Dutch University will only hire women for six months

[DavidB.]

Ambiguously worded in the thread title, but they will actually do this for 1.5 years and will only hire men if they haven't found a woman for the specific vacancy for six months. Clown world is real and we're living in it.

It's shocking. You'd think companies in the past had deliberately hired men at the expense of qualified women.

Even if that's the case (which I doubt)

Do you? Do you REALLY??

Sexism was widespread and limited women's opportunities, but I doubt men were "deliberately hired at the expense of qualified women." Part of it is that back then men weren't all that conscious of their bias (so not "deliberately"), another part is that fewer women became qualified for high-level academic positions at a Technical University in the first place because of stereotypical roles for men and women. Both are at least partly rooted in sexism, but the statement that those evil men at TU/e "deliberately hired men at the expense of qualified women" clearly lacks nuance.

[parochial boy]

Ambiguously worded in the thread title, but they will actually do this for 1.5 years and will only hire men if they haven't found a woman for the specific vacancy for six months. Clown world is real and we're living in it.

It's shocking. You'd think companies in the past had deliberately hired men at the expense of qualified women.

Even if that's the case (which I doubt)

Do you? Do you REALLY??

Sexism was widespread and limited women's opportunities, but I doubt men were "deliberately hired at the expense of qualified women." Part of it is that back then men weren't all that conscious of their bias (so not "deliberately"), another part is that fewer women became qualified for high-level academic positions at a Technical University in the first place because of stereotypical roles for men and women. Both are at least partly rooted in sexism, but the statement that those evil men at TU/e "deliberately hired men at the expense of qualified women" clearly lacks nuance.

One of the statistics that got bandied around here as part of the women's strike is that one in 7 women who goes on maternity loses her job as a result. It's probaby better than that in the Netherlands, and it isn't the same thing as hiring decisions - but it does show that people are still explicitely making decisions that hurt women's prospects

[DavidB.]

Ambiguously worded in the thread title, but they will actually do this for 1.5 years and will only hire men if they haven't found a woman for the specific vacancy for six months. Clown world is real and we're living in it.

It's shocking. You'd think companies in the past had deliberately hired men at the expense of qualified women.

Even if that's the case (which I doubt)

Do you? Do you REALLY??

Sexism was widespread and limited women's opportunities, but I doubt men were "deliberately hired at the expense of qualified women." Part of it is that back then men weren't all that conscious of their bias (so not "deliberately"), another part is that fewer women became qualified for high-level academic positions at a Technical University in the first place because of stereotypical roles for men and women. Both are at least partly rooted in sexism, but the statement that those evil men at TU/e "deliberately hired men at the expense of qualified women" clearly lacks nuance.

One of the statistics that got bandied around here as part of the women's strike is that one in 7 women who goes on maternity loses her job as a result. It's probaby better than that in the Netherlands, and it isn't the same thing as hiring decisions - but it does show that people are still explicitely making decisions that hurt women's prospects

As an enormous supporter of royal maternity and paternity leave systems (we need to fix our birthrates) I obviously oppose this, and to a certain extent this probably happens in the Netherlands too, and it needs to change. However, it's still not the same as "deliberately hiring men at the expense of qualified women", which was the claim I called into question.

[Velasco]

The point is that, once we accept the existence of discrimination based on gender and that women are still valued below their merits, it's necessary to ask ourselves what can we do to increase the women quota in labour market. Positive discrimination is an attempt of answer, but maybe there are other ways. I think constructive criticism is acceptable, but I tend to think criticism without alternative solutions plays in favour of negationist people claiming discrimination does not exist

the gender pay gap is, at worst, 4%.  Yes, we should do what we can to erase it completely.  When are we going to see male hiring freezes or other positive discrimination efforts for garbage collectors or roofers (or dozens of other high paying but dangerous or gross gigs that are almost 100% men)?

