gender imbalance is some fields is an issue because it isn’t due to free choice and because barriers exists in entering the field (when there is a fairly even distribution of women studying commerce, international relations and law at university, I'm not too sure how you can suggest that they aren't interested in high-level corporate roles and politics. Sure job skills is different from studying a subjects, but those qualities are honed through experience, internships and opportunities and well as some encouragement to aim for as high as they want).

EDIT: I do not believe, that women are obligated to vote for female politicians because there are many considerations involved. I myself, would have have voted for Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton had he ran for President (though if Janet Yellen, the Reserve Bank governor ran, it would have made my choice more complicated), because of his focus on the most economically and socially disenfranchised. I'm just saying saying that given that most people vote for a politician based on the party banner or their perception/media construction of the person rather than actual polities, it is important that we reduce the bottlenecks in party politics preventing and persuading women from being nominated as well as the subconscious and unconscious biases of voters (through more exposure in the mainstream), in order to allow voters to make a more informed choice (for themselves, I'm not suggesting a certain outcome) and improve the structures/mechanisms within parties.

Just wanted to say: I've always had a feeling of malaise/deep discomfort when someone suggests to me that 50-50 quotas actively steal the opportunities of men, but I've never been able to locate logically why (I'm not v. adept in the logical reasoning department). I don't have much to add on, other than -- very well argued and thank you for sharing.

[strawberries]

first of all, this post has been difficult to write so i hope that you will respect me for sharing my views as i have with y'all

I do respect the views of others, but it does annoy me when people refuse to engage with other people's views (but still like to argue and assert their points), continue asserting the same responses ignoring the context provided in other people's arguments and back away from their responses/become unresponsive when people answer their questions in a way that doesn't follow their hypothesis. People are actively trying to respectfully engage with them, but that isn't reciprocated unfortunately, and thus people are not able to understand their views (which I'm genuinely interested in, especially when it is different from mine).

okay, I don't know if you're referring to me here, but i have been engaging with others' views thank you very much i just haven't quoted them. and yes, i am allowed to introduce new arguments can i not?
(also don't have time to read word for word every single comment)

You have a couple of loaded assumptions in your argument:
a) You yourself have self-created and perpetuated the stereotype that if a girl is employed, gender is a factor
b) A woman probably isn't as competent as a man
c) Women and men are considered on an equal playing field with employers (in the fields of interest) and are perceived in the same way
d) Women would be stealing jobs from men

a) I did not load this assumption in my argument at all. but we cannot deny that in some places they are 'required' to have a certain number of women.
b) where did I say this? I literally said right below that some women are more competent than men. it was probably an assumption by many dating back a century or so that women couldn't do things that men could, but I never implied this right now!!
c) well they should be on an equal playing field. ofc you can't change an individual's bias but having forced equal representation/quotas and such do not help and doesn't help employers move past the bias
d) well, if a company had to hire more women to reach a certain number, some men could be missing out. i didn't necessarily use the word 'steal' or imply it in a strong sense

I'll start with d), and consider it in two parts, 1) How will this be done (taking off from EEEEEEP’s weird logic that politicians and engineers would be fired)?

Quotas or incentives doesn’t result in anyone being fired. Gender balance isn’t an overnight result, it happens overtime when you employ more women into engineering and corporate graduate positions and the skewed percentages evens out after a while. This doesn’t involve firing anyone. As for politics, a career as a politician isn’t designed to be a stable job, an entitlement or a lifelong career. People get careers in politics and manage to stay in it, because they are backed by certain factions and have the right connections within the party at a certain point in time. A person from the same party can challenge the current member in a seat (as Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull did in their respective seats) if they feel that they have the factional and party membership backing. Sexism and the toxic culture which surrounds is often more explicit and prevalent in party factions (in both left and right-wing parties) and the membership base where the ‘old boys club’ culture persist, which prevents female candidates from being supported and nominated in the first place.

EEEEEEP can reply to this if he wants to, but I did not use his logic in addressing my arguments
I won't try and argue on his behalf but I understand what he is trying to say if you're all about forced equal representation

i won't deny that there is sexism in political parties. but why would you want to be associated with a 'sexist' political party? sure, you might say the only way of getting elected is by being a member of the lib/lab parties but why would you run for that party if you don't believe in their views then?
also gillard had alot of male supporters re the whole rudd/gillard drama
yes, i am not very knowledgable on the inside workings of political parties, so i am interested in being enlightened more in this area

I never said politicians or engineers or anyone would need to be fired.
say if there are some more jobs, openings/spaces in a company available, then some of those spaces would 'have' to go to women to reach a quota.

