Gender Quotas: Is fighting Inequality with Favoritism the right way?

If you haven’t heard about the women’s quota debate yet, here’s a quick definition for you: women’s quota is a system that demands a certain number or percentage of women constitute a leading assembly, committee, or government. Its aim is to balance gender representation.

The goal of this new hiring process is to try and even out the numbers of men and women in the workplace, to help kick-start a new era.

I do believe, though, that the problem is not only in numbers, but mostly in the culture that surrounds corporate environments, board rooms and the parliament assembly.

A frame from the series “Mad Men”, 2010. Men’s meeting, one woman handing documents over.

Employers would still rather hire men over women with the same qualifications, and we shouldn't even get started on the wage gaps in too many industries (WGEA, 2019). Despite several companies’ efforts to include more women and create a more diverse work environment, board positions are still mainly filled with white gentlemen (WGEA, 2019).

It is undeniable that men tend to get better jobs and roles and they are more likely to be promoted. This is one of the reasons why women have such a hard time trying to climb that broken career ladder. If the ones who make decisions and manage the hiring process are exclusively men, the way up looks like a steep hike on Mount Everest with fresh snow and no ropes. And it’s not just because a male employer would most likely hire a man over a woman. It’s also because women don’t feel inspired and are discouraged by their management, so many of them don’t even try (WGEA, 2019). 

Image of a business woman standing in front of a crowd, supposedly in a corporate meeting.

Just think about it: when a female worker has strong female examples to follow, it’s a lot easier for her to feel safe and apply for roles that would otherwise intimidate her. The fear doesn't come from lower qualification or inadequate education, but from the risk that a male-dominated corporate environment could potentially involve for a solo woman. We are talking about marginalisation, delegitimization and, sadly but possibly, harassment.

The issue of representation in leading groups is also connected to misleading job descriptions and advertisements. These false ads can discourage women and cause them to think they’re not right for the role, even though they have the same qualifications of many other candidates. In fact, several studies confirmed that words matter when it comes to job descriptions and expectations (WGEA, 2019). Yes, words can speak to specific genders and, when that’s the case, the goal of a diverse workplace is compromised.

Those reasons and facts don't seem to justify the adoption of quotas, especially on director’s boards and in managerial roles, though a quota-based system could be illegal, in some countries, and perceived as unfair by the other side, no matter how easy their life might seem. If we add the risk of disapproval and marginalization of those women who get the job through quotas, the resolution to this debate seems far from hand.

To many, it doesn’t seem fair that on the way to eliminate the gender gap, we’re willing to circumnavigate meritocracy to reach a new level of injustice. After all, not all men are the cause of inequality and until recently, this issue was not on the radar for many people.

Imagine a company is hiring board members and only 20% of candidates are women. Shouldn’t the numbers speak for themselves? Obviously, with such a low percentage of female candidates for certain job roles, a board room will never have enough women to balance the long-standing fraternity club.

This is why I strongly believe that one important step towards an inclusive culture is the elimination of that toxic, old-fashion mentality most of the leading groups perpetuate. This step has been left untouched for too long. 

We cannot expect this change to happen worldwide in just a year. This is a slow process of awakening that started way before we heard it on the news or before the “Me Too” and “Time’s Up” movements were born. Women have always been subject to inequality and have known what being powerless and unheard really feels like, for too long now. But assuming we will overcome those difficulties by adopting a method which puts us in a favourable position over men when applying for a job, would be like saying the inequality we lived on our skins was right. 

Portrait picture of a golden desk sign with “Lady Boss” written on it. Few books on the side of it and a little plant in a jar behind the sign. Photo by (click here for link) Marten Bjork on (click here for link) Unsplash

I guess this debate could go on for ages, and it certainly will, but it’s not enough to talk about it. We have a responsibility to make it work for us and for future generations. What our children will be able to achieve stands on our shoulders and we need more leaders (both men and women) to challenge the status quo in their work environment and build a safer place where everybody can perform their best.

By: Alessia Francischiello
Sources:

WGEA. (2019). Gender equitable recruitment and promotion. Retrieved from Workplace Gender Equality Agency: https://www.wgea.gov.au/gender-equitable-recruitment-and-promotion

WGEA. (2019). Gender workplace statistics at a glance 2018-19. Retrieved from Workplace Gender Equality Agency: https://www.wgea.gov.au/data/fact-sheets/gender-workplace-statistics-at-a-glance-2018-19

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sydney Feminists. Our Blogger and Tumblr serve as platforms for a diverse array of women to put forth their ideas and explore topics. To learn more about the philosophy behind TSF’s Blogger/ Tumblr, please read our statement here: https://www.sydneyfeminists.org/a