A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Chris*ta]

Sure Christa, that is yet another thing they should consider doing with the endless pot of wealth ...

Yes it is.

It increases participation in the workforce and enlarges the economy.

[Chris*ta]

Posting this: [URL="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/30/four_out_of_ten_households_have_female_breadwinner s_fox_news_responds_with.html"]Fox News complaining about how women are earning money when they should go make me a sandwich[/URL].

[Denzark]

Yes it is.

It increases participation in the workforce and enlarges the economy.

OK, lets examine this. Lets take a 2 year period. Lets say a company hires worker A, a married female, at the same time as worker B, a single male. After 6 months she goes on maternity leave for 6 months. The employer has 2 choices - spreading worker A's work amongst the rest of the work force - they work harder - or getting a temp in.

If the employer gets a temp in, the temp is (in most cases) less experienced than Worker A - OK they may have been in that industry longer, but they are not in that specific role - they don't know the exact and current MO of the job. So there is a factor of x% less productivity. When Worker A comes back to work, poor old temp is back on the job market, possibly claiming benefits. Worker A, at the end of the 2 year period, is at the very least, 6 months less experienced and thus less productive - actually because she has to re-learn what she originally learnt, it is probably worse than that.

So, how the hell is the Government going to assess an amount that realistically covers the x% of less productivity during the absence, and less experience on return, and then pay it when its up to the ear lobes in debt? And also, Worker B, already sees a disproportionate spend of tax money on Worker A based on the fact she has chosen to have a child - child benefits, NHS for the child, education etc - now you think that disproportion should become greater to try and compensate the Employer?

[Denzark]

Yep. One thing that often annoys me is the assumption that if you have quotas the womens legitimacy will be undermined, that people will think they got their job not because they are qualified.

I think quotas are bollocks and do undermine legitimacy. The only measure should be the best candidate gets the job. Quotas are unfair. If the top 5 candidates for 4 vacancies are Male, Male, Male, Male, Female, why should candidate No4 get bumped just to make your 25% quota? Why should sex be the only quota - there are other demographics potentially as disadvantaged in recruitment, as females? Why not religion, sexuality or disability? Why should companies not be forced to represent society as a whole? But hang on, what if the demographics for a company oop North in T'Sheffield is different to dahn Sarf in London - do you use the national demographic or the local?

What if the company does not have a management structure that divides by 4 to get a 25%? What if there are insufficient female candidates? To turn away a candidate for being female is wrong. To turn away a candidate because he isn't female and you are trying to reach a quota, is equally wrong.

[Bigred]

This is one of those times where one should step back and understand that the needs of artificial constructs based around the trade of arbitrary fiat bases units of value (companies and money respectively) are subservient to the needs of societies, which are in turn subservient to the biological needs of the species.

You make exceptions for things that the species need for survival.

Remember managers - your employees are dying! Every single one of them. What are YOU doing about it? Think of all that critical experience and institutional memory going out the door. Each and every single employee is going to die and deprive the company of those annoying, irritating people that make it work. Now if only there was some way to make new fresh employees....

Hmmm...

Birds, bees, you know the rest (I hope)

At the end of the day, companies and their needs are completely irrelevant in the face of the reproductive needs of homo sapiens.

I will close my argument with my irrefutable formula gifted to me by a wise elder gamer:

booty > money > everything else

[Marshal2Crusaders]

Denzark has the right idea. Capitalism and successful economics are systematically tied, you cannot have the optimal economy when you let the tyranny of the majority dictate what the economy can and cannot do.

The argument for quotas has its heart in the right place obviously, but the unseen consequences of quotas are detrimental to society as a whole.

As an aside. In the quest for women's rights its often overlooked that a man does not have the same options as a woman in making sure they are fed. For instance a man is far, far less likely to be able to marry a career woman and be a 'stay at home' husband. But a woman , no matter how qualified is able to get married and be provided for in a far more frequent series of eventualities. Yet to say so is 'sexist' or 'insensitive'.

It might be socialization and culture, but if I don't want to work I will be poor. Of a woman does not she can get away with it by being married.

If I and a woman identically qualified to myself graduate on the same day and attempt to enter the workforce the option for her to just get married and not work will always be an ability she has. Yet if I attempt the same the chances of it working are far less likely. When it comes to 'fairness' that seems like an advantage for women that assures even though you may not get for work like you want at least you will eat and have shelter. A man who does not work is far less likely to experience such regardless of the number of women who are willing to provide, since it is such a small percentage to be negligible.

[Kirsten]

that argument is utterly flawed however. Quotas are needed in order to allow more women to get the jobs they deserve. what you think about it is irrelevant, it is necessary and it works. Once more women are able to get the jobs they want, especially the higher paid jobs they want, then the quotas wont be necessary. Once more women are able to do those jobs, then more men can be stay at home husbands. complaining that you can't just get married but a woman can is a) nonsense and b) the fault of men.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

It isn't nonsense and yes, it is the fault of men, but to trivialize it is identical to the discrimination women experience.

[Kirsten]

what I am trivialising is the fact you think women can just get married if they don't feel like doing anything.

all these complaints against quotas are hilarious. women get turned down for jobs all the time purely for being female, now that men might face some discrimination in order to make a fairer system in the long term men are up in arms. how awful for you that your gender will only get 75-90% of the top jobs if board room quotas come in.

[eldargal]

It isn't nonsense and yes, it is the fault of men, but to trivialize it is identical to the discrimination women experience.

No it isn't. If we take the FTSE 100 then the senior management is 85.5% male but they are being selected from a graduate pool that is evenly split between the genders. The quotas are not discriminating against men, they are combating discrimination against women. Women are being allowed into jobs they were barred from, men are not being forced out of jobs. The woman who gets a job because of a quota would not get that job normally just because she was a woman, the man who missed out will have no problem getting a similar position because he is not discriminated against.

Also to address an earlier point, the gender ratio between graduates has been near 50/50 since 1980. The idea that the private sector is playing catch up to graduate demographics is absurd.