Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 22:14:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 16:19:15 GMT
"While Time’s Up has no official leader, members of the group meet weekly at the agencies’ offices and across L.A. as part of subgroups that work on different women’s equality initiatives. In December, a commission led by Anita Hill, who famously accused then-U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in 1991, was founded to combat sexual harassment in the industry. Another Time’s Up offshoot, 50/50by2020, is pressuring entertainment companies to achieve gender parity in their upper leadership within the next two years — an initiative that already has received a pledge of support from prominent talent agency ICM Partners. Time’s Up has also been leading a push for LGBTQ rights, and has encouraged women to wear black in protest of gender and racial inequality at the Golden Globes on Sunday....
It’s very hard for us to speak righteously about the rest of anything if we haven’t cleaned our own house,” said producer and screenwriter Shonda Rhimes. “If this group of women can’t fight for a model for other women who don’t have as much power and privilege, then who can?"
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jan 2, 2018 16:28:15 GMT
I know I am going to get bashed for this, but I can't say I am totally for this. I dislike putting numbers on equality. I don't believe making 50% of something makes it equal, especially if some of those people are not the best qualified. I also think it builds resentment and forces the us vs them argument in some people.
I'd rather see a change in policy and culture than an artificial equality.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 22:14:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 16:34:24 GMT
I disagree. I think parity is necessary (at least for a couple of centuries of rebalance) in this world that has been skewed to male=power for millennia.
|
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jan 2, 2018 16:41:41 GMT
I know I am going to get bashed for this, but I can't say I am totally for this. I dislike putting numbers on equality. I don't believe making 50% of something makes it equal, especially if some of those people are not the best qualified. I also think it builds resentment and forces the us vs them argument in some people. I'd rather see a change in policy and culture than an artificial equality. The problem is, even women who are MORE qualified are often overlooked/not chosen for things. (AHEM THE PRESIDENCY). It's not that people would be advancing women who are less qualified than a male counterpart just because they're women. It's that women would have access and opportunity and not be overlooked because they "should be taking care of the kids" or they're "too hysterical" or "might make bad decisions while PMSing." Yes, these are all excuses that have been made for not having women in leadership roles. And, the fact that you can't conceive that at least 50% of the population, women, WOULDN'T be equally qualified is why we're in this position. Even women don't see women as leaders yet. We need to change that. |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jan 2, 2018 16:47:47 GMT
Women are roughly 50% of the population. It’s ludicrous to think there is not enough talent and skill in that giant pool of people that it would be necessary to put unqualified women in leadership roles.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonrefugee on Jan 2, 2018 17:55:09 GMT
Women are roughly 50% of the population. It’s ludicrous to think there is not enough talent and skill in that giant pool of people that it would be necessary to put unqualified women in leadership roles. I think it's comparing apples to oranges. As a general statistic we could expect 50% of the leaders to be women. But in individual companies, or even professions, the best candidate at the time might be male. |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jan 2, 2018 18:01:22 GMT
Women are roughly 50% of the population. It’s ludicrous to think there is not enough talent and skill in that giant pool of people that it would be necessary to put unqualified women in leadership roles. I think it's comparing apples to oranges. As a general statistic we could expect 50% of the leaders to be women. But in individual companies, or even professions, the best candidate at the time might be male. Maybe we need to reconsider what makes the “best” candidate. “Has the most experience (perpetuating the status quo in an industry with lots of harassment, abuse and representation problems)” maybe shouldn’t be on the top of our list of desired traits. |
|
|
|
Post by anonrefugee on Jan 2, 2018 18:12:06 GMT
I think it's comparing apples to oranges. As a general statistic we could expect 50% of the leaders to be women. But in individual companies, or even professions, the best candidate at the time might be male. Maybe we need to reconsider what makes the “best” candidate. I don't think so. We might want leaders with more traditional female values like appreciating family time, etc. but when I'm hiring engineers I want someone who is good at that discipline, accomplishing the work, meshing with the team. Gender isn't an issue. Maybe in a less specialized field requiring less specific experience, or one populated with lots of qualified candidates, that can be considered? |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jan 2, 2018 18:15:35 GMT