The second part, How do guys feel?:

Obviously I’m not a guy, but I am in a few traditionally male-dominated areas. I am a Physics major at uni (as well as a Neuroscience and Philosophy triple), doing a long-term internship at a prominent economics/international politics/societal issues/science magazine, am involved in the university debating society and hoping to train as a Neurologist. I haven’t faced salty men in my fields, and have the support of my debating society’s presidents (who are both male) and got of mentorship at the magazine (mentors and editors are all male). At the Australian and Australasian Intervarsities (which I’ll be attending in July), all university contingents have to be composed of at least 1/3 female/non-cis male in both the debating and adjudicating components. My university’s contingent is about 40-60% female at all recent major tournaments, so the quotas didn’t affect the selection of men. Over-time the representation of females increased due to the greater incentive, encourage and training resources and the fact that selectors are more open to selecting women because they have been exposed to great female debaters through the use of quotas. I’ve never encountered a salty guy in the contingent.

First of all, good job on your internships and debating success
That's good the men aren't salty, because I hope you got those positions based on your merit and hard work. If you did, then they shouldn't be salty at all

In the first place (tackling assumptions b) and c) ), women and men in certain fields aren’t even considered on equal footing in employment in certain fields, due to the implicit biases about perceived competency, maternity leave discrimination, lack of exposure in the mainstream that I discussed a few posts ago (you should have read it). You should be asking “How does a women feel?”. The opposite of what you are suggesting is happening, that a women has to appear perfect and be exceptional of be on the corporate executive board, high flying consulting or engineering firm. Quotas are meant to tackle the implicit biases and maternity leave discrimination and provide greater exposure to employers about the abilities of females.

are you referring to this post that you wrote?
i do believe that there are somemany women who are more competent than men in some places, and have gotten jobs over men due to their competency and not their gender
in regarding how does a woman feel? i am a woman, and i know how i feel. i know how i feel may be different to how you feel, but yeah. i am not a male so that is why i asked how men feel, as i do not know what it's like to be a man. 
in reply to the linked post, i will say this: there are many competent, capable women in australian politics right now who we can look up to (obviously your opinion may differ depending on your political views and what you define as 'competent') e.g. julie bishop, kelly o'dwyer, penny wong, tanya plibersek, kate ellis, larissa waters, pauline hanson, jacqui lambie etc. list goes on

As for politics, people vote in two ways. Firstly, based on the party (nothing wrong with that since broad ideology and overall outcomes are important). As I mentioned before, the explicit sexism and toxic culture in party factions, membership base and well as in feeder areas like trade unions, the IPA and student politics (which are important platforms), prevent many women from being preselected, nominated and supported by the party factions in the first place. The second way people vote, is based on the person, where subconscious and unconscious biases play a major factor, which I discussed in detail a few posts ago. Only a minority of voters actually read policy manifestos, analysis and do fact-checking.

yeah, there are many ways citizens vote which I do agree with you. our voting system may not be perfect, but after all, it is up to individual voters themselves to look up the individual candidates and their party manifestos



that being said, i very well respect your views and i wish you much success in life
i also respect anyone with differing views and am willing to keep the discussions civil (also I would like to know if I am wrong/misinformed anywhere, not being sarcastic, because I know I can be stubborn )

to close it off, i believe being a woman should be no barrier to doing what you want to do be your own inspiration

Moderator Edit [Aaron]: Removed personal remark

[Quantum44]

Just wanted to say: I've always had a feeling of malaise/deep discomfort when someone suggests to me that 50-50 quotas actively steal the opportunities of men, but I've never been able to locate logically why (I'm not v. adept in the logical reasoning department). I don't have much to add on, other than -- very well argued and thank you for sharing.

Well if the gender divide between people applying for a certain job is 70/30 favouring men, then it follows that the gender divide between the accepted applicants should be 70/30 assuming there is an equal distribution of competency for the job amongst both males and females. Thus, by forcing a 50/50 quota more competent males will lose the job to less competent females.

