Political Correctness


You don’t need quotas, you just need blind/legal recruiting.

The problem is humans tend to over-rate their ability to make objective decisions.


Like being a Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer or Accountant.

Gee I wonder why that’s an issue andyoga teachers isn’t.


Well Vanders as one who argued against affirmative action in the ALP putting quotas on most matters, I have to admit, it is one of the better actions Labor has taken. While you can argue that the best and brightest will rise to the top anyway, history shows that women have had many more barriers put in front of them.

Labor now is on the way to have a majority of females as MPs, and in my area most are female, and all are great people, highly talented and motivated and do a fantastic job. Except for quotas most would never have won preselection.

And while you may be totally fair and pick the most competent for the job, you are in the minority as most employers, including me, let prejudices get in the way.


The latest I’ve seen it in is tech hires(when 90% of graduates are men), management(where perfectly good male talent has been asked to move).

And don’t get me started on making way and accommodating families.

Your running a business for goodness sake. This crap that women need accommodating is bollocks.

So you have a family man putting in big hours instead of seeing his son/daughter or wife. Well he’s making a sacrifice and being a bad father/partner. It’s called compromise.

Would we have to have quotas for a competitive footy team? No.

This whole diversity for diversity’ sake is utter PC bullshit.

If I want to hire 8 quant guns and they all happen to be 22 Yr old male Russians. It’s the best ■■■■■■ thing to do.

Same that it might be worth hiring a whole bunch of 30yr old something mothers if I am selling ■■■■■■ nappies.


Are you taking the ■■■■?


Hating quotas is totally understandable Vanders. I don’t think that anyone really likes them. That said, in positions of power and influence or high wages, a case can be made for using them in the short-term, don’t you think?

I am just not persuaded that men – and men only – are somehow better equipped to be lawyers, engineers or board directors. Or politicians even. I can’t find any science or data that supports the idea that over 50% of the population are congenitally disqualified from holding those positions by virtue of their gender.

Of course, it’s a slippery slope and as women’s participation increases your daughter and her friends won’t even need them. That’s the hope, I think.

And in terms of quotas for beauticians, EAs and yoga teachers, well, as soon as there’s an oversupply of female yoga teachers running the country or sitting on company boards, how about you let us know? That might be the time to push for increased participation rates for male yoga teachers…:open_mouth::


People that are for the company are wankers.


Well not where I come from.

You put the best in the ‘highest’ paying positions because you know its competitive.

When it comes to those really chasing the coin hard, I’ve found they are overwhelmingly male. Perhaps men just feel like we need money more.

And when I look at a women’s priority in seeking a partner(for raising her offspring) and the focus a lot of men put on providing as well as they can for their families I can kind of see why.

I just don’t buy into determined or even significant unconscious bias on gender.

You meet some very financially or powerful women in life. Sure not as many as there are men. And they all have something in common.

They really want it.

I just don’t buy it(unnecessary discrimination).

I do my discriminating for the best person for the type of work.


Now I’m not sure if you’re winding me up because I know that you’re somewhat of a joker…but there’s plenty of evidence that shows companies are MUCH better off by having a diverse AND inclusive workforce.

It’s the company that should be considering a shift in their hiring policy, and Vanders probably needs to be given some training to see the benefits for his team and business. He also needs to have his concerns addressed.


You’re seeing this type of behaviour because men and women are and act very differently in seeking out employment and negotiations. (Sweeping generalisation obviously)

There’s plenty of evidence that men will overstate their ability and be more confident than women, irrespective of their talent.

I would think we are often biased towards those that are more confident in their ability. But here the catch, they’re no better than women!

And, for the men that feel like THEU must be the bread winner for the family? We need to break down those barriers too, so that men can feel comfortable seeking out flexible or modified working conditions, so you can attract and retain the best talent, male or female.


Oh ffs are you serious?

Have you read all of my posts?

Our business has had quotas. We had one excellent male leader that was made redundant whilst a woman was kept on. 6 months later she’s needed to be managed out and that male leader we had to turf? He’s running a team twice the size for a competitor.

