Aiming for numerical gender equality in the workplace, or for equality of opportunity, changes the way equality is achieved. It is the question of indicators that is in fact raised: numerical objectives are generally necessary to initiate and measure progress, but what indicators are really legitimate for reporting on a reality that is rooted in such human and social complexity? 

Happy Men Share More proposes to shed light on this subject, without hiding its preference...

The numerical indicators implicitly refer, whether we like it or not, to an ideal of parity. In this logic, if there is inequality between men and women, it necessarily stems from discrimination, which is then an injustice. 

To repair these injustices, we must try to identify, and then eliminate, what generated them. When this is not possible, or not enough, or not fast enough, we can choose the hard way, quotas, also called positive discrimination. This approach immediately gives good results in figures, which always appeals to the world of management and communication.

However, the picture also has a dark side to it: the illegitimacy of those appointed by quotas and the discrimination of those who were not appointed because of quotas. Worse still, quotas, by artificially equalising the numbers, actually mask the lack of real change in the realities that generated the discrimination. Inequality will bide its time to reassert itself. 

Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.