Maybe we need to reconsider what makes the “best” candidate. I don't think so. We might want leaders with more traditional female values like appreciating family time, etc. but when I'm hiring engineers I want someone who is good at that discipline, accomplishing the work, meshing with the team. Gender isn't an issue. Maybe in a less specialized field requiring less specific experience, or one populated with lots of qualified candidates, that can be considered? I don’t know why you would think I’m talking about “traditional female values.” I said nothing of the kind. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Jan 2, 2018 18:20:11 GMT
I know I am going to get bashed for this, but I can't say I am totally for this. I dislike putting numbers on equality. I don't believe making 50% of something makes it equal, especially if some of those people are not the best qualified. I also think it builds resentment and forces the us vs them argument in some people. I'd rather see a change in policy and culture than an artificial equality. I agree with you. I do think it creates an artificial equality. The best person for the job should get a job - not because of their skin color, ancestry, gender or sexual preface. I will even go further and say I think it is hypocritical of those who say that race and sexual preference shouldn't be considered then be ok with taking gender into consideration. F We should want people judged on their qualifications and what they bring to the table instead of their gender, race, etc. SaveSave |
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643 
Location: The Grand Canyon
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jan 2, 2018 18:20:31 GMT
Maybe we need to reconsider what makes the “best” candidate. I don't think so. We might want leaders with more traditional female values like appreciating family time, etc. but when I'm hiring engineers I want someone who is good at that discipline, accomplishing the work, meshing with the team. Gender isn't an issue. Maybe in a less specialized field requiring less specific experience, or one populated with lots of qualified candidates, that can be considered? I'm an engineer and there is absolutely disparity in gender with many factors. And it's not because women aren't qualified, willing to work hard, and have the skills. |
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Jan 2, 2018 18:21:18 GMT
I know I am going to get bashed for this, but I can't say I am totally for this. I dislike putting numbers on equality. I don't believe making 50% of something makes it equal, especially if some of those people are not the best qualified. I also think it builds resentment and forces the us vs them argument in some people. I'd rather see a change in policy and culture than an artificial equality. No bashing from me, and sitting on the bench to get bashed. In South Africa, 20 years ago, we started this (inter alia) with the very best of intentions: we imposed gender quotas. Your opinion is validated. Sadly. I agree with the desire expressed by the peas on the other side, I just have too many sadnesses regarding the unintended consequences of a really great policy. One of the best remunerated jobs I ever won was to serve on a task team to write, behind the scenes, a policy to ensure the jobs of pregnant women were retained/ an anti discrimination piece, for a struggle icon woman who was totally incapable of even directing or staying in touch with the team and the issue at hand. When it was complete, enacted and she was in charge of implementation, Many of us were left literally gnashing our teeth. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 22:14:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 18:21:28 GMT
The question isn't who is the best - it's what if there are MULTIPLE bests (different bests as people are not widgets) - which is OFTEN the case - speaking from 3 decades of hiring experience.
In those cases, PICK THE WOMAN until we get to parity!
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jan 2, 2018 18:25:10 GMT
I know I am going to get bashed for this, but I can't say I am totally for this. I dislike putting numbers on equality. I don't believe making 50% of something makes it equal, especially if some of those people are not the best qualified. I also think it builds resentment and forces the us vs them argument in some people. I'd rather see a change in policy and culture than an artificial equality. I agree with you. I do think it creates an artificial equality. The best person for the job should get a job - not because of their skin color, ancestry, gender or sexual preface. I will even go further and say I think it is hypocritical of those who say that race and sexual preference shouldn't be considered then be ok with taking gender into consideration. F We should want people judged on their qualifications and what they bring to the table instead of their gender, race, etc. SaveSaveI think this is the biggest misunderstanding when people talk about employment equality. Nobody is suggesting that unqualified candidates should be given jobs because of gender, race, etc. It's much deeper than that - who gets opportunities, support, education, encouragement, and experiences necessary to be competitive for these jobs. And actually, exactly what you say "we want people to be judged on their qualifications and what they bring to the table" is exactly what women want. If you think that's how our society now works - do you truly believe then that women are inferior in intelligence, aptitude, and hard work? Because there is definitely a gender gap in many fields. |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jan 2, 2018 18:33:25 GMT
6.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women.
