Gender Quotas Are A Necessity To Close The Gender Gap

In the last month alone, there have been countless revelations of the extent of institutional gender discrimination in the UK. Not only did the governments gender pay gap study find that over three quarters of UK companies pay men more than women on average, but today, the Fawcett Society have revealed that men dominate positions of power in every single sector of our society.

Every. Single. One.

In fact, their index showed that women make up 6% of FTSE 100 CEO’s, 16.7% of Supreme Court Justices, 17.6% of national newspaper editors, 26% of cabinet ministers and 32% of MPs. For Black, Asian and minority Ethnic (BAME) women, the statistics are even worse. There are no BAME women at the top of FTSE 100 companies, and they only make up 4% of MPs.

As a result of the findings, the leading organization in gender equality is calling for gender quotas to ensure women have a fair chance at key positions. They’re also demanding all jobs be advertised as flexible unless there was a business reason for them not to be. Sam Smethers, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said:

‘When we see this data brought together it is both shocking and stark – despite some prominent women leaders, men haven’t let go of the reins of power and progress is painfully slow,

‘Equality won’t happen on its own. We have to make it happen. That is why we are calling for time-limited use of quotas and making all jobs flexible by default.’

Advocating for positive discriminatory tactics, the gender quotas would be time-limited, used ‘across public bodies and the boards of large corporate organisations, enabled by law.’ They would ensure that employers are forced to recognize gender bias towards men when hiring and rectify that by employing women into positions of power.

Watch: Highlights from The Debrief's International Women's Day panel...

While gender quotas are widely regarded as an essential step-forward to ensure women are equally represented in the job market, there are arguments against them. The most common being that the promotion would no longer be based on merit, and would simply be ‘ticking a box’, implying the woman in the position didn’t earn the role and causing resentment amongst colleagues.

However, this argument assumes that employers currently hire on a merit-only basis. It implies that the reason men dominate positions of power and out-represent women is because they are more meritable and have all achieved their positions on the basis of merit alone. Failing to acknowledge the privilege men experience, this argument assumes that the job market is currently a level playing field for which men have all dominated simply because they are worthier.

Ideally, we wouldn’t want to live in a world where we need gender quotas, but we do not live in that world. In reality, gender quotas ensure that male privilege is taken out of the equation, forcing employers to address the way they hire people and recognize their own internalized misogyny. It levels the playing field in this sense, and if we’re using the box ticking analogy, puts a tick on her record where she would normally have lost many because of her gender alone- metaphorically of course, whether the employer recognizes they have done this or not.

Not only that, assuming all employers are going to run out and hire loads of unqualified women purely to meet their quota is ridiculous. Not only are there always women who are equally capable of doing jobs men currently dominate in, employers aren’t all nodding dogs, lining up to do the government’s latest bidding. Presuming a woman who has ticked the gender box alongside earning her position is less worthy of the job simply speaks to your own internalized misogyny and entitlement- so the next time someone throws the ‘you didn’t earn that position’ argument in your face, ask them, ‘did you?’.

Click through to see more statistics about sexism women face around the world...

This article originally appeared on The Debrief.