Or bringing in another gender hire and having to move her sideways and bring another (happened to be male) and he is excellent.

Also we have lost good female talent in leadership. She was overlooked for better talent. But she has gone onto better things.

And our current executive(pre quota hires) is about 60% women. That happens to be the case simply because we have some great talent that happens to have a ■■■■■.

I’m sorry but it’s bullshit.

And if I’m doing business in a totally male dominated area, I have no problem dealing with all men.

Same if I am dealing with those in a female dominated area as well.


‘we’ don’t need to do anything.


So what I’m reading here is that it’s not an issue with gender or targets, it’s an issue with your companies talent development, and it’s an issue with your companies recruitment process.

Having said that, if suitable women are placed in these roles, and people like you and others are frustrated or against quotas, it’s probably not going to succeed.

It would be interesting to learn more about the company and their strategy they have in place, because it seems to have let down the company, and has frustrated people like yourself.


No it’s not.

Plenty of successful women within the company. I’ve promoted or given references to those I can’t to a number of good women.

I’ve also had to sack(manage out) a woman in a role which just demanded much more than she could give. She’s off working in a job that suits her and I have a dedicate man in the job now.

I just do not see the need. Anyone who ignores the best person for a job or fails to help retain their best people regardless of their gender, age. Race etc is bound to fail. Because life is competitive.

(maybe not if your in the public service pandering to the lowest common denominator. I dunno haven’t worked there)


I’ve seen scenarios on this. Women who want power and complain or feel wronged when they are overlooked cos they need to step out for motherhood.

Well if you want to be successful you get help. You hire a nanny or you (perish the thought) marry ‘down’ and find a man who prioritises looking after his household to making coin.

And I admire women who do it. Look at say Gillard. Her partner is a hair dresser. Or I can pull a few successful corporate women. (they tend to get ‘help’ with their kids cos they are attracted to other high flying corporate men)

Don’t come complain if you want to marry a alpha male dedicated to work and then expect to be handed the same with concessions to look after your kids.

Business is not a freaking charity.


As a matter of fact the majority of law graduates are female, and women outnumber men in the early years of practice.

That balance changes later on, roughly corresponding with the age at which women start having children. Most couples have to make a choice about which of them will be the primary breadwinner and which the primary care giver, and mostly it’s the male who does the former and the woman who does the latter. There are many exceptions, but that’s generally how it goes, and that largely explains why at the upper levels of law firms there are more men than women. Many firms make strong efforts to retain women after they become mothers, from in-house childcare to lengthy parental leave, but in the end it’s individual choice. I’m not going to criticise a woman who decides that she will take 5 or 10 years out of her progression up the corporate ladder to look after her kids and give them the best start in life. And I’m not going to say it’s unfair either.


But this is the thing.

Currently our government has fewer women, as a percentage, than Afghanistan.
The top ASX companies are not much better.
Clearly they are still necessary, in some situations.


Men have had their go. We’ve ■■■■■■ it up. Women should at least get the next 30 years to mitigate the effects of countless irreversible disasters to befall the current and next generation of youth. Plibersek for PM, Gillard for President of the Republic. Come on blokes, we know how ■■■■■■ we are.:crazy_face:


Afghanistan is a model for good governance?

Perhaps half the men there are dead out on the battlefield. Or the women there have been deliberately installed by ahem a western power. Maybe not the best example but I get where you are going.

I do think having more women makes sense in politics to formulate policy (where women are often the major customers) and as far as politicians?

If they do a better job and people want to vote for them(a lot of it is a popularity game) sure.


Quotas exist because studies show us that if a man and woman with exactly the same qualifications and experience go for a job the man is more likely to receive it.

They exist because if you’re female and indicate you have a family on a resume your less likely to get an interview whilst a man is more likely too.

They exist because when men push for promotion they’re seen as “driven” and when women do they’re seen as “bitchy”

I work in a female dominated field and have been punished in terms of development for having kids. And I think we do need more men in our field, the quotas would need to be at Uni though as this where the lack of men start.