Does anyone really think that only has to do with merit? Are men just so superior to us?
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jan 2, 2018 18:35:35 GMT
6.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. Does anyone really think that only has to do with merit? Are men just so superior to us? And in many cases, women CEOs are only given a shot when a company isn't doing well - if the ship is going down, no harm in letting a woman take the helm. |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jan 2, 2018 18:36:12 GMT
I know I am going to get bashed for this, but I can't say I am totally for this. I dislike putting numbers on equality. I don't believe making 50% of something makes it equal, especially if some of those people are not the best qualified. I also think it builds resentment and forces the us vs them argument in some people. I'd rather see a change in policy and culture than an artificial equality. No bashing from me, and sitting on the bench to get bashed. In South Africa, 20 years ago, we started this (inter alia) with the very best of intentions: we imposed gender quotas. Your opinion is validated. Sadly. I agree with the desire expressed by the peas on the other side, I just have too many sadnesses regarding the unintended consequences of a really great policy. One of the best remunerated jobs I ever won was to serve on a task team to write, behind the scenes, a policy to ensure the jobs of pregnant women were retained/ an anti discrimination piece, for a struggle icon woman who was totally incapable of even directing or staying in touch with the team and the issue at hand. When it was complete, enacted and she was in charge of implementation, Many of us were left literally gnashing our teeth. [ And so what? There are plenty of men in positions of authority who are incompetent. No one says “Wow, men really aren’t qualified for things like this.” Why does a woman who is crappy at a particular job become an indicator that women more generally aren’t deserving of positions of power? |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jan 2, 2018 18:36:36 GMT
6.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. Does anyone really think that only has to do with merit? Are men just so superior to us? And in many cases, women CEOs are only given a shot when a company isn't doing well - if the ship is going down, no harm in letting a woman take the helm. Marissa Mayer |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Jan 2, 2018 18:37:41 GMT
I agree with you. I do think it creates an artificial equality. The best person for the job should get a job - not because of their skin color, ancestry, gender or sexual preface. I will even go further and say I think it is hypocritical of those who say that race and sexual preference shouldn't be considered then be ok with taking gender into consideration. F We should want people judged on their qualifications and what they bring to the table instead of their gender, race, etc. SaveSaveI think this is the biggest misunderstanding when people talk about employment equality. Nobody is suggesting that unqualified candidates should be given jobs because of gender, race, etc. It's much deeper than that - who gets opportunities, support, education, encouragement, and experiences necessary to be competitive for these jobs. And actually, exactly what you say "we want people to be judged on their qualifications and what they bring to the table" is exactly what women want. If you think that's how our society now works - do you truly believe then that women are inferior in intelligence, aptitude, and hard work? Because there is definitely a gender gap in many fields. I get what you are saying about the gender gap. I agree there is one. I am just not comfortable with the idea of the idea of saying across the board that women should be chosen automatically. Change needs to happen but I am not certain this is the way to go about it. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jan 2, 2018 18:41:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jan 2, 2018 18:41:58 GMT
The question isn't who is the best - it's what if there are MULTIPLE bests (different bests as people are not widgets) - which is OFTEN the case - speaking from 3 decades of hiring experience. In those cases, PICK THE WOMAN until we get to parity! I disagree. The woman may not be the right fit and there are valid reasons. And we talk in general sense all the time. What of the male who doesn't get the position based soley on his anatomy? Why aren't we as concerned that there are more male butchers or trash collectors or farmers than female? Do we only care about equality at the top? |
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jan 2, 2018 18:42:11 GMT
I think this is the biggest misunderstanding when people talk about employment equality. Nobody is suggesting that unqualified candidates should be given jobs because of gender, race, etc. It's much deeper than that - who gets opportunities, support, education, encouragement, and experiences necessary to be competitive for these jobs. And actually, exactly what you say "we want people to be judged on their qualifications and what they bring to the table" is exactly what women want. If you think that's how our society now works - do you truly believe then that women are inferior in intelligence, aptitude, and hard work? Because there is definitely a gender gap in many fields. I get what you are saying about the gender gap. I agree there is one. I am just not comfortable with the idea of the idea of saying across the board that women should be chosen automatically. Change needs to happen but I am not certain this is the way to go about it. SaveSaveWho is advocating hiring unqualified women just because they are women? |
|
|
|
Post by sawwhet on Jan 2, 2018 18:48:37 GMT
Hmm. I don't know. In Canada, Justin Trudeau made 1/2 his cabinet positions female and there was a huge outcry by so many about whether or not these females were qualified. Turns out, many of them are Ph.D's who are experts in their field. Yet, no one ever questioned whether or not any male EVER was qualified for their cabinet position. Heck, is Donald Trump qualified to be president? What are his qualifications? Is a business man qualified? One who's gone bankrupt several times?
