In defence of the 'F' word

[Remiel]

If you, the person making hiring decisions, can see the names on the resumes you have received you are doing it wrong. The very first step in the deliberative process should be to arrange for all resumes to be made anonymous before you first look at them.

[-1=e^ipi]

we still live in a patriarchy, regardless of what propaganda libertarians are flying today.

No we aren't. The patriarchy is an unfalsifiable flying spaghetti monster and does not come close to accurately describing Canadian society.

So you're just going to ignore that she said women and men with equal qualifications then?

I'm not ignoring it. Hiring men because they are men is sexist. And hiring women because they are women is sexist. The non-sexist solution is to flip a coin.

[Bryan]

If a department has a ratio of 4 men to 1 woman wouldn't that be considered sexist hiring.

Absolutely not. The ratio tells us nothing about who has actually applied for the jobs or why they were hired. For instance, the hiring ratio might be 4-1, but if the application ratio is 6-1, then women are actually OVER represented in that hypothetical workplace. Context is everything.

If bringing in 3 women to cover 3 vacancies offers some form of balance is that sexist?

If they are hired specifically for their gender, by definition that is exactly what it is.

Even if the gender balance really was out of whack for purely discriminatory reasons, any attempt to artificially correct that balance makes you as bad (if not worse) than the one who created the imbalance in the first place. An egalitarian correction would take a fair amount of time, and might actually never happen. You simply stop discriminating, and hire the best person for the job. If the best people are women, you'll have more on the job. If they aren't, you won't.

So you're just going to ignore that she said women and men with equal qualifications then?

There's no such thing. No two people have exactly the same experiences, education, interests, aptitudes, etc. There is always a way to rank applicants on quantifiable merit with respect to the specific job they are applying for.

[Big Guy]

To Bryan - I agree with your last assertion. In the recent past, the informed candidate would do a thorough search of business and social media in an attempt to find out the character and background of the members of the interview team - alumni of what college, hobbies, friends etc. Having additional interests in areas that may pertain to the position or associates could be considered.

Having been in the same frat as one of the interview team also does not hurt.

[cybercoma]

I'm not ignoring it. Hiring men because they are men is sexist. And hiring women because they are women is sexist. The non-sexist solution is to flip a coin.

If it were a flip of the coin then there would be an equal chance that equally qualified men or women would get the job. When the workplace is already looking at a 4:1 ratio of men to women, then why wouldn't you balance it out by hiring more equally qualified women?

[Spiderfish]

If it were a flip of the coin then there would be an equal chance that equally qualified men or women would get the job.

Only if there were an equal number of male and female applicants. WCR already established that there are significantly more males applying than females.

When the workplace is already looking at a 4:1 ratio of men to women, then why wouldn't you balance it out by hiring more equally qualified women?

It wouldn't be blanaced proportionally to the ratio of male vs female applicants. Actually, 4:1 ratio is very closely proportional to the ratio of male to female applicants.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Spiderfish

[-1=e^ipi]

When the workplace is already looking at a 4:1 ratio of men to women, then why wouldn't you balance it out by hiring more equally qualified women?

Because it is sexist. How hard is that to understand?

[Big Guy]

There are a number of professions where females far outnumber males - like nursing, elementary education and day care centres. Should there be an attempt to "equalize" the male/female ratio through hiring targets and quotas in these areas? Should the concept of affirmative action be applied in these areas to give males a "boost" in an effort to equalize numbers?

I personally do not think so.

[-1=e^ipi]

There are a number of professions where females far outnumber males - like nursing, elementary education and day care centres.

I had a male friend that was interested in entering nursing. He was singled out out of hundreds of students for being the male and it was strongly implied that nursing was a female profession.

But misandry doesn't exist! *sarcasm*

Should there be an attempt to "equalize" the male/female ratio through hiring targets and quotas in these areas?

Feminist dogma 101: Women are perpetual victims and men are perpetually privileged. Therefore, implementing quotas to help males will only increase male privilege and oppress women.

Edited April 3, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

Those poor white men. It's so difficult for them to find opportunities out there with all this discrimination against them.

[Michael Hardner]

I already have one who has soiled himself in outrage on another thread... expressing outrage for not having the right to criticize the 'founding ideals' of feminism on one hand, then being AGHAST ! at the assumption he may be against equality.

Anyway... there's a forum for people to shadowbox now....

[carepov]

New spaces are created by the market and should be filled by the most qualified with no reference to gender, race, creed or sexual preference.

If in the past my father was passed over by a white guy because he was black does not mean that I deserve to be sent to the front of the line because I am black.