Who is saying gender pay gap is (at worst) 4% ? That's not what reports say. The press in your country is painting a different picture, too

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjdkO_4mP7iAhU85uAKHfC9D1cQzPwBCAI&url=https%3A%2F%2F247wallst.com%2Fspecial-report%2F2018%2F11%2F19%2F20-worst-paying-jobs-for-women-3&psig=AOvVaw3PWyGo3LZJarppQakS6t_8&ust=1561330888021043

    Even today, women in the United States earn an average of just 82 cents for every dollar men earn. In some jobs, the wage gap is far larger.

[dead0man]

The point is that, once we accept the existence of discrimination based on gender and that women are still valued below their merits, it's necessary to ask ourselves what can we do to increase the women quota in labour market. Positive discrimination is an attempt of answer, but maybe there are other ways. I think constructive criticism is acceptable, but I tend to think criticism without alternative solutions plays in favour of negationist people claiming discrimination does not exist

the gender pay gap is, at worst, 4%.  Yes, we should do what we can to erase it completely.  When are we going to see male hiring freezes or other positive discrimination efforts for garbage collectors or roofers (or dozens of other high paying but dangerous or gross gigs that are almost 100% men)?

Who is saying gender pay gap is (at worst) 4% ? That's not what reports say. The press in your country is painting a different picture, too

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjdkO_4mP7iAhU85uAKHfC9D1cQzPwBCAI&url=https%3A%2F%2F247wallst.com%2Fspecial-report%2F2018%2F11%2F19%2F20-worst-paying-jobs-for-women-3&psig=AOvVaw3PWyGo3LZJarppQakS6t_8&ust=1561330888021043

    Even today, women in the United States earn an average of just 82 cents for every dollar men earn. In some jobs, the wage gap is far larger.

those studies do not take into account any of the things that make men earn more than woman.  this explains it pretty good

from your (fixed) link

Pay figures alone do not tell the whole story, and there are several explanations for pay inequality that are not immediately obvious. Such factors include the propensity for men to work longer hours and sort into higher paid positions within certain occupational categories.

indeed

Still, even when adjusting for such circumstantial factors, an apparent gender bias in the U.S. labor market remains.

and it's somewhere between 1 and 4%.  That's too high, we should be working to erase it, but saying its 82% (or 78 or 49) is not accurate.

[Velasco]

You can't say "it's somewhere between 1% and 4%" and 18% (women earn 82 cents per every dollar earned by men) is too high because that's your perception. People usually mentions official statistics and reports from organizations.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is indefensible, obviously. Is it even legal? It wouldn't be here.

[dead0man]

You can't say "it's somewhere between 1% and 4%" and 18% (women earn 82 cents per every dollar earned by men) is too high because that's your perception. People usually mentions official statistics and reports from organizations.

from Glassdoor

Signs show the gender pay gap is narrowing, slightly. Based on over 425,000 salaries shared by full-time U.S. employees on Glassdoor, men earn 21.4 percent higher base pay than women on average (or women earn 79 cents per dollar men earn). However, comparing workers of similar age, education and experience, shrinks the gap to 19.1 percent. Furthermore, after comparing workers with the same job title, employer and location, the gender pay gap in the U.S. falls to 4.9 percent (95.1 cents per dollar)

[lfromnj]

This is indefensible, obviously. Is it even legal? It wouldn't be here.

ITS POSITIVE.

[Velasco]

You can't say "it's somewhere between 1% and 4%" and 18% (women earn 82 cents per every dollar earned by men) is too high because that's your perception. People usually mentions official statistics and reports from organizations.

from Glassdoor

Signs show the gender pay gap is narrowing, slightly. Based on over 425,000 salaries shared by full-time U.S. employees on Glassdoor, men earn 21.4 percent higher base pay than women on average (or women earn 79 cents per dollar men earn). However, comparing workers of similar age, education and experience, shrinks the gap to 19.1 percent. Furthermore, after comparing workers with the same job title, employer and location, the gender pay gap in the U.S. falls to 4.9 percent (95.1 cents per dollar)

