Tigers commit to lead on Gender issues

[GWSP]

As for the job myth. Women have by a large % more job security than men.

They never mention that bit.

 

[jim boy]

Good god, what a bunch misogynist attitudes. The article, nor Richmond, have said that they are going to discriminate in favour of women. And I would question what is meant as 'staff corps' a body which presumably does not include players or coaches.

So maybe Richmond have done their homework and realised there are just as many good female candidates as males for the roles like marketing,and ground management and communications and accounting and staffing the canteens etc. They figure that if they have a recruiting policy that has checks to make sure that no candidate is preferred on the basis of their gender then within about ten years they should have a staff which is around 50/50 male/female.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Can't say I have any issues with that - the 50/50 split is only a 10 year target (much like our 3-0-75 strategy was) and doesn't necessarily mean we will hire females for the sake of meeting that target.

I believe (or at least hope) the club will still try and ensure they appoint only the best candidate for any positions - regardless of gender but if the club are willing to try and make the AFL a more accessible career choice to prospective females looking to join the industry, then I think that's a great initiative.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

As for the job myth. Women have by a large % more job security than men.

They never mention that bit.

What are you basing that on?

 

[Albert Ross]

Women don't get paid less than men, women who have the same education, same work experience and work the same hours and have the same responsibilities are on average paid as much as if not more than men.

Women often are paid less because they work less hours due to having children and don't have as much work experience because they have had to take time off work to raise kids and often go back into the workforce with different jobs that are more flexible for someone with kids. Feminist groups have been propagating this misinformation for decades and despite being proven by statistical data keep banging on women getting paid less than men.

4 men work for a company. A senior tradie and 3 juniors

John - $200k
George - $40k
Paul - $40k
Ringo - $40k

Average = $80k

Posh - $75k
Ginger - $75k
Sporty- $75k
Scary - $75k

Average = $75k

The newspaper headline is that women earn less on average than men; even though depending on your actual sample you can have all the women earning more than most of the men.

Disparity is much about job choices as gender.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

So maybe Richmond have done their homework and realised there are just as many good female candidates as males for the roles like marketing,and ground management and communications and accounting and staffing the canteens etc. They figure that if they have a recruiting policy that has checks to make sure that no candidate is preferred on the basis of their gender then within about ten years they should have a staff which is around 50/50 male/female.

see i don't agree with the assertion that if there's no selection bias then the end result would be a 50/50 split. many industries have lobsided splits one way or another, it doesn't mean necessarily people are favored.

 

[Kummerspeck]

It's amazing how hysterical people who institutional bias favours become when it's highlighted.

 

[Albert Ross]

Good god, what a bunch misogynist attitudes. The article, nor Richmond, have said that they are going to discriminate in favour of women. And I would question what is meant as 'staff corps' a body which presumably does not include players or coaches.

So maybe Richmond have done their homework and realised there are just as many good female candidates as males for the roles like marketing,and ground management and communications and accounting and staffing the canteens etc. They figure that if they have a recruiting policy that has checks to make sure that no candidate is preferred on the basis of their gender then within about ten years they should have a staff which is around 50/50 male/female.

And if you are the company that breaks down any cultural barriers to hiring women, you can actually place yourself in a position to have better staff by hiring the best candidate when she is a woman. If women are refusing to apply, stay or consider you because they imagine that they will be told that taking time off to care for a sick child is weak; then you may only be able to hire men and by restricting yourself to half the workforce may be hiring less talented people.

 

[Freak Dodgeball Accident]

[Sexist rant] Maybe they can get all these women together to knit up some away strips [/Sexist rant]

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

[Sexist rant] Maybe they can get all these women together to knit up some away strips [/Sexist rant]

what? why does it have to be a woman? are you saying men can't knit? thems fighting words!

 

[domus]

Good god, what a bunch misogynist attitudes. The article, nor Richmond, have said that they are going to discriminate in favour of women. And I would question what is meant as 'staff corps' a body which presumably does not include players or coaches.

So maybe Richmond have done their homework and realised there are just as many good female candidates as males for the roles like marketing,and ground management and communications and accounting and staffing the canteens etc. They figure that if they have a recruiting policy that has checks to make sure that no candidate is preferred on the basis of their gender then within about ten years they should have a staff which is around 50/50 male/female.

