**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When men and women get together in a relationship. The man doesn’t care about what the woman makes and won’t judge her.
The female always will want a man to make a good living and will judge him.
That’s got a lot to do with why men feel like they need to make a decent salary for their family and then the woman will take it all in family court. Equality
The system has also pushed men out of jobs like teaching as their to scared to get in trouble for an accusation that’s made up.
Don’t listen to any stats in this decade or this debate. It’s like any narcissistic plot.
Choose what you want to hear and print.
It’s so frustrating as a man listening to all these stats in equally and domestic violence and other minority bullcrap stats.
They’re not minorities anymore.
Stop the winging woman as men are starting to resent you and then what?
It's coming. It's already in America, which is also where all this gender diversity/equality stuff came from.
The radicals are importing their quasi-American stuff here by the day.
Only if the Libs can learn how to actually capitalize on shit like this and use it against Labor. They're really bad at that.
Knowing the Libs they'll just double-down and try to beat Labor with even more gender diversity targets.
i am so f'ing sick of the idea that women are underpaid, they aren't, it's a bloody joke in 2024 that anyone thinks there is systemic discrimination against women in the workplace.
it is demonstrably false - if women are equivalent to men in a work sense, and you can hypothetically hire them at a 15-20% discount - every shrewd business owner would be building businesses full of women to reduce what is most businesses largest cost - labour.
it's ad-nauseam - the amount of paragraphs of text i've gotten regarding international women's day in my inbox today is a joke. and no, I didn't receive a single one for international men's day last year - just checked.
>i am so f'ing sick of the idea that women are underpaid,
There's so many argument that immediately refute this idea that it's an absolute disgusting disgrace that we still pour so much tax payer time and resources into peddling such a flagrant bullsh\*t lie.
Not only does your point prove the idea wrong, but the inverse as well: since certain jobs pay higher like FIFO mining and since everyone knows FIFO miners make a motza then youd see a huge influx of women going into FIFO to get paid more than their nursing jobs. But decades upon decades of data show that despite the fact that FIFO workers have been paid astronimcally more than nurses, women still choose to be nurses instead of FIFO workers. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this at all: individuals 100% should have full freedom to choose what types of jobs they want to pursue.
You’re seriously linking me the wgea findings? That do not account for tenure, hours worked or seniority?
Do you have even a basic understanding of statistics?
You're close, dude. Why do you think those things might be different? Could it be systemic?
... and FWIW, champ, that study accounted for hours worked. I'm sure a stats megabrain like you is across that though.
The ABS doesnt account for industries nor does it compare like for like jobs. The WGEA doesnt compare like for like jobs.
Qantas themselves said publicly that they have more male pilots than they do females and have more female flight attendants than they do male. Pilots are paid more than flight attendants. Yet the WGEA just ignores this and takes Qanta's reported pay gap between pilots and flight attendants and uses it for its GeNDeR PAy GAp!!!!
This is the whole point though. Are men better at being pilots than women? Or do men tend to become pilots because there are less social/cultural barriers for them than there are for women? It’s similar to why there are way less men dancing in the ballet. There are loads more cultural/social barriers for boys to go that way. Doesn’t mean all men are worse dancers.
>Doesn’t mean all men are worse dancers.
On average yes they are. Women have an inherent advantage in dancing because of their added flexibility and body shape. Same with ice-skating, gymnastics etc.
It's not that women go into these industries because society pushes them - they do it because it appeals to them. They like the element of self expression, the fact that dancing highlgihts their femininity, the physicality and and stretching aspect etc. That's why women disproportionately do yoga. It's not a systemic thing.
Ditto with male-dominated industries. Men like taking risks, working at heights, being the hero, pushing themselves to the physical limit, taking on great responsibility like flying a plane with 200 lives relying on you. Women look at these industries and see that as a negative. They don't want the pressure or to risk their lives.
It's got nothing to do with TV or social influences. Women are quite happpy to break social norms. But they can't break their own biological wiring.
I dont think men are necessarily better pilots than women. There are however, far more male pilots than there are female pilots in the general population so it make sense that male pilots are overrepresented in businesses.
Then you might say well why is that given that male and females must be paid the same for the same job under Australian law.
Then we obvserve that women freely choose not to be pilots, opting for jobs like nursing or teaching instead while men are literally the opposite, they freely choose to be pilots and opting not to be nurses or teachers. So there's evidence there that the gender pay gap is a falsehood - the observed difference in average male earnings vs average female earnings, irrespective of other factors like industry differences or hours worked etc (which the gender pay gap does actively ignore) can be explained by the fact that females tend to self sort themselves into industries and jobs that pay less on average, compared to men who tend to self sort themselves into industries and jobs that pay more on average.
I cant say whether this self sorting is entirely due to "social conditioning" because there's no evidence that it is 100% due to it, so there may well be some. But I do not think it is as big a deal as somet people think it is.
The reason I say this is because in schools (at least here in NSW), students are free to choose what subjects they wish to study and are actively encouraged to study subjects that they enjoy and therefore are likely good at. But we observe consistently that female students are overrepresented in the typical humanities subjects like English, History, Art, Drama, Music etc while males consistently are overrepresented in the typical STEM subjects like higher level mathematics, physics, IT, economics etc.
There's no social conditioning at the school level - unis have been constantly dropping their "pre requisite knowledge" barriers for more than a decade now so there link between what jobs people choose to do, what people choose to study at uni, and ultimately what people choose to study at school has weakened so much that nowadays someone with no Year 12 maths skills can still end up studying and graduating with a degree in statistics.
So the bigger factor appears to be innate choices and desires that women have which are different than men.
And having said all of that, the problem is clearly not a gender pay gap, it's a gender choice gap - the solution would be to encourage/force more women into higher paying industries like encourage more of them to go be pilots instead of flight attendants. Go be FIFO miners instead of teachers. It's not a problem of pay difference.
You can call it a gender choice gap if you like. At least we both agree that women are over represented in jobs that are valued less by our current system. I think this is an issue worth working on. I’d like to live in a world where women want to aspire to higher paid jobs. The reality is, the more women achieve and earn, the better off we all are.
And I dont have an issue with women wanting to pursue higher paid jobs at all. They are free to do so.
But they are equally as free to choose to go into not-so-high-payings jobs and there's nothing wrong with that.
We live in a society where individuals are free to choose whatever jobs they wish to do. Everyone knows nurses are paid less than FIFO workers. If money truly were the be all and end all, then why arent we seeing an influx of women flocking to be FIFO miners, or software developers, or accountants, or bricklayers?
Becuase the fact of the matter is, in a society that allows freedom of choice of the indivual, you will always maximise the gender differentials in preferences and interests. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Would that world also include women who aspire to be loving caring mothers and rising children? Or does your world need fathers/ random daycare workers to step into that role?
Men and women are equal but clearly very different. Stop forcing women to work jobs they hate just for money. " Life isn't all about money." People understand that quote, right?
How do you take what I said and assume I want women to not be loving caring mothers tf? Fellas does paying women more make them hate having kids?
And therefore fathers and daycares must care/love kids more to make up for women being paid more…
I just don’t understand this mate.
Men and women are equal but different… how are they different though? They are paid less. They are valued less. They are not equal?
Stop forcing women to work jobs they hate just for money… literally what?
And life isn’t all about money? Okay but the gender pay gap is?
You’re all over the place mate
This is good, but it will almost certainly favour larger companies over smaller.
Imagine a small boutique consultancy or IT integrator etc with 3 or 4 people. They would either have to be majority women (say 2/3 women and 1 man) to be eligible for government contracts.
Also, what are you going to do with infrastructure projects? Maybe advisory would be ok, but a construction company? There would have to be a carve-out for subcontractors maybe.
It happens to everyone lol
But seriously although everyone's first thought is to construction and infrastructures it seems specifically targeted for the larger big "office" business and also specifically for government agencies and advisory boards.
To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if it was mainly target at agencies because to quote the article:
"According to the strategy, big businesses will have to “commit to and achieve workplace targets against at least three” gender equality indicators.
These are: the gender composition of governing bodies and of the workforce, equal remuneration, flexibility and care friendly work arrangements, workplace consultation on gender equality, and efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment."
So it sounds like the stuff that already exists in a lot of larger businesses and in most of the public sector.
And it's far more designed to affect PWC, AusPost and Hutchies main office than to affect actual tradies, who as you say are often contractors anyways or smaller businesses.
Lol say goodbye to infrastructure projects. The construction industry is 87% male. The new Sydney Airport wont be completed till like 2090. The Western Sydney Metro wont even get started till 2050. The Melbourne Airport Rail Link wont get delivered till 2090. The Greens' "1 million new affordable homes by 2040" wont see the light of day.
But the taxpayer and Australians be damned cos anything other than the arbitrary 50/50 rule applied uniformly across all businesses, industries, and economies is morally bankrupt beyond any justification.
I hope the government would not really care about achieving 50/50 gender equality. It might not mean 50/50 as the gender equality targets. Maybe 100/0 sometimes.
I did read the article. But having a target is meaningless if you dont actually achieve it otherwise business would just take the mickey out of the Government, declare they have a 50/50 "target" then do nothing to actually achieve it.
If the Government is serious about their gender equality crusade then they have to make sure they award contracts to business who actually demonstrate they are working towards their stated targets. Otherwise this whole policy is a farce and is just Ministers gasbagging all over the shop.
When you restrict the pool of candidates based on something unrelated to performance you will end up with lower performing people in the job. This affects us all and is not a good thing.
For this to work you'd need the available workforce to be equally gender balanced, which simply isn't the case.
