Gender Equality Action Plan

[Snake_Baker]

Hahaha you're right, but not for the reason you think.

You weren't there so WTF would you know?

I've worked at all levels in both small and large companies in an extremely male dominated industry, and I've seen the positive effects first hand over the last few years that enforcing equal opportunity employment can have. But you're welcome to your opinion

You equate "positive effect" with your gender politics bias.

 

[Snake_Baker]

This response really reminds me of the following comic.

https://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/

Generations of structural disadvantage and societal norms don't just disappear overnight. A childhood full of being told your raison d'etre is to look pretty and emulate the pink princess dolls you play with while your male colleagues are told they can be anything they want to doesn't have no effect.

It is exactly the same approach that some in the states take with the black population, essentially victim blaming them. Generations of oppression and disadvantage and suddenly you justify further discrimination by asserting that because there is lower employment they must all be lazy.

Take off the blinkers. Until there is equality of opportunity then corrective action should be embraced, especially to offset the vestiges of last generation thinking that would like to maintain the status quo of women in the kitchen (such as captain underpants).

Let me guess, you're a sociologist?

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Hahaha you're right, but not for the reason you think.

I've worked at all levels in both small and large companies in an extremely male dominated industry, and I've seen the positive effects first hand over the last few years that enforcing equal opportunity employment can have. But you're welcome to your opinion

In terms of the availability of equal opportunity, it is quite positive in it gives women and men the choice, if they want, to enter any industry they want. Thankfully, there are laws in place to protect from discrimination and ensure the opportunity to all, although we do need some work in enforcement and attitudes.

In terms of gender quotas, it has been found in a Scandinavian study in 2016 that the enforcement of gender based quotas lead to neutral and mostly negative financial results. There is a stock market trader, his name escapes me, that has made a fortune from effectively betting against a company’s financial/stock performance everytime a company enforces a board/company quota based on gender.

Why would investors expect gender quotes to decrease the value of firms? Fortunately, the conclusion of scholars is that this is not because women can’t manage business well, but because, thanks to the pressure of the quotas, younger and therefore less experienced women needed to be quickly promoted. Authors of one study conclude “the quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance.”

 

[Snake_Baker]

In terms of the availability of equal opportunity, it is quite positive in it gives women and men the choice, if they want, to enter any industry they want. Thankfully, there are laws in place to protect from discrimination and ensure the opportunity to all, although we do need some work in enforcement and attitudes.

In terms of gender quotas, it has been found in a Scandinavian study in 2016 that the enforcement of gender based quotas lead to neutral and mostly negative financial results. There is a stock market trader, his name escapes me, that has made a fortune from effectively betting against a company’s financial/stock performance everytime a company enforces a board/company quota based on gender.

Any chance you could PM me that paper mate?

Why would investors expect gender quotes to decrease the value of firms? Fortunately, the conclusion of scholars is that this is not because women can’t manage business well, but because, thanks to the pressure of the quotas, younger and therefore less experienced women needed to be quickly promoted. Authors of one study conclude “the quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance.”

Bingo!

This ideology is not based upon rational thought, it is based upon emotion.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Any chance you could PM me that paper mate?



Bingo!

This ideology is not based upon rational thought, it is based upon emotion.

http://business.financialpost.com/o...ont-help-businesses-they-dont-even-help-women The article which discusses purely the board side of quotas.

The study itself: http://nordicparadox.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-Nordic-gender-equality-paradox.pdf This study covers the issues surrounding social welfare and problems surrounding quotas and women in the workplace.

 

[Snake_Baker]

http://business.financialpost.com/o...ont-help-businesses-they-dont-even-help-women The article which discusses purely the board side of quotas.

The study itself: http://nordicparadox.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-Nordic-gender-equality-paradox.pdf This study covers the issues surrounding social welfare and problems surrounding quotas and women in the workplace.

Many thanks. I am very interested in your work.

 

[roosmad]

is this a football forum?

 

[Contra Mundum]

is this a football forum?

Only a few days now - I am up and down like a yoyo about how many games we will win this year

 

[Snake_Baker]

is this a football forum?