ITA with pudgyground hog. No one is talking about hiring unqualified women.
|
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Jan 2, 2018 18:53:02 GMT
No bashing from me, and sitting on the bench to get bashed. In South Africa, 20 years ago, we started this (inter alia) with the very best of intentions: we imposed gender quotas. Your opinion is validated. Sadly. I agree with the desire expressed by the peas on the other side, I just have too many sadnesses regarding the unintended consequences of a really great policy. One of the best remunerated jobs I ever won was to serve on a task team to write, behind the scenes, a policy to ensure the jobs of pregnant women were retained/ an anti discrimination piece, for a struggle icon woman who was totally incapable of even directing or staying in touch with the team and the issue at hand. When it was complete, enacted and she was in charge of implementation, Many of us were left literally gnashing our teeth. [ And so what? There are plenty of men in positions of authority who are incompetent. No one says “Wow, men really aren’t qualified for things like this.” Why does a woman who is crappy at a particular job become an indicator that women more generally aren’t deserving of positions of power? Unfortunately, this woman is one personal example of a whole generation. No one is sadder than I am. I did not say there are no men who are crappy at their job. However, the mere fact that she is a woman means she has one overriding line of defence when challenged to do a better job. She (and many others) could not be shifted, disciplined, ultimately fired. We got stuck with endless counselling and training, meanwhile, the thousands, tens of thousands, of women her department was tasked with advancing sat in limbo. The policy lost credibility. The weapons this handed to the "other" side are real. |
|
|
|
Post by anonrefugee on Jan 2, 2018 18:53:41 GMT
I don't think so. We might want leaders with more traditional female values like appreciating family time, etc. but when I'm hiring engineers I want someone who is good at that discipline, accomplishing the work, meshing with the team. Gender isn't an issue. Maybe in a less specialized field requiring less specific experience, or one populated with lots of qualified candidates, that can be considered? I'm an engineer and there is absolutely disparity in gender with many factors. And it's not because women aren't qualified, willing to work hard, and have the skills. I agree, and that's not what I'm saying. I can't magically grant an extra 15 -20 years of experience in some specialties requiring rather discrete knowledge just so we have equal candidates in both genders. What we can do is make it possible now, by changing policies and attitudes to grow those candidates for the future. |
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Jan 2, 2018 19:02:55 GMT
6.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. Does anyone really think that only has to do with merit? Are men just so superior to us? And in many cases, women CEOs are only given a shot when a company isn't doing well - if the ship is going down, no harm in letting a woman take the helm. Like my example of the woman who was put in charge of the ministry tasked to advance all women, I think you have knowledge of a specific company or industry. This is valuable. |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jan 2, 2018 19:36:26 GMT
I'm an engineer and there is absolutely disparity in gender with many factors. And it's not because women aren't qualified, willing to work hard, and have the skills. I agree, and that's not what I'm saying. I can't magically grant an extra 15 -20 years of experience in some specialties requiring rather discrete knowledge just so we have equal candidates in both genders. What we can do is make it possible now, by changing policies and attitudes to grow those candidates for the future. No, but you can do targeted recruiting to find more candidates who have the same experience and are from under-represented groups. When I started at my company, there was a lot of "omg, we want to hire engineers who aren't white men but there's just no pipeline!" Lo and behold, once we stopped relying on referrals and posting jobs in only a couple predictable, super male-dominated places... we found some really talented new hires who aren't white dudes. You can also look at actual skills evaluations to see if the number of years of experience you are requiring is really bringing you better candidates, or just fewer and less diverse ones. It may truly be necessary to have that much experience, but sometimes it isn't and it's just "habit." |
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jan 2, 2018 19:49:28 GMT
