http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-balance-...book_short

Quote:In such cases, where candidates who compete for Top Level Appointments Committee positions are of equal merit, then priority would be given to the female candidate where they are under-represented on the management board of the department or office in question.

Perhaps it's time men looking for a job cut off their penis? Haha. This is so retarded. Aren't you supposed to be hiring based on qualifications and merits? Nope, the Irish thinks hiring based on whether someone has a ding dong or a smooch pooch is a better method. Wtf is this world coming to? Lmao

@Irish,
Just say you identify as a woman. If someone questions you accuse them of Bigotry. That works, right? Lol ? ?

(January 16, 2017 at 10:39 am)pool the great Wrote: ...

Quote:In such cases, where candidates who compete for Top Level Appointments Committee positions are of equal merit, then priority would be given to the female candidate where they are under-represented on the management board of the department or office in question.

... Aren't you supposed to be hiring based on qualifications and merits? ...

First off... yes. Yes you are.  And that's why they say only after a merit analysis has determined the candidates are of equal merit will priority be given to the female candidate.

Let's suppose, as an example, that there's a 10-person management board, and that they're trying to fill a vacancy.  8 of the 9 people on the board already are men.  If the best candidate is a man, they'll hire him and 9 of the 10 will be men.  If the best candidate is a woman, they'll hire her and 8 of the 10 will be men.  If there are two candidates that are deemed to be equal, then being underrepresented breaks the tie, and they hire the woman. 

So, what they're really saying is "we want to be fair to all of the candidates, and evaluate them on their merits.  If that doesn't get us a clear winner, then we'll also factor in the value of having a diverse committee, and that will favor the underrepresented candidate."  Sounds all right to me.

And, of course, it also leads one to wonder: what was the reason there were 8 men and 1 woman on the committee?  Is it because men are better at this task than women?  Is it because there are far more men in this field than women?  Is it because the men in this field advance farther than the women in this field? Is it because, every time there's been an open position with two equally-qualified applicants, one a man and one a woman, the male-dominated board has chosen the man?

For a short period of time I wondered why pool would post something on gender discrimination. I wonder no more after reading the story.

(January 16, 2017 at 12:00 pm)abaris Wrote: For a short period of time I wondered why pool would post something on gender discrimination. I wonder no more after reading the story.

Women don't face gender discrimination lol

(January 16, 2017 at 11:52 am)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: First off... yes. Yes you are.  And that's why they say only after a merit analysis has determined the candidates are of equal merit will priority be given to the female candidate.

Let's suppose, as an example, that there's a 10-person management board, and that they're trying to fill a vacancy.  8 of the 9 people on the board already are men.  If the best candidate is a man, they'll hire him and 9 of the 10 will be men.  If the best candidate is a woman, they'll hire her and 8 of the 10 will be men.  If there are two candidates that are deemed to be equal, then being underrepresented breaks the tie, and they hire the woman. 

So, what they're really saying is "we want to be fair to all of the candidates, and evaluate them on their merits.  If that doesn't get us a clear winner, then we'll also factor in the value of having a diverse committee, and that will favor the underrepresented candidate."  Sounds all right to me.

Not only that, but this is for the Irish Civil Service, and it's not "legalizing" anything, it's a new departmental policy. Nothing in the article states that this is a new law, or that companies are suddenly required to do this. If it were, I'd be against it.

Also, while I'm fine with the idea behind this policy, the wording of it comes across as pro-female rather than pro-equality. One would hope that the policy also applies to men who are applying for positions that are dominated by females, if that situation ever came up.

(January 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm)pool the great Wrote:

(January 16, 2017 at 12:00 pm)abaris Wrote: For a short period of time I wondered why pool would post something on gender discrimination. I wonder no more after reading the story.

Women don't face gender discrimination lol

As certain members of this forum might say,

---

(January 16, 2017 at 12:09 pm)Tiberius Wrote: ...

Also, while I'm fine with the idea behind this policy, the wording of it comes across as pro-female rather than pro-equality. One would hope that the policy also applies to men who are applying for positions that are dominated by females, if that situation ever came up.

I agree with this.

I've just never seen an instance. If I did I'd be against it too haha

Pool, stamping his feet and running crying to mammy every time someone disagrees with him since 28/06/2015. What's wrong now pool, afraid some lowly woman will steal the job you "deserve" but have done nothing to earn?

(January 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm)pool the great Wrote: Women don't face gender discrimination lol

Forget the article. I'm just wondering how such a discerning gentleman like Pool can tell when someone else has gone full retard.

I mean, what's his basis of comparison?