female only leadership plans

[I'm With Stupid]

unsatisfactory answer.

Luckily, it's not my job to satisfy you.

But as I'm feeling nice, here's something to get you started. It cites a number of studies in this area.

 

[BimboBob]

I don't like a world where any one is excluded from a job because of what sex they are.

Best person for the job gets the job. Simple.

 

[Ban-jani]

It’s what liberalism has become in this country, it’s gone too far.

A major client of ours, who we recruit for, literally said to me they want to see a certain percentage of women for senior roles over men despite the fact there are a high number of women in these roles already, it’s just to further improve their diversity stats, ethnic minority and female is a major bonus.

We have to tick their gender and ethnicity on the system and those that aren’t white and male are more likely to get an interview than those that are for many departments, due to individual managers being told to make their teams diverse. What kind of a message is this sending out? Why are we making it harder for anyone to get a job because of their skin colour or gender? This isn’t some tinpot company, they’re absolutely huge.

I never ever hear a feminist banging on about how many more men have given their lives to preserve freedom in the West than women, ironically so during the suffragette movement I would have been forced to go and die on the fields of France as a male and if I refused it was execution. During the same movement and following it, men of a lower class still couldn’t vote either.

I never hear them telling their fellow women to cover 50% of bills on dates (minor issue I know but still). I never hear them campaigning to give fathers the same rights to their children as mothers. I never hear them talking about how you’re much more likely to commit suicide as a young male than a female of any age. I never hear them talking about how young males do worse in education in modern Britain, yet they don’t shut up about business pay despite the facts not backing them up.

I never hear feminists in the west bringing up issues of sexism in other cultures, where misogyny truly does reign without much challenge, such as the religiously charged FGM, this possibly a symptom of the modern liberal leftist politics in this country that means you can only criticise British and American governments/culture as if we’re the ones with an issue.

As an example of a key difference in the West, a girl in my office came in after the Christmas party laughing about how she’d touched two men downstairs without consent, and the look they had on their faces of embarrassment, which amused everyone apart from these two timid young guys. Could you imagine if I’d done the same about touching two women inappropriately? I’d be sacked, yet hers was laughed off.

In my opinion in Britain and the West both genders face difficulties in different ways and it’s purely because men and women are different in nature. I know it’s somewhat dangerous to suggest we don’t be need to progress with a certain topic any further but I truly believe we’d pretty much got there by the millennium in terms of it being as good as it should be when it comes to men and women’s rights.

 

[purplenose]

It’s what liberalism has become in this country, it’s gone too far.

A major client of ours, who we recruit for, literally said to me they want to see a certain percentage of women for senior roles over men despite the fact there are a high number of women in these roles already, it’s just to further improve their diversity stats, ethnic minority and female is a major bonus.

We have to tick their gender and ethnicity on the system and those that aren’t white and male are more likely to get an interview than those that are for many departments, due to individual managers being told to make their teams diverse. What kind of a message is this sending out? Why are we making it harder for anyone to get a job because of their skin colour or gender? This isn’t some tinpot company, they’re absolutely huge.

I never ever hear a feminist banging on about how many more men have given their lives to preserve freedom in the West than women, ironically so during the suffragette movement I would have been forced to go and die on the fields of France as a male and if I refused it was execution. During the same movement and following it, men of a lower class still couldn’t vote either.

I never hear them telling their fellow women to cover 50% of bills on dates (minor issue I know but still). I never hear them campaigning to give fathers the same rights to their children as mothers. I never hear them talking about how you’re much more likely to commit suicide as a young male than a female of any age. I never hear them talking about how young males do worse in education in modern Britain, yet they don’t shut up about business pay despite the facts not backing them up.

I never hear feminists in the west bringing up issues of sexism in other cultures, where misogyny truly does reign without much challenge, such as the religiously charged FGM, this possibly a symptom of the modern liberal leftist politics in this country that means you can only criticise British and American governments/culture as if we’re the ones with an issue.

As an example of a key difference in the West, a girl in my office came in after the Christmas party laughing about how she’d touched two men downstairs without consent, and the look they had on their faces of embarrassment, which amused everyone apart from these two timid young guys. Could you imagine if I’d done the same about touching two women inappropriately? I’d be sacked, yet hers was laughed off.

In my opinion in Britain and the West both genders face difficulties in different ways and it’s purely because men and women are different in nature. I know it’s somewhat dangerous to suggest we don’t be need to progress with a certain topic any further but I truly believe we’d pretty much got there by the millennium in terms of it being as good as it should be when it comes to men and women’s rights.

Surely some of the above is both sexist and racist....Not you ban-jani, but some of what you describe? As you say though its all selective and people cannot see that all this all does is add fuel to the fire increase prejudice transfer rather than tackle discontent. Not to mention in some cases mean that the best and most deserving on merit are dismissed which surely cannot be good for whatever role is needed filling in whatever walk of life.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Viewing/search-results

As it's now a legal requirement in the UK for all companies employing more than 250 people to report the so called pay gap there is plenty of data. It all shows a big pay gap. Not because men get paid more than women for the same work but because more men do more work that pays more.

