Mumsnet Talk

bidisha-online.blogspot.com/2011/07/to-coincide-with-its-50-th-anniversary.html

Is this really a product by the same charity that tells us "Women's rights are human rights" on its web site?

Hmm, this smacks of little of trying to get angry about something. They're only two episodes in, after all. Positive discrimination just doesn't fly in creative areas.

"Positive discrimination just doesn't fly in creative areas."

really?? and why does it need to be positive discrimination rather than just an attempt to ensure that different voices are able to be heard? to me the initial list reads as though someone called up their pals - who all just happen to be men...

Cannot believe there are no women who could have been on this team.

It isn't us trying to get angry. It's an insult to women that they looked for the best production team and excluded 51% of the population as not as good as 49%.

Well someone's doing positive discrimination, in favour of men, so it obviously DOES fly.

It's just that that is the accepted status quo.

"positive discrimination"? Doesn't fly?

Y'know, women are under-represented in media, especially such as film and tv. Last year was the first time ever a female director had won an Oscar. We prefer to keep the women on the screen, performing scripts written by male writers, produced by male producers, edited by male editors, and cast in the role of tropes.

And you don't have a problem with that?

I do. Maybe it's because it's the area I want to work in post-graduation, but it bugs me. It bugs me that 60% of my coursemates will have to work harder to get into their career choice, because they're female. It bugs me that male directors, producers and editors earn more on average, something which is argued as being a result of quality oof work, not gender. It bugs me that female directors, writers and producers are discredited by audiences, often before they give the film a chance.

Now tell me we're getting angry over nothing...

DCMP So once you start work in the area, would you rather be hired due to your CV and talent, or your genitalia?

There is a big problem with glass ceilings in media, I agree - a related Bidisha post is very revealing - but Amnesty TV didn't install those ceilings, nor do they have a particular duty to smash them (imo).

Their goal is to bring together "an all-star list of journalists, comedians, cartoonists, filmmakers and pranksters to produce the show": it's not their fault that relatively few women manage to break through to 'all-star' status.

Putting a production team together based on their characteristics, and not their creativity, is ridiculous, and that way lies even more accusations of inequality ("Oh, men and women, but no Asians?", "Oh, men and women of various races, but no disabled people?", etc.)
I expect the team was put together because work they produced in the past was similar to what was wanted on this project, or that they're recommended by others hired for that reason.

Also, the claim that an all-male team making comedy Youtube videos is "a smack in the face for all activists and human rights workers" is ludicrous, and borderline offensive - as if Iranian female students or Jordanian migrant workers care that a sketch was written by men, and not men and women.

I'd rather be hired due to my CV. My point was it is harder for a female to build up a CV in the industry. Are you really telling me that AI couldn't find credible female production team memers?

Also, are you telling me they couldn't buck the trend and use up and coming stars, thus being more likely to give a woman or two a role?

MrsR, men have better CV's because of their genitals.

That's why they're hired.

" Amnesty TV didn't install those ceilings, nor do they have a particular duty to smash them (imo)"

Of course they do. They're an organisation dedicated to human rights. Having women's voices heard, is a global human rights issue. Amnesty know that, they've said it, they've campaigned on it. And then when it comes to their own products, they make sure that women's voices are not heard.

It's unbelievable actually.

"Of course they do. They're an organisation dedicated to human rights."

Amnesty has finite resources - the gender balance of their comedy writers should be pretty far down the list of priorities.

Sorry, they should be sticking to the morals they preach. The gender balance should be pretty high up the list... Along with other representations. (race, religion, disabilities etc)

Um, discrimination against half the human race, is one of the most important human rights issues there is actually. It should be at the top of Amnesty's list, not far down the priority list after all the men's rights have been solved.

I really really hate this assumption that all men lists = meritocracy. Men better than women? No.

I'll say it again for the hard of thinking. If a (quite long) list of people hired to do a job are all of the same sex, especially in an industry where there is a good mix of genders, positive discrimination is at work. Should men be hired just for having cocks? No. So is this list an example of positive discrimination? Yes. In favour of men. The only alternative explanation is that there are no good women to do the job, which is just bullshit frankly.

