Comment on Par for the course
ngn@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
bunch of companies are prioritizing woman and non-straight man while hiring (because its better pr i guess) so hes not wrong
Depends… Marketing, PR and Social Media Management are pretty high on female/diverse staff anyways,… its more like men feel like women in that industry and maybe that scares them.
I work engineering and it’s mandatory to completely remove any irrelevant info from the CV (including gender, race…) to screen applicants.
Having lived and worked in both The Netherlands and Britain, I’ve seen actual American-style quotas systems in Britain that explicitly priviledged a specific gender (rather than what you describe, which is a system mean to remove any and all discrimination), and the result was pretty bad, both because the worst professionals around were from that gender and clearly only got the job due to quotas and at the same time competent professionals that happen to have that gender were not taken as seriously and were kinda second class citizens.
In fact, that specific place which is the only one I ever worked with and American style quota system was the most sexist place I ever worked in, in my entire career (which spans over 2 decades) - people would not say sexist things, all the while they would definitelly have different competence expectations and even levels of how seriously they took people as professionals depending on people’s gender.
Interestingly, IT in The Netherlands was way less sexist in a natural way than almost all places I worked in Britain, with almost always more well balanced gender-wise teams and were - at least that I noticed - nobody assuming anything in professional terms based on people’s gender or sexual orientation.
Frankly one of the things I really missed after I move to Britain from The Netherlands was exactly the “that’s about as relevant as eye color” when it came to people’s gender or sexual orientation in the work place that the Dutch generally show (at least in my area).
Having lived and worked in both The Netherlands and Britain, I’ve seen actual American-style quotas systems in Britain that explicitly priviledged a specific gender (rather than what you describe, which is a system meant to remove any and all discrimination, even if subconscious), and the result was pretty bad, both because the worst professionals around there were from that gender and clearly only got the job due to quotas and at the same time competent professionals that happen to have that gender were not taken as seriously and were kinda second class professionals even though they did not at all deserve it.
Again with this, the systems aren’t design to remove discrimination, they are design to counteract the discrimination that already exists.
The difference between equality vs equity.
Though bullshit hires based solely on quota’s do exist, I’m not pretending that doesn’t happen.
In fact, that specific place, which is the only one I ever worked in with an American style quota system, was the most sexist place I ever worked in, in my entire career (which spans over 2 decades) - people would not say sexist things (lest HR punish them), all the while they would definitelly have different competence expectations and even levels of how seriously they took people as professionals depending on people’s gender. Meanwhile the people that got in via quotas tended to be the kind that would play the system rather than do the job, which often made the whole environment even more sexist.
Those quota systems aren’t specifically American, but they have certainly gone all-out in recent times.
Sounds like a bad workplace, implementing processes badly. Is that a reflection on the idea as a whole ?
Interestingly, IT in The Netherlands was way less sexist in a natural way than almost all places I worked in Britain, with almost always more well balanced gender-wise teams and were - at least that I noticed - nobody assuming anything in professional terms based on people’s gender or sexual orientation.
As i said in my other reply, because the Netherlands is better at this in general. It’s not better because it doesn’t have the same systems, it’s better because it doesn’t need them in the same way(or at all).
Don’t worry! Once all the H-1B visas get relaxed, we can push our MORE straight white men out!
BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Sure bud it’s all the women’s fault.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
There’s two different ways to read the previous poster’s point:
pahlimur@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The problem both of your opinions have is they ignore the baseline improved treatment straight white dudes like myself get. We get better treatment and preferential hiring just by existing. I’m not afraid to talk to anyone in the tiny sithole towns I go to for work. I’ve have so many people walk past my boss and talk to me because he wears a turban, or my other boss getting talked over because she is a women. These examples aren’t directly related to hiring, but you are blind if you don’t see the obvious advantages we have.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
I suggest you read the system described by the poster from feddit.nl just below, which just removes the kind of professionally irrelevant information (including gender, race and so on) from being in the candidate selection process.
Such systems are meant to removed descrimination (even subconscious one) rather than discriminating in the opposite direction. “Discriminating but the other way around” just preservs a mindset that people should be seen differently depending on gender or sexual orientation and, as I’ve observed first hand, yields environments which are even more sexist.
Having lived in both Britain (which apes a lot of things from the US) and The Netherlands, I can tell you that the latter country is way much more naturally equalitarian (gender-wise and even more so when it comes to sexual orientation) than the former.
The knee-jerk “this must be sexism” reaction to criticism of the “let’s keep treating people differently depending on the genetics they were born with” of the “anti-descrimination” systems in the Anglo-Saxon countries, in my view partly explains why in the decade and a half since I’ve left The Netherlands I’ve seen no improvement towards the much more natural gender and sexual-orientation equality of The Netherlands in either Britain or the US, quite the contrary.
I’m sorry but compared with what I’ve seen working in other countries the system you defend is deeply flawed and preserves the very architecture of judging people on their gender, sexual-orientation or race rather than actual personal knowledge and track record that the Fascists have.
ngn@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
idk how someone can read it the second way
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Some people genuinely have huge assumptions about the intellectual capability of women and their suitability for certain occupations - the “women are very emotional” used as excuse for not giving them certain responsibilities such as management positions is far too common, especially in countries were the main brand of sexism is the so-called “Benevolent Sexism” (called that not because it’s actually good but because it’s disguised as being for the protection of women) such as Britain.
Similarly there are prejudices about people with sexual orientations other than heterosexuality in the workplace, usually of the “they’ll make other people uncomfortable” kind.
Sadly, still today, far to many people genuinely think along such lines and some aren’t even aware that they’re doing it because their whole lives they’ve lived around people who do it so for them that’s the “normal” way of thinking.
ngn@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
wut