No ones forcing you to read this, and yes, it is football club related.

 

[Zondor]

OK after having a 69 Day Think Tank I have come up with the following Quota of what Gender the Club should employ. :stern look

10% Female
10% Male
10% Non Binary
10% Hermaphrodite
10% Cut n Shut
10% Chicks with Dicks
10% Centauroid
10% Artificial Intellegence
10% God
10% Wildebeest

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

OK after having a 69 Day Think Tank I have come up with the following Quota of what Gender the Club should employ. :stern look

10% Female
10% Male
10% Non Binary
10% Hermaphrodite
10% Cut n Shut
10% Chicks with Dicks
10% Centauroid
10% Artificial Intellegence
10% God
10% Wildebeest

What about people that class their gender as attack helicopters?

 

[Contra Mundum]

What about people that class their gender as attack helicopters?

 

[Zondor]

What about people that class their gender as attack helicopters?

So much for the 69 Day Think Tank.

 

[Chief]

In terms of the availability of equal opportunity, it is quite positive in it gives women and men the choice, if they want, to enter any industry they want. Thankfully, there are laws in place to protect from discrimination and ensure the opportunity to all, although we do need some work in enforcement and attitudes.

In terms of gender quotas, it has been found in a Scandinavian study in 2016 that the enforcement of gender based quotas lead to neutral and mostly negative financial results. There is a stock market trader, his name escapes me, that has made a fortune from effectively betting against a company’s financial/stock performance everytime a company enforces a board/company quota based on gender.

Why would investors expect gender quotes to decrease the value of firms? Fortunately, the conclusion of scholars is that this is not because women can’t manage business well, but because, thanks to the pressure of the quotas, younger and therefore less experienced women needed to be quickly promoted. Authors of one study conclude “the quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance.”

Sorry to butt in - but to be clear the conclusions talked about ill-advised, short time-frame quotas.

"Another Danish study examined 2,500 firms over eight years, finding that hiring women did indeed improve firms’ performance. Yet the conclusion was still that “the positive effects of women in top management depend(s) on the qualifications of female top managers.” If quotas force hiring women on a short timeframe, and as a result, the wrong women are chosen, there is reason to be concerned that quotas will give the push for gender parity a bad reputation."

Finding and nurturing skilled female managers with an aim towards gender parity of course has a positive effect. The trick is to make firms want to do that, as directors don't always act in the long-term interests of the firm, the economy, or their employees.

And also, the website of the author of the article: https://www.cardus.ca/research/family/ Conservative mob, arguing against childcare and family financial support unless through lower taxes from what I can see.

Family is something private and personal, yet it's also the bulwark of civilization and the institution undergirding other aspects of civil society. In both cases, we can no longer take family for granted. Cardus Family seeks to examine and present research, statistics and interesting thinking about family and engage in informed public dialogue.

With articles with titles like: Exploiting women through childcare

 

[GreatBradScott]

Considering all of the people involved with putting it together have nothing to do with the footy side of things, no idea what everyone is bleating about.

Maybe our football department can look at what's going on in the other arm of the club and think outside the ****ing box for once.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Sorry to butt in - but to be clear the study about ill-advised, short time-frame quotas.

"Another Danish study examined 2,500 firms over eight years, finding that hiring women did indeed improve firms’ performance. Yet the conclusion was still that “the positive effects of women in top management depend(s) on the qualifications of female top managers.” If quotas force hiring women on a short timeframe, and as a result, the wrong women are chosen, there is reason to be concerned that quotas will give the push for gender parity a bad reputation."

Finding and nurturing skilled female managers with an aim towards gender parity of course has a positive effect. The trick is to make firms want to do that, as directors don't always act in the long-term interests of the firm, the economy, or their employees.

You're right Chief, it is your site.

So in essence, you believe, that quotas slowly implemented over a number of years (so long-term basically) will ensure a higher caliber of women in managerial/leadership positions, who have sufficient/amply business experience in those roles? Or focus on the nurturing of current female leadership and managerial talent?

