Audi US shoots itself in the foot

[Mr Snrub]

FredClogs said:

Moonhawk said:

myvision said:

Tideway are aiming to employ more women.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/w...

https://www.tideway.london/media/2580/tideway-ar16...

Given the disparity in terms of men vs women going into contruction or taking engineering as a subject at university - the only way they will achieve gender parity is through 'positive discrimination'

Surely this is the antithesis of 'equality'.

We need equality of opporunity not 'equality' of outcome.

We need equity. Which means giving people what they need to be succesful.

And yes if that means taking something away from someone else then so be it, it's for the greater good. That's civilisation brother.

Civilisations advance by getting the best possible people to do jobs, not fill quotas

[FredClogs]

Mr Snrub said:

FredClogs said:

Moonhawk said:

myvision said:

Tideway are aiming to employ more women.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/w...

https://www.tideway.london/media/2580/tideway-ar16...

Given the disparity in terms of men vs women going into contruction or taking engineering as a subject at university - the only way they will achieve gender parity is through 'positive discrimination'

Surely this is the antithesis of 'equality'.

We need equality of opporunity not 'equality' of outcome.

We need equity. Which means giving people what they need to be succesful.

And yes if that means taking something away from someone else then so be it, it's for the greater good. That's civilisation brother.

Civilisations advance by getting the best possible people to do jobs, not fill quotas

Actually all civilisation pre 21 century advanced through the use of slave labour, I mean they were the best people to do the jobs, if by best you mean cheapest and endentured to a financial system created to harness their labour, you could argue that to some extent it's still largely the case or that we've used technology to surplant the slave labour - which has left the slaves in a worst place then they ever were.

If there was only someone the white middle class men could blame for all this...

I know - Mexicans!

[Moonhawk]

FredClogs said:

We need equity. Which means giving people what they need to be succesful.

And yes if that means taking something away from someone else then so be it, it's for the greater good. That's civilisation brother.

Which applies across the board......yes?

A Higher Education Policy Institute report from 2015 shows that women outnumber men in undergraduate and post graduate study by almost 30%. Of the 18 subject areas examined, women outnumbered men in all but 6. Subjects areas like Medicine (human an veterinary), Law, Education, Agriculture, Social studies etc are all now dominated by women.

http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/B...

Given that you are clearly an advocate of 'equity' I guess that means you support taking away the opportunities that these women currently have in order to force gender parity in these subjects and the industries that rely upon them too?

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 10th February 08:21

[FredClogs]

Moonhawk said:

FredClogs said:

We need equity. Which means giving people what they need to be succesful.

And yes if that means taking something away from someone else then so be it, it's for the greater good. That's civilisation brother.

Which applies across the board......yes?

A Higher Education Policy Institute report from 2015 shows that women outnumber men in undergraduate and post graduate study by almost 30%. Of the 18 subject areas examined, women outnumbered men in all but 6. Subjects areas like Medicine (human an veterinary), Law, Education, Agriculture, Social studies etc are all now dominated by women.

http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/B...

Given that you are clearly an advocate of 'equity' I guess that means you support taking away the opportunities that these women currently have in order to force gender parity in these subjects and the industries that rely upon them too?

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 10th February 08:21

Indeed, you still have to wonder how come they earn less through their working lives if they're so much brighter? No?

I've got 2 daughters and 1 son, I'm very aware of how the school system and classroom conditions favour the female mind, but that's a different subject for a different thread. As I said I believe in equity - it's not a competition.

[sidicks]

FredClogs said:

Indeed, you still have to wonder how come they earn less through their working lives if they're so much brighter? No?

I've got 2 daughters and 1 son, I'm very aware of how the school system and classroom conditions favour the female mind, but that's a different subject for a different thread. As I said I believe in equity - it's not a competition.

Because they make different choices.

HTH

[Moonhawk]

FredClogs said:

Indeed, you still have to wonder how come they earn less through their working lives if they're so much brighter? No?

I've got 2 daughters and 1 son, I'm very aware of how the school system and classroom conditions favour the female mind, but that's a different subject for a different thread. As I said I believe in equity - it's not a competition.

If they do overall - it's through their own life choices - not because of any inherent gender bias in pay. Equality of opportunity, not of outcome. People should be free to choose work life balance over a career, take career breaks etc. If they do make that choice, their earning potential is likely to be lower - this is true of men and women.

Also - if the classroom favours the female mind as per your suggestion - then would this explain the disparity in the numbers of university entrants and not the fact that women are 'so much brighter'?