Forced quotas and especially social manipulation does more harm than good. I am one of those who believe that the busing experiment in the USA and affirmative action processes in an attempt to force more blacks into the main stream is not very successful. The resentment still lingers since 1954 when the Supreme Court condemned segregation. The vast $billions invested in this attempt at social engineering would have been far better used in other processes.

I still see a seething resentment in Canadian Industry, Manufacturing and government organizations which hire according to quotas. Many professional women who I have met resent that others are being advanced through quotas in an attempt to satisfy artificial targets.

The other major problem I see is the process of establishing a quota that "represents the society". What the hell does that mean?

I guess that the percentage of blacks, gays, males, whites, aboriginal, etc in the civil service should represent the same percentage in the general population?

Does that mean that we set targets so that the work force has to represent the general population?

Does that mean that if an office hires a 50 year old, handicapped, aboriginal woman then it gets to check off 4 boxes?

Discrimination in the present to make up for the discrimination of the past does not work.

In general yes you are correct; usually the costs of affirmative action programs outweigh the benefits.

There are some instances where there is a net benefit to society or businesses. Diversity is an asset. For example, if you were looking for a real estate agent and saw two broker ads, one with only male, white faces at one broker with diverse faces... The key is to implement these programs only where they are needed and at minimal cost.

There are benefits to having a significant number of aboriginal RCMP officers that serve in Native communities. These officers will help build good relationships and are good role models.

Increasing aboriginals in post-secondary institutions and reducing those in jails are two other examples. There are likely good programs for women but I cannot think of any right now.

[WestCoastRunner]

Charles Barkley made a great statement the other day while discussing discrimination. He said that when he walks into a corporate meeting he knows he will be the only black man, there will be one woman present and the rest will be white men.

The point I am trying to make is that until women are hired and promoted to upper management positions that 4% will increase very slowly if at all.

Now some of you don't seem to have a problem with this. That's fair enough. But I certainly do and I will do whatever I can to increase the numbers even if it means hiring qualified women when they are available. You can call me sexist. I call it offering opportunities to minorities in the workplace.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are women considered to be "visible minorities" in the workplace ? Interesting concept....with respect to employment law.

[-1=e^ipi]

The point I am trying to make is that until women are hired and promoted to upper management positions that 4% will increase very slowly if at all.

90% of homeless people are male (and only 50% of homeless services are offered to males). 92% of workplace deaths are male. Male suicides outnumber Female suicides by 4 to 1. Males make up half of victims of domestic abuse, but there is basically zero support for them. In the event of a domestic dispute, police will almost always side with the female. The life expectancy gap still remains but society doesn't seem to care. Breast cancer funding far outweights prostate cancer funding. Females are far more likely to get custody of children in the event of a divorce. Males make up 77% of murder victims. Males are more likely to be assaulted. There is basically zero support for male victims of rape and often government definitions of rape will exclude 'forced penetration' from the definition of rape. Society mandates that males should not hit females, but if females hit males it is 'girl power'. Females make up 60% of university students and this percentage is growing.

The point I am trying to make is that until women are hired and promoted to upper management positions that 4% will increase very slowly if at all.

While I don't exclude sexism as a factor, there are other factors that help explain this 4%. Females are more likely to choose to take time off work to take care of children, which reduces their work experience and can make females on average less valuable to the employer. Biological factors that influence behaviour and cognitive ability may also play a roll. It is well established that the IQ distribution of males is more spread out than the IQ distribution of females. As a result, males make up a disproportionately higher percentage of intelligent people.

Now some of you don't seem to have a problem with this.

I never said that I don't have a problem with that or that discrimination doesn't play a role. But I cannot agree with ignoring other factors or hiring people based on their sex. A better solution is to change societal attitudes towards gender roles to reduce discrimination and to try to reduce social gender conditioning that may bias life decisions of individuals.

But I certainly do and I will do whatever I can to increase the numbers even if it means hiring qualified women when they are available. You can call me sexist.

Yes, this is sexism. Out of curiosity, where do transwomen fit into this? If I decided to get a sex change operation, would I now be more 'oppressed' and therefore should have better employment prospects?

I call it offering opportunities to minorities in the workplace.

Women make up the majority of the population. Women are not a minority, men are.

Edited April 3, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[WestCoastRunner]

Are women considered to be "visible minorities" in the workplace ? Interesting concept....with respect to employment law.

Have you ever filled out an online employment application. I have, plenty of them in the IT industry and the one question 'are you a member of a visible minority', has a dropdown that does contain 'female'.

I don't need an employment law to tell me that women are a visible minority in some sectors of the workforce.

