Do you find a boycott of men a good solution to the diversity issues at universities and in the business world? What could be a better solution?

I think the best man or woman should be put on the vacancy.It is social capital destruction not to do so.

In addition , I think that at least the same efforts that they intend to do for this, or much more, must be used for training, or through better and other job descriptions, to be used really Make sure they are the best at half the spots!

So not the assumption policy but the training policy and job description policy must change.

Society leaves a lot of potential in the current way!It’s just too expensive not to use this potential.

A working relationship of 50 – 50% is a dream image.I think there are practical barriers, even without discrimination or backlogs. Politically-correct goals can also counterproductive work.

A temporary preference for women is not wrong, as correction.But such a thing must be accompanied by a change in mentality. Businesses must have more feminine sides in terms of functioning and culture. That’s what’s different from being woman-friendly, as if they are handicapped.

Improve the organization with a different approach, to take advantage of the power of female workers.Without too much generalizing, these often have complementary features that can have added value, up to the highest functions.

In fact, I think that a multi-disciplinary approach is needed in order to make the envelope so successful and sustainable.A push in the back for female workers and leadership, but also seriously stimulate another way of business and culture.

It is not about a boycott, but about first-time competent women to speak.If no competent women are found, the competent men will of course be dealt with.

What do you wish to achieve with a boycott, a quota system or any other system of priorities?

Do you wish to obtain a kind of balance?The question then is whether such a balance makes sense… Away but why? And what balance or proportions are desired?

Why has one come to an “imbalance”?Several reasons can be found here: fewer candidates, less interest, the work or the environment are more suitable for one of the 2 genera.

But a form of discrimination can also be a cause.It is that discrimination that one wants to oppose. The question then is why disciminates one? Discrimination is not always intentional and can be the result of historical evolution. For example, when a club, since its inception, only counted male members, this club environment is adapted to men.

An important reason for discrimination is because it assigns labels and thinks in clichés.

The unknown can also play a role.Suppose a woman joins the men’s club. This distorts the balance. The environment is not customized. The male members are going to behave differently. Is this not going to lead to conflicts? What adjustments will be needed to function normally. One does not know how this is going to evolve. This leads to many uncertainties. However, this fear is acceptable. But flexibility, adaptability, is also a competence that may be practiced and practiced too little.

Probably the main reason that one wants to oppose is that an individual is banned on the basis of a label, a cliché, a belief, an assumption or a generalization.This problem is about how one thinks.

Suppose you have an environment with persons with characteristic A. Persons with a characteristic B are excluded because it is thought that B-persons are not suitable.One wants to avoid making decisions based on thinking in terms of A-people and B-people. To balance (50%-50%) To recover one goes more B-persons accept, admit, support, etc.

These systems thus make use of the classification, of the label, of the characteristic on which discrimination exists, albeit with an inverse purpose, while one also just want a certain characteristic not to be used as criteria.The thinking is therefore confronted with this thinking back.

On the other hand, it can be said that once a mix exists, the environment and people have been able to adapt and the clichés (perhaps) have disappeared.But what exists for one attribute, can also exist for other characteristics.

There is a positive discrimination, sometimes to the detriment of more competent candidates.

Instead of growing spiritually, people are going to absorb their shortcomings with rules and systems.Is This an excellent act?

So it is perhaps better to immediately tackle the thinking in terms of clichés, etc.

This can be by starting to make people aware, not of general clichés-although this also helps-but especially of their clichés, prejudices, etc., how they play out in decision processes, how the (working) environment is unadapted (including the handling) and How one can adjust this.Thus, one can evolve towards an open and responsive mentality and environment.

One should actually come to see man, to be curious and to build a respectful, attentive relationship.

Leave a Reply