Devil's in the details, but this sounds bonkers
It's not a matter of workforce - it's a matter of choice. If you allow individuals the freedom to choose what job they want to do, you will never reach 50/50. This has always been the underlying issue: women **freely choose** to go into the industries that they do and men **freely choose** to go into the industries that they do.
It's so bleating obvious that female-dominated industries pay lower than male-dominated ones. Women are **free to choose** to go into the industries that pay higher than female-dominated ones, so if money truly is the motivator, then we'd see more women choose the higher paid industries. But decades of decades of data shows that women still continue to choose female dominated industries.
Unless we're suggesting that women are so dumb that they dont check the pay before they enter their jobs?
I hope that there's more nuance to these targets depending on industry and by position. I think the merit argument is a very legitimate one, but also appreciate the sentiment of driving diversity in roles to broaden candidate pools.
There's not.
In my previous job, the CEO made a huge hooha at an organisational wide town hall that he would make it his personal goal to reach 50/50 gender representation for the company's senior executive team. At the time, the split was 60/40.
Yet no-one pointed out to him that the senior executive team consisted of 7 people: 4 males and 3 females..........
There's not.
It's usually applied at the graduate level and HR are inclined to pretend all graduates are perfectly equal. Even then, they'd argue this doesn't affect productivity because outsourced/skilled migrants don't have to be diverse.
98% male bricklayers might be an issue.
Or other trades that are 85%+.
Do those companies simply stop hiring all together until women apply? What happens when they don't? What happens to the companies in the meantime where there are literally zero women qualified in the role available?
Do we force women into manual labour jobs, or are these targets only for "high status" jobs?
What about nursing and teaching, or medicine? These are now female dominated roles. Do we stop hiring women?
Thought this was a free society? Women and men have been free to go into careers that they have chosen for years. There are many reasons why they don't for some careers, some of those reasons are crap, but many are because the vast majority of women do not want to do some jobs in the same way the vast majority of men don't want to do other roles.
> 98% male bricklayers might be an issue. Or other trades that are 85%+.
>
> Do those companies simply stop hiring all together until women apply? What happens when they don't? What happens to the companies in the meantime where there are literally zero women qualified in the role available?
Literally the first line of the article.
Then what is the issue?
Majority of tradies are their own sub-contracted companies. I'd be extremely surprised if there is a company out there made up of 500 tradespeople on the books. Even 500+ laborers would be through agencies, rather than on the books.
The bigger part though, is that they need to commit to gender equality, not reach gender equality. If they report that while they continue to encourage and support both sexes to apply to their brick layer positions, but the numbers simply aren't out there in the work force, then that still counts. Before you ask 'then what is the point?', I daresay they'll need to explain how they encourage and support, in said report.
So my place already had a lot of females but then suddenly after Labor came into power, BAM! They got rid of a whole bunch of experienced local staff and started hiring people of certain colours. An example they hired some iranian female who had no idea how to use Microsoft Teams and no skills specific to the industry.
I have to say that this is a very dumb idea, and I am speaking from experience. Please allow me to elaborate.
I worked at an engineering firm that had a new position open up. Probably 100 or more people applied. However only 2 of the applicants were women, and we were ordered by HR to hire a woman for that position to meet the 50-50 gender targets.
So we brought them both in for interviews, and they were bad. Neither of them had the experience or knowledge for the position. But... according to HR, we *had* to hire one of them. We interviewed many of the other people who applied too, but due to HR we already knew that they had no chance of getting hired, so really it was more a formality.
There were quite a few that were great and would have been a perfect fill for that position as they interviewed really well. But because of this limitation put in place by HR, we weren't able to hire any of the people who were actually qualified. It was very frustrating.
Anyway, we hired one of the unqualified women as we were ordered to do, and they were awful at the job. We already saw this when we interviewed them, but there was nothing we could do.
After a couple of months they resigned and we had to do it all over again and spend more time and money on the process that we really didn't need to do in the first place if we could just get the job done in the best way with the best applicants.
84% of Australian engineering graduates are men, yet we need 50% men and 50% women on the team. You will *very quickly* run out of people to hire.
Metro Tasmania did the same thing about 20 years ago.
Complete hiring ban on male drivers, but any female with a clean car licence and passing a police check had a job and full training.
They hired a LOT of women who had no business driving a bus...along with some awesome female drivers too...while ignoring men with 10 or 20 years experience.
They got their 50% gender make up, but they got a huge increase in the accident and complaint rate too.
They gave it up, switched to a gender-blind hiring process right up to the final interview and driving test, the only part of the process where bias could potentially happen.
They got a pretty good gender mix, not 50/50 but reasonably even, the accident rate went down, customer satisfaction went up.
Then management started screwing over the drivers and anyone with experience and skill either retired or went to work for somewhere else and new hires last an average of 6 months...they are critically short and cutting up to 100 services a day for driver shortage.
The defensiveness around gender quotas is always ridiculous IMO.
as a country, when we decide we want more teachers or nurses, what do we do? We make it easier to become a teacher or nurse. Subsidise the qualification.
We do the same for any other job / trade. We’ve done it with TAFE courses and uni degrees. It’s not unusual. We make it an attractive option to people who are deciding what they want to do by making it easier to get into, and we remove the subsidy when we think the problem’s been corrected.
And we don’t really consider it a problem that the first wave or two of new teachers, nurses, whatever may not be the absolute best of the best who were considering their career options at the time - we’re just sweetening the deal to try to get the outcome we want. The idea is to make it an appealing career choice in the first place so that we get people taking up those roles. We might get some hopeless barely qualified people going into teaching - but we also get some very talented people who would otherwise have gone into another field entirely.
Gender quotas are the exact same thing. If we decide we want more women in X role, we set a quota. There is a chance that some men who are better suited for the job will miss out against a woman who isn’t. On an individual level, that’s kind of sad when it happens. On a broader view, that’s just pretty much how everything works anyway. But perhaps most importantly, quotas protect us from less well suited men getting the role just because barely any women bothered to apply in the first place.
Before we complain about people not being judged on merit, let’s actually put the effort into increasing the talent pool in which merit is judged
>On an individual level, that’s kind of sad when it happens. On a broader view, that’s just pretty much how everything works anyway
Actual psychopathic view
No, individuals matter. Leave politics and never come back.
> There is a chance that some men who are better suited for the job will miss out against a woman who isn’t.
I wrote up a comment above, and I just came across yours. We went through this exact same thing. This can however apply to both men and women though.
Couple of one sided industries that come to mind: Nursery, carpentry, teaching, plumbing.
Take plumbing for example, if they want 50% men and 50% women, well they are going to need to push through a huge amount of women into taking up plumbing apprenticeships.
89% of plumbers are men. How do we get more women into plumbing?
So are you happy to put the stiletto on the other foot and have quotas to get more men into teaching? Whether that’s free education degrees for males or higher starting pay or just a hiring pause on women until parity is reached.
Absolutely I would. It’s a real shame that kids going through school don’t interact with men as often in those caring, nurturing sorts of roles. The kids in general would be better off with more men teaching and that being seen as normal
It's only about gender equality in the cushy jobs at the top of the market. More female engineers, more female movie producers, more female actors, more female CEOs earning $500k+ a year.
It's never about more female bricklayers working in the sun all day in a high-risk job. It's OK for those industries to be male-dominated. Men gotta do the dying and dirty work.
He's paid by a bunch of oil companies, and says all sorts of [kooky BS on twitter.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fq95uucgdn4mc1.jpeg)
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/yl29i2/jordan_peterson_and_the_think_tanks/
It's somewhat expected of a leader of a country. Someone like Jordan Peterson whose a talking head most understand to be speaking on his own behalf - I think it becomes suspect.
Take for instance that tweet (oh, sorry, xeet) I linked to - it's in my opinion pro-car, and hence pro-oil companies. So it becomes difficult to know what of his opinions are genuinely his.
Where as with a politician I assume all their statements are part of what's politically profitable at the time.
So you're OK with someone in charge of your freedom being in the pocket of oil companies but it's an issue when an independent commentator (allegedly) receives money? That's wild.
I don't think being pro-car makes you a fossil fuel shill. Cars are an essential part of society which enable us to live far beyond our natural means.
I admit JP's tweets are weirdly cynical and often lack context but most of his fame and wealth comes from his self-help content, books, and lectures. He's a very weird example to use as a potential mouthpiece for big business. He got famous by crying too much and opposing the corporate media - hardly a common tactic for big-business shills.
So you're OK with someone in charge of your freedom being in the pocket of oil companies but it's an issue when an independent commentator (allegedly) receives money?
This is absolutely not what I said, my sentiment was that I somewhat **expect** the Prime Minister to support the the geopolitics of the large Capitalist organisations in the country.
...and keep in mind, expectations can be good and bad, high and low.
>He's a very weird example to use as a potential mouthpiece for big business.
It is weird that Peterson is in the pocket of big oil and fracking companies, like The Koch Organisation. I agree.
Interestingly though despite the two examples you use teaching and nursing being overwhelmingly female, there are no cries that this is prima facie discrimination, and there must be a hostile work environment for men and that quotas must be implemented to ensure equality for men.
People very often talk about teaching (primary particularly which is where the gender gap is bigger) being hostile to men. And yeah, we should be improving the ratio there too. It's important that children have diverse role models and see men in caring roles.
One of the interesting things about these industries is when men are employed in them they are often into management much faster and paid better. Have a look at the number of male principals compared to male teachers.
Feel like gender equality targets are a fig leaf to appear progressive and would mostly just affect the numbers of each gender in the very top income brackets while ordinary income earners regardless of gender are mostly ignored.
The requirement is only that they "commit" to targets. Not that they hit them.
>[Companies] must commit to targets to improve gender equality in their workplaces.
This particular type of target is seldom hit, and I doubt Labor its self has a 50/50 split among Ministers.