I agree it's not a competition, so I am puzzled at the constant focus on the outcome, rather than the opportunity.

If women are choosing to do subjects like veterinary medicine and education - rather than engineering and computer science, then surely that shows equality at work. They have the opportunity to do whatever subject they like.....and being free to make that choice is what equality is all about.

There is nothing to say that men and women will make the same choices. If they don't (which is clearly the case), we will naturally end up with gender disparity in some sectors. Why would forcing parity be a good thing?

[wc98]

Moonhawk said:

We need equality of opporunity not 'equality' of outcome.

this really needs rammed home to some people . maybe the way my mind works, but i cannot see any argument against this .

[amusingduck]

wc98 said:

Moonhawk said:

We need equality of opporunity not 'equality' of outcome.

this really needs rammed home to some people . maybe the way my mind works, but i cannot see any argument against this .

I don't think anyone is actually advocating for equality of outcome.

Favourable outcome, yes. Not equal. Nobody is demanding equal representation for women in the low paid, undesirable jobs, are they?

[Moonhawk]

amusingduck said:

Favourable outcome, yes. Not equal. Nobody is demanding equal representation for women in the low paid, undesirable jobs, are they?

Well yes you do have a point.

Given the recent furore over women's state pension age increasing to make it 'equal' to mens - it was seen as unfair because in making things equal - some women lost out. That seems to be a no-no. Equality is all fine and dandy, as long as there is a gain to be made.

[FredClogs]

Moonhawk said:

FredClogs said:

Indeed, you still have to wonder how come they earn less through their working lives if they're so much brighter? No?

I've got 2 daughters and 1 son, I'm very aware of how the school system and classroom conditions favour the female mind, but that's a different subject for a different thread. As I said I believe in equity - it's not a competition.

If they do overall - it's through their own life choices - not because of any inherent gender bias in pay. Equality of opportunity, not of outcome. People should be free to choose work life balance over a career, take career breaks etc. If they do make that choice, their earning potential is likely to be lower - this is true of men and women.

Also - if the classroom favours the female mind as per your suggestion - then would this explain the disparity in the numbers of university entrants and not the fact that women are 'so much brighter'?

I agree it's not a competition, so I am puzzled at the constant focus on the outcome, rather than the opportunity.

If women are choosing to do subjects like veterinary medicine and education - rather than engineering and computer science, then surely that shows equality at work. They have the opportunity to do whatever subject they like.....and being free to make that choice is what equality is all about.

There is nothing to say that men and women will make the same choices. If they don't (which is clearly the case), we will naturally end up with gender disparity in some sectors. Why would forcing parity be a good thing?

I'm not sure defining biological necessity as a "choice" is particularly honest. I mean women have babies and long may it continue.

P.S It's widely acknowledged the school system, especially the primary school system, favours girls.

This isn't about equality, it's about equity.

Edited by FredClogs on Friday 10th February 10:02

[sidicks]

FredClogs said:

I'm not sure defining biological necessity as a "choice" is particularly honest. I mean women have babies and long may it continue.

Some women choose to have babies. Some choose not to. Some are unable to have babies for various reasons. I am not aware that it is compulsory for anyone.

[Moonhawk]

FredClogs said:

I'm not sure defining biological necessity as a "choice" is particularly honest. I mean women have babies and long may it continue.

P.S It's widely acknowledged the school system, especially the primary school system, favours girls.

This isn't about equality, it's about equity.

The human race as a species is hardly likely to go extinct any time soon, so on an individual basis, having kids is a choice, not a necessity.

If it's truly about 'equity' as you say - then surely you are opposed to the approach Tideway appear to be advocating.

To be a 'fair and impartial' employer they would only need to demonstrate that their employment demographics matches the demographics of people in that sector that have chosen to invest in the particular skills they need.

By forcing the company into gender parity - when the underlying demographics of people with those skills is not at parity, indicates they are may be willing to take affirmative action to make it happen. Surely this is the antithesis of 'equity' since affirmative action is arguably not fair (on that demographic who it negatively affects) nor impartial (from either side)

[Mr Snrub]

Meanwhile, an attempt by Sydney University to get men into a female dominated profession is met with outrage and cries of sexism


http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/sydney-un...

[PurpleMoonlight]

Mr Snrub said:

Meanwhile, an attempt by Sydney University to get men into a female dominated profession is met with outrage and cries of sexism


http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/sydney-un...