Am so angry, Amnesty is the one organisation that I donate to. I am fed up with hearing men's voices and men's voices alone - it means crucial things are missed. Seriously, they have dropped the (hur hur) ball on this.

I work in this industry. Have to say that in my experience it's an industry where women do well, hold many senior positions and are as respected as men. Granted, I have experienced sexism but it tends to come from 'old school' men, who've been working for years but they are thankfully few and far between, IME.

I'm management, I employ / hire & fire and it's always based on best person for the job.

Amnesty should have approached me to put the team together!

It sounds as though Amnesty had an opportunity to put their ideals into action in a very visible way, and blew the chance. Did they think no one would notice? Did they just not think? It just makes one question just how genuinely embedded those ideals of social justice are within the structure and culture of the organisation if this was the result.

Contacts page here

No one is answering their phone, though.

Hello

This morning Neil Boorman, one of the Gang of Eleven, emailed me with a polite message. I replied to him and have now put both messages, unedited, at the bottom of the article.

www.bidisha-online.blogspot.com/2011/07/to-coincide-with-its-50-th-anniversary.html

Good response by you.

Love the suggestion that you might want to help "the team" by contributing your ideas etc. Er, why would you want to do that?!

If anyone wants to get in touch then you can do so:

■Call on +44 (0)20 7033 1777
■Email feedback@amnesty.org.uk
■Text on +44 (0)20 7033 1664
■Write to us at Amnesty International UK Section Charitable Trust, The Human Rights Action Centre, 17-25 New Inn Yard, London EC2A 3EA

I just spoke to a really helpful woman there who says there will be a response soon. She "got it", especially the fact that it's not the content but the team involved that is problematic, that women's voices are essential, and that it's shocking that even Amnesty can just let this happen without thinking.

Anyone else who's annoyed please get in touch (phone/email) because they're logging all responses and will put them in front of the board. Don't forget to mention if you're a donor.

Sorry copy and paste being a bugger there.

Excellent piece. It's so depressing but at least they're getting repsonses now.

Anyone else been in touch with them?

I have sent this to someone working for AI precisely on gender and pluralism. I am sure she will pick up the fight! Thank you for this Bidisha

This is so shocking coming from AI! And really sad too

It's everywhere isn't it? It really is.

<depressed mother of two daughters>

I've just blogged about this linking to Bidisha's site. Thanks for those contact details elephants. This is abominable.

I could not fucking believe this when I read this bit:

"“This, with no editorialisation, using information from the press release, is the permanent production team behind Amnesty TV:

Mike Bradley, former producer and director at Charlie Brooker’s News Wipe and Screen Wipe

Iain Morris, co-creator of the Inbetweeners

Neil Boorman, creator of C4 show Shoreditch Twat

Comic-strip creators Modern Toss, aka John Link and Mick Bunnage

Chris Atkins, writer and director of Taking Liberties and Starsuckers

cartoonist Robert Thompson

Writer/director duo Misery Bear, two men called Chris Hayward and Nat Saunders

Illustrator Anthony Burrill

Tally: 10 white men, 0 women.

Their human rights issues experience, gleaned from News Wipe, Screen Wipe, The Inbetweeners, Shoreditch Twat, Modern Toss, Misery Bear and Starsuckers: none.“

Geez, if that's not enough evidence that men get handed their positions of power on a plate because of their gentalia as opposed to their experience then I don't know what is.

How can they look at themselves in the mirror knowing that the only reason they got their jobs was because they have a penis.

Actually, I remember contacting Amnesty once about a woman's issue, which I believed to be a human rights issue. It was a Morrocan immigrant mother in spain who had her baby taken into care because she refused to stop breastfeeding . The child wasn't even two. You haven't heard wrong. THe state decided it was time for her to stop and because she didn't they put her daughter in an institution

Anyway, I contacted Amnesty and didn't even get so much as an automated e-mail.

Now I understand why.
Are women human?

Sakura,
I do not think this 10 men are the ones to blame, really. I think AI has made a mistake, a big one. And I really hope they will rethink all of it and be wiser.

They seem to have tried in other areas. They are what they are, an NGO established by white men to fight for prisoners rights and torture. As they have become global in their action they have had to reconsider this. From where I watch (I am not a AI member, just from what I know) they have expanded their action to other rights and also recently introduced clearly gender and women's rights.