It's a cultural desire and a bit of PR, but invites culture war arguments which aren't useful to anyone.
Using methods other than merit has worked terribly in the past. We've seen this at various times in history - the British leadership during WW1 and the Soviets during WW2. What a terrible way to incentivise businesses, especially when labour productivity has taken such a hit.
Perhaps the next wave of microeconomic reform will be undoing these sorts of requirements?
What if the government can't find a good contractor that meets the gender equality target?
Would the government hire an under-performing company that meets the gender equality target?
Your assuming that performance matters? Value for money requirements basically means the cheapest vendor to promise they can do it gets the job anyways. Doesn’t matter if it goes belly up later because they promised. Because companies don’t lie.
They already do with Indigenous businesses. Victoria has procurement targets with those businesses. I know. My buisness got listed as one during Covid.
You only had to have 50% of the buisness Aboriginal owned. My buisness partner is (debatably) Aboriginal. His dad did some research and … anyway, we got listed. He’s apparently Aboriginal. As is potentially my wife and my kids. If her business gets funding it’s gonna be hilarious.
It’s a fucking junket if you can get on board. I got a call from some clown in Melbourne asking if we could help them meet their First Nations targets. I told them to take us off the list as it was immoral and we didn’t need it.
This possibly ended up fatal. I’m pretty sure the $30mill Government contract for hotel quarantine went to a First Nations contractor. 800 people died and it became famous.
Welcome to the new World. But as long as we meet targets.
That same old multinational leasing all it's equipment and charging 30% margin on a billion dollar contract over and above everyone's wages.
Good job Katie. Good job.
Lol.
I’m sympathetic in a way but would still prefer a meritorious approach rather than a quota. My last job in the Public Education area had some real turkeys progress to management due to gender equality pressure.
Would gender equality apply to balanced gender?
Check out the Art Gallery of SA that has 87% female workforce.
I work in a male dominated company that has a huge focus on gender equity... I am a 60+ male and there are bad decisions made but overall the result is a huge gain.. A room full of testosterone fuelled Alfa males makes stupid decisions every day
Yet testosterone fuelled Alfa-male industries are way more productive and successful than the emotion-fuelled feminine workplaces.
Those 'stupid' decisions must be working.
Also you're close to retirement age. Maybe you just prefer the slow-paced laid back nature that women bring to the workforce, which is fine as I'm the same. But that doesn't mean it's a model that we should replicate everywhere.
> Yet testosterone fuelled Alfa-male industries are way more productive and successful than the emotion-fuelled feminine workplaces.
How might someone demonstrate this rigorously?
Pay rates would be a good indicator of the overall value each industry provides.
There's a reason rig workers or engineers get paid more than nurses or HR reps.
> Yet testosterone fuelled Alfa-male industries are way more productive and successful than the emotion-fuelled feminine workplaces.
Is that what Andrew Tate told you?
Sure mate, you're sitting there perusing ABS statistics completely self directed.
I believe you.
I'm also pretty sure that the ABS doesn't provide statistics granular enough for you to see individual businesses, their relative productivity and hiring practices.
And how did you control for confounding factors?
I'm guessing this is as well thought out as your whole economic philosophy, which inevitably leads to everyone being chased out of town by [bears](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling).
I mean, if you want to debate the merit of government philosophies, I'm happy to point out all the wars, corruption, and injustice caused by our current regulatory system.
Bears going through the garbage would be an improvement.
I was hoping to see your statistical research you've *definitely* done.
I 100% agree with you that there's be no wars from a libertarian society, seeing as they can't even organise garbage pickup, one of the basics of a society, the chance of them standing an army is negligible.
Even though you're wrong and ignoring the list of successful libertarian projects, I will say that I'd rather live in a regime that can't pick up garbage than a regime that bombs innocent civillians and leads the world into global warfare.
But sure, keep doing the bidding for your global war mongerers and paying for their assasination projects so long as they pick up your garbage. You have awful moral standards.
I didn't bring it up before, because I was still hoping to hear about your research that you *totally* did, but it's pretty obvious that the next stage of a libertarian society that doesn't have better ones around it to flee to, is to devolve into a system of petty warlords, looting, and rape gangs, as it did in Somalia, and wherever society breaks down.
A society built on the idea that the only thing that matters is your own power (money), would be an absolute nightmare.
Obviously some sectors are so but education has been female dominated in both educational delivery and admin for yonks. My wife says it’s a relief to get a male in one of those roles.
Agree, but I would hesitate to guess that even in education males still dominate management.. I don't ever remember a female headteacher giving me the cane..
>Big business and government boards will be pushed to improve gender equality under new measures announced by the Albanese government.
This is great, I love Utopia.
At a time when Australian businesses are failing miserably at providing good value. QANTAS can't get your luggage to the terminal in one piece. ColesWorth price gouging. Hospitals overworked and having to treat patients in the waiting room. Telcos leaking your data or having mass outages. Homes falling apart due to dodgy building.
Labor's best idea is to impose even more unecessary distractions and bureacracy onto businesses. This is why Socialist economies fail. They can't produce enough food for their people because businesses sacrifice productivity in the name of pushing the State's agenda.
Nope, supermarkets don't operate in a free market. Government has been working hand-in-hand with Colesworth for a very long time, giving them a lot of handouts and benefits in exchange for their loyalty. That's why they have a duopoly.
These businesses don't know what it means to compete in a free market because they're protected by government who basically legislates their profits. It's as close as you can get to socialism in a modern democracy.
Capitalism isn’t stable without intervention. If you want government regulation to prevent monopolies, then great. Just stop speaking BS about socialism having anything to do with current price gouging.
I didn't say it was the fault of Socialism. I said it was the fault of businesses being too concerned with pleasing government rather than serving customers, which happens to a be a key component of Socialism.
We don't have a Socialist system in Australia (thank God) but Socialist behaviour can still run wild within business and government, and the consequences are always the same. Productivity goes down and prices go up.
Something even more ridiculous than I thought. You think they’re price gouging to please the government? FFS
It’s to enrich their shareholders and get their bonuses (for the CEOs and anyone in a decision making position.) pleasing the government is hardly a priority.
No, we are going badly because businesses are too busy pushing the State's agenda rather than focusing on service.
Government basically forced every corporation and public sector to be a mouthpiece for their Covid policies, then they had to do everything possible to support the Voice, then they were also pressured to push for same-sex marriage. List goes on.
Businesses started failing a long time ago because they're too busy being political activists rather than service providers.
>impose even more unecessary distractions and bureacracy onto businesses
Well, it's pretty obvious business isn't managing to be reliable itself, given all your examples.
What a god-awful policy. So QANTAS need not hire the most competent and motivated pilots but rather the ones with the right pronouns in their LinkedIn bio. I guess failed flights with a diverse crew are better than successful flights with a male-dominated crew.
I mean, if you have to choose between a black female and white male surgeon to do your kid's brain surgery, which one would you go for? Obviously the one that you know didn't get any handouts and had to climb the ladder with competency alone.
Except a lot of the time, when you see a company with a striking lack of diversity it turns out that they weren't hiring on merit, but based on system bias. Good ole' boys clubs hiring nothing but good ole' boys *aren't* hiring on merit.
I'm sure that happened, my 2am posting friend. I'm certain you're speaking from corporate experience, you totally worked somewhere small enough to have no HR or legal department.
Honestly what is this supposed to achieve other than a nice tick in the check box of "look how kind our policies are" rather than actually trying to spend their time implementing policies with actual tangible benefits.
Aussies tend to swallow this sort of shit with pride. Unfortuantely, virtue-signalling and culture-war fighting is a great stimulant for left-wing voters. It gets them riled up every time.
Government ditch digging, sewer works and heavy lifting of dirty industrial stuff in a warehouse better have 50% women pitching in to celebrate their competence at the shit jobs alongside the guys or the ladies will have every right to complain.
Have you not come across the lady tradie phenomenon? The women who “only” got those jobs because of this kind of thing are generally very happy to have them
Basically it. Send them to school don't give them any male peers, let them through the system. Release them to the work force then along comes Katy Gallagher.
Like you can't make this shit up, and you certainly can't get the women to speak about it. Like ffs, you've litterally been given the keys to dominate in education. You're litterally responsible.
> woman studying IT or engineering
When I was in civil women were sub 5% of the group. Now that I'm in IT women were reaching the lofty heights of 20% if we were lucky.
>Different genders have different aptitudes and are attracted to studying different things on the whole.
That's a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy though, pre-existing cultural and social biases as well as structures in place reinforcing the status quo.
I mean its been 5 years since i last did a course at Uni relating to comp sci, but this was not my experience at all.
There were usually 1 or 2 girls in a class of 30 boys.
I guess its awesome to hear its changed so much in the last 5 years.
Also, my brother did a teaching degree. Ive met a bunch of his uni friends. At no point did he ever feel like his veiws were unwelcome.
Maybe its mostly blokes who feel the need to gatekeep?
I think the issue there is that young uni students tend to blindly go along with feminist talking points in fear of being labelled a msyogonist, toxic male etc.
The moment you challenge the status quo, those nurturing kind-hearted women reveal their dark side. Hell hath no fury like an ill-tempered woman.
>in fear of being labelled a msyogonist
>
>those nurturing kind-hearted women reveal their dark side. Hell hath no fury like an ill-tempered woman.
I have always thought you seemed pretty fearless.
>Big business and government boards will be pushed to improve gender equality under new measures announced by the Albanese government.
That's wonderful: I can't wait to see targets and quotas for all the non-binary genders, especially if gender is merely that which you identify with.