Your long-term quota argument does have a bit of credibility to it considering that businesses are more likely to find more women with the necessary experience and qualifications over say a 5-10 year period than a 2 year period. Just to continue on your criticism of short-term quotas, this is a quote from another study of Norway's introduction of quotas in 2006, being comparatively analysed with the rest of Scandinavia, including Denmark, and its impact being measured 5 years later, "Based on differences-in-differences and triple-difference models, we find that firms affected by the quota undertook fewer workforce reductions than comparison firms, increasing relative labor costs and employment levels, thus reducing short-term profit." (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.5.3.136)

The Danish study you quoted from the 2016 study was based off organic gender equality, rather than enforced quotas, which are ethically dicey anyway.

This sums up my main argument:
"To sum up, the Nordic experience is that firm performance can improve if women reach boards organically, by climbing the career ladder, whilst firm performance is reduced if quotas lead to less experienced individuals being elected to boards. Thus, quotas are not only bad for business, but also give diversity a bad name".

The trick is to, as you what you quoted in your last sentence, nurturing the organic female talent, rather than thrusting inexperienced/under qualified women into roles they aren't fully ready for. One final thing to add is, that quotas don't reinforce equality as it removes the supposed equal chance that men and women have going for the same job, selection via merit is ideal.

 

[Chief]

You're right Chief, it is your site.

So in essence, you believe, that quotas slowly implemented over a number of years (so long-term basically) will ensure a higher caliber of women in managerial/leadership positions, who have sufficient/amply business experience in those roles? Or focus on the nurturing of current female leadership and managerial talent?

No I'm just saying that's what the article says, while the title is a bit misleading.

The study I quoted was in the article you posted.

I don't have any deep knowledge of the area.

 

[Orange Peanut]

We bought a GEAP.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

No I'm just saying that's what the article says, while the title is a bit misleading.

The study I quoted was in the article you posted.

I don't have any deep knowledge of the area.

You'll get no arguments from me in regards to the article's author and her organisation's motives, as I said, I was more interested in the study itself.

 

[Colbys Boots]

OK after having a 69 Day Think Tank I have come up with the following Quota of what Gender the Club should employ. :stern look

10% Female
10% Male
10% Non Binary
10% Hermaphrodite
10% Cut n Shut
10% Chicks with Dicks
10% Centauroid
10% Artificial Intellegence
10% God
10% Wildebeest

I don't give a flying **** how potential employees identify themselves as long as they BFNAAK.

 

[Tas]

Sorry to butt in - but to be clear the conclusions talked about ill-advised, short time-frame quotas.

"Another Danish study examined 2,500 firms over eight years, finding that hiring women did indeed improve firms’ performance. Yet the conclusion was still that “the positive effects of women in top management depend(s) on the qualifications of female top managers.” If quotas force hiring women on a short timeframe, and as a result, the wrong women are chosen, there is reason to be concerned that quotas will give the push for gender parity a bad reputation."

Finding and nurturing skilled female managers with an aim towards gender parity of course has a positive effect. The trick is to make firms want to do that, as directors don't always act in the long-term interests of the firm, the economy, or their employees.

And also, the website of the author of the article: https://www.cardus.ca/research/family/ Conservative mob, arguing against childcare and family financial support unless through lower taxes from what I can see.

With articles with titles like: Exploiting women through childcare

This part hits the nail on the head: Yet the conclusion was still that “the positive effects of women in top management depend(s) on the qualifications of female top managers.”

I think if you are looking for the best qualified candidate then hiring patterns will largely revolve around the distribution of applicants. If you have 95 male applicants and 5 female applicants for a job, the weight of numbers means you are more likely going to find the best candidate amidst the group of 95 men. Not always, but statistically speaking over a large body of evidence it is basically how employment goes if the appointment is free of bias.

We have gone from almost 0% to 34% female employees in a relatively short period of time and I don't think there was a specific diversity initiative previously, we more than likely have just seen more and more female applicants over time.

