+- +-

+-Newcomers Start Here

+-Harlequins/Rugby Links


+-Articles


Author Topic: Equality Issues  (Read 1362 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Yareet

  • A Team Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 452
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #45 on: Thursday 22-Aug-2019, 16:08* »
No.

OK because the way your two points are written, it came across to me that you are linking the biological differences between the genders with the fact that not everybody wants to be CEO.

So what do you believe is the reason only a small %age of FTSE CEOs are women?

Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #46 on: Thursday 22-Aug-2019, 16:23* »
OK because the way your two points are written, it came across to me that you are linking the biological differences between the genders with the fact that not everybody wants to be CEO.

So what do you believe is the reason only a small %age of FTSE CEOs are women?

Only a tiny, tiny percentage of people are FTSE CEOs. Gender doesn't qualify anyone for the job. I don't have statistics, but I believe that more men than women have long, uninterrupted careers, which is certainly helpful when climbing the corporate ladder. Perhaps less women than men actually want the top jobs, who knows? It really isn't everyone's dream.

Yareet

  • A Team Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 452
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #47 on: Thursday 22-Aug-2019, 17:32* »
Only a tiny, tiny percentage of people are FTSE CEOs. Gender doesn't qualify anyone for the job. I don't have statistics, but I believe that more men than women have long, uninterrupted careers, which is certainly helpful when climbing the corporate ladder. Perhaps less women than men actually want the top jobs, who knows? It really isn't everyone's dream.

Forgive me, I'm trying to piece together what you have been saying across several posts/days. Am I right that you believe that:

There is no gender inequality
Women have just as much opportunity to reach the top of their profession as men
Anyone (whatever gender) who doesn't reach the highest level possible to them has chosen not to do so
More men want the top job than women (in the case of the FTSE, that would be 13x as many men)





Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #48 on: Thursday 22-Aug-2019, 20:45* »
Forgive me, I'm trying to piece together what you have been saying across several posts/days. Am I right that you believe that:

There is no gender inequality
Women have just as much opportunity to reach the top of their profession as men
Anyone (whatever gender) who doesn't reach the highest level possible to them has chosen not to do so
More men want the top job than women (in the case of the FTSE, that would be 13x as many men)






You're doing an interesting job of adding snippets and filling in gaps to try and summarise a position... and getting it wrong.

Let's make this easier - what is it that you think you want me to say? Then you can attack that position and feel like you've won a victory. I'll then see what point you're trying to make and see if I can agree with it, in whole or in part, or totally debunk it.

Yareet

  • A Team Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 452
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #49 on: Friday 23-Aug-2019, 07:23* »
You're doing an interesting job of adding snippets and filling in gaps to try and summarise a position... and getting it wrong.

Let's make this easier - what is it that you think you want me to say? Then you can attack that position and feel like you've won a victory. I'll then see what point you're trying to make and see if I can agree with it, in whole or in part, or totally debunk it.

And that’s exactly why I wanted to clarify. Not so that I can attack but to understand your point of view.

If I remember correctly, this conversation all began because we disagree as to whether there is a gender pay gap.

I think there is but am also aware that this belief is shaped by the information I (choose to) receive - some of which I’ve cited and you’ve refuted.

Given my world view, it is hard for me to see how anybody wouldn’t accept that there is a gap so I would appreciate you explaining how you came to that conclusion.

Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #50 on: Friday 23-Aug-2019, 14:21* »
And that’s exactly why I wanted to clarify. Not so that I can attack but to understand your point of view.

If I remember correctly, this conversation all began because we disagree as to whether there is a gender pay gap.

I think there is but am also aware that this belief is shaped by the information I (choose to) receive - some of which I’ve cited and you’ve refuted.

Given my world view, it is hard for me to see how anybody wouldn’t accept that there is a gap so I would appreciate you explaining how you came to that conclusion.

My view is that the data used to substantiate a gender pay gap is overly simplified. In essence, gender and pay. It fails to factor in such variables as age, experience, qualification, track record, aptitude etc. In some cases cited elsewhere on this board, there is also mention of marketability (celebrities, sports stars, media personalities). In essence, it's very difficult to find two people who match exactly but have different genders.