In this example, say there are 20 jobs and 100 applicants and 20 individuals at the 'highest competence level'. Given the distribution explained before and the 70/30 gender divide these 20 individuals will be composed of 14 men and 6 women. If you force a 50/50 quota, 4 of the competent men will miss out to females of a lower competence level.

If there is any logic flaw please tell me, but this is why I don't believe in gender quotas.

[peterpiper]

Well if the gender divide between people applying for a certain job is 70/30 favouring men, then it follows that the gender divide between the accepted applicants should be 70/30 assuming there is an equal distribution of competency for the job amongst both males and females. Thus, by forcing a 50/50 quota more competent males will lose the job to less competent females.

In this example, say there are 20 jobs and 100 applicants and 20 individuals at the 'highest competence level'. Given the distribution explained before and the 70/30 gender divide these 20 individuals will be composed of 14 men and 6 women. If you force a 50/50 quota, 4 of the competent men will miss out to females of a lower competence level.

If there is any logic flaw please tell me, but this is why I don't believe in gender quotas.

Ah I know what you mean. I suspect the other point for introducing quotas would be that you're assuming that there aren't other competent females who have missed out in that 70/30 divide. Like there are only 6 out of potentially 10 women who are competent enough to hold the position the employers have available of which there is 20 for both sexes. The exact same could be said about the male counterparts who are accepted in the place of what could have been a more competent female worker.

This argument could then be further supported by evidence of bias in employer's choosing of their employees where being male gives you significantly more edge than if you were female. So qualifications aside, from just being male you're more likely to be hired than your female counterpart.

By introducing quotas, I think it actually gives a greater incentive for employers to look for competent workers, simply because the quota not only encourages for us to have a balanced workplace/environment, but it also challenges the employer's own biases in regards to what is half the population in consideration. In jobs where the statistics are skewed and verifiably (by research) entrenched in subconscious gender bias, this could be especially helpful, as qualifications/employable skillset would become an overriding quality in any of the prospective candidates irrespective of gender.   

However, and I see what you mean, the problem with this is, say for example in a job market such as politics, where due to the toxic environment, there may be a significantly lower proportion of females out in the job market suitable for that role; therefore, employers would feel compelled to hire those females instead of the male counterparts who may be more qualified of which there is a higher saturation of in the job market.

I'll probably leave this for another person to argue against, as I'm not sure I can put a good defence to it. Interesting though, nonetheless -- what you brought up .

[Quantum44]

Ah I know what you mean. I suspect the other point for introducing quotas would be that you're assuming that there aren't other competent females who have missed out in that 70/30 divide. Like there are only 6 out of potentially 10 women who are competent enough to hold the position the employers have available of which there is 20 for both sexes. The exact same could be said about the male counterparts who are accepted in the place of what could have been a more competent female worker.

This argument could then be further supported by evidence of bias in employer's choosing of their employees where being male gives you significantly more edge than if you were female. So qualifications aside, from just being male you're more likely to be hired than your female counterpart.

By introducing quotas, I think it actually gives a greater incentive for employers to look for competent workers, simply because the quota not only encourages for us to have a balanced workplace/environment, but it also challenges the employer's own biases in regards to what is half the population in consideration. In jobs where the statistics are skewed and verifiably (by research) entrenched in subconscious gender bias, this could be especially helpful, as qualifications/employable skillset would become an overriding quality in any of the prospective candidates irrespective of gender.   

However, and I see what you mean, the problem with this is, say for example in a job market such as politics, where due to the toxic environment, there may be a significantly lower proportion of females out in the job market suitable for that role; therefore, employers would feel compelled to hire those females instead of the male counterparts who may be more qualified of which there is a higher saturation of in the job market.

I'll probably leave this for another person to argue against, as I'm not sure I can put a good defence to it. Interesting though, nonetheless -- what you brought up .

I'm not sure quite what you mean in that first paragraph. My thinking is that in areas perceived to be 'sexist', the reason there are more men than women is because more men apply for the actual job. Therefore it makes perfect sense that more men than women get the job (assuming equal distribution of competency in both genders).

I agree that women face problems in many areas and that these issues need to be addressed, but quotas are unfair and not a valid solution. In my opinion quotas do not encourage competency, but promote mediocrity, and if you want to eliminate subconscious bias, change the way society thinks instead of changing the rules to advantage women.

