No matter how effective, I will always believe that this is outright wrong and sexist.
I am amazed that my home country, Sweden, has not followed since it is basically the feminist capital of the world.
I am amazed that my home country, Sweden, has not followed since it is basically the feminist capital of the world.
And those negative views don't entirely come from sexism. I assume similar things would happen if there was a quota for e.g. short people. People are just jealous and claim that others don't deserve things.
Edit: If you feel the urge to dislike could you at least state what you didn't like? Or are discussions frowned upon nowadays?
I would propose slowly ramping it up to 50% over a range of maybe 20 years? Then hold it for 10, and drop it.
From there on it should be fair game. If the imbalance should happen again, then I guess it's just how it is...
(The slow ramp-up is so you don't fill up with the first best women available, which maybe might not necessarily be the best candidates... Which would lead to more bias if they fail the job, instead of the opposite.)
That's their problem. They want to vocalize it, well you can fire them!
Technically they are equal, they just happened to be born somewhere different. So it should be fair, right?
That kid when he grows up might indeed feel weird about all the undeserved money...
Are you serious? How is taking money from one person who never worked for it and giving it to another person who never worked for it going to make one feel self-conscious and sympathetic to the other?
Edit: To directly answer your question, It's not about being sympathetic to the other. They just didn't deserve the money. You "feel" they envy of other people and ask yourself why you and not somebody else. At least if you were the legitimate heir you knew that your family earned it somehow...
I personally believe that this is just a part of their ideology. The idea of a patriarchy is a fixed idea which will never change no matter how much legislation that gets pushed.
I will never support such an ideology and I will probably not really respect quota hires since they are just that. They are not hired because they seemed best for the position, just to appease to some social justice laws or beliefs.
- lack of maternity leave
- being judged on personal appearance even in office settings because your appearance is more tied to your worth than it is for men
- when you are harsh as a boss, labelled "bossy" as a negative. I don't hear many men labelled "bossy".
- be chided about "being on your period" in case you say something people don't like
- people confusing you for secretary / non-technical role because you are not man
- people talking about things which may be sensitive to women in the workplace moreso than men and make them uncomfortable / unable to participate (for example, porn, I have seen this in my office)
- after-hours fraternizing at the bar or on the golf course (or other largely men's activity, it's never going to the salon, for example).
- harrassment / dating propositions (imo, it's not okay either way but obviously more likely for men to do to women in office than the other way around)
- late-night meetings, frequent expectation for workers to come in late and stay late (if women mostly take responsibilities of children at home, this affects them more).
- less pay because rather than keeping pays equal, companies only offer raises to those who ask
Surely there are others. Perhaps some of these seem innocuous to you, but altogether they are potent.
Tangential: I heard a wild, but interesting argument the other day about how allowing different maternity leave between men and women, ceteris paribus, would lead to gender discrimination when hiring. The reasoning was: regardless of the reason being "fair", companies would see women as having a higher chance of taking more leave than men, and thus have less value, overall.
It was an interesting argument for prohibiting differences between paternity and maternity leave, i.o.w.: you must give new fathers as much time off as you give new mothers, no more, no less.
It sounded nice so I never researched whether it was experimentally confirmed / disproven :)
The pressure on men and women to take time off after a baby diminishes the effect you speak of.
How about:
- Income inequality
- Unequal domestic workload
- Only 22% of elected parliamentarians being female
There are a lot of reasons for the inequality between men and women. I'm not saying they are "justified" or "fair" but there are some obvious (painful, even) but true reasons why men and women don't earn the same. Of course, these reasons do not specify the whole margin but they explain quite some of the variation.
What does it change if the answer is "It is easier for men because they have to put up with less harassment, less pressure and are more encouraged"?
Except this "framing" implicitly introduces the assumption that gendered differences in stress and pressure tolerance is the cause.
Have a look at the death gap!
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-come-nobod...
Note: this is just the first hit on google, I'm a bit reluctant to write down an entire arguement here because you have very like already made up your mind...
"Income inequality" Has been discussed plenty of time, so I'm not going to reproduce it here. In any case, there is plenty of dispute on whether it is the result of "sexism".
"domestic workload" is something society does criticise, but in any case it is a social convention only - not enforced by law.