It's easy to say that a woman doing X job earns less than a man doing X job. That fails to take into account any of the variables above. It also fails to take into account that - perish the thought - one person might be better than the other, regardless of gender. What happens if two women do the same job and are paid differently? Would a man be able to demand the same pay as a woman if he really wasn't very good at a job, and the woman was excellent?

And here's another element to look at: people rush to highlight cases where men are believed to be earning more than women, but the silence when you see the reverse is astonishing. Surveys show that there are companies where statistics show men being paid less than women, but there is no criticism levelled there.

In fact, quick Google search shows just how misrepresentative some data is: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/04/gender-pay-gap-figures-show-eight-in-10-uk-firms-pay-men-more-than-women

This doesn't even take into account the jobs that people are doing, just the gender and the hourly rate of pay! As one company states, "81% of male employees were directors, doctors or in IT, most of whom fell into the upper salary quartile".

To summarise, I agree that there is a pay gap between different people, and I believe there should be. I don't believe gender is a factor in this.

Yareet

  • A Team Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 452
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #51 on: Friday 23-Aug-2019, 16:03* »
My view is that the data used to substantiate a gender pay gap is overly simplified. In essence, gender and pay. It fails to factor in such variables as age, experience, qualification, track record, aptitude etc. In some cases cited elsewhere on this board, there is also mention of marketability (celebrities, sports stars, media personalities). In essence, it's very difficult to find two people who match exactly but have different genders.

It's easy to say that a woman doing X job earns less than a man doing X job. That fails to take into account any of the variables above. It also fails to take into account that - perish the thought - one person might be better than the other, regardless of gender. What happens if two women do the same job and are paid differently? Would a man be able to demand the same pay as a woman if he really wasn't very good at a job, and the woman was excellent?

And here's another element to look at: people rush to highlight cases where men are believed to be earning more than women, but the silence when you see the reverse is astonishing. Surveys show that there are companies where statistics show men being paid less than women, but there is no criticism levelled there.

In fact, quick Google search shows just how misrepresentative some data is: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/04/gender-pay-gap-figures-show-eight-in-10-uk-firms-pay-men-more-than-women

This doesn't even take into account the jobs that people are doing, just the gender and the hourly rate of pay! As one company states, "81% of male employees were directors, doctors or in IT, most of whom fell into the upper salary quartile".

To summarise, I agree that there is a pay gap between different people, and I believe there should be. I don't believe gender is a factor in this.

I think we agree on your last paragraph. Nobody has advocated for pay rises based purely on gender. However where I believe there is an issue (again based on the information I've been given) is that "81% of male employees were directors, doctors or in IT, most of whom fell into the upper salary quartile".

On a micro level, I agree that we have hopefully advanced somewhat from "she can't do that job" in most cases but nevertheless in my opinion it is wrong that these (higher salaried) roles are weighted so heavily towards men. On paper there is equal opportunity but for whatever reason there are still roles which are stereotypically biased towards certain demographics. And this starts early - way before careers are chosen.

In the same vein, in the thread about Ugo, there has never been anything stopping people from BAME backgrounds from playing rugby but it is much harder to plough a new furrow. If we don't see BAME players at the top of the game (or female CEOs or male nannies) then it is less likely that these options will be considered.

Somebody has to buck the trend somewhere to achieve the ideal goal we both seem to aim for - complete impartial selection. For me, the pay gap is a symptom of the problem and requires a long term solution. Just promoting people to balance the books (whether women into leadership roles or BAME players into a world cup squad) solves the short-term issue but is counter-productive. If they fail, they add more weight to the arguments against trying again.

On a final point, neither age, experience nor qualification should ever be used to set somebody's pay/level. Track record (i.e. performance) and aptitude should be the only measures. Just because somebody is older, holds more qualifications or has been doing a job longer doesn't automatically make them better.

Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #52 on: Friday 23-Aug-2019, 16:48* »
I think we agree on your last paragraph. Nobody has advocated for pay rises based purely on gender. However where I believe there is an issue (again based on the information I've been given) is that "81% of male employees were directors, doctors or in IT, most of whom fell into the upper salary quartile".

