"its about promoting the fact that these women exist"
I think the actual message of these promotions is "they make a big deal out of the capability of this woman in field x. It must be very rare that women are capable in field x".
Untitled topic
21–30 of 36 posts
Re: undefined
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
The onus is on you to prove that quotas outperform skill-based hiring. Sorry, but d'uh.
That's the beauty of having a large sample size. There are examples everywhere. Look at political parties which imposed forms of quotas e.g. UK and Australian Labour. They have extremely high levels of female MPs versus alternative parties. Or look at corporate boards and executives across many countries. Almost all have seen improvements in female participation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on…
[deleted]
Re: undefined
#23There has been a staggering amount of research over the decades on this topic. And there are countless real world examples in particular within business and politics which support the conclusions of the research. Simply that quotas work and encouragement doesn't. So thank you anonymous guy for trying to prove the opposite with no facts or evidence. And maybe in a century or so when we have eradicated systemic sexism…
A lot of that research is just "research", or at the very least jumping to conclusions. Like finding that "women earn less than men on average", but then jumping to the erroneous conclusion that there must be discrimination against women at work. That kind of pattern is visible in almost every feminist paper. Even if the research is legitimate (for example it IS interesting that women earn less than men on average - clearly something is going on), they end up with jumping to some conclusion that they always wanted to prove to begin with.
Re: undefined
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
The onus is on you to prove that quotas outperform skill-based hiring. Sorry, but d'uh.
That's the beauty of having a large sample size. There are examples everywhere. Look at political parties which imposed forms of quotas e.g. UK and Australian Labour. They have extremely high levels of female MPs versus alternative parties. Or look at corporate boards and executives across many countries. Almost all have seen improvements in female participation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on…
> They have extremely high levels of female MPs versus alternative parties.
And having more women MPs instead of men has done what exactly for their countries?
I don’t think anyone has particularly great things to say about either countries Labour parties.
Re: undefined
#25The CS department at my university (back in the stone age when I went there) had a policy to have equal number men and women in tenured positions. As this was the 1980s, it was a fairly progressive move. They had a really hard time finding qualified women willing to take the post, though. As there were so few women in the field, the demand for them was overwhelming and there were much more reputable institutions than the one I went to with available positions.
This led to the situation where one of the candidates insisted that her husband (who was also a CS academic) be given a job as well as her. The university agreed to her demand, but refused to give him a tenure track position. The funny thing was, IMHO she was not particularly good. I can't remember what she was working on, but it was not very compelling research and she had difficulty getting grants, etc. He, on the other hand, was spectacular (and a great teacher to boot). Eventually, because the university steadfastly refused to give the husband a tenure track position (in a fit of pique???), the couple left the university.
That was my first exposure to this kind of politics and since then I've always kept in the back of my mind that it's always waaaay more complicated than you think it is when you try to introduce weird politics in hiring and promotion policies. Much better to simply clear the barriers as best as you can and measure your progress. It might take longer, but you have a better chance of success, I think.
Re: undefined
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Works" according to what definition of working? Works to create a gender balance that you assume a priori is "correct" with any deviation being down to evil discrimination? Or do you have some more interesting definition?
A cursory google search that took 30 seconds. FT: Diversity bring boost to profitability: https://www.ft.com/content/1bc22040-1302-11e7-80f4-13e067d50... McKinsey: Why Diversity Matters https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our... Academic paper based on multiple case studies: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/SHR-10-2017-... It is head-smackingly obvious that a wide variety of experi…
> It is head-smackingly obvious that a wide variety of experiences at senior management level leads to
Is it? Many of the companies with board level quotas aren’t particularly efficient.
Re: undefined
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Works" according to what definition of working? Works to create a gender balance that you assume a priori is "correct" with any deviation being down to evil discrimination? Or do you have some more interesting definition?
A cursory google search that took 30 seconds. FT: Diversity bring boost to profitability: https://www.ft.com/content/1bc22040-1302-11e7-80f4-13e067d50... McKinsey: Why Diversity Matters https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our... Academic paper based on multiple case studies: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/SHR-10-2017-... It is head-smackingly obvious that a wide variety of experi…
The first link is behind a paywall so I couldn't access it.
The second link is some good research, demonstrating a correlation between diversity and profitability. I was hoping to find within it an analysis of possible confounding factors - for example, what if profitable companies can afford to initiate "diversity and inclusion" campaigns and institute quotas, which would turn the causality the other way around(higher profits -> more diversity), rather than the researchers' explanation(more diversity -> higher profits). Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any such analysis in the paper.
Is this the full text of the third link? https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/SHR-10-20...
The link is more of an article on what diversity and inclusion is, and how to measure its benefits, rather than research that shows those benefits.
Re: undefined
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
> trying to prove the opposite with no facts or evidence You're doing exactly the same. You have provided no evidence or facts. > There has been a staggering amount of research over the decades on this topic Great, so provide it.
> https://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/membership/the-boardroo... Since introduction of quotas, Italy saw women's representation soar from 8% to 32%, France from 21% to 38% and on average the world saw a growth of 5% from 2012 to 2015. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_government#Quotas Of the top-ranked 20 countries in terms of female representation in government, 17 of these countries utilize some sort of qu…
Obviously, if you implement a quota, the representation will rise. That says nothing about the side effects, or even the motivation of women to aim for higher careers in general.
As for the research showing higher profitability for diverse teams: a lot if it is about diversity of thought, not diversity of genders. But even if you take gender into account, you have to also consider economic trends. Businesses that flourish might simply be more able to afford women (who are more costly employees than men, if only because of the sick days and higher likelihood to drop out because of pregnancy). So the correlation would actually be inverse (success would cause more female employees, not the other way round). Or think about oil industry vs tech industry. Fewer women work in mining, but the tech industry was exceptionally successful in recent years. It might just be a random artifact that more women work in tech than in mining, and tech happened to be more successful.
If you look at such papers, always pay attention to the interval they use for claiming "more success". If they say "from 2009 to 2016 diverse companies were more successful", bet you ass that if you look at the data from 2000 to 2018, the correlation fades away.
Re: undefined
#29There has been a staggering amount of research over the decades on this topic. And there are countless real world examples in particular within business and politics which support the conclusions of the research. Simply that quotas work and encouragement doesn't. So thank you anonymous guy for trying to prove the opposite with no facts or evidence. And maybe in a century or so when we have eradicated systemic sexism…
> Simply that quotas work and encouragement doesn't
I wonder what other outcome one might expect from quotas.
Re: undefined
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> trying to prove the opposite with no facts or evidence You're doing exactly the same. You have provided no evidence or facts. > There has been a staggering amount of research over the decades on this topic Great, so provide it.
> https://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/membership/the-boardroo... Since introduction of quotas, Italy saw women's representation soar from 8% to 32%, France from 21% to 38% and on average the world saw a growth of 5% from 2012 to 2015. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_government#Quotas Of the top-ranked 20 countries in terms of female representation in government, 17 of these countries utilize some sort of qu…
> Since introduction of quotas, Italy saw women's representation soar from 8% to 32%
And how much of this is because of quotas?
Australia (ASX200) went from 8.3% in 2009 to 28.5% in 2018 without a quota system.