[zhen]

Ah I know what you mean. I suspect the other point for introducing quotas would be that you're assuming that there aren't other competent females who have missed out in that 70/30 divide. Like there are only 6 out of potentially 10 women who are competent enough to hold the position the employers have available of which there is 20 for both sexes. The exact same could be said about the male counterparts who are accepted in the place of what could have been a more competent female worker.

This argument could then be further supported by evidence of bias in employer's choosing of their employees where being male gives you significantly more edge than if you were female. So qualifications aside, from just being male you're more likely to be hired than your female counterpart.

By introducing quotas, I think it actually gives a greater incentive for employers to look for competent workers, simply because the quota not only encourages for us to have a balanced workplace/environment, but it also challenges the employer's own biases in regards to what is half the population in consideration. In jobs where the statistics are skewed and verifiably (by research) entrenched in subconscious gender bias, this could be especially helpful, as qualifications/employable skillset would become an overriding quality in any of the prospective candidates irrespective of gender.   

However, and I see what you mean, the problem with this is, say for example in a job market such as politics, where due to the toxic environment, there may be a significantly lower proportion of females out in the job market suitable for that role; therefore, employers would feel compelled to hire those females instead of the male counterparts who may be more qualified of which there is a higher saturation of in the job market.

I'll probably leave this for another person to argue against, as I'm not sure I can put a good defence to it. Interesting though, nonetheless -- what you brought up .

I'm going to label the genders A and B to prevent any bias from my part. If there are 70 of gender A that apply for a job with 10 places and 30 of gender B apply for the same job, then chances are there are more likely to be more competent gender A people. Your point is that hypothetically the minority gender, which in this case is gender B could have 10 very competent workers. In this case the 50/50 rule does disadvantage the minority gender, but in most cases statistically the majority gender, which in this case is gender A, is disadvantaged as they are more likely to have more competent workers which aren't accepted due to the 50/50 rule. So this 50/50 rule really disadvantages the majority gender in every field, no matter what the gender is. In my opinion this 50/50 rule isn't really curing the disease, rather it's just treating a symptom. In my opinion the 50/50 rule won't really provide a meaningful increase to the amount of applicants from the minority gender in certain jobs, as they will continue to be disinterested in these fields due to their environment and the way they are raised. We need to increase the amount of people from the minority gender wanting to go into each field and I feel that to do this, we need to remove the gender stereotypes and biases from society. I feel like we need to target and erase these stereotypes from a young age and really make children believe that they can be whatever they want to be. This way people of either gender will be more interested in going to all sorts of different jobs.

[peterpiper]

I'm going to label the genders A and B to prevent any bias from my part. If there are 70 of gender A that apply for a job with 10 places and 30 of gender B apply for the same job, then chances are there are more likely to be more competent gender A people. Your point is that hypothetically the minority gender, which in this case is gender B could have 10 very competent workers. In this case the 50/50 rule does disadvantage the minority gender, but in most cases statistically the majority gender, which in this case is gender A, is disadvantaged as they are more likely to have more competent workers which aren't accepted due to the 50/50 rule. So this 50/50 rule really disadvantages the majority gender in every field, no matter what the gender is. In my opinion this 50/50 rule isn't really curing the disease, rather it's just treating a symptom. In my opinion the 50/50 rule won't really provide a meaningful increase to the amount of applicants from the minority gender in certain jobs, as they will continue to be disinterested in these fields due to their environment and the way they are raised. We need to increase the amount of people from the minority gender wanting to go into each field and I feel that to do this, we need to remove the gender stereotypes and biases from society. I feel like we need to target and erase these stereotypes from a young age and really make children believe that they can be whatever they want to be. This way people of either gender will be more interested in going to all sorts of different jobs.

I see, I see . But say hypothetically, if there were just as many competent women as there are competent men in the field, would it be fair to say then that a 50-50 quota would be disadvantaging no one?

Of course, realistically, we would have to take into account that perhaps due to the way things are that that may not be the case; and hence, as you say it, it would be disadvantaging especially to the male counterpart in quite a significant way. I see, I see. Thanks for your input zhen!

[zhen]

I see, I see . But say hypothetically, if there were just as many competent women as there are competent men in the field, would it be fair to say then that a 50-50 quota would be disadvantaging no one?