On a micro level, I agree that we have hopefully advanced somewhat from "she can't do that job" in most cases but nevertheless in my opinion it is wrong that these (higher salaried) roles are weighted so heavily towards men. On paper there is equal opportunity but for whatever reason there are still roles which are stereotypically biased towards certain demographics. And this starts early - way before careers are chosen.

In the same vein, in the thread about Ugo, there has never been anything stopping people from BAME backgrounds from playing rugby but it is much harder to plough a new furrow. If we don't see BAME players at the top of the game (or female CEOs or male nannies) then it is less likely that these options will be considered.

Somebody has to buck the trend somewhere to achieve the ideal goal we both seem to aim for - complete impartial selection. For me, the pay gap is a symptom of the problem and requires a long term solution. Just promoting people to balance the books (whether women into leadership roles or BAME players into a world cup squad) solves the short-term issue but is counter-productive. If they fail, they add more weight to the arguments against trying again.

On a final point, neither age, experience nor qualification should ever be used to set somebody's pay/level. Track record (i.e. performance) and aptitude should be the only measures. Just because somebody is older, holds more qualifications or has been doing a job longer doesn't automatically make them better.

I agree with your final point. I believe these are as relevant (in most cases) as gender. There are exceptions of course - certain professions (examples off the top my head - law, medicine, structural engineering) MAY see a benefit from higher qualifications.

The first example you quote is one company, and the example was quoted to see how easily the statistics can be skewed. In that particular company they also state another interesting statistic: "However, of Care’s highest paid quartile, 70% are female, suggesting that women are able to progress their careers to our most senior roles." So, most of the higher earners are women - does that hint at men having a lack of opportunities? No. It's purely the way the dice has rolled for that company.

You mention that "there are still roles which are stereotypically biased towards certain demographics". I recommend you listen to Jordan Peterson's comments in relation to Sweden. It's said to be the world's most advanced country in terms of equality and they really push freedom of choice. The outcome is that women and men do opt towards what might be considered typical male and female careers. That's without peer pressure or any kind of social conditioning. But let's face it, as much as SJWs call for more female CEOs' you will never hear them calling for more female coal miners or sewage workers. It seems their version of "equality" is only for the nicer things.

On the subject of BAME players in rugby, why do you think there are hardly any players in the Premiership from Asian/Indian backgrounds? I grew up in an area of extremely high Asian population, and very few of my schoolfriends from that demographic wanted to play rugby. They absolutely (in the main) loved hockey and cricket, and were the mainstay of the school teams. When offered the chance, they simply didn't want to play rugby. Personally I never tried hockey and was useless at cricket, so I chose rugby. I could easily have said that it was harder for me to play cricket as it was primarily Asian boys playing it, but that wouldn't be true. It's all about choice.

Yareet

  • A Team Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 452
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #53 on: Friday 23-Aug-2019, 19:21* »
I agree with your final point. I believe these are as relevant (in most cases) as gender. There are exceptions of course - certain professions (examples off the top my head - law, medicine, structural engineering) MAY see a benefit from higher qualifications.

<<Sorry but no. The qualifications mean that those people *should* be better at their job (especially if the qualification is achieved through practical rather than academic routes) but can’t in and of themselves mean that somebody *is* better at their job (and therefore worthy of greater pay).>>

The first example you quote is one company, and the example was quoted to see how easily the statistics can be skewed. In that particular company they also state another interesting statistic: "However, of Care’s highest paid quartile, 70% are female, suggesting that women are able to progress their careers to our most senior roles." So, most of the higher earners are women - does that hint at men having a lack of opportunities? No. It's purely the way the dice has rolled for that company.

<<In one company yes it is possible for stats to be skewed but the pay gap stats are aggregated and show an average. I’d believe that to be a more accurate picture. I have used the FTSE100 as an example but in reality it is too small a sample size. Last I heard however there were more people called Dave who were CEO of a FTSE business than there were women.>>

You mention that "there are still roles which are stereotypically biased towards certain demographics". I recommend you listen to Jordan Peterson's comments in relation to Sweden. It's said to be the world's most advanced country in terms of equality and they really push freedom of choice. The outcome is that women and men do opt towards what might be considered typical male and female careers. That's without peer pressure or any kind of social conditioning.

