[Taxacom] Workplace gender quotas in science and elsewhere

[Stephen Thorpe]

This subject is perhaps a bit off-topic for Taxacom, but workplace gender quotas may be applied to taxonomic jobs as much as any other, so I thought it might be worth highlighting a most ridiculous spin being put on research to defend workplace gender quotas against the objection they are unmeritocratic (=candidates of high merit may miss out just because they are yet another male).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/workplace-gender-quotas-incompetence-efficiency-business-organisations-london-school-economics-lse-a7797061.html

The argument seems to be that far from being unmeritocratic, workplace gender quotas actually weed out men of mediocre/low merit (competence), so it is all good!

Quite apart from the fact that "Those with higher incomes were deemed more competent", which is itself laughable for fairly obvious (I hope!) reasons, the real killer in this argument is this, I suggest: 

With a quota in place, what are you going to do? (A) Replace the most competent men with women; or (B) Replace the least competent men with women? It is a bit of a no-brainer (to say the least!) to opt for (B), so of course workplace gender quotas weed out men of mediocre/low competence!

Given that "Those with higher incomes were deemed more competent" and higher income=more senior role, all that is happening is that women are being selected for the less senior roles in order to keep the more senior roles male dominated!

Although this doesn't paint a good picture of workplace sexism, my main point is that the study actually does nothing to counter the objection that workplace gender quotas are unmeritocratic, even though that is how it is being spun! Sure, if you define competence in terms of income and somehow link it to the concept of "merit", men of lower competence ("merit") are being "weeded out", but this does nothing to counter the objection that men who would otherwise be hired on merit miss out simply due to the fact that they are men, and I would call that gender discrimination against men! Worse, it is quite consistent with a less competent woman being hired instead of a more competent man, however you define competency, if the male quota is already filled.

I am quite alarmed by the subversive and misleading nature of some so-called "research" in this area!

Stephen