Obviously this has to be reflected not only on the scope of their action but also inside their own organisations.

I

Did not see your other post Sakura about the Morrocan mother. In case you do not know what happened to her next: after thousands of mothers and some organizations put lots of pressure on the government (I do not think AI among them) the case was reassessed and she recovered her daughter. It was a terrible case.

What a fucking load of shit. I bet the special boys club had a lovely time dreaming up this lot at the bar of Shoreditch House.

I do think some of the 10 men are to blame, camaleon, because clearly from their existing professional links they've recommended/hired each other. And you'd have to be incredibly short-sighted not to scan down the team list and realise that perhaps an alternative perspective might be welcome.

IMHO this is a case of AI getting too much into branding themselves as hip (they've done a lot of being at parties getting artists and musos to be photographed holding Amnesty signs recently - no bad thing in itself) and as a result losing the plot.

Quodlibet,
Precisely because these men are not precisely human rights activist/experts/whatever and are so used to get hired the way you are describing it does not strike me as bizarre they have just accepted the contract or whatever agreement to work with AI.

They may probably believe they are contributing to a fantastic cause. They may even be doing it for half the money then normally charge (no idea about this... just guessing). I do not expect them to think otherwise at all. I do expect very different standards from AI though.

Yes Quod. IME/IMO Amnesty bosses who might not be used to media stuff have probably just "left them to make something cool". It's really important that the end product is good, funny etc as otherwise it's a big waste of time and money, but bonkers really to think that no-one would care that it's a load of pretentious, pretty juvenile white middle class boys getting together to speak up for "the oppressed". Piss off, quite frankly.

camaleon
I didn't say the 10 men were to blame. I said they were handed their jobs on a plate because they're men. Society is structured to make it so.
Considering the job they were given, it's very strange that none of them joined the dots. Proves they're incompetent really doesn't it!

BUt thank you for letting me know about what happened to that Morrocan mother, camaleon. It was an awful case. Look how much energy we women have to use to get justice for one woman because some grey-headed men at the top who hate mothers have made the rules.

I got a response back:

My colleagues have now had the opportunity to consider the feedback that we've received regarding Amnesty TV, and I would like to pass on their response as follows:

We were grateful for the feedback in Bidisha’s blog and from those who took the time to phone in to Amnesty and comment on Mumsnet and other forums. We take the content of any complaints seriously, and convened a review meeting on 3rd August to look at the matters raised.

We know there are barriers to participation for women and people from minority ethnic communities in the UK media industry in general and in TV production specifically. Women make up 39% of the film production workforce with only 15% in the camera department.

The internal Amnesty TV team has a 50:50 gender balance. Unfortunately this was not communicated in the press release, which focused on the names of the many high profile volunteers who have contributed to the production of Amnesty TV so far. To some degree this reflects the nature of the industry we are venturing into for the first time. We do understand that the communication around the project raised concerns amongst some of our supporters, and we have learnt from this. We are also committed to looking at ways to ensure that opportunities to support the project in a freelance or voluntary capacity are available to a diverse range of talent.

(ENDS)

I hope that the above will go some way to addressing your concerns over this issue. If you have any further comments you wish to add to the feedback you have given us, please let us know.

Thank you again for contacting us to let us know your views.

Best wishes,
Gordon Bennett

Surely this man's real name is not Gordon Bennett? Is he taking the piss?

So, never mind that the first episode has a message from Aung San Suu Yyi, a piece about the female drivers in Saudi Arabia and features sketches from Smack the Pony.... I grant you that in an industry that is pretty balanced gender-wise it rather odd that the team is all male, but should we really get so excited / upset? Maybe they were the teams who happened to be around? If it was an all-female team would we get upset that it wasn't representative / valid? Doubt it...

Are we saying that if it just happens to be the case that the people who present themselves to do a job all happen to be of one gender or race we should knock a few back until someone 'diverse' pops up? Is this thread an argument for quotas?

I dare say that the Amnesty gig isn't exactly well paid by the way... a lot of the work is done by volunteers.