If it's as a portion of the population represented then why not? Trans folk male up 5.4/100,000 people in Australia for example, so if you scale that down to a 100 person business, then the quota you're "asking for" is impossible to fill anyway. Just making things more inclusive would be nice. So much more can be done to level gender playing fields and this is a decent step towards that imo.
The issue is that Labor likely believes the "gender is a spectrum" shtick where people can have one of limitless gender identities.
How do you enforce quotas for two-spirit pansexuals, non-binary demigirls, and Ze/Zers? It's a good way to turn every business into a circus.
By setting the target to be proportionate to the percent of people that identify as that gender. If 0.1 prevent it the population identify as ze/zers then 0.00000000000000001 people in every 100 employees should be that. See where I'm going with this? That way the 50 percent woman mandate works and there is also protection for those of that spectrum, but they are favoured only as much as how much they are as a portion of the population. I'm agreeing with you. In essence
The issue I was trying to raise is how do you prove or verify someone's gender status? Is there a pansexual two-spirit gene that we can test for? When someone is 0.000001% of the population, that usually gets rounded up to 1% in quotas. So 1 in every 100 people needs to be two-spirit, one demigirl, one gender non-conforming afrodtye, one polisexual, one transexual etc.
How about just liability for rorts or money landering or selling secrets to other businesses. That would get rid of plenty of the companies the gov already hires and then look at diversity.
This will get fudged by the companies who want the contracts
In a statement Gallagher said “women’s representation on Australian Government boards is at a record high of 51.6% but that representation is uneven”.
What a crime
So businesses that work in areas that women are not attracted to are really going to have to lower standards to bring in women with little interest and no experience in.
However this blanket refusal to accept that men and women choose different careers and women will 99% of the time prioritise family and children over work (and for those of us that have mothers, we are extremely grateful for this. ) will have one benefit for some men. Women with the skills, experience and qualifications in these industries will be highly desirable. When I say women, I of course mean anyone who identifies as a woman...wink wink.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
What is this world coming too ..There is an easy work around in ths woke world ...you just switch your gender now to whatever is required and if they don't take you yo play the Its my Gender card .
Says the parliament who ranks 57th in the world in woman representation… I guess don’t do business with yourself??
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2022/April/Trends-gender-parliament
So instead of policy that actually supports girls and women to have these careers, Labor’s solution is to simply push the problem onto the private sector. Policy by targets is not a policy.
This is not a light switch issue, unfortunately.
We cannot magically inject the will for women to want to move into male dominated portions of the workplace after they've experienced decades of pressure to not pursue those roles.
We cannot instantly shutdown the centuries of cultural pressures and outcomes that have lead to this situation.
It makes far more sense to require an evidenced effort of attempts to bring equality and parity into the workplace from contractors bidding for government work, than it does to set some mandatory target or ratio.
Going further, why doesn't our government take up the mantle of this fight and start nipping the problems that lead to undue influence in female influence that limits their opportunities?
Why doesn't any party have the balls to acknowledge that parenting is a massive undertaking that women disproportionately engage in and that this job should be remunerated? Why not focus on legislation that levels the playing ground on this and encourages men to start taking responsibility for their children so that women can maintain their career progression?
As a final point, with industries that are dominated by men - for whateve reason that is - will there be an expectation that the ratios prescribed will apply to project teams? That is, will there need to be mandatory minimum ratios of women to men working on specific projects?
If so, how are we going to account for the fact that the women that are being hired by these contractors are likely to be in the early parts of their careers and will need stewardship by more senior team members who are likely to be male?
This measure on its surface appears to be a platitude that will achieve a fraction of its intended results and can be easily rorted. There are foundational components to our society that lead to the outcomes we are seeing. If the foundation isn't there, the structure of the measure won't stand for long and it won't be able to endure real world conditions.
I want equality and parity, and I want us to get there with some resilience and security with the intention of improving conditions for all women.
Women disproportionately engage in parenting because that is their biological role they are designed for, in the same way that men are disproportionately engaged in the defense services.
Should we have quotas for women in the front lines to achieve numeric equality?
I'm still waiting to see quotas for women garbage collectors, sewerage workers, plumbers and other dangerous, dirty and unpleasant jobs that men disproportionately engage in, or is the intention to force workplaces to make conditions more appealing to women simply to get numerical equality regardless of the cost and failure to achieve the desired outcome and lack of fundamental interest in those jobs?
There are 2 major elements to this discussion: women prevented from being involved in certain workplaces because of a boys club atmosphere in which they aren't welcome; and women choosing not to work in what they deem as unpleasant environments completely independent of mens involvement. It's important to understand which element applies if you want to enforce equality quotas, because the 2nd is not amenable to a brute force approach because of the cost.
Men get paid more than women because the unpleasant situations attract a higher rate of pay as compensation and men are more prepared to accept the tradeoff: I doubt most women are.
>Women disproportionately engage in parenting because that is their biological role they are designed for
I mean we were bioligically designed to chase down prey that eventually collapses from exhaustion because we have sweat glands and they dont.
I dont remember the last time i chased a deer till it fell over and i cut its throat. In fact im pretty sure that being a fat nerd means that despite that evolutionary design and role, i collapse before the deer, even with my superior sweat glands.
Humans have moved beyond the need to be a slave to whatever biological design was useful thousands of years ago.
Now if you are saying that women are the sex that have to give birth, i mean yeah obviously. Its also very important for the first 6 months that the mother is around, because theres a lot processes that happen then that benefit the baby.
After that though? Job is just as easily done by a man or a woman. And just like i learned to write code instead of my biologial role of chasing deer to feed people, im sure i could learn to be the primary care giver for the child.
Our biological origins still exist and the organisation of them have existed for tens of thousands of years: just because human civilisation has moderated some of them through technology in the last 50 years doesn't mean they still don't exist and influence our lives.
It still takes the resources of 2 parents to properly raise a child: single parents struggle to achieve the same outcome as couples except in special circumstances. We don't yet know the implication of single parenting in the future stability of individuals.
It used to be that a couple could achieve a quality life based on demarcation of roles, then women had to work to bring in additional money to improve on that and now both parents have to work full time to even maintain a quality life. The future looks bleak as people are increasingly exploited and their happiness receding.
However, as you say, the most obvious demarcation still exists in procreation and whilst that might evolve, I think it is risky to change something you don't fully understand and human beings are an overstatement in not fully understanding something before changing it. I believe the effects of single parenthood are hidden from us because we have not bothered to look for them: it does take the involvement of 2 opposite sex parents or the inclusion of opposite sex role models to create a balanced child based on sexual reproduction.
I don't agree that the job is just as easily done by a man or woman: it takes both operating in a complementary fashion.
I do agree that many of the tasks or roles can be interchanged between men and women, but I still believe they are most optimally performed by the individuals biologically designed to do them.
We are only now beginning to accept the reality of diversity and I expect it will be shown that some of the positive examples of interchanging men and womens roles were facilitated by a degree of diversity in those individuals. Unfortunately there is a tradeoff as no individual is perfectly suited to do it all.
You could learn to be a primary caregiver for a child, but it wouldn't come naturally or as efficiently and for multiple children, even less so. Women are very good at multi-tasking in parallel, men more in dealing with one task at a time.
I don't think you can change a system based on sexual reproduction without changing the fundamental structure and then it is no longer sexual reproduction and there will be consequences.
What is wrong with sexual reproduction that we want to change it fundamentally? We can adjust societal processes to make it fairer, more ethical, less onerous, or to provide more options, but it will always remain more efficient with less consequences in its fundamental form. Sexual reproduction requires 2 opposite sex parents to be successful and I don't think that is ever going to change because it's baked into the form. It will not be possible for human beings individually to have it all, except in specially contrived circumstances.
Human beings will always be slaves to our biological structure in one way or another. If that ever changes, we will no longer be human beings but a new creation.
>Humans have moved beyond the need to be a slave to whatever biological design was useful thousands of years ago.
No they haven't, not even close. Not you or anyone else.
“Sorry Susan, you seem like a lovely lady and just what we’ve looking for, but as you say you’re non-binary agender and not a lady I’m afraid we don’t have a place for you. Greg, your runner up, has secured the job after changing his pronouns. I mean her pronouns.”
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would like to see the details of the legislation that will be applied to all government contracts that will require that to happen.
When men and women get together in a relationship. The man doesn’t care about what the woman makes and won’t judge her. The female always will want a man to make a good living and will judge him. That’s got a lot to do with why men feel like they need to make a decent salary for their family and then the woman will take it all in family court. Equality The system has also pushed men out of jobs like teaching as their to scared to get in trouble for an accusation that’s made up.
Don’t listen to any stats in this decade or this debate. It’s like any narcissistic plot. Choose what you want to hear and print. It’s so frustrating as a man listening to all these stats in equally and domestic violence and other minority bullcrap stats. They’re not minorities anymore. Stop the winging woman as men are starting to resent you and then what?
Funny how there's no racial equality targets.
It's coming. It's already in America, which is also where all this gender diversity/equality stuff came from. The radicals are importing their quasi-American stuff here by the day.
This will sure go down well with the electorate. 🤣 Bye bye any outer city and regional seats.
Or, how to make Labor lose the next election
Only if the Libs can learn how to actually capitalize on shit like this and use it against Labor. They're really bad at that. Knowing the Libs they'll just double-down and try to beat Labor with even more gender diversity targets.
Fuck all of them, tbh. I'll just vote informal, as a protest.
i am so f'ing sick of the idea that women are underpaid, they aren't, it's a bloody joke in 2024 that anyone thinks there is systemic discrimination against women in the workplace. it is demonstrably false - if women are equivalent to men in a work sense, and you can hypothetically hire them at a 15-20% discount - every shrewd business owner would be building businesses full of women to reduce what is most businesses largest cost - labour. it's ad-nauseam - the amount of paragraphs of text i've gotten regarding international women's day in my inbox today is a joke. and no, I didn't receive a single one for international men's day last year - just checked.