It's the most misleading data I've ever seen on any topic. That's how fucked up this debate has become by those marxists pushing equal outcome at any cost.

Now if I'm with stupid would care to share any actual data rather than his/her opinion, that would be nice.

 

[Ban-jani]

Surely some of the above is both sexist and racist....Not you ban-jani, but some of what you describe? As you say though its all selective and people cannot see that all this all does is add fuel to the fire increase prejudice transfer rather than tackle discontent. Not to mention in some cases mean that the best and most deserving on merit are dismissed which surely cannot be good for whatever role is needed filling in whatever walk of life.

It’s exactly as you say, racist and sexist but companies are doing it. They can show off diversity stats to customers/clients as marketing.

You’re right about fuel to the fire as well, it’ll get the people on the receiving end’s backs up.

Best person for the job every time in my opinion but then again that’s crazy in Britain in 2018.

 

[Ban-jani]

https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Viewing/search-results

As it's now a legal requirement in the UK for all companies employing more than 250 people to report the so called pay gap there is plenty of data. It all shows a big pay gap. Not because men get paid more than women for the same work but because more men do more work that pays more.

It's the most misleading data I've ever seen on any topic. That's how fucked up this debate has become by those marxists pushing equal outcome at any cost.

Now if I'm with stupid would care to share any actual data rather than his/her opinion, that would be nice.

Hear Fucking hear.

 

[purplenose]

It’s exactly as you say, racist and sexist but companies are doing it. They can show off diversity stats to customers/clients as marketing.

You’re right about fuel to the fire as well, it’ll get the people on the receiving end’s backs up.

Best person for the job every time in my opinion but then again that’s crazy in Britain in 2018.

Its insanity and its going to back fire all this pc/equal opportunities/ anti sexism anti racism has long since ceased to be a well meaning force for good, and has now become the very reason these evils flourish in 2018, achieving the exact opposite of what they were intended, whilst keeping some highly paid people otherwise unemployable in work.

 

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

I'm not sure what point you're making here. That seems to back up what I was saying. If more interviews result in more women getting positions, that's surely proof that there were previously plenty of women capable of interviewing well who weren't being offered interviews?

In your original posting you stated 'that deliberately shortlisting underrepresented groups', and it's that in it's self that raises a few issues and concerns.
On what basis are those groups under-represented ? Is it purely based on that the organisation should match the same demographics as the society as a whole?

It's been consistantly shown that if people are allowed free will to choose their vocations/types of employment then the demographic outcome of those organisations come nowhere near representing the same demographics are the society. This is mainly due to different genders (and even races or cultures) having totally different interests.
When chosing subjects to study at University men have more of an interest in the STEM subjects whereas women tend gravitate towards things like the social sciences.

This then raises another issue in that if an organisation/ institution/ certain career types doesn't reflect society as a whole is this necessarily a bad thing? If it is a bad thing then why don't we see male only shortlists for things like nursing, teaching assistants etc. if it isn't then why is the shortlisting of certain groups needed at all?

So this all comes back to the main issue where you are trying to socially engineer an outcome based on a faulty conclusion that everyone is the same. In the process of doing that you end up removing people's free will & choices and also need to discriminate against certain groups to achieve it, whilst also ignoring any meritocracy.

So if essence, you might not have any issues with
limiting people's choices & freewill,
discriminating against certain groups (based on skin colour/gender)
and paying or employing people based on skin colour or gender rather than on merit,
to pursue a flawed ideological outcome, but the majority of people see this as a problem.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

The case for anonymous recruitment is pretty obvious. The clearest example is the blind auditions in orchestras. Before they were introduced, 85% of musicians jobs in top orchestras went to men, despite 55% of music graduates of top music schools being female. When they put up a screen, and did the blind auditions......nothing changed. The unconscious bias in favour of men was so strong that even the sound of the woman's heels as she walked into the room was enough for her to be downgraded. So they had to put a rug down to hide the sound, and once they did that, they suddenly started to be judged on the quality of their work rather than the contents of their pants. And orchestras became roughly 50/50.

Obviously it's hard to do a job interview without knowing the gender of the applicant, but you can at least do the initial recruitment blind. And like the Rooney rule, if the person is then in the room, they at least have a chance to impress you. And they good thing about this is that it doesn't mean that you end up with a 50/50 split, you end up with a split that reflects how many men and women choose to enter that field. And then if you want to run a campaign encouraging more women (or men) to enter a particular field, I don't really have a problem with that.

And there certainly may be times when diversity might be a valid recruitment goal in itself. I can't help but think that if they had a black person on the design team, this wouldn't have happened...

Would this work for mime artists?