There it is again-that word people use when they can't make an argument. I have seen no such attitudes. I have seen reasonable arguments opposed to the idea of affirmative action or quotas. If my primary school announced tomorrow that they were going to ensure we had a 50/50 balance of males and females on our staff (it is currently 90/10 in favour of females) this would clearly mean that when the interview process began women would be discriminated against because they are female. If they continued to base their appointments on merit then they can make no announcements about 50/50 balance because all of the best applicants might be female yet only half of them are meant to gain employment. Get it?

Try to present an argument without resorting to labeling people haters of women because they have an alternative viewpoint on the issue of affirmative action. It is pathetic.

 

[Taylor]

There it is again-that word people use when they can't make an argument. I have seen no such attitudes. I have seen reasonable arguments opposed to the idea of affirmative action or quotas. If my primary school announced tomorrow that they were going to ensure we had a 50/50 balance of males and females on our staff (it is currently 90/10 in favour of females) this would clearly mean that when the interview process began women would be discriminated against because they are female. If they continued to base their appointments on merit then they can make no announcements about 50/50 balance because all of the best applicants might be female yet only half of them are meant to gain employment. Get it?

Try to present an argument without resorting to labeling people haters of women because they have an alternative viewpoint on the issue of affirmative action. It is pathetic.

and the first step would be working to attract men to primary school teaching.. Currently, and I don't like it, there is too much risk of innuendo about inappropriate contact between men working in primary schools. It's the worst thing to come out of our society in the name of looking after children but it is there.

That stigma needs to be broken down and a "quota" is a tool for that.

 

[domus]

And if you are the company that breaks down any cultural barriers to hiring women, you can actually place yourself in a position to have better staff by hiring the best candidate when she is a woman. If women are refusing to apply, stay or consider you because they imagine that they will be told that taking time off to care for a sick child is weak; then you may only be able to hire men and by restricting yourself to half the workforce may be hiring less talented people.

So you are telling employers that they should hire a woman who makes it clear there will be many times when she has to leave early, not attend meetings or travel interstate because (rightly) her children come first, over a man who is willing and able to work the hours required, attend all meetings. travel and do overtime when necessary?

How could the appointment of a woman in such circumstances over a man be considered just for either the man or the employer? The woman and her husband made a life choice all by themselves and must have known the consequences just as millions have in the decades gone by. Why should any employer be expected to mold his place of work to fit the needs of a woman with children-a decision he had no say in?

 

[Albert Ross]

So you are telling employers that they should hire a woman who makes it clear there will be many times when she has to leave early, not attend meetings or travel interstate because (rightly) her children come first, over a man who is willing and able to work the hours required, attend all meetings. travel and do overtime when necessary?

How could the appointment of a woman in such circumstances over a man be considered just for either the man or the employer? The woman and her husband made a life choice all by themselves and must have known the consequences just as millions have in the decades gone by. Why should any employer be expected to mold his place of work to fit the needs of a woman with children-a decision he had no say in?

Because in many jobs turning up a lot and working long hours doesn't make you better than someone who actually knows what they are doing?

 

[Leather Poisoning]

So you are telling employers that they should hire a woman who makes it clear there will be many times when she has to leave early, not attend meetings or travel interstate because (rightly) her children come first, over a man who is willing and able to work the hours required, attend all meetings. travel and do overtime when necessary?

How could the appointment of a woman in such circumstances over a man be considered just for either the man or the employer? The woman and her husband made a life choice all by themselves and must have known the consequences just as millions have in the decades gone by. Why should any employer be expected to mold his place of work to fit the needs of a woman with children-a decision he had no say in?

The modern man tends to put in a bit more time with the kids these days than yesteryear. It's not just the women that have kids. Sure, they birth and breastfeed them, but only tradition says that it's a woman's job beyond that point .

 

[domus]

Because in many jobs turning up a lot and working long hours doesn't make you better than someone who actually knows what they are doing?

So you believe that employers all over the country would choose to employ an incompetent man who is willing to work full time and even overtime over a much better female applicant who could do better work in half the time? Now you must explain why they would choose to do such a thing.