Well, it is .....

[Moonhawk]

Mr Snrub said:

Meanwhile, an attempt by Sydney University to get men into a female dominated profession is met with outrage and cries of sexism


http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/sydney-un...

"I just think it shows very little thought into the causative agents of under-representation of women in STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths]. The barriers that prevent men from entering vet science are not the same barriers that prevent women from entering every single other academic area"

Except (in the UK at least) - women are outnumbering men in almost every single academic area - including science (when you look at science as a whole).

It would seem to be the case in Australia too - if this article is anything to go by.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/g...

Engineering, computer science and maths are areas where women are in the minority - but is this due to underlying sexism, or is the answer a little more straight forward.......women on average just don't like these subjects (or at least not as much as other subjects).

Given we only have a finite number women going to university - would it not be expected that if lots of them choose to do subjects like veterinary science, medicine, law etc - then there will simply be fewer available to do subjects like engineering and maths? Isn't it just simple.....erm.....maths.

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 11th February 22:38

[TheGuru]

Moonhawk said:

Given we only have a finite number women going to university - would it not be expected that if lots of them choose to do subjects like veterinary science, medicine, law etc - then there will simply be fewer available to do subjects like engineering and maths? Isn't it just simple.....erm.....maths.

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 11th February 22:38

No, because medicine, veterinary science and law usually have very restricted places, the first two especially.

And the real answer is women only want the equality in glamorous , or desirable, areas.

[Mr Snrub]

Just goes to show it has nothing to do with equality, but preferential treatment. You can't demand to be the Captain of the ship and expect to be the first one on the lifeboats.

[Moonhawk]

TheGuru said:

No, because medicine, veterinary science and law usually have very restricted places, the first two especially.

I used those subjects merely as examples. There are many more subjects that women also appear to choose preferentially (see page 50 of the report below).

Taking them all into account - what I said is true, if women choose these subjects preferentially then out of a finite pool of women going to university, fewer will be available to take engineering.

http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/B...

To gain gender parity in engineering - we'd have to either:

1. Encourage women away from the subjects they are choosing (but why would they - what makes engineering so much more desirable?)

2. Force them away from the subjects they are choosing by limiting places based on gender, so they have no choice other than to take engineering (arguably unfair?)

3. Encourage even more women into higher education so that statistically more will take engineering (but given there is already a 60:40 split in favor of women - this does seem rather unnecessary).

4. Encourage more men to take subjects that women are choosing - thereby out competing them for places, and thus forcing them into alternative options (but we run into the same problem as option 1)

5. Provide incentives for particular genders to take particular subjects (this appears to be a no-no based on the Australian story....at least as far as offering them to men is concerned. However scolarships for women going into male dominated subjects do appear to be fairly common - see below)

http://www.thescholarshiphub.org.uk/blog/scholarsh...
https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/funding
https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/schol...

[PurpleMoonlight]

Moonhawk said:

I used those subjects merely as examples. There are many more subjects that women also appear to choose preferentially (see page 50 of the report below).

Taking them all into account - what I said is true, if women choose these subjects preferentially then out of a finite pool of women going to university, fewer will be available to take engineering.

http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/B...

To gain gender parity in engineering - we'd have to either:

1. Encourage women away from the subjects they are choosing (but why would they - what makes engineering so much more desirable?)

2. Force them away from the subjects they are choosing by limiting places based on gender, so they have no choice other than to take engineering (arguably unfair?)

3. Encourage even more women into higher education so that statistically more will take engineering (but given there is already a 60:40 split in favor of women - this does seem rather unnecessary).

4. Encourage more men to take subjects that women are choosing - thereby out competing them for places, and thus forcing them into alternative options (but we run into the same problem as option 1)

5. Provide incentives for particular genders to take particular subjects (this appears to be a no-no based on the Australian story....at least as far as offering them to men is concerned. However scolarships for women going into male dominated subjects do appear to be fairly common - see below)

http://www.thescholarshiphub.org.uk/blog/scholarsh...
https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/funding
https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/schol...

But we shouldn't be striving for gender parity in any employment.

Opportunities should be available to both equally to enter their chosen profession, but beyond that if more of one gender prefer a particular profession I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

[Moonhawk]

PurpleMoonlight said:

But we shouldn't be striving for gender parity in any employment.

Opportunities should be available to both equally to enter their chosen profession, but beyond that if more of one gender prefer a particular profession I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

I totally agree.