...
So, you will please to hear i'm not arguing for Quotas.... BUT ...
Have you never met a man in over his head?
Tons - WAY more than woman (it's a simple numbers game).
Jeebus, how many middle management roles are run by mates of mates of guys who played sport/ went to school with/ are drinking buddies with/ are best mates with of someone higher up the team and as result have been promoted beyond their abilities. Seriosuly, I reckon the number of douchebag dudes in middle management is at least roughly on par with the number of women who got promoted too soon because of gender issues. Oh, and no one says these guys are "ruining it for all other men because people judge the failure (accurately) on the fact that she should never have got the job in the first place". That's a massive double standard. There are old boys clubs everywhere full overpaid, undertalented, well connected nuff nuffs.
You're 100% right - but I was talking about quotas. There are "jobs for mates" everywhere (and the charge applies equally for women). There are people simply in "over their head" everywhere - guys and girls.... All very valid points which also apply in society and the workplace - and all equally apply to men and women.
I was isolating out the issue of quotas (which almost exclusively applies only to women's advancement).
Remember - we were talking about the lack of female representation on boards - I took up the issue of quotas - my argument still stands on the issue of quotas.
In a lot of cases this is not true and it's simply basic sexism at work. In those cases where it is true, and i'll concede they do exist, no one ever reminds themselves of all the over0connected, undertalented, and underqualified blokes who climb the tree because their connections have given them another, alternate, advantage.
Yep - sometimes it's basic sexism - and again, your "jobs for mates issue" is fair but also applies equally to women. But quotas do breed this resentment from the men, who in many cases are passed over (despite being more qualified) in favour of women simply to achieve Quotas.
Your points are fair - but my arguments are on the Quota issue and I have tried to isolate all of the other factors (such as you mention) which are not exclusive to men or women.
And people don't complain about why some men were promoted over others? Wow, you must work in the only work place in the world where the probably of dud people being promoted is due entirely to the fact they are women and the only ones who complain about it are other women?
Of course they do - and you and I both know it.
My point - again - is that Quotas create this dynamic (where it may or may not have existed before).
Ignoring the achievements (or lack there of) of the current PM. I think it's bloody awesome that that barrier has been broken down. I think it's bloody awesome that every 14 year old girl in Australia can decide she wants to be Prime Minister and actually believe it's possible and (embarassingly) for the first time in 100 years has an actual role model. Now, as you acknowledged, she didn't get the gig because she was a women. She got the gig (in stupid ALP factiional ways) because she was the next most senior minister, next in line, and she worked hard to ge there. Whether she stands or falls a PM is a totally different question to the fact she's a woman.
YEP - I agree 100% - especially with the final sentence.
But I guess I hang around different circles of females to you - because in 2010 - every single group of females I know were celebrating the "womens' achievement" of our first female PM. (Regardless of how she got there).
Now - these same women are all lamenting the fact that the person they over-celebrated has turned out to be a dud and they (not me) lament that it will be a negative achievement for womens' advancement.
I would be very surprised if you haven't heard the same from women (from across the political spectrum).
IMHO - she never should have, and never should be judged, celebrated etc as anything other than an individual. Gender should be irrevelant - I mean that's the goal of the Affirmative Action movement isn't it?? Everyone treated equally - gender should play no part..?? That's certainly my view.
To go back to my original point. I'm not arguing for quotas. I would argue it's utterly stupid to exclude 50% of the talent pool for those roles as we have effectively done for a long time. But, most importantly, it's just dumb to insist on calling the person who Chairs a board a chair-man in those circumstances where they are obviously not or potentially might not be. It's reactionary sexist rubbish to insist otherwise.
The Chair of the board of *any* company can be reffered to as such without insisting on language that assumes they are a dude.
<rant off>
Everything you've said supports and reinforces my opposition to Quotas.
People, regardless of gender, should be appointment SOLELY on merit. Anytime any other factor is used - it leads to the problems and issues demonstrated. Quotas are just as much a negative force / cause of issues as the examples you use.
The difference is that there isn't (as far as I'm aware) an official body/group/movement/ideology/political party that has an official manifesto calling for "jobs for mates", "promotions for dummies" etc.........
There is for Quotas.
And getting back to the "Chairman" debate - you feel strongly about the use of the letters "m-a-n" in the word - that it, by its inclusion, literally implies the position holder has a cough.
I don't see it that way, I don't break down the word like that (and nor do the rest of the community (including women) who have no issue with the term). We see it as the title of a position, no different to President, CEO, Baker, Farmer etc etc.
With the most utmost of respect - you're the one bringing "sexism" into the argument - the rest of us do not view the term "Chairman" as being gender-specific.
Stop breaking the word down - it's a proper noun.
PS. The passion behind my opposition is my personal religious opposition to political correctness - which I see this argument as being.
For the record - I have not met a single Female Chair who has objected to the term. That said - if I was to serve under a Chair (male or female) who elected to be addressed as "Chair" instead of "Chairman" then fine - who cares.