[WestCoastRunner]

Yes, this is sexism. Out of curiosity, where do transwomen fit into this? If I decided to get a sex change operation, would I now be more 'oppressed' and therefore should have better employment prospects?

Is this a trick question?

90% of homeless people are male (and only 50% of homeless services are offered to males). 92% of workplace deaths are male. Male suicides outnumber Female suicides by 4 to 1. Males make up half of victims of domestic abuse, but there is basically zero support for them. In the event of a domestic dispute, police will almost always side with the female. The life expectancy gap still remains but society doesn't seem to care. Breast cancer funding far outweights prostate cancer funding. Females are far more likely to get custody of children in the event of a divorce. Males make up 77% of murder victims. Males are more likely to be assaulted. There is basically zero support for male victims of rape and often government definitions of rape will exclude 'forced penetration' from the definition of rape. Society mandates that males should not hit females, but if females hit males it is 'girl power'. Females make up 60% of university students and this percentage is growing.

You are welcome to start a thread on men's issues.

[-1=e^ipi]

Have you ever filled out an online employment application.

Yes. They all tell me that I should be discriminated against based on my race and sex. Apparently I have to be a scape goat for social justice so that more privileged people can have a false sense of moral superiority.

Is this a trick question?

No.

You are welcome to start a thread on men's issues.

Men's issues are related to the topic of this thread. You ask why some people are uncomfortable labeling themselves feminists. The tendency of feminists to ignore men's issues or gender issues that are discriminatory towards males is one of the contributing factors. As a result, many people, including myself, view mainstream feminism as incompatible with gender egalitarianism.

[bush_cheney2004]

Have you ever filled out an online employment application. I have, plenty of them in the IT industry and the one question 'are you a member of a visible minority', has a dropdown that does contain 'female'.

I don't need an employment law to tell me that women are a visible minority in some sectors of the workforce.

No, I don't live or work in Canada. "Visible minority" is technically defined for employment law in Canada. As another member has pointed out, females are not a minority in Canada. I am purposely not conflating the issue with U.S. statistics and employment law...or Sir Charles in America.

[WestCoastRunner]

Yes. They all tell me that I should be discriminated against based on my race and sex. Apparently I have to be a scape goat for social justice so that more privileged people can have a false sense of moral superiority.

No.

Men's issues are related to the topic of this thread. You ask why some people are uncomfortable labeling themselves feminists. The tendency of feminists to ignore men's issues or gender issues that are discriminatory towards males is one of the contributing factors. As a result, many people, including myself, view mainstream feminism as incompatible with gender egalitarianism.

I didn't ask why anyone is uncomfortable labelling themselves a feminist. It doesn't matter to me as long as they support equal rights for women.

Feminists supporting women's rights doesn't require them to ignore men's rights. Next you will be saying feminists hate men.

[WestCoastRunner]

No, I don't live or work in Canada. "Visible minority" is technically defined for employment law in Canada. As another member has pointed out, females are not a minority in Canada. I am purposely not conflating the issue with U.S. statistics and employment law...or Sir Charles in America.

These drop down lists for visible minorities that include 'female' are alive and thriving on u.s. Applications as well. When I was considering relocating to the U.S. I came across this on plenty of applications.

[bush_cheney2004]

These drop down lists for visible minorities that include 'female' are alive and thriving on u.s. Applications as well. When I was considering relocating to the U.S. I came across this on plenty of applications.

The racist term "visible minority" has no meaning in the U.S. Employment applications may distinguish between males and females, but not for minority status. Government contracts do have provisions for minority owned businesses, including female owned businesses, but they could be male owned as well.

[-1=e^ipi]

WestCoastRunner, you never answered my question about transwomen.

Feminists supporting women's rights doesn't require them to ignore men's rights. Next you will be saying feminists hate men.

Well some feminists hate men. Feminism can mean anything from gender egalitarianism to misandric hate ideology. And the perception that myself and others have is that male gender issues are being ignored by society.

[jacee]

WestCoastRunner, you never answered my question about transwomen.

Well some feminists hate men. Feminism can mean anything from gender egalitarianism to misandric hate ideology. And the perception that myself and others have is that male gender issues are being ignored by society.

Ya well that's up to men to do something about that.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

It doesn't matter to me as long as they support equal rights for women.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" - Orwell

What about equal rights for men or for non-binary-sex-identifying individuals?

Even your wording is sexist. Why not say 'as long as they support gender egalitarianism'?

Again the focus is always on women being perpetual victims so male issues get ignored, which means society is not as close to gender equity as it could otherwise be.