It wouldn't be healthy imo for any entity to reach an artificial quota if there isn't the weight of applicants behind those positions, you still want to be recruiting the best candidates even if you have a desire to reach some kind of gender parity.

I believe most clubs have been naturally evolving as the increased interest for position from women increases over time and I think that is best for any entity. If judging by recent educational trends, in the not-too-distant future we will most likely see women outnumber men at football clubs, because women far outnumber men in graduations in almost every field outside of STEM.

This misguided desire for hastened parity at some point is going to turn around and if a bad precedence is set now, for women, there is going to be the expectation that women will be held back due to a shortage of male workers and I would be just as reluctant to see those who have worked hardest and are the best qualified for positions to be held back, be it men or women.

As long as there is equality of opportunity and decisions made are free of bias I firmly believe that is as far as you need to go, if we get to a point the club is comprised 85% of female employees, would that be bad? Would we step in and introduce quotas to limit the amount of women at the club? While the equality of outcome intention may be benign, I don't necessarily believe it results in the best outcomes.

Naturally, the crux of it comes down to are you free of bias and how can you determine if you are free of bias or not, to a large extent your desires for equality may be limited based on the composition of candidates that apply to work. What if we just have terrible candidates over the next 5 years? We are meant to abandon quality to meet a quota? That is a dangerous position to put the club in.

 

[Mcarcherey]

But that’s the whole point Snake, the people judging merit are less likely to make insular, ignorant decisions if they are coming from a broader cultural base.

yes, but if the people making those decisions got the job through affirmative action in the first place, they're not going to make the best decisions in comparison to those who should've received the job through merit.

i understand your points about having a robust and diverse club but your rationale is fundamentally discriminatory - you're assuming that people only hire people similar to themselves.

Just hire people based on merit every.single.time. It's what the most successful and largest companies do, if that so happens to result in mostly men being on the board then so be it - it does make sense since a large % of women leave the workforce due to having children and that women on average don't have the same personality trait in devoting their whole life to pursue a high end career.

this is virtual signalling at it's finest, the vague statements and the only specific thing being an outcome objective - it didn't work in communist Russia or Moaist China and i'd rather the club not appease the short term satisfaction of being progressive at the detriment of our long term survival.

 

[Snake_Baker]

yes, but if the people making those decisions got the job through affirmative action in the first place, they're not going to make the best decisions in comparison to those who should've received the job through merit.

i understand your points about having a robust and diverse club but your rationale is fundamentally discriminatory - you're assuming that people only hire people similar to themselves.

Just hire people based on merit every.single.time. It's what the most successful and largest companies do, if that so happens to result in mostly men being on the board then so be it - it does make sense since a large % of women leave the workforce due to having children and that women on average don't have the same personality trait in devoting their whole life to pursue a high end career.

this is virtual signalling at it's finest, the vague statements and the only specific thing being an outcome objective - it didn't work in communist Russia or Moaist China and i'd rather the club not appease the short term satisfaction of being progressive at the detriment of our long term survival.

Great post.

Of course going back to O.P's "the people judging merit are less likely to make insular, ignorant decisions if they are coming from a broader cultural base", the clear and distinctive correlation here is that people that do make prejudicial decisions, instead of merit based decisions, will fall by the wayside in competition to the opposition that make the best actual merit based decisions.

The logic behind this type of politics, and it is politics folks, falls flat on it's face when confronted with the most elementary logical deduction.

 

[MaddAdam]

this is virtual signalling at it's finest, the vague statements and the only specific thing being an outcome objective - it didn't work in communist Russia or Moaist China and i'd rather the club not appease the short term satisfaction of being progressive at the detriment of our long term survival.

A key for understanding modern life is that anyone who uses the phrase "virtue signaling" generally doesn't have too deep an understanding of contemporary life.

The only way we are going to guarantee our long term survival is by being progressive.

 

[Snake_Baker]

A key for understanding modern life is that anyone who uses the phrase "virtue signaling" generally doesn't have too deep an understanding of contemporary life.

The only way we are going to guarantee our long term survival is by being progressive.

"Progressive" is the elimination of small pox. This is insignificant garbage by comparison.