Alright. There are loads of studies like that. Figures may vary depending on the source. This one provides three: 21.4%, 19.1% and 4.9%. The higher figure is the raw or "unadjusted" gap and rhe lower figure is the "adjusted" gap resulting from the implementation of correction factors. "Unadjusted" and "adjusted" figures provide different kinds of information. It is incorrect to say the unadjusted figures are "too high".They are factual realities and tell us a simple truth: women earn less than men on average.  The adjusted figures correct the raw data by comparing similar qualifications, employers, locations, etcetera. Regarding the adjusted figures, it seems they are slightly above  4% in this study (you said "at worst 4%" and "somewhere between 1% and 4%", so I asked you who is saying that). In any case, this is not very important. The actual debate is not discussing which figures are "real" (the different calculations reflect different aspects of reality), but raising questions like why women have less access to higher paid positions. The question is that the gap exists, with or without corrections. It's not only a matter of closing the gender gap in jobs with similar qualification, but to increase the opportunities for women (not necessarily in the way this Dutch university is trying)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

The reasons for lower pay include both individual choice and other innate, and external environmental factors.

An example of a voluntary choice is choosing to work part-time when full-time employment is available. An example of an involuntary choice is working a low-skill job because of an inability to access higher education. An example of an external factor is discrimination

[parochial boy]

Ambiguously worded in the thread title, but they will actually do this for 1.5 years and will only hire men if they haven't found a woman for the specific vacancy for six months. Clown world is real and we're living in it.

It's shocking. You'd think companies in the past had deliberately hired men at the expense of qualified women.

Even if that's the case (which I doubt)

Do you? Do you REALLY??

Sexism was widespread and limited women's opportunities, but I doubt men were "deliberately hired at the expense of qualified women." Part of it is that back then men weren't all that conscious of their bias (so not "deliberately"), another part is that fewer women became qualified for high-level academic positions at a Technical University in the first place because of stereotypical roles for men and women. Both are at least partly rooted in sexism, but the statement that those evil men at TU/e "deliberately hired men at the expense of qualified women" clearly lacks nuance.

One of the statistics that got bandied around here as part of the women's strike is that one in 7 women who goes on maternity loses her job as a result. It's probaby better than that in the Netherlands, and it isn't the same thing as hiring decisions - but it does show that people are still explicitely making decisions that hurt women's prospects

As an enormous supporter of royal maternity and paternity leave systems (we need to fix our birthrates) I obviously oppose this, and to a certain extent this probably happens in the Netherlands too, and it needs to change. However, it's still not the same as "deliberately hiring men at the expense of qualified women", which was the claim I called into question.

Fair enough, but what it does show is that discriminatory employment practices against women still very much exist - and there are plenty of acknowledged instances where women are not hired because of the risk that they might go on maternity leave; obviously harder to find statistics because it's not something that employers are likely to be open about.

You can't say "it's somewhere between 1% and 4%" and 18% (women earn 82 cents per every dollar earned by men) is too high because that's your perception. People usually mentions official statistics and reports from organizations.

from Glassdoor

Signs show the gender pay gap is narrowing, slightly. Based on over 425,000 salaries shared by full-time U.S. employees on Glassdoor, men earn 21.4 percent higher base pay than women on average (or women earn 79 cents per dollar men earn). However, comparing workers of similar age, education and experience, shrinks the gap to 19.1 percent. Furthermore, after comparing workers with the same job title, employer and location, the gender pay gap in the U.S. falls to 4.9 percent (95.1 cents per dollar)

Alright. There are loads of studies like that. Figures may vary depending on the source. This one provides three: 21.4%, 19.1% and 4.9%. The higher figure is the raw or "unadjusted" gap and rhe lower figure is the "adjusted" gap resulting from the implementation of correction factors. "Unadjusted" and "adjusted" figures provide different kinds of information. It is incorrect to say the unadjusted figures are "too high".They are factual realities and tell us a simple truth: women earn less than men on average.  The adjusted figures correct the raw data by comparing similar qualifications, employers, locations, etcetera. Regarding the adjusted figures, it seems they are slightly above  4% in this study (you said "at worst 4%" and "somewhere between 1% and 4%", so I asked you who is saying that). In any case, this is not very important. The actual debate is not discussing which figures are "real" (the different calculations reflect different aspects of reality), but raising questions like why women have less access to higher paid positions. The question is that the gap exists, with or without corrections. It's not only a matter of closing the gender gap in jobs with similar qualification, but to increase the opportunities for women (not necessarily in the way this Dutch university is trying)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

The reasons for lower pay include both individual choice and other innate, and external environmental factors.