I don't get it. Are you saying every department everywhere should be 50:50?
A large organization could have an even split but as you break down the departments the balance could skew. Besides, why should people have to pick shit employees because of their genitals? If the best 11 are (identifier x) so what?

Lots of jews in Hollywood, is that a conspiracy? Should they be looking in the mirror and blah blah blah

Correlation does not imply causation

Way to go Sakura for completely devaluing the highly-talented people who have volunteered to give up their time to create an entertainment channel that provides a forum for human rights issues... "How can they look in the mirror knowing they only got the job because they have a penis" Nothing to do with their abilities then? Talk about blinded by your politics...

You are, most likely, considereably more sexist than any of the people at AITV.

"Are you saying every department everywhere should be 50:50?" No somethingwitty - but 11 to 0 isn't any way shape or form representative of a gender balance. Plus none of those 11 people seem to have human rights experience.

"Besides, why should people have to pick shit employees because of their genitals?" Precisely!

And at jenny saying sakura is sexist.

If you're creating a medium for human rights issues do you want experience in human rights or experience in the medium you are creating?

Yes, Sakura is sexist. She is dismissing the talents of the men who volunteered to undertake this worthy task and reducing them to their gender. Sexism; look it up.

Hello - in the increasingly sordid Amnesty TV saga, as everyone is crawling all over themselves to get around the reality of the whole "11 white male producers, 0 women" power-club, I have been contacted by yet another member of this club, Chris Atkins, who has worked on one major human rights project called taking Liberties. His email is fair, clear and lengthy, Taking Liberties sounds important and interesting and I have printed it in full, along with my apology and response.

http://www.bidisha-online.blogspot.com/2011/07/to-coincide-with-its-50-th-anniversary.html

Amnesty's response, clipped above by another Mumsnet user, is sadly typical of large organisations. I am sure the "internal team" certainly is 50:50 men and women. I am sure, in fact, that the majority of all support staff, admin people, event producers, fixers, managers, executives, doers, campaigners, champions, volunteers and other people whose incredibly hard work, devotion, good faith, good thinking and efficiency are used, exploited and unacknowledged are women. This is the case everywhere. We live in a society which uses women's labour and does not credit it.

What I know is this: Amnesty send me a long and detailed press release about the launch of Amnesty TV. Its named major players are 11 white men and 0 women. Even the top producer, Neil Boorman, does not deny this in his email to me and neither does Chris Atkins, another of the team, who has written only to counteract the claim that of the 11 men on the team, none have human rights experience. I acknowledge my error and have amended the piece. Of the 11 men and 0 women producing Amnesty TV, 1 has worked on 1 project.

I am sure there are no secret women in secret, unnamed, un-publicised but equally high-status, useful and important roles in the Amnesty TV project. Naming is power itself : the 11 men named in the press release, which is probably sent to journalists and media outlets globally, will benefit hugely from their association with this project. The equal number of women on this 50:50 totally equal project team (ha ha) will not, because they have not been named publicly. They will not be interviewed about it, their work will not be requested by other people who want to collaborate with them, they will not be celeberated or seen as associated with the project at all, because Amnesty did not even bother to mention them.

Hello - a very funny update. Chris Atkins has emailed me again and written, "I could have a debate about how positive discrimination harms the very people it is supposed to support."

http://www.bidisha-online.blogspot.com/2011/07/to-coincide-with-its-50-th-anniversary.html

LOL. Sorry, but how does positive discrimination harm men?

And how gobsmackingly arrogant. Let's have a discussion about things I want to talk about, which I consider important, because what you're talking about is displeasing to me and I get to set the agenda.

Right on.

"I could have a debate about how positive discrimination harms the very people it is supposed to support."

'To support' presumably means women and the discussion currently being undertaken being that they should have rejected the help from some of the male 11 internet-broadcast professionals and waited for some female volunteers. This is called positive discrimination. Allen is neither suggesting that it harms men or a change to his own personal agenda.

Don't you just wish some people could read and comprehend a little better?

My point is that we already have positive discrimination. In favour of men. No one notices because it's the default.

I'm not sure if you understood that Jenny but pretended not to in order to have a dig at me. If it's the latter then it's pathetic. If the former, then it's understandable from you.