<<Sorry but there is no such thing as “no social conditioning”. Unless they are banning most Disney films from before Toy Story for starters.>>

But let's face it, as much as SJWs call for more female CEOs' you will never hear them calling for more female coal miners or sewage workers. It seems their version of "equality" is only for the nicer things.

<<Not at all. There is a push for women to be allowed on the front line - hardly a “nice” job.

On the subject of BAME players in rugby, why do you think there are hardly any players in the Premiership from Asian/Indian backgrounds? I grew up in an area of extremely high Asian population, and very few of my schoolfriends from that demographic wanted to play rugby. They absolutely (in the main) loved hockey and cricket, and were the mainstay of the school teams. When offered the chance, they simply didn't want to play rugby. Personally I never tried hockey and was useless at cricket, so I chose rugby. I could easily have said that it was harder for me to play cricket as it was primarily Asian boys playing it, but that wouldn't be true. It's all about choice.

<<Likewise I grew up in a very heavily S Asian area (as in all the council signage was in English, Urdu and Gujarati) and I agree I don’t think I’ve ever played with an S Asian teammate. There was also a large Jewish population at my school and I don’t remember those boys playing rugby either.

But that supports my point. With no role models to emulate, it was a bigger step to be the unusual member of that demographic who bucked the trend. Easier just to do what everybody else in your community does.

You call that choice. I say that choice is shaped by the world around you.


Which is why I never became the primo ballerino I was clearly born to be 🤣>>


Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #54 on: Tuesday 27-Aug-2019, 13:32* »


Some interesting points, not least that you "could" have been the next Billy Elliott! :)

Iwon't go into the whole qualifications issue - that's another topic that can go on!

I think it's over-analysed whether women are CEOs of FTSE100 companies. There may well be a whole load of women who are capable but don't get the top jobs; there are also men who are capable that also don't get the top jobs. At present there are more men than women, but the landscape changes and evolves - the likelihood is that most CEOs will have worked their way to the top (as they should) and women now have the same opportunities as men to do so - that's enshrined in law. What should be noted is that simply being a woman doesn't make a person more or less capable of being a CEO, so the gender factor is irrelevant. Unless there is proof that a woman has been turned down for a CEO position BECAUSE she's a woman, it's just supposition and conspiracy theory at best, and a weak excuse at worst. It smacks of an Ali G type approach. Or worse, and Ali Desai approach (worth Googling).

Being on the front line clearly does appeal to some people.But again, I'm yet to see or hear of a feminist pushing for more females in coal mines, or cleaning sewers. Or scaffolding - when did you last see a female scaffolder, let alone a team of scaffolders with 50% females.

I think you make an interesting point about role models, but I think you give it too much weight. I doubt whether Asian kids turn there nose up at football because Beckham or Ronaldo or whoever is not Asian; in the same way I don't believe that many Korean kids suddenly took up football when there emerged a few well-known Korean footballers. More likely the attraction with football is the perceived fame, stardom, wealth etc.

The community influence is more of an issue. I remember some Asian friends inviting me to the local hockey club (they did a great curry) and nearly everyone there was Asian. But I think the community influence is more to push kids towards a specific sport, rather than away from a specific sport. That's my take on it.

My point remains - anyone can play rugby, they just have to want to.

Good luck with the pas de deux and the pliets :)

Yareet

  • A Team Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 452
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #55 on: Wednesday 28-Aug-2019, 10:10* »
Some interesting points, not least that you "could" have been the next Billy Elliott! :)

Iwon't go into the whole qualifications issue - that's another topic that can go on!

I think it's over-analysed whether women are CEOs of FTSE100 companies. There may well be a whole load of women who are capable but don't get the top jobs; there are also men who are capable that also don't get the top jobs.

<<I guess using the CEOs of FTSE companies is an easy shorthand for the wider picture; not least as the fact there are 100 makes calculating percentages very easy!