 

[domus]

The modern man tends to put in a bit more time with the kids these days than yesteryear. It's not just the women that have kids. Sure, they birth and breastfeed them, but only tradition says that it's a woman's job beyond that point .

No-tradition doesn't say it -the thousands of couples who make a personal decision based upon what works best for them say it and 95% of the time they decide it is the man who is breadwinner and the woman who cares for the children. I might add you are correct when you say the modern man puts in more time with the kids but does the modern man get the same allowances and flexibility that women demand? I think not.

I might add that when it comes to deciding who goes out into the workforce and who stays home or works part time, in my experience the bloke has little say in the matter. If the wife wishes to work part time she does. If the wife wishes to be a stay at home mum-she is. If a wife wishes to work full time-she can. If the bloke has any wish other than working full time for the next 40 years of their married life this is not up for discussion.

 

[Albert Ross]

So you believe that employers all over the country would choose to employ an incompetent man who is willing to work full time and even overtime over a much better female applicant who could do better work in half the time? Now you must explain why they would choose to do such a thing.

Because people who hire people like to hire people like them. If you are bit rubbish at what you do, but have spent 20 years telling people that you are valuable because you are always arriving early, staying late and never taking a day off - you are pretty much obliged to hire people who do the same. You may never actually make a sale, but you never take a day off either.

 

[Jugada]

I hope I can also expect in 10 years time that 12% of their staff is Asian, 3% Indigenous..etc etc

 

[atdhe]

Because people who hire people like to hire people like them. If you are bit rubbish at what you do, but have spent 20 years telling people that you are valuable because you are always arriving early, staying late and never taking a day off - you are pretty much obliged to hire people who do the same. You may never actually make a sale, but you never take a day off either.

 

[Docker Alyssa]

And if you are the company that breaks down any cultural barriers to hiring women, you can actually place yourself in a position to have better staff by hiring the best candidate when she is a woman. If women are refusing to apply, stay or consider you because they imagine that they will be told that taking time off to care for a sick child is weak; then you may only be able to hire men and by restricting yourself to half the workforce may be hiring less talented people.

Except that MANY AFL clubs already hire predominantly women in PR, outreach, accounting, admin and even on field staff breakdowns of 30% or more.

West Toast have so many watergirls and physio and girls in flats walking around after games handing players stuff. And other clubs also do this to slightly less degree. Freo are fairly comparable.

So this just smacks of Richmond PR. Yeah you dont "lead" when other clubs are already doing it hah.

To mandate 50/50 even as a goal is stupid to do, and to say you are going to do, and I sincerely hope "being more open to hiring females" (shouldnt be a phrase..) isn't what people need to see to want to join a clubs membership. I lend so much credence to the idea that Richmond fans are just too feral and bogan for teen girls and younger women to feel comfortable being around, so they stay away from applying or being members. So all you get is crowd numbers where old women who followed them for yonks and bogan women.

 

[Furn2]

Why are people trying to change the natural order of things.

A woman's career should take the traditional route.

Years of rejection and failure until she's spit out the bottom of the pr0n industry.

 

[romeoh]

No-tradition doesn't say it -the thousands of couples who make a personal decision based upon what works best for them say it and 95% of the time they decide it is the man who is breadwinner and the woman who cares for the children. I might add you are correct when you say the modern man puts in more time with the kids but does the modern man get the same allowances and flexibility that women demand? I think not.

I might add that when it comes to deciding who goes out into the workforce and who stays home or works part time, in my experience the bloke has little say in the matter. If the wife wishes to work part time she does. If the wife wishes to be a stay at home mum-she is. If a wife wishes to work full time-she can. If the bloke has any wish other than working full time for the next 40 years of their married life this is not up for discussion.

Your last sentence based on what- just a hunch?
And if they both go back to work, it may be the man who leaves early to mind the sick child, or can't travel, or can't go to all the meetings-its not necessarily the wife. They might even share such things.

 

[GWSP]

What are you basing that on?

On statistics put out by an employment agency a few years back.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

On statistics put out by an employment agency a few years back.

Would love to see the study because it sounds ridiculous out of context.