Equality

[DeletedUser28032]

No you've spelt "it" right

But if say we asking outside of tennis ( I know I restricted it in the parameters but since I asked the question I would like an answer.

Right well then that starts getting complex because is youre saying that both candidates for the job are equally qualified then you need to start looking at references and if after talking to previous employers they are still equal you use Tigers method

 

[DeletedUser]

There, please read what I said. (I originally put payed but changed it to paid before you go pointing out the edit.) I was saying that women were paid equal. What was you argument again? I never originally said that men were paid more.

Wrong, you originally stated that men were paid more then women, my argument was simply correcting you.

Here's a good question: should we enforce a policy of at least 50% women on a executive board of a company? (I've probably spelt it wrong, please tell me if I have.)

No, because that is not equal, that is saying that even if the male candidates are more competent, then the female candidates of lesser competence should take priority.

 

[DeletedUser31931]

But what if because there is no forced limit, men who are worse at the job get picked for the job over a woman who is better because men work better with men and are more likely to pick each other (even though with that factored in the woman is still a better candidate.)

By the way I'm actually on your side this is just a good way of practising my debating skills. Well.... Actually my side has several good points in it.

 

[DeletedUser]

But what if because there is no forced limit, men who are worse at the job get picked for the job over a woman who is better because men work better with men and are more likely to pick each other (even though with that factored in the woman is still a better candidate.)

But what if because there is no forced limit, women who are worse at the job get picked for the job over a man who is better because women work better with women and are more likely to pick each other (even though with that factored in the man is still a better candidate.)

Your point is?...

 

[DeletedUser]

Tennis. Women get paid the same amount of prize money as men

Just to state the correction you "should" have made... they are not "paid," the winners are "awarded." It's a prize, not a paycheck.

 

[DeletedUser31931]

But what if because there is no forced limit, women who are worse at the job get picked for the job over a man who is better because women work better with women and are more likely to pick each other (even though with that factored in the man is still a better candidate.)

Your point is?...

Most of the boards that currently exist are made up of men since the men were there when the company started and women couldn't get that high at the time and since it has been passed down through the men there are less if any women on the board. So unless we have a new company (which is set up by a woman, because a male exec is more like to choose a male board) then the woman situation is much more likely.


Hellstromm, good point.

 

[DeletedUser]

Most of the boards that currently exist are made up of men since the men were there when the company started and women couldn't get that high at the time and since it has been passed down through the men there are less if any women on the board. So unless we have a new company (which is set up by a woman, because a male exec is more like to choose a male board) then the woman situation is much more likely.

Your point is?...Oh yeah, I remember;

But what if because there is no forced limit, men who are worse at the job get picked for the job over a woman who is better because men work better with men and are more likely to pick each other (even though with that factored in the woman is still a better candidate.)

Well that's unequality, because the male candidate gets picked for the job over a more capable female candidate....I still repeat, what's your point?

 

[DeletedUser31931]

So if there is a enforced minimum of 40 - 50% women on boards then surely that will stop this from happening. If you had read my argument and remembered it you would know that was my point.

 

[DeletedUser]

Forcing private companies to abide by fair hiring practices requires enforcement. Such laws already exist in many countries. It's enforcement that is a bear precisely because job descriptions define hiring parameters. I.e., when an employer can define the parameters he can hire anyone he wants. And, to be frank, hiring people solely on numerical values is counterproductive. Not only is it incredibly difficult to enforce, but it likewise not beneficial to a company, which opens up a whole new can of worms. (you going to require genetic tests on this to determine race as well? Because people can claim whatever race they want. Hell, they can claim whatever gender they want. You ready to start pulling everyone's pants down and copping a feel like they do in North Korea?). No, people should be hired based on merit. But, merit is arbitrary and there is no reliable means of enforcing merit.

The notion you can fix hiring practices through imposition of laws has repeatedly been demonstrated as useless unless a society is willing to stand behind the notion. Wanna fix the problem, fix racism and sexism in society. Fix people's attitudes, presumptions, hostilities and fears. Good luck with that.

When women are deemed equal in a society, they will obtain equality in that society's workforce. Unfortunately, a huge obstacle to this is religion, which permeates every existing society. Few religions deem men and women as equals and you cannot possibly have a reasonable discussion on religious dogma.

Seriously, under the Abrahamic religions, Man (male) was created in the image of God... and then God threw him a bone. Try to reason with that!

 

[DeletedUser]

HS said it Zemmy.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Ok ill be controversial, as an employer I avoided hiring younger females after a while, as a smaller low manpower business i just couldnt afford the maternity costs and chaos it caused. I Decided to go with older Ladies less likely to give me a headache the business disruption much less and never regretted it, is that sexist or ageist or what ? no idea I did whats best for my business thats all.

Its not just a religion thing its also what a woman ultimately is or can be, a mother. It dosn't fit well in the work place no matter what people will tell you on TV, in the real world it matters. An awful lot of business looks at this and like it or not its a real issue, but no one will admit it. How do I know this for sure ? because they have told me over and over again. You want to see equality in business ? youll see it far more in the mid 40s - 50s bracket age than earlier. Way after the mom thing has passed usually and the focus is back on the job, thats not to say its like that all over just what ive found in my field of industry