An example of a voluntary choice is choosing to work part-time when full-time employment is available. An example of an involuntary choice is working a low-skill job because of an inability to access higher education. An example of an external factor is discrimination

One thing that would be good to ask is why it is that women tend to be more likely to work part time, end up in more junior positions and choose lower paying industries or careers. The usual left-wing analysis would be that there are structural factors behind this (like the culture of women being the primary caregivers, or cultural factors that push women away from "hard science" and towards "people oriented" careers...). In particular, people in more senior positions tend to work longer hours, men get promoted more often, therefore tend to work longer hours - not really an argument.

Otherwise, all the 4% statistic does is claim that, once you control for the fact that men earn more than women... men still actually earn more than women; which is hardly a resounding victory for the claim that gender discrimination doesn't exist in employment.

[dead0man]

You can't say "it's somewhere between 1% and 4%" and 18% (women earn 82 cents per every dollar earned by men) is too high because that's your perception. People usually mentions official statistics and reports from organizations.

from Glassdoor

Signs show the gender pay gap is narrowing, slightly. Based on over 425,000 salaries shared by full-time U.S. employees on Glassdoor, men earn 21.4 percent higher base pay than women on average (or women earn 79 cents per dollar men earn). However, comparing workers of similar age, education and experience, shrinks the gap to 19.1 percent. Furthermore, after comparing workers with the same job title, employer and location, the gender pay gap in the U.S. falls to 4.9 percent (95.1 cents per dollar)

Alright. There are loads of studies like that. Figures may vary depending on the source. This one provides three: 21.4%, 19.1% and 4.9%. The higher figure is the raw or "unadjusted" gap and rhe lower figure is the "adjusted" gap resulting from the implementation of correction factors. "Unadjusted" and "adjusted" figures provide different kinds of information. It is incorrect to say the unadjusted figures are "too high".They are factual realities and tell us a simple truth: women earn less than men on average.  The adjusted figures correct the raw data by comparing similar qualifications, employers, locations, etcetera. Regarding the adjusted figures, it seems they are slightly above  4% in this study (you said "at worst 4%" and "somewhere between 1% and 4%", so I asked you who is saying that). In any case, this is not very important. The actual debate is not discussing which figures are "real" (the different calculations reflect different aspects of reality), but raising questions like why women have less access to higher paid positions. The question is that the gap exists, with or without corrections. It's not only a matter of closing the gender gap in jobs with similar qualification, but to increase the opportunities for women (not necessarily in the way this Dutch university is trying)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

The reasons for lower pay include both individual choice and other innate, and external environmental factors.

An example of a voluntary choice is choosing to work part-time when full-time employment is available. An example of an involuntary choice is working a low-skill job because of an inability to access higher education. An example of an external factor is discrimination