As things stand however, there are more Daves who are CEOs of FTSE100 companies than there are women. What is about the name Dave that makes you a better CEO than c.50% of the population?!?>>

At present there are more men than women, but the landscape changes and evolves - the likelihood is that most CEOs will have worked their way to the top (as they should) and women now have the same opportunities as men to do so - that's enshrined in law.

<<By and large, people have a tendency to hire (and promote) clones of themselves so a vicious circle is created where the same types of people consistently make it to the top. Hence the rise of blind profiling for job applicants and training in unconscious bias.>>

What should be noted is that simply being a woman doesn't make a person more or less capable of being a CEO, so the gender factor is irrelevant.

Unless there is proof that a woman has been turned down for a CEO position BECAUSE she's a woman, it's just supposition and conspiracy theory at best, and a weak excuse at worst. It smacks of an Ali G type approach. Or worse, and Ali Desai approach (worth Googling).

<<Freakonomics ran a series of podcasts last year about CEOs and one episode looked at the lack of females in the role. What I took from that was that women are more likely to be offered a CEO role when a company is in trouble – basically a last roll of the dice when all other options fail.>>

Being on the front line clearly does appeal to some people.But again, I'm yet to see or hear of a feminist pushing for more females in coal mines, or cleaning sewers. Or scaffolding - when did you last see a female scaffolder, let alone a team of scaffolders with 50% females.

<<I would say that the lack of female scaffolders merely proves my point – you can’t be what you can’t see. Exactly the same for the lack of male nannies or primary school teachers (my kids’ school has no male teachers – except the Head…)>>

I think you make an interesting point about role models, but I think you give it too much weight. I doubt whether Asian kids turn there nose up at football because Beckham or Ronaldo or whoever is not Asian; in the same way I don't believe that many Korean kids suddenly took up football when there emerged a few well-known Korean footballers. More likely the attraction with football is the perceived fame, stardom, wealth etc.

The community influence is more of an issue. I remember some Asian friends inviting me to the local hockey club (they did a great curry) and nearly everyone there was Asian. But I think the community influence is more to push kids towards a specific sport, rather than away from a specific sport. That's my take on it.

<<“Role models” is perhaps the wrong phrase as that has connotations of behaviour. “Examples” would be more accurate. If football is attractive because of the possibility of fame, wealth, etc, I would guess that would appeal to all demographics – certainly I can’t think of a group that actively avoids those possibilities.

Despite this, I can’t think of a British-Asian player making to a Premier League team. I would however guess that Tiger Woods made golf more engaging for the black community. Likewise, Lewis Hamilton for motor racing.

Put it this way. Think of two blokes, both went to public school. One is 196cm, 110kg. The other is 195cm, 115kg.

Which one plays rugby to an international level and which one rows in the Olympics? From that information, most would struggle to know.

The first guy is white, the second black.

Now, most people would (I would suggest) guess that the white guy rows. Who’s ever heard of a black rower?

They’re Pinsent and Itoje, by the way. I reckon with his size and athleticism, Maro would have been a decent oarsman.>>

My point remains - anyone can play rugby, they just have to want to.

<<They also have to have rugby (rowing, nannying, scaffolding, being CEO, whatever) presented as a possible option.>>

Good luck with the pas de deux and the pliets :)


Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #56 on: Thursday 29-Aug-2019, 13:09* »
The difficulty with taking a snapshot is that it's only relative at that point in time. Too many Daves as CEOs? How many should there be? The most popular boy's name in England is (apparently) Mohammed - should there be more Mo's than Daves as CEOs? Or should we look at how they work as opposed to what their parents called them?

I don't buy into the whole "people hire others who look like them". That's been said in my industry, where the claim is there are "too many" male directors (yes, that again), although the industry is over 70% female. Funny old clones these men have been hiring.

What I take from your quote about Freakonomics is that women are being offered jobs as CEOs. The question is, do they accept those jobs? If they don't and a man subsequently gets offered the job and takes it, that rather tips the whole "bias" argument on its head.

