Men manage concessions to women: an argument in favor of female quotas.

 

After this first start, they had to face another kind of interactions and conversations, against men who dominated almost all spectra, political and institutional economic power and, in many cases, ideological and cultural. This confrontation led to important gains for women, but also involved a methodology of interaction which is still affecting human social relations, labor and corporate relations.

I mean that women claim their rights and men who are still mostly in front of the spaces of institutional, political and corporate management, end redesigning organizations and their incentives to make room for these claims, that is, the men managed concessions women.

This may be one explanation of why it costs so much to overcome the wage differential gap between women and men; according to the ILO, at current trends, it may take 40 or 50 years that the total convergence of wages occurs, that is, without having their current salaries negative correlation gender for women.

From a basic bag, the employment exchange, which had and still largely a male manager, selection criteria, promotion and remuneration are established involving seen the contents of the bag, the continuous improvement of the gender composition through the following mechanisms:

– More jobs in traditionally female positions, for example, fish processors, weaving or cleaning homes or offices.

– More women in positions traditionally male, such as truck drivers or firefighters.

– More women than men holding positions of supervision, management and direction of the same organization (to compensate for organizations that have stabilized inverse proportion).

– Better wages for women in the same positions and performance than men (to compensate for the reverse situation in many other organizations).

Why would they? Why would a male director would take the decision to overturn the gender composition of their teams and start limiting, dull, slow the progression of male executives, being good, to accommodate female profiles that might be of dubious benefit to him with respect to the first?

Moreover, even in cases where the manager is a woman’s bag, we are assuming that she is determined to take an action to correct this historical nonsense that affects the whole society role, but is not necessarily so. It is likely that the
decision-making woman, acting in defense of corporate interests it represents, touting their intelligence and competitiveness, choose only the best among them is available, which means actually a positive bias gendered choice inevitably.

She would have to discriminate good male profiles to favor equal or even not so good female profiles, as a tool to effectively contribute to the standardization of working conditions and opportunities for women and men. Because that is what has happened in history, capabilities men and equal to or less than other women performance were selected and promoted against their potential competitors, many of which could not even be there at that time and place to compete.

That is, what the woman posed as law, its main operational hurdle that the decisions makers related to the conditions of a certain status quo, which opened this space (say, for awareness and activism, either from a male or a female decision
makers) involves some form of concession to the woman in dispute.

That is why opportunities and wages take so homogenized. Only active affirmative action policies – promote female quotas beyond just normal choice between competitors — can incorporate changes that lead to more women, more quickly, to positions of power and salaries regardless of gender.

That and keep working for, from earliest childhood, redirect educational practices from the family, that teach women to wait and men to act.