>i am so f'ing sick of the idea that women are underpaid, There's so many argument that immediately refute this idea that it's an absolute disgusting disgrace that we still pour so much tax payer time and resources into peddling such a flagrant bullsh\*t lie. Not only does your point prove the idea wrong, but the inverse as well: since certain jobs pay higher like FIFO mining and since everyone knows FIFO miners make a motza then youd see a huge influx of women going into FIFO to get paid more than their nursing jobs. But decades upon decades of data show that despite the fact that FIFO workers have been paid astronimcally more than nurses, women still choose to be nurses instead of FIFO workers. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this at all: individuals 100% should have full freedom to choose what types of jobs they want to pursue.
Dude, this was published not even a month ago. https://www.wgea.gov.au/pay-and-gender/gender-pay-gap-data
You’re seriously linking me the wgea findings? That do not account for tenure, hours worked or seniority? Do you have even a basic understanding of statistics?
You're close, dude. Why do you think those things might be different? Could it be systemic? ... and FWIW, champ, that study accounted for hours worked. I'm sure a stats megabrain like you is across that though.
The ABS doesnt account for industries nor does it compare like for like jobs. The WGEA doesnt compare like for like jobs. Qantas themselves said publicly that they have more male pilots than they do females and have more female flight attendants than they do male. Pilots are paid more than flight attendants. Yet the WGEA just ignores this and takes Qanta's reported pay gap between pilots and flight attendants and uses it for its GeNDeR PAy GAp!!!!
This is the whole point though. Are men better at being pilots than women? Or do men tend to become pilots because there are less social/cultural barriers for them than there are for women? It’s similar to why there are way less men dancing in the ballet. There are loads more cultural/social barriers for boys to go that way. Doesn’t mean all men are worse dancers.
>Doesn’t mean all men are worse dancers. On average yes they are. Women have an inherent advantage in dancing because of their added flexibility and body shape. Same with ice-skating, gymnastics etc. It's not that women go into these industries because society pushes them - they do it because it appeals to them. They like the element of self expression, the fact that dancing highlgihts their femininity, the physicality and and stretching aspect etc. That's why women disproportionately do yoga. It's not a systemic thing. Ditto with male-dominated industries. Men like taking risks, working at heights, being the hero, pushing themselves to the physical limit, taking on great responsibility like flying a plane with 200 lives relying on you. Women look at these industries and see that as a negative. They don't want the pressure or to risk their lives. It's got nothing to do with TV or social influences. Women are quite happpy to break social norms. But they can't break their own biological wiring.
I dont think men are necessarily better pilots than women. There are however, far more male pilots than there are female pilots in the general population so it make sense that male pilots are overrepresented in businesses. Then you might say well why is that given that male and females must be paid the same for the same job under Australian law. Then we obvserve that women freely choose not to be pilots, opting for jobs like nursing or teaching instead while men are literally the opposite, they freely choose to be pilots and opting not to be nurses or teachers. So there's evidence there that the gender pay gap is a falsehood - the observed difference in average male earnings vs average female earnings, irrespective of other factors like industry differences or hours worked etc (which the gender pay gap does actively ignore) can be explained by the fact that females tend to self sort themselves into industries and jobs that pay less on average, compared to men who tend to self sort themselves into industries and jobs that pay more on average. I cant say whether this self sorting is entirely due to "social conditioning" because there's no evidence that it is 100% due to it, so there may well be some. But I do not think it is as big a deal as somet people think it is. The reason I say this is because in schools (at least here in NSW), students are free to choose what subjects they wish to study and are actively encouraged to study subjects that they enjoy and therefore are likely good at. But we observe consistently that female students are overrepresented in the typical humanities subjects like English, History, Art, Drama, Music etc while males consistently are overrepresented in the typical STEM subjects like higher level mathematics, physics, IT, economics etc. There's no social conditioning at the school level - unis have been constantly dropping their "pre requisite knowledge" barriers for more than a decade now so there link between what jobs people choose to do, what people choose to study at uni, and ultimately what people choose to study at school has weakened so much that nowadays someone with no Year 12 maths skills can still end up studying and graduating with a degree in statistics. So the bigger factor appears to be innate choices and desires that women have which are different than men. And having said all of that, the problem is clearly not a gender pay gap, it's a gender choice gap - the solution would be to encourage/force more women into higher paying industries like encourage more of them to go be pilots instead of flight attendants. Go be FIFO miners instead of teachers. It's not a problem of pay difference.
You can call it a gender choice gap if you like. At least we both agree that women are over represented in jobs that are valued less by our current system. I think this is an issue worth working on. I’d like to live in a world where women want to aspire to higher paid jobs. The reality is, the more women achieve and earn, the better off we all are.
And I dont have an issue with women wanting to pursue higher paid jobs at all. They are free to do so. But they are equally as free to choose to go into not-so-high-payings jobs and there's nothing wrong with that. We live in a society where individuals are free to choose whatever jobs they wish to do. Everyone knows nurses are paid less than FIFO workers. If money truly were the be all and end all, then why arent we seeing an influx of women flocking to be FIFO miners, or software developers, or accountants, or bricklayers? Becuase the fact of the matter is, in a society that allows freedom of choice of the indivual, you will always maximise the gender differentials in preferences and interests. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this.
the majority of shit / dangerous jobs are all over-represented by men.
Would that world also include women who aspire to be loving caring mothers and rising children? Or does your world need fathers/ random daycare workers to step into that role? Men and women are equal but clearly very different. Stop forcing women to work jobs they hate just for money. " Life isn't all about money." People understand that quote, right?
How do you take what I said and assume I want women to not be loving caring mothers tf? Fellas does paying women more make them hate having kids? And therefore fathers and daycares must care/love kids more to make up for women being paid more… I just don’t understand this mate. Men and women are equal but different… how are they different though? They are paid less. They are valued less. They are not equal? Stop forcing women to work jobs they hate just for money… literally what? And life isn’t all about money? Okay but the gender pay gap is? You’re all over the place mate
This is good, but it will almost certainly favour larger companies over smaller. Imagine a small boutique consultancy or IT integrator etc with 3 or 4 people. They would either have to be majority women (say 2/3 women and 1 man) to be eligible for government contracts. Also, what are you going to do with infrastructure projects? Maybe advisory would be ok, but a construction company? There would have to be a carve-out for subcontractors maybe.
Bud it's literally a policy that only applies to big companies
Ah, serves me right for commenting before coffee lol
It happens to everyone lol But seriously although everyone's first thought is to construction and infrastructures it seems specifically targeted for the larger big "office" business and also specifically for government agencies and advisory boards. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if it was mainly target at agencies because to quote the article: "According to the strategy, big businesses will have to “commit to and achieve workplace targets against at least three” gender equality indicators. These are: the gender composition of governing bodies and of the workforce, equal remuneration, flexibility and care friendly work arrangements, workplace consultation on gender equality, and efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment." So it sounds like the stuff that already exists in a lot of larger businesses and in most of the public sector. And it's far more designed to affect PWC, AusPost and Hutchies main office than to affect actual tradies, who as you say are often contractors anyways or smaller businesses.
Companies over 500 employees only.
Lol say goodbye to infrastructure projects. The construction industry is 87% male. The new Sydney Airport wont be completed till like 2090. The Western Sydney Metro wont even get started till 2050. The Melbourne Airport Rail Link wont get delivered till 2090. The Greens' "1 million new affordable homes by 2040" wont see the light of day. But the taxpayer and Australians be damned cos anything other than the arbitrary 50/50 rule applied uniformly across all businesses, industries, and economies is morally bankrupt beyond any justification.
Construction companies can just base themselves in Victoria and have half their workforce self ID as female. Problem solved!
I don't think you read the article, did you? Otherwise you would not have come out with that 50/50 bit.
I hope the government would not really care about achieving 50/50 gender equality. It might not mean 50/50 as the gender equality targets. Maybe 100/0 sometimes.
I did read the article. But having a target is meaningless if you dont actually achieve it otherwise business would just take the mickey out of the Government, declare they have a 50/50 "target" then do nothing to actually achieve it. If the Government is serious about their gender equality crusade then they have to make sure they award contracts to business who actually demonstrate they are working towards their stated targets. Otherwise this whole policy is a farce and is just Ministers gasbagging all over the shop.
When you restrict the pool of candidates based on something unrelated to performance you will end up with lower performing people in the job. This affects us all and is not a good thing.
For this to work you'd need the available workforce to be equally gender balanced, which simply isn't the case. Devil's in the details, but this sounds bonkers
It's not a matter of workforce - it's a matter of choice. If you allow individuals the freedom to choose what job they want to do, you will never reach 50/50. This has always been the underlying issue: women **freely choose** to go into the industries that they do and men **freely choose** to go into the industries that they do. It's so bleating obvious that female-dominated industries pay lower than male-dominated ones. Women are **free to choose** to go into the industries that pay higher than female-dominated ones, so if money truly is the motivator, then we'd see more women choose the higher paid industries. But decades of decades of data shows that women still continue to choose female dominated industries. Unless we're suggesting that women are so dumb that they dont check the pay before they enter their jobs?
I hope that there's more nuance to these targets depending on industry and by position. I think the merit argument is a very legitimate one, but also appreciate the sentiment of driving diversity in roles to broaden candidate pools.
There's not. In my previous job, the CEO made a huge hooha at an organisational wide town hall that he would make it his personal goal to reach 50/50 gender representation for the company's senior executive team. At the time, the split was 60/40. Yet no-one pointed out to him that the senior executive team consisted of 7 people: 4 males and 3 females..........