I can't think of any British Asian (what exactly does that mean?) player in a premier league team. I would suggest that there are a disproportionate number of British Asians working as doctors, dentists, solicitors etc. Now, my own tale on this from school days is that whilst the rest of us kids were messing around, couldn't wait to get out of school ad hang around with our mates, man of the Asian kids went home and their parents had them working hard on schoolwork. The reason explained to me was that the parents came to the UK and did low paid, less pleasant jobs, and they wanted better for their kids. And how it worked!Most of the Asian kids at my school went into well paid, professional careers, and good luck to them. However, if this situation were reversed, I imagine it would be deemed as evidence that Asian kids had less opportunities.

Maro Itoje is an interesting example. I'd say he could also have been a great decathlete, or maybe chef, or maybe accountant, or surgeon, or panel beater - but he chose rugby, and only he knows why. Maro is a strong character and a phenomenal athlete - I sense he'd have taken up rowing if he'd wanted to.  Matt Pinsent also played rugby I believe, at Marlow RFC. By all accounts he was a pretty useful number 8.

I was at a school with a few athletes who achieved great things in their chosen sports. One was a hammer thrower. I never had the opportunity to throw the hammer. Or rather, I never had it presented to me on a plate, but then I also didn't go out to find the opportunity. I didn't want to - that's all that stopped me trying. Of all the people I ever knew, only one threw the hammer. How would statistics portray that?

Yareet

  • A Team Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 452
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #57 on: Thursday 29-Aug-2019, 17:29* »
With respect, I didn’t say that there are too many Daves. I said that there are more CEOs called Dave than there are female CEOs. And yes if there is no discrimination (whether conscious or unconscious) then there should be more CEOs (and indeed everything else) called Mohammed than there are Dave; simply by virtue of the available pool being larger.

Again, what I said was “hire (and promote) clones of themselves”. If your industry is 70% female, I would hope that there is a similar ratio of female directors to male. My suspicion given you talk of too many male directors is that there are more male directors than female.

That can only suggest that something has either encouraged women not to go for the director roles, prevented them from getting the director roles or made them unsuitable for the director roles.

You have argued it’s all down to their choice and for some it will be. However, I don’t believe that women’s choices alone can turn a 70:30 ratio of all employees into a greater than 50:50 ratio in favour of male directors.

The take out from the Freakonimics show was that women were being … essentially set up to fail. You can read transcript or listen yourself at http://freakonomics.com/podcast/glass-cliff/ - better yet, subscribe. They have some good stuff.

But yes if a woman is finally given the opportunity to interview for a CEO role and is (unusually) offered it and then turns the offer down, then a man accepting the role would unfairly look like bias.

On the one hand, you’re claiming that any perceived bias is actually the result of choices the individual makes. On the other you’re saying that the kids in your own school were encouraged to follow one path or another. That’s exactly my point! Their “choices” are totally shaped by what they see on both a micro (what your parents tell you to do) and macro (what you see in the world at large) level.

So kids of Asian ethnicity are growing up in your school being told to shun sport in favour of academic work. As they get older you saw those within the Asian community who wanted to play sport took up cricket and hockey – not because anybody told them to do so but (I would argue) because those were the sports they saw other similar people (both locally and in the media) playing.

Likewise, poorer black kids from Battersea or Bristol haven’t naturally gravitated to rugby – it’s a game for private school and (until recently) mainly white boys. Messrs Sinckler and Genge show that those boys can get to the top of the game so I (and Ugo it seems) would hope that drives participation.
Think of football. In 1978 Viv Anderson was the first black man to win a senior England cap. The current squad of 25 has 13 black/mixed race players. It would be much harder for those guys to see a path to playing for England (and indeed for the coaches to select them) had others not forged the path over the last 40 years.

My point wasn’t that Maro chose not to row, nor that Pinsent did. It’s that both have the physical attributes to do it, and the opportunity. They had similar education yet I (and I’d guess most people) would be surprised to see Maro in a boat. If he had chosen than route and ended up in the Boat Race or Olympics, I’m fairly sure there would have been a lot of media coverage purely because of his ethnicity.

With regard to you throwing the hammer, again I think you’re agreeing with me. Although you had a friend who enjoyed the sport, “only one threw the hammer” so by definition it was an unusual pastime – I’m assuming you had more than one friend in total!

