Is Equality Between the Two Genders Fair?

when, at the design stage, the size and weight of things like hoses were being determined (as they presumably aren't arbitrarily designed) it was the potential of a typically strong male that was the likely benchmark being used.

We encourage women to do engineering but we don't encourage them to become refuse collectors, a male dominated field.
We also encourage men to do engineering but we don't encourage them to become domestic cleaners, a female dominated field.
I believe this is a good thing, not because I want to get women into positions of power but because this is better for society overall.

I know nothing is being done about the gender imbalance in higher education. That's why I said it should to be looked at.

However, I also think that this isn't contradictory with the idea of pushing more men and more women into STEM.

I don't want quotas any more than you do, I don't really see why you brought it up.

My entire point was that providing targeted information actually improves the decision-making process.If a university convinces a male to do nursing who originally didn't consider it, what is the problem? And yes, these campaigns aren't totally costless but they aren't expensive either.

I'll repeat, I don't want to see gender imbalances corrected. What I want to see is the people going to fields they would excel in that they would not have originally gone into.

I think a more likely set of criteria was whether the hose could get enough water up to a given height in a given time, whether the materials used could withstand the necessary pressure, and whether the hose would reach far enough to cope with the foreseeable emergencies.

Deciding to use a garden hose of no more than thirty metres in length so that women could heft and control it might not be deemed to cut the mustard.

i think that each gender should get resources to make them equal

I think this hits the nail on the head. When we think of equality many seem to mix up opportunity with outcome. For example, I note young women are often asked about their plans for a family at interview. How many men have been asked similar questions?

I think this hits the nail on the head. When we think of equality many seem to mix up opportunity with outcome. For example, I note young women are often asked about their plans for a family at interview. How many men have been asked similar questions?

Of course men are asked this as well. I've been to interviews for jobs, work courses and for university. I've always been asked something along the lines of if not directly "where do you see yourself in ____ time?"

I get asked this question every other day...and so do all of my male friends particularly those who are old and still unmarried....why are you single? when are you going to get married? when are you going to have children? how many children are you going to have? what your family plans? Men hear these questions every other day and there is no malice, no sexism in these questions....except in the eyes of feminists who view family, marriage and children as forms of abuse.

That is a completely different question. That is asked to find out if you are ambitious or not.

That is quite a different question to, "Do you plan to have children in the next 5 years." which in breach of the Equalities Act 2010.

I put it to you, on a purely professional level, what business is it of anyone's to know about your home life, your personal relationships or your plans for a family? What on earth has that got to do with your ability to do a job?

And no, it isn't innocent. If you or your friends had said that they planned to have 5 kids within the next 5 years, chances are they wouldn't have got the job. How is that right?

You are probably going to say that people with kids are always taking time off and that justifies such questions. But would you expect to be interrogated about how much you drink a week and if you go out on a week day night (arriving to work late or drunk), or would you expect a prospective employer to ask for the specifics of your commute to work so as to determine if you will be late each morning?

I put it to you, on a purely professional level, what business is it of anyone's to know about your home life, your personal relationships or your plans for a family? What on earth has that got to do with your ability to do a job?

And no, it isn't innocent. If you or your friends had said that they planned to have 5 kids within the next 5 years, chances are they wouldn't have got the job. How is that right?

You are probably going to say that people with kids are always taking time off and that justifies such questions.

But would you expect to be interrogated about how much you drink a week and if you go out on a week day night (arriving to work late or drunk), or would you expect a prospective employer to ask for the specifics of your commute to work so as to determine if you will be late each morning?

On a professional level? EVERYTHING...if I'm going to work a profession that requires I be around 12 hours a day for 5 days straight for an entire year, I cannot employ someone who wants to have children and take time off or work part-time.

And there in lies the problem and in my view is why companies have low staff retention rates and the country has low productivity.

You, like many employers seem to measure productivity by how much time someone is prepared to sit on a chair in front of the computer you give them and not the value they bring to the business.

I gave up my career as a software developer because I was fed up with working in environments where everyone looked busy but weren't actually producing anything. And that was simply down to poor management.

And there in lies the problem and in my view is why companies have low staff retention rates and the country has low productivity.

You, like many employers seem to measure productivity by how much time someone is prepared to sit on a chair in front of the computer you give them and not the value they bring to the business.

I gave up my career as a software developer because I was fed up with working in environments where everyone looked busy but weren't actually producing anything. And that was simply down to poor management.

I did not only mention time but physical ability too. A woman who is pregnant or planning to become pregnant cannot be hired for a job that requires someone to be around 12 hours a day 5 days a week for years on end a man can. Is it fair to give both these genders equal opportunity when one is superior to the other in this regard?

Would you hire someone that is only able to work part-time and is unable to carry out any physically demanding jobs for a job that is physically demanding, one that requires the employee to be around full-time? NO...Let me give you an example of the implications of hiring such a person to such a role in healthcare. It would mean people dying because the doctor isn't around. It would mean people falling off trollies in hospitals because the pregnant female doctor or healthcare professional is unable to lift them effectively...it would mean hiring more people to fill the gap created by hiring such women to compensate for their physical lacking and their inability to be around full-time and this of course means billions and billions in costs to the tax payer....

...and this is exactly what is happening here in the UK in the NHS....decades of sexist women gender initiatives have forced men out of this profession and women into it....the NHS is now paying tens of billions of pounds every year in replacement doctors required to fill the gap created by female doctors most all of whom work part-time.

I think the main point, is that despite what you think or would like to think, it is none of your business what someone chooses to do in the future. Sure, you would like to have that control but you can't. It is just one of those things businesses have to suck up. However, you are looking at it far too one dimensionally. Many women quit work after their maternity is up because the business is not prepared to be flexible. As a result the business looses all that knowledge and skill that has been invested.

Similarly, businesses that only hire men thinking they are a safer bet loose the creativity born by a diverse team and workforce. I was heartened to hear from a number of tech business leaders last week at a conference I attended on this very subject that they are going out of their way to encourage women into their business. Not because of some moral crusade, but simply because they recognise that women bring a different style of creativity to their teams and are essential if they are to maintain an upper hand.

For too long businesses have seen employees like robots. It is a simple transaction of money for time. What businesses are forgetting is that people are very expensive and the time spent learning the job is very costly. Businesses can't afford to lose people on a whim and short sighted solutions like not employing someone because they might have a year off takes a very short sighted view indeed. Companies that invest in their people and accept that some may have children are the ones people want to work for. They are the companies that get to pick the best talent out there and they are the companies that retain their staff.

Generally speaking, men and women are capable of the same things. Hence we should expect to see equal outcomes in an increasingly equal world.