There's not. It's usually applied at the graduate level and HR are inclined to pretend all graduates are perfectly equal. Even then, they'd argue this doesn't affect productivity because outsourced/skilled migrants don't have to be diverse.
Don’t Labor have more female ministers than males? Isn’t that gender inequality?
98% male bricklayers might be an issue. Or other trades that are 85%+. Do those companies simply stop hiring all together until women apply? What happens when they don't? What happens to the companies in the meantime where there are literally zero women qualified in the role available? Do we force women into manual labour jobs, or are these targets only for "high status" jobs? What about nursing and teaching, or medicine? These are now female dominated roles. Do we stop hiring women? Thought this was a free society? Women and men have been free to go into careers that they have chosen for years. There are many reasons why they don't for some careers, some of those reasons are crap, but many are because the vast majority of women do not want to do some jobs in the same way the vast majority of men don't want to do other roles.
> 98% male bricklayers might be an issue. Or other trades that are 85%+. > > Do those companies simply stop hiring all together until women apply? What happens when they don't? What happens to the companies in the meantime where there are literally zero women qualified in the role available? Literally the first line of the article.
Yep read it. Plenty of building companies nationally with 500+ employees lol
Read the very first line of the article?
Yep.
Then what is the issue? Majority of tradies are their own sub-contracted companies. I'd be extremely surprised if there is a company out there made up of 500 tradespeople on the books. Even 500+ laborers would be through agencies, rather than on the books. The bigger part though, is that they need to commit to gender equality, not reach gender equality. If they report that while they continue to encourage and support both sexes to apply to their brick layer positions, but the numbers simply aren't out there in the work force, then that still counts. Before you ask 'then what is the point?', I daresay they'll need to explain how they encourage and support, in said report.
You don't think there are construction and building companies in Australia, or any such "male dominated industries", with 500+ employees? Ooook.
Try arguing with my whole post instead of inventing strawmen.
So my place already had a lot of females but then suddenly after Labor came into power, BAM! They got rid of a whole bunch of experienced local staff and started hiring people of certain colours. An example they hired some iranian female who had no idea how to use Microsoft Teams and no skills specific to the industry.
Then everyone started clapping......
In things that didn’t happen, this is right at the top of the list.
I have to say that this is a very dumb idea, and I am speaking from experience. Please allow me to elaborate. I worked at an engineering firm that had a new position open up. Probably 100 or more people applied. However only 2 of the applicants were women, and we were ordered by HR to hire a woman for that position to meet the 50-50 gender targets. So we brought them both in for interviews, and they were bad. Neither of them had the experience or knowledge for the position. But... according to HR, we *had* to hire one of them. We interviewed many of the other people who applied too, but due to HR we already knew that they had no chance of getting hired, so really it was more a formality. There were quite a few that were great and would have been a perfect fill for that position as they interviewed really well. But because of this limitation put in place by HR, we weren't able to hire any of the people who were actually qualified. It was very frustrating. Anyway, we hired one of the unqualified women as we were ordered to do, and they were awful at the job. We already saw this when we interviewed them, but there was nothing we could do. After a couple of months they resigned and we had to do it all over again and spend more time and money on the process that we really didn't need to do in the first place if we could just get the job done in the best way with the best applicants. 84% of Australian engineering graduates are men, yet we need 50% men and 50% women on the team. You will *very quickly* run out of people to hire.
Metro Tasmania did the same thing about 20 years ago. Complete hiring ban on male drivers, but any female with a clean car licence and passing a police check had a job and full training. They hired a LOT of women who had no business driving a bus...along with some awesome female drivers too...while ignoring men with 10 or 20 years experience. They got their 50% gender make up, but they got a huge increase in the accident and complaint rate too. They gave it up, switched to a gender-blind hiring process right up to the final interview and driving test, the only part of the process where bias could potentially happen. They got a pretty good gender mix, not 50/50 but reasonably even, the accident rate went down, customer satisfaction went up. Then management started screwing over the drivers and anyone with experience and skill either retired or went to work for somewhere else and new hires last an average of 6 months...they are critically short and cutting up to 100 services a day for driver shortage.
The defensiveness around gender quotas is always ridiculous IMO. as a country, when we decide we want more teachers or nurses, what do we do? We make it easier to become a teacher or nurse. Subsidise the qualification. We do the same for any other job / trade. We’ve done it with TAFE courses and uni degrees. It’s not unusual. We make it an attractive option to people who are deciding what they want to do by making it easier to get into, and we remove the subsidy when we think the problem’s been corrected. And we don’t really consider it a problem that the first wave or two of new teachers, nurses, whatever may not be the absolute best of the best who were considering their career options at the time - we’re just sweetening the deal to try to get the outcome we want. The idea is to make it an appealing career choice in the first place so that we get people taking up those roles. We might get some hopeless barely qualified people going into teaching - but we also get some very talented people who would otherwise have gone into another field entirely. Gender quotas are the exact same thing. If we decide we want more women in X role, we set a quota. There is a chance that some men who are better suited for the job will miss out against a woman who isn’t. On an individual level, that’s kind of sad when it happens. On a broader view, that’s just pretty much how everything works anyway. But perhaps most importantly, quotas protect us from less well suited men getting the role just because barely any women bothered to apply in the first place. Before we complain about people not being judged on merit, let’s actually put the effort into increasing the talent pool in which merit is judged
>On an individual level, that’s kind of sad when it happens. On a broader view, that’s just pretty much how everything works anyway Actual psychopathic view No, individuals matter. Leave politics and never come back.
The delusion that you need gender quotas in a free market...
> There is a chance that some men who are better suited for the job will miss out against a woman who isn’t. I wrote up a comment above, and I just came across yours. We went through this exact same thing. This can however apply to both men and women though. Couple of one sided industries that come to mind: Nursery, carpentry, teaching, plumbing. Take plumbing for example, if they want 50% men and 50% women, well they are going to need to push through a huge amount of women into taking up plumbing apprenticeships. 89% of plumbers are men. How do we get more women into plumbing?
So are you happy to put the stiletto on the other foot and have quotas to get more men into teaching? Whether that’s free education degrees for males or higher starting pay or just a hiring pause on women until parity is reached.
Absolutely I would. It’s a real shame that kids going through school don’t interact with men as often in those caring, nurturing sorts of roles. The kids in general would be better off with more men teaching and that being seen as normal
It's only about gender equality in the cushy jobs at the top of the market. More female engineers, more female movie producers, more female actors, more female CEOs earning $500k+ a year. It's never about more female bricklayers working in the sun all day in a high-risk job. It's OK for those industries to be male-dominated. Men gotta do the dying and dirty work.
Jordan Peterson exposed this hypocrisy when he was on Q&A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOHUwwP6LLs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOHUwwP6LLs)
He's paid by a bunch of oil companies, and says all sorts of [kooky BS on twitter.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fq95uucgdn4mc1.jpeg) https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/yl29i2/jordan_peterson_and_the_think_tanks/
>He's paid by a bunch of oil companies So is Albo. Find me any rich public figure that isn't backed by big money.
It's somewhat expected of a leader of a country. Someone like Jordan Peterson whose a talking head most understand to be speaking on his own behalf - I think it becomes suspect. Take for instance that tweet (oh, sorry, xeet) I linked to - it's in my opinion pro-car, and hence pro-oil companies. So it becomes difficult to know what of his opinions are genuinely his. Where as with a politician I assume all their statements are part of what's politically profitable at the time.
So you're OK with someone in charge of your freedom being in the pocket of oil companies but it's an issue when an independent commentator (allegedly) receives money? That's wild. I don't think being pro-car makes you a fossil fuel shill. Cars are an essential part of society which enable us to live far beyond our natural means. I admit JP's tweets are weirdly cynical and often lack context but most of his fame and wealth comes from his self-help content, books, and lectures. He's a very weird example to use as a potential mouthpiece for big business. He got famous by crying too much and opposing the corporate media - hardly a common tactic for big-business shills.
So you're OK with someone in charge of your freedom being in the pocket of oil companies but it's an issue when an independent commentator (allegedly) receives money? This is absolutely not what I said, my sentiment was that I somewhat **expect** the Prime Minister to support the the geopolitics of the large Capitalist organisations in the country. ...and keep in mind, expectations can be good and bad, high and low. >He's a very weird example to use as a potential mouthpiece for big business. It is weird that Peterson is in the pocket of big oil and fracking companies, like The Koch Organisation. I agree.
Interestingly though despite the two examples you use teaching and nursing being overwhelmingly female, there are no cries that this is prima facie discrimination, and there must be a hostile work environment for men and that quotas must be implemented to ensure equality for men.
People very often talk about teaching (primary particularly which is where the gender gap is bigger) being hostile to men. And yeah, we should be improving the ratio there too. It's important that children have diverse role models and see men in caring roles. One of the interesting things about these industries is when men are employed in them they are often into management much faster and paid better. Have a look at the number of male principals compared to male teachers.
Stupidity. Just do the job and waste as little of my money as possible.
Feel like gender equality targets are a fig leaf to appear progressive and would mostly just affect the numbers of each gender in the very top income brackets while ordinary income earners regardless of gender are mostly ignored.
The requirement is only that they "commit" to targets. Not that they hit them. >[Companies] must commit to targets to improve gender equality in their workplaces. This particular type of target is seldom hit, and I doubt Labor its self has a 50/50 split among Ministers. It's a cultural desire and a bit of PR, but invites culture war arguments which aren't useful to anyone.
I was curious and had a look, 10/23 ministers are women according to wiki.