Of course, realistically, we would have to take into account that perhaps due to the way things are that that may not be the case; and hence, as you say it, it would be disadvantaging especially to the male counterpart in quite a significant way. I see, I see. Thanks for your input zhen!

Hypothetically if there are just as many competent people applying for the job from both genders then it doesn't disadvantage anyone. Also, this doesn't always disadvantage males, it just disadvantages the majority gender. If this 50/50 rule was placed in childcare, then women would be disdvantaged as they dominate that field.

[Russ]

I do respect the views of others, but it does annoy me when people refuse to engage with other people's views (but still like to argue and assert their points), continue asserting the same responses ignoring the context provided in other people's arguments and back away from their responses/become unresponsive when people answer their questions in a way that doesn't follow their hypothesis. People are actively trying to respectfully engage with them, but that isn't reciprocated unfortunately, and thus people are not able to understand their views (which I'm genuinely interested in, especially when it is different from mine).

The concession, acceptance and perpetuation of fucked gendered stereotypes which few members tried to disguise under the labelling of equality in society, claiming that women should be contented because they are employed, is ridiculous.

This is a very good comment and accurately describes my feelings as well (or would, if I was less snarky).

[Quantum44]

I see, I see . But say hypothetically, if there were just as many competent women as there are competent men in the field, would it be fair to say then that a 50-50 quota would be disadvantaging no one?

Of course, realistically, we would have to take into account that perhaps due to the way things are that that may not be the case; and hence, as you say it, it would be disadvantaging especially to the male counterpart in quite a significant way. I see, I see. Thanks for your input zhen!

Well in my model, under the assumption that there is an equal distribution of competency among both genders, the quota can only be fair when an equal number of males and females apply for the job, which is not the case in many fields where quotas are being introduced.

So unless you are going to assume that a greater percentage of women are more competent than men, a sexist assumption to be sure, then you can't argue against the fact that quotas disadvantage men in fields where more men apply for the job.

[elysepopplewell]

Alright, but you still didn't answer this question (I'll reply in full when I have more time haha

What is your solution to tackling this so-called 'unconscious bias'? Remember, it's not just a thought - it's a thought that you don't even know you're having.

The term is unconscious, not undetectable, impossible to identify, or non-existent. You can absolute recognise unconscious bias, particularly in retrospect. Perhaps a word that doesn't quite mean the exact same thing, but is still applicable, would be to call it "unintentional bias" because it doesn't come from a place of intent, but simmers beneath the surface in a way that isn't on the forefront of the conscience (hence, unconscious bias). I've mentioned it before in another discussion, but I recognise my unconscious bias regularly and seek to challenge it.

So, the first step to tackling "so-called" unconscious bias is to accept, or be open to accepting, it's existence. When one comes to realise some places it manifests, even in ways that seem to only be on a micro level, the dots come together and it makes sense that assuming a lawyer is a man by using a male pronoun when recounting a story wasn't a mistake produced in a vacuum.

Unconscious bias exists in ways outside of gender too. Affinity bias (sometimes called similarity bias I believe) is evident in the work place a lot. It is leaning towards people who are like you. I did an assignment on this last year for Journalism which I wish I could share but cannot due to the conditions my interviewees signed to regarding who their opinions can be shared with. But, the overwhelming evidence I find was that this is also a problem specifically related to gender, because when men hold the majority of CEO positions, and they lean towards affinity bias on an unconscious level, they bring other men up the ladder. Perhaps we could even apply this to politics when it comes to choosing ministers.

Unconscious bias doesn't just fester as a thought - it has ramifications, as hopefully seen in my example of a workplace affinity bias for just one scenario.

In a continuing attempt to overcome unconscious bias, we need to challenge it when we see it. Acknowledge it, dig a little deeper and wonder about the place it came from, and then we recognise the way we hold prejudice in a way that isn't always at the forefront of our intentions.

Edit: Adding that although we are discussing unconscious bias, which is super important, there is unfortunately issues of very conscious bias. Whether that comes from a place of blinding privilege, or cultural factors, fear, or so on. Obviously not all racism is unconscious, when some of it is very direct and intended! The same applies to gender. To this debate though, I think unconscious bias is really important to discuss and explore. Especially in relation to voting habits, choosing careers, choosing ministers/work team members, etc.