I know all this stuff, that's why I said the "real" number is 4%.  The unadjusted figure is worthless (unless your whole point is to make the facts sound way worse than they actually are, which is exactly why those numbers get thrown around so much).  Women choose to work less hours, women choose to work safer and less gross jobs, those three things make up the vast majority of the unadjusted numbers difference.  I've seen the parking lot attendant vs day care worker brought up in these things before, someone brought them up here once.  Parking lot attendants make a couple of bucks more an hour than day care workers.  Watching kids is a more important job than watching cars, so why don't they get paid more?  Several reasons.  Day care workers almost never get shot, day care workers almost never get run over, both of those things happen to people that watch cars for a living.  But the most important reason is nobody wants to watch cars for a living, MILLIONS of people want to watch babies for a living.  It's the same reason "video game tester"s work long hours for sh**t pay, millions of people are standing in line for that job.  Meanwhile, my niece went to community college for 10 months to learn how to work at a water plant, now she's 21 and makes almost 30/hr, as she should because she's doing something dangerous and gross, and she does it in the middle of the night in North St Louis (ya know, the Ferguson area, you may have heard about it in the news a couple of years ago...remember when the sad sack that was just about to think about considering registering for classes strong arm robbed a convenience store then walked home in the middle of the street holding them, then he fought with a cop and something else happened).  Nobody wants to do that.  Maybe a few kids say something like "I want to make clean drinking water for people when I grow up", but then as they grow up and realize how gross and dangerous the job is and that there are a million other gigs out there. My niece gets plenty of over time too, but she's also recently pregnant.  She's going to miss work, she's going to take less overtime, her pay will decline.  It sucks that women are the only (omg, I just want to say "gender" but I know that's a problem....let me start over)  It sucks that people born with a functioning uterus are the only ones that get to enjoy growing a human inside them, but that's how evolution (or god) designed us.  We can change a lot about ourselves that was chosen by evolution, but not that, not yet at least.  Thankfully we have learned how to outsmart evolution and not get pregnant, but some women still chose to, and it is their choice.  It's a choice.  IT'S A CHOICE!  That those women make, on their own.  How you going to sh**t on men for a choice women make?  We still have to go to work in our dangerous and gross jobs.  Many of us don't really have a choice.  I suppose I could quit my job, but there are a LOT of people that depend on me going to work.  One of them is an adult woman who CHOOSES not to work.  And that's fine, obviously, or I'd give her sh**t about it (or maybe I'm just scared of her a little?  idk, lets leave the psychology of the dead0man to another day).  Yet in one gender gap pay study I read about, she'd get put down as a vastly underpaid woman because she's worked full time in the last decade.

sorry about that, I got rambling.  My point is that we shouldn't throw out bad numbers when we know we have better numbers available.  The bad numbers are bad, mostly, because of CHOICES WOMEN make.  Choosing to work inside with babies instead of outside in the heat and cold.  Choosing to have those babies and stay home with them until they start school.  It is a very good thing that some women have that option.  Would you rather it be the other way?  And a 5% gap is still too high, honestly, way too high.  We should do better for women.

[Velasco]

You didn't get the point. It's not a question of "throwing bad numbers". As I said before, the "unadjusted" and "adjusted" figures reflect reality from different perspectives. It's not correct to say "unadjusted" figures are "too high" and "bad numbers" and the "real" gender gap is 4%. It's equally bad picking only the the "good" and the "bad" numbers. The information contained in all these numbers can help to provide a more detailed picture, if they are analyzed correctly. The "unadjusted" figure reflects a bigger disparity, probably because the types of job with prevalence of women usually have lower payments.

 

 Women choose to work less hours, women choose to work safer and less gross jobs, those three things make up the vast majority of the unadjusted numbers difference.  

Personal choice is not the only factor and choices are often influenced by culture or by social pressure. Choosing to work less hours is clearly correlated to the  fact that women have a greater involvement in raising children and caring for relatives. There are plenty of women that need to combine a job with family care. Creating a family is often a handicap for their professional careers. Becoming pregnant very often entails an interruption of the professional career and even termination. In what regards hazardous work, the little proportion of women in certain activities can be the consequence of personal choice, but also the consequence of access restricted for wonen. On the other hand, women are equally underrepresented in management positions that don't entail risks to their safety. Underrepresentation in business, politics and judiciary is not a matter of choice. There is a clear gap in access to career opportunities

[DavidB.]

This is indefensible, obviously. Is it even legal? It wouldn't be here.

You'd think it goes against Article 1 of our constitution (well, at least I thought so), according to which everyone in the Netherlands is to be treated equally, but apparently "positive discrimination" is perfectly legal.

And our D66 minister of Education and Science, a member of the party that invoked Anne Frank when Pim Fortuyn called into question Article 1, calls this move by the TU Eindhoven something along the lines of "stunning and brave".