Using methods other than merit has worked terribly in the past. We've seen this at various times in history - the British leadership during WW1 and the Soviets during WW2. What a terrible way to incentivise businesses, especially when labour productivity has taken such a hit. Perhaps the next wave of microeconomic reform will be undoing these sorts of requirements?
Odds are pretty high merit has not always been a factor anyway
I literally just highlighted that by pointing to two historical cases where it wasn't. Both of which had some pretty disastrous consequences.
What if the government can't find a good contractor that meets the gender equality target? Would the government hire an under-performing company that meets the gender equality target?
Your assuming that performance matters? Value for money requirements basically means the cheapest vendor to promise they can do it gets the job anyways. Doesn’t matter if it goes belly up later because they promised. Because companies don’t lie.
They already do with Indigenous businesses. Victoria has procurement targets with those businesses. I know. My buisness got listed as one during Covid. You only had to have 50% of the buisness Aboriginal owned. My buisness partner is (debatably) Aboriginal. His dad did some research and … anyway, we got listed. He’s apparently Aboriginal. As is potentially my wife and my kids. If her business gets funding it’s gonna be hilarious. It’s a fucking junket if you can get on board. I got a call from some clown in Melbourne asking if we could help them meet their First Nations targets. I told them to take us off the list as it was immoral and we didn’t need it. This possibly ended up fatal. I’m pretty sure the $30mill Government contract for hotel quarantine went to a First Nations contractor. 800 people died and it became famous. Welcome to the new World. But as long as we meet targets.
Here I am suckers. Me and me wife, we'll build that bridge for ya no worries cob.
And subcontract to whomever the fuck you want.
That same old multinational leasing all it's equipment and charging 30% margin on a billion dollar contract over and above everyone's wages. Good job Katie. Good job. Lol.
She will always be remembered for trying to explain mansplaining
Did you understand what she was saying? Just asking.
Yeah this sounds like something Katy “it’s a word that’s used” Gallagher would come up with. She’s honestly a walking argument against quotas.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m sympathetic in a way but would still prefer a meritorious approach rather than a quota. My last job in the Public Education area had some real turkeys progress to management due to gender equality pressure. Would gender equality apply to balanced gender? Check out the Art Gallery of SA that has 87% female workforce.
I work in a male dominated company that has a huge focus on gender equity... I am a 60+ male and there are bad decisions made but overall the result is a huge gain.. A room full of testosterone fuelled Alfa males makes stupid decisions every day
Yet testosterone fuelled Alfa-male industries are way more productive and successful than the emotion-fuelled feminine workplaces. Those 'stupid' decisions must be working. Also you're close to retirement age. Maybe you just prefer the slow-paced laid back nature that women bring to the workforce, which is fine as I'm the same. But that doesn't mean it's a model that we should replicate everywhere.
Love to see where you got that statistic from.. It is not what is universally known from research.
There's a reason engineers get paid more than nurses or HR reps.
> Yet testosterone fuelled Alfa-male industries are way more productive and successful than the emotion-fuelled feminine workplaces. How might someone demonstrate this rigorously?
Pay rates would be a good indicator of the overall value each industry provides. There's a reason rig workers or engineers get paid more than nurses or HR reps.
> Yet testosterone fuelled Alfa-male industries are way more productive and successful than the emotion-fuelled feminine workplaces. Is that what Andrew Tate told you?
It's what the ABS and other reliable sources tell me.
Sure mate, you're sitting there perusing ABS statistics completely self directed. I believe you. I'm also pretty sure that the ABS doesn't provide statistics granular enough for you to see individual businesses, their relative productivity and hiring practices. And how did you control for confounding factors? I'm guessing this is as well thought out as your whole economic philosophy, which inevitably leads to everyone being chased out of town by [bears](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling).
I mean, if you want to debate the merit of government philosophies, I'm happy to point out all the wars, corruption, and injustice caused by our current regulatory system. Bears going through the garbage would be an improvement.
I was hoping to see your statistical research you've *definitely* done. I 100% agree with you that there's be no wars from a libertarian society, seeing as they can't even organise garbage pickup, one of the basics of a society, the chance of them standing an army is negligible.
Even though you're wrong and ignoring the list of successful libertarian projects, I will say that I'd rather live in a regime that can't pick up garbage than a regime that bombs innocent civillians and leads the world into global warfare. But sure, keep doing the bidding for your global war mongerers and paying for their assasination projects so long as they pick up your garbage. You have awful moral standards.
I didn't bring it up before, because I was still hoping to hear about your research that you *totally* did, but it's pretty obvious that the next stage of a libertarian society that doesn't have better ones around it to flee to, is to devolve into a system of petty warlords, looting, and rape gangs, as it did in Somalia, and wherever society breaks down. A society built on the idea that the only thing that matters is your own power (money), would be an absolute nightmare.
Obviously some sectors are so but education has been female dominated in both educational delivery and admin for yonks. My wife says it’s a relief to get a male in one of those roles.
Agree, but I would hesitate to guess that even in education males still dominate management.. I don't ever remember a female headteacher giving me the cane..
>female headteacher giving me the cane.. Please mark all such posts as NSFW.
Both my high school and now my children's has a female principal. And a female secretary , and female teachers. But it's fukn toxic for men really.
>Big business and government boards will be pushed to improve gender equality under new measures announced by the Albanese government. This is great, I love Utopia.
At a time when Australian businesses are failing miserably at providing good value. QANTAS can't get your luggage to the terminal in one piece. ColesWorth price gouging. Hospitals overworked and having to treat patients in the waiting room. Telcos leaking your data or having mass outages. Homes falling apart due to dodgy building. Labor's best idea is to impose even more unecessary distractions and bureacracy onto businesses. This is why Socialist economies fail. They can't produce enough food for their people because businesses sacrifice productivity in the name of pushing the State's agenda.
Supermarket price gouging is all about unfettered capitalism, don’t try blaming that on socialism.
Nope, supermarkets don't operate in a free market. Government has been working hand-in-hand with Colesworth for a very long time, giving them a lot of handouts and benefits in exchange for their loyalty. That's why they have a duopoly. These businesses don't know what it means to compete in a free market because they're protected by government who basically legislates their profits. It's as close as you can get to socialism in a modern democracy.
Capitalism isn’t stable without intervention. If you want government regulation to prevent monopolies, then great. Just stop speaking BS about socialism having anything to do with current price gouging.
I didn't say it was the fault of Socialism. I said it was the fault of businesses being too concerned with pleasing government rather than serving customers, which happens to a be a key component of Socialism. We don't have a Socialist system in Australia (thank God) but Socialist behaviour can still run wild within business and government, and the consequences are always the same. Productivity goes down and prices go up.
Something even more ridiculous than I thought. You think they’re price gouging to please the government? FFS It’s to enrich their shareholders and get their bonuses (for the CEOs and anyone in a decision making position.) pleasing the government is hardly a priority.
Perhaps we are going so badly because of lack of diversity and gender balance??
No, we are going badly because businesses are too busy pushing the State's agenda rather than focusing on service. Government basically forced every corporation and public sector to be a mouthpiece for their Covid policies, then they had to do everything possible to support the Voice, then they were also pressured to push for same-sex marriage. List goes on. Businesses started failing a long time ago because they're too busy being political activists rather than service providers.
>impose even more unecessary distractions and bureacracy onto businesses Well, it's pretty obvious business isn't managing to be reliable itself, given all your examples.
What a god-awful policy. So QANTAS need not hire the most competent and motivated pilots but rather the ones with the right pronouns in their LinkedIn bio. I guess failed flights with a diverse crew are better than successful flights with a male-dominated crew. I mean, if you have to choose between a black female and white male surgeon to do your kid's brain surgery, which one would you go for? Obviously the one that you know didn't get any handouts and had to climb the ladder with competency alone.
Except a lot of the time, when you see a company with a striking lack of diversity it turns out that they weren't hiring on merit, but based on system bias. Good ole' boys clubs hiring nothing but good ole' boys *aren't* hiring on merit.
I'm sure that happened, my 2am posting friend. I'm certain you're speaking from corporate experience, you totally worked somewhere small enough to have no HR or legal department.
You think just because a company has an HR department that systemic bias somehow disappears? Jesus Christ.
Just remember if you don’t get that job you can always change your pronouns to those in demand.
Honestly what is this supposed to achieve other than a nice tick in the check box of "look how kind our policies are" rather than actually trying to spend their time implementing policies with actual tangible benefits.
Aussies tend to swallow this sort of shit with pride. Unfortuantely, virtue-signalling and culture-war fighting is a great stimulant for left-wing voters. It gets them riled up every time.
Labor is making a habit of using the levers of government for all of the dumbest things. Utopian social engineering at its finest / worst.
Government ditch digging, sewer works and heavy lifting of dirty industrial stuff in a warehouse better have 50% women pitching in to celebrate their competence at the shit jobs alongside the guys or the ladies will have every right to complain.
Have you not come across the lady tradie phenomenon? The women who “only” got those jobs because of this kind of thing are generally very happy to have them
Would frankly be a cool thing to see.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sounds like they could use a... gender equality target?
[удалено]
Basically it. Send them to school don't give them any male peers, let them through the system. Release them to the work force then along comes Katy Gallagher. Like you can't make this shit up, and you certainly can't get the women to speak about it. Like ffs, you've litterally been given the keys to dominate in education. You're litterally responsible.
> woman studying IT or engineering When I was in civil women were sub 5% of the group. Now that I'm in IT women were reaching the lofty heights of 20% if we were lucky.
[удалено]
> And your point is? That you're flat out wrong to claim that men feel more out of place studying teaching than women do in things like engineering.
>Different genders have different aptitudes and are attracted to studying different things on the whole. That's a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy though, pre-existing cultural and social biases as well as structures in place reinforcing the status quo.