If the sport wasn’t “presented to [you] on a plate” it is unlikely that you (or anybody) would “go out to find the opportunity”. Somebody has to normalise the decision (be that a sport/hobby or a career/promotion choice) by being the person bold enough to go first.

Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #58 on: Friday 30-Aug-2019, 13:07* »
I think one big problem is the very definition of "equality". Whilst you make some good points, you seem to be looking at statistics and focusing very much on the law of averages (esp the Dave/Mohammed point). I'd suggest that many people who aspire to be, and achieve the goal of becoming a CEO are not average people. Similarly, the UK is not made up of 50% black / mixed race people, so surely the statistic regarding the England football team with more than 50% from this demographic should also be questioned? Sadly, the general media approach to such things is to celebrate it as an achievement, whilst criticising it if the balance if it's the other way. I say "sadly" because it detracts totally from the skill and hard work put in by the players in question.

I believe that in the modern age businesses can't get away with simply promoting people that they like or know, there's simply too much scrutiny. Yes, there will be exceptions, but not at a FTSE100 company. These businesses have shareholders to placate and they rely upon results, so the best person has to be hired. That's not to say they always get it right, but then some people thought The Beatles would come to nothing.

My industry is 70%+ female, but there are more males than females at board level - at the moment. That's because it's a young industry and many companies are still being run by the founders. What does interest me though is that the people who are calling for more female board members (in the interests of "equality") are doing absolutely nothing to recruit more males at any level; it seems "equality" only works one way.

You mention women being offered roles where they're set up to fail; if that role is subsequently taken by a man, the same applies. This skews the occasionally mentioned statistic that companies with women on the board tend to be more successful than those without. Is it OK to say that's because women don't take on the more difficult roles? I don't think so, but you see how such statistics can be twisted to suit a narrative. No CEO role is easy - that's why there are less people seeking them.

Back to the question of "equality". What does it mean to you? It's not a trick question; more an interest which may explain our different opinions on some aspects of this issue.

Yareet

  • A Team Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 452
Re: Equality Issues
« Reply #59 on: Friday 30-Aug-2019, 16:25* »
Not so much using stats but certainly I do have a habit of using examples to back up my point.

I agree that CEOs (or team captains or an leaders) are a particular type of person but that still comes back to the question of why that is more likely to be a man. Likewise, why are the founders of the businesses in your industry all men?

I (have been led to) believe that it is largely because society has encouraged men to lead while women should be meek and mild. Moreover, the narrative would continue that this arrangement is detrimental to everybody.

I do see your point about the football team and would agree that in a perfect world any cohort of a sufficient size should exactly match the total population. That would show that there are no barriers to entry/progression so to answer your later question that is my idea of true equality.

I fully appreciate that this is an unlikely ideal but where there are glaring differences, I think we as a society should work to close the gaps.

A squad of 25 is probably too small to be representative but we can look at why we have historically had so few black goalkeepers playing for England. Or apparently so few gay sportsmen. Perhaps there truly is some unseen inverse correlation between the ability to kick a ball and being gay <<sarcasm>>.

I wish I shared your view that favouritism doesn’t happen but working in recruitment I can tell you it certainly does. Ageism is rife (both ways). Until recently, men asking for flexibility to look after children were seen as ridiculous. Women returning from a break for childcare are (thankfully now less) ignored. There is no way (at any level) that the best person is always hired.

Not sure if you read/listened to the Freakonomics show but the crux was that women are no just brought in as CEO when a company is failing but that they are not given the time/support to fix the issues that a man would be given. As a result, companies can say they tried a woman but it didn’t work so the (unconscious) bias is perpetuated.

I don’t believe that there is a correlation per say between appointing female Board members and success. However, I do believe that having as many diverse voices allows companies to make more rounded decisions. Also a company which regularly includes minority groups in their decision making is probably more progressive and open-minded which can lead to more innovative thinking.

 

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Site Statistics

Members
Total Members: 809
Latest: Bail0018
New This Month: 5
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 51406
Total Topics: 2975
Most Online Today: 122
Most Online Ever: 705
(Monday 02-Dec-2019, 13:56*)
Users Online
Members: 17
Guests: 72
Total: 89