[dead0man]

You didn't get the point. It's not a question of "throwing bad numbers". As I said before, the "unadjusted" and "adjusted" figures reflect reality from different perspectives. It's not correct to say "unadjusted" figures are "too high" and "bad numbers" and the "real" gender gap is 4%. It's equally bad picking only the the "good" and the "bad" numbers. The information contained in all these numbers can help to provide a more detailed picture, if they are analyzed correctly. The "unadjusted" figure reflects a bigger disparity, probably because the types of job with prevalence of women usually have lower payments.

but there is no way to ever get the unadjusted number to 100%, not without taking away women's options.  Sure, you can push it in that direction here and there by pulling stunts like this university is doing, but you're never going to do it for the jobs that "matter", because the general public would go ape sh**t, men and women alike.  So where should the unadjusted number be?  87%? 94%  How many suitable men, many of whom are allies, are you going to screw over and how many women are going to be put in positions to fail to get there?

  Women choose to work less hours, women choose to work safer and less gross jobs, those three things make up the vast majority of the unadjusted numbers difference. 

Personal choice is not the only factor and choices are often influenced by culture or by social pressure.

100% agree.  There is still discrimination.  There are still cultural expectations.  We should fight the discrimination when we find it and we should encourage people to not be discouraged by cultural expectations.  If you want to be a CEO and you're a black lady, get out there and do the things CEO's did to become CEOs and don't let anybody tell you that you shouldn't.  If you're a little girl and you want to be a welder, then go out there and be a welder.  I bet dollars to donuts the classes at the community college would love to have you.  Little boys shouldn't be told they can't be nurses or watch babies. It's fun to watch babies just like it's fun to weld and boss people around.

Choosing to work less hours is clearly correlated to the  fact that women have a greater involvement in raising children and caring for relatives.

yep, they tend to.  And those are choices they make.

There are plenty of women that need to combine a job with family care. Creating a family is often a handicap for their professional careers. Becoming pregnant very often entails an interruption of the professional career and even termination.

yep and more choices

In what regards hazardous work, the little proportion of women in certain activities can be the consequence of personal choice, but also the consequence of access restricted for wonen.

certainly some people within certain fields might give women sh**t when they start and that should be discouraged and many other people outside those careers (parents, friends, high school counselors) will give women sh**t for choosing certain fields and that too should be discouraged.  But it shouldn't let a determined woman be stopped by it.  Women are tough, every bit as tough as men.  They should be able to handle some negative comments from people stuck in the past.

On the other hand, women are equally underrepresrnted in management positions that don't entail risks to their safety. Underrepresentation in business, politics and judiciary is not a matter of choice. There is a clear gap in access to career opportunities

I agree with the last bit, there is still a clear gap.  And it'd be ~5%, we should be doing everything we can to get that as close to 0% as possible.  If you do x amount of work, you should be paid y amount of money, what lies between your legs and the make up of your chromosomes shouldn't matter.

[Velasco]

[
Personal choice is not the only factor and choices are often influenced by culture or by social pressure.

100% agree.  There is still discrimination.  There are still cultural expectations.  We should fight the discrimination when we find it and we should encourage people to not be discouraged by cultural expectations.  If you want to be a CEO and you're a black lady, get out there and do the things CEO's did to become CEOs and don't let anybody tell you that you shouldn't.  If you're a little girl and you want to be a welder, then go out there and be a welder.  I bet dollars to donuts the classes at the community college would love to have you.  Little boys shouldn't be told they can't be nurses or watch babies. It's fun to watch babies just like it's fun to weld and boss people around.

Choosing to work less hours is clearly correlated to the  fact that women have a greater involvement in raising children and caring for relatives.

yep, they tend to.  And those are choices they make.

There are plenty of women that need to combine a job with family care. Creating a family is often a handicap for their professional careers. Becoming pregnant very often entails an interruption of the professional career and even termination.

yep and more choices

I think it's a bit contradictory that you mention cultural expectations and discrimination and then you say devoting to raise chidren or family care is just a choice that women do. It's not a simple choice, rather it's a choice conditioned by cultural expectations and traditional gender roles. Women have assumed the role of caregivers throughout history and that's what they are supposed to do, from a traditional point of view. These choices are also related to the unequal distribution of responsibilities between men and women regarding family care and housework. This distribution of unpaid activities represents another gender gap. It's obvious this factor hurts women in their professional careers