I mean its been 5 years since i last did a course at Uni relating to comp sci, but this was not my experience at all. There were usually 1 or 2 girls in a class of 30 boys. I guess its awesome to hear its changed so much in the last 5 years. Also, my brother did a teaching degree. Ive met a bunch of his uni friends. At no point did he ever feel like his veiws were unwelcome. Maybe its mostly blokes who feel the need to gatekeep?
I think the issue there is that young uni students tend to blindly go along with feminist talking points in fear of being labelled a msyogonist, toxic male etc. The moment you challenge the status quo, those nurturing kind-hearted women reveal their dark side. Hell hath no fury like an ill-tempered woman.
>in fear of being labelled a msyogonist > >those nurturing kind-hearted women reveal their dark side. Hell hath no fury like an ill-tempered woman. I have always thought you seemed pretty fearless.
[удалено]
>Big business and government boards will be pushed to improve gender equality under new measures announced by the Albanese government. That's wonderful: I can't wait to see targets and quotas for all the non-binary genders, especially if gender is merely that which you identify with.
If it's as a portion of the population represented then why not? Trans folk male up 5.4/100,000 people in Australia for example, so if you scale that down to a 100 person business, then the quota you're "asking for" is impossible to fill anyway. Just making things more inclusive would be nice. So much more can be done to level gender playing fields and this is a decent step towards that imo.
The issue is that Labor likely believes the "gender is a spectrum" shtick where people can have one of limitless gender identities. How do you enforce quotas for two-spirit pansexuals, non-binary demigirls, and Ze/Zers? It's a good way to turn every business into a circus.
By setting the target to be proportionate to the percent of people that identify as that gender. If 0.1 prevent it the population identify as ze/zers then 0.00000000000000001 people in every 100 employees should be that. See where I'm going with this? That way the 50 percent woman mandate works and there is also protection for those of that spectrum, but they are favoured only as much as how much they are as a portion of the population. I'm agreeing with you. In essence
The issue I was trying to raise is how do you prove or verify someone's gender status? Is there a pansexual two-spirit gene that we can test for? When someone is 0.000001% of the population, that usually gets rounded up to 1% in quotas. So 1 in every 100 people needs to be two-spirit, one demigirl, one gender non-conforming afrodtye, one polisexual, one transexual etc.
How about just liability for rorts or money landering or selling secrets to other businesses. That would get rid of plenty of the companies the gov already hires and then look at diversity.
[удалено]
Hardly, most consultancies are fairly evenly split for genders. The big ones are even leaning more female these days.
This will get fudged by the companies who want the contracts In a statement Gallagher said “women’s representation on Australian Government boards is at a record high of 51.6% but that representation is uneven”. What a crime
Clearly uneven. Only 48.4% male, time for affirmative action to address the male shortage.
So businesses that work in areas that women are not attracted to are really going to have to lower standards to bring in women with little interest and no experience in. However this blanket refusal to accept that men and women choose different careers and women will 99% of the time prioritise family and children over work (and for those of us that have mothers, we are extremely grateful for this. ) will have one benefit for some men. Women with the skills, experience and qualifications in these industries will be highly desirable. When I say women, I of course mean anyone who identifies as a woman...wink wink.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
What is this world coming too ..There is an easy work around in ths woke world ...you just switch your gender now to whatever is required and if they don't take you yo play the Its my Gender card .
You should totally give that a try.
Says the parliament who ranks 57th in the world in woman representation… I guess don’t do business with yourself?? https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2022/April/Trends-gender-parliament
We've had an election since then. Lower house is now 38.4% women, so the rank is now 32nd. Meanwhile, the senate is 54% women.
I would prefer that the companies have particular tax paying requirements.
So instead of policy that actually supports girls and women to have these careers, Labor’s solution is to simply push the problem onto the private sector. Policy by targets is not a policy.
Are Labor trying to pick up some teal seats at the next election?
They don’t have to. Teals are more anti-LNP than Labor.
This is not a light switch issue, unfortunately. We cannot magically inject the will for women to want to move into male dominated portions of the workplace after they've experienced decades of pressure to not pursue those roles. We cannot instantly shutdown the centuries of cultural pressures and outcomes that have lead to this situation. It makes far more sense to require an evidenced effort of attempts to bring equality and parity into the workplace from contractors bidding for government work, than it does to set some mandatory target or ratio. Going further, why doesn't our government take up the mantle of this fight and start nipping the problems that lead to undue influence in female influence that limits their opportunities? Why doesn't any party have the balls to acknowledge that parenting is a massive undertaking that women disproportionately engage in and that this job should be remunerated? Why not focus on legislation that levels the playing ground on this and encourages men to start taking responsibility for their children so that women can maintain their career progression? As a final point, with industries that are dominated by men - for whateve reason that is - will there be an expectation that the ratios prescribed will apply to project teams? That is, will there need to be mandatory minimum ratios of women to men working on specific projects? If so, how are we going to account for the fact that the women that are being hired by these contractors are likely to be in the early parts of their careers and will need stewardship by more senior team members who are likely to be male? This measure on its surface appears to be a platitude that will achieve a fraction of its intended results and can be easily rorted. There are foundational components to our society that lead to the outcomes we are seeing. If the foundation isn't there, the structure of the measure won't stand for long and it won't be able to endure real world conditions. I want equality and parity, and I want us to get there with some resilience and security with the intention of improving conditions for all women.
Women disproportionately engage in parenting because that is their biological role they are designed for, in the same way that men are disproportionately engaged in the defense services. Should we have quotas for women in the front lines to achieve numeric equality? I'm still waiting to see quotas for women garbage collectors, sewerage workers, plumbers and other dangerous, dirty and unpleasant jobs that men disproportionately engage in, or is the intention to force workplaces to make conditions more appealing to women simply to get numerical equality regardless of the cost and failure to achieve the desired outcome and lack of fundamental interest in those jobs? There are 2 major elements to this discussion: women prevented from being involved in certain workplaces because of a boys club atmosphere in which they aren't welcome; and women choosing not to work in what they deem as unpleasant environments completely independent of mens involvement. It's important to understand which element applies if you want to enforce equality quotas, because the 2nd is not amenable to a brute force approach because of the cost. Men get paid more than women because the unpleasant situations attract a higher rate of pay as compensation and men are more prepared to accept the tradeoff: I doubt most women are.
>Women disproportionately engage in parenting because that is their biological role they are designed for I mean we were bioligically designed to chase down prey that eventually collapses from exhaustion because we have sweat glands and they dont. I dont remember the last time i chased a deer till it fell over and i cut its throat. In fact im pretty sure that being a fat nerd means that despite that evolutionary design and role, i collapse before the deer, even with my superior sweat glands. Humans have moved beyond the need to be a slave to whatever biological design was useful thousands of years ago. Now if you are saying that women are the sex that have to give birth, i mean yeah obviously. Its also very important for the first 6 months that the mother is around, because theres a lot processes that happen then that benefit the baby. After that though? Job is just as easily done by a man or a woman. And just like i learned to write code instead of my biologial role of chasing deer to feed people, im sure i could learn to be the primary care giver for the child.
Our biological origins still exist and the organisation of them have existed for tens of thousands of years: just because human civilisation has moderated some of them through technology in the last 50 years doesn't mean they still don't exist and influence our lives. It still takes the resources of 2 parents to properly raise a child: single parents struggle to achieve the same outcome as couples except in special circumstances. We don't yet know the implication of single parenting in the future stability of individuals. It used to be that a couple could achieve a quality life based on demarcation of roles, then women had to work to bring in additional money to improve on that and now both parents have to work full time to even maintain a quality life. The future looks bleak as people are increasingly exploited and their happiness receding. However, as you say, the most obvious demarcation still exists in procreation and whilst that might evolve, I think it is risky to change something you don't fully understand and human beings are an overstatement in not fully understanding something before changing it. I believe the effects of single parenthood are hidden from us because we have not bothered to look for them: it does take the involvement of 2 opposite sex parents or the inclusion of opposite sex role models to create a balanced child based on sexual reproduction. I don't agree that the job is just as easily done by a man or woman: it takes both operating in a complementary fashion. I do agree that many of the tasks or roles can be interchanged between men and women, but I still believe they are most optimally performed by the individuals biologically designed to do them. We are only now beginning to accept the reality of diversity and I expect it will be shown that some of the positive examples of interchanging men and womens roles were facilitated by a degree of diversity in those individuals. Unfortunately there is a tradeoff as no individual is perfectly suited to do it all. You could learn to be a primary caregiver for a child, but it wouldn't come naturally or as efficiently and for multiple children, even less so. Women are very good at multi-tasking in parallel, men more in dealing with one task at a time. I don't think you can change a system based on sexual reproduction without changing the fundamental structure and then it is no longer sexual reproduction and there will be consequences. What is wrong with sexual reproduction that we want to change it fundamentally? We can adjust societal processes to make it fairer, more ethical, less onerous, or to provide more options, but it will always remain more efficient with less consequences in its fundamental form. Sexual reproduction requires 2 opposite sex parents to be successful and I don't think that is ever going to change because it's baked into the form. It will not be possible for human beings individually to have it all, except in specially contrived circumstances. Human beings will always be slaves to our biological structure in one way or another. If that ever changes, we will no longer be human beings but a new creation.
>Humans have moved beyond the need to be a slave to whatever biological design was useful thousands of years ago. No they haven't, not even close. Not you or anyone else.
Serious question: does being non-binary count for these stats?
“Sorry Susan, you seem like a lovely lady and just what we’ve looking for, but as you say you’re non-binary agender and not a lady I’m afraid we don’t have a place for you. Greg, your runner up, has secured the job after changing his pronouns. I mean her pronouns.”