I agree, and that's not what I'm saying. I can't magically grant an extra 15 -20 years of experience in some specialties requiring rather discrete knowledge just so we have equal candidates in both genders. What we can do is make it possible now, by changing policies and attitudes to grow those candidates for the future. No, but you can do targeted recruiting to find more candidates who have the same experience and are from under-represented groups. When I started at my company, there was a lot of "omg, we want to hire engineers who aren't white men but there's just no pipeline!" Lo and behold, once we stopped relying on referrals and posting jobs in only a couple predictable, super male-dominated places... we found some really talented new hires who aren't white dudes. You can also look at actual skills evaluations to see if the number of years of experience you are requiring is really bringing you better candidates, or just fewer and less diverse ones. It may truly be necessary to have that much experience, but sometimes it isn't and it's just "habit." For experienced professionals, the most common way to get a job is networking, which can put certain groups at a disadvantage. |
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jan 2, 2018 19:51:10 GMT
I agree, and that's not what I'm saying. I can't magically grant an extra 15 -20 years of experience in some specialties requiring rather discrete knowledge just so we have equal candidates in both genders. What we can do is make it possible now, by changing policies and attitudes to grow those candidates for the future. No, but you can do targeted recruiting to find more candidates who have the same experience and are from under-represented groups. When I started at my company, there was a lot of "omg, we want to hire engineers who aren't white men but there's just no pipeline!" Lo and behold, once we stopped relying on referrals and posting jobs in only a couple predictable, super male-dominated places... we found some really talented new hires who aren't white dudes. You can also look at actual skills evaluations to see if the number of years of experience you are requiring is really bringing you better candidates, or just fewer and less diverse ones. It may truly be necessary to have that much experience, but sometimes it isn't and it's just "habit." I can't remember which show it was (maybe Samantha Bee's?), but read an article about a showrunner who said that while many people lament the lack of diversity in writing rooms, they aren't being proactive and challenging that. You can't just wait for resumes or people to fall into your lap - you have to be active in recruiting and finding the talent or helping nurture it. |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jan 2, 2018 20:02:00 GMT
No, but you can do targeted recruiting to find more candidates who have the same experience and are from under-represented groups. When I started at my company, there was a lot of "omg, we want to hire engineers who aren't white men but there's just no pipeline!" Lo and behold, once we stopped relying on referrals and posting jobs in only a couple predictable, super male-dominated places... we found some really talented new hires who aren't white dudes. You can also look at actual skills evaluations to see if the number of years of experience you are requiring is really bringing you better candidates, or just fewer and less diverse ones. It may truly be necessary to have that much experience, but sometimes it isn't and it's just "habit." I can't remember which show it was (maybe Samantha Bee's?), but read an article about a showrunner who said that while many people lament the lack of diversity in writing rooms, they aren't being proactive and challenging that. You can't just wait for resumes or people to fall into your lap - you have to be active in recruiting and finding the talent or helping nurture it. My sister-in-law is a scientist. All throughout her education, she constantly heard how she'd probably be the only woman on staff at any lab she ever worked in. Sure *she* was talented, she was told, but there weren't may other women like her so she needed to accept she'd probably never work with many other women. Well, she is now a tenured professor at a major research institution and runs her own lab, where over half of her staff - including grad students and post-docs - are women. That's not an accident. By the way, they are considered one of the top labs in the world in their area of expertise. The "non-traditional" candidates are out there, capable of doing great work, and want the opportunities. But you have to find them AND be an environment where they are respected and valued, not where they're made to feel like tokens. |
|