Sorry the former should have said something along the lines of you may genuinely not have realised that's what I meant.

Because most people don't realise that that's what we've got. They just accept it as normal.

Including Amnesty it seems.

How many should be not white, how many should be homosexual, how many should be disabled, how many should come from socio-economically disadvantaged area?

Once you have decided what the quotas are going to be, what happens to those who have to be sacked to make room. What will the hetrosexual white nurses and teachers who have been sacked do?

When a new country joins the EU and they have to be quotaed in to your utopia who will pay for the retraining of the British nationals who have to leave to rebalance their untermensch status?

Does noone hear have DS? I do, and I see how hard it is for them. How are you able to sustain such hatred, which if directed to blacks or jews why be screamed down?

What are you talking about somethingwitty? the inly hatred constantly expressed on mn, is that which is expressed by the tiresome men's rights activists who are so easy to spot and think no one's noticed them.

Pointing out that white, middle class, heterosexual, able-bodied men are privileged versus the opposite group, is not hatred. Getting angry when people point that out and accusing those pointing it out of hatred, looks very like projection to me.

Oh, definitely clear as mud...

jenny can you cut out the personal digs please.

It makes you seem like you have an axe to grind - which I am sure you haven't

Apologies. Not just me though is it?

'Untermensch', somethingwitty?
What a strange thing to say.

Jenny do you find it odd that the best people for any role just happen to always be middle class white blokes? I do. I don't think the rest of us are that inferior. Do you?

Isn't it amazing how many scenarios end up with white males at the forefront in our post-feminist, choice-rich, anyone can do anything utopia?

I reckon women are either not good enough or don't want it enough. Those must be the only explanations, surely?

We live in a meritocracy AyeRobot. The evidence is all round you. So yes, your analysis must be correct.

Oh, I just thought it was a case of thousands of strange coincidences. Like when you meet your nan's best mate's grand-daughter's childminder in a cafe in Oostend.

Or that women are just not up to the job and the cream rises to the top, like you said.

FFS.

"Jenny do you find it odd that the best people for any role just happen to always be middle class white blokes? I do. I don't think the rest of us are that inferior. Do you?"

What have I said that translates into that? I have already said that this situation is decidedly odd. The question I haven't seen answered is whether some of the people on the team should have been rejected on the basis that they were white males. These are volunteers remember, all of whom have given up their time to help a worthy charity.

No they shouldn't have been rejected becaus they are white men.

There ought to have been a wider pool of candidates than just white men.

Don't forget women's choices. No woman probably even applied for the Amnesty job, instead preferring to stay home with the kiddies, or do some very useful and necessary admin work back in the office.

"do you find it odd that the best people for any role just happen to always be middle class white blokes"

What like in football, athletics, the top 40, tv newsreaders? should all these well sought after and well renumerated positions be subject to positive discrimination?

They are.

In favour of middle class white men.

HTH

Possibly there was, but, equally, maybe they just put the word out that they were looking for volunteers who specialised in online media and this is who replied... We don't know do we? I'm pretty certain of one thing though: no one sat down and decided that these people should all be men.

Remember, the blogger accepts that the team is not actually all men - they just chose to mention certain roles, all of whom happened to be men. I very much doubt that this is deliberate either. I posted earlier that the first few episodes have an address by Aung San Suu Kyi and contributions from Smack the Pony. I can't see anyone acknowledging this, but quite a few ready to condemn it all beyond actual reason.

Actually scrap the middle class bit when it comes to sport and music and scrap the white bit when it comes to sport.

But oh look, they're nearly all male.

No one sits down and decides they should all be men because that's the default position.

If they were all women, someone would have sat down and decided so.

Or in any job/industry really, somethingwitty, even the less glamourous ones.
Do you think it odd?

Using football and athletics as examples is just silly, given there are physiological differences between men and women, I don't think any feminist would argue there isn't.
The Top 40 is hardly dominated by white middle class blokes - or maybe it is these days... TV newsreaders don't read the autocues with their genitalia either .
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

HB Football, athletics, news presenters and the top 40 is positively discriminating against everyone but middle class white men? Can you justify this please?

I'll grant you that the news tends to prefer the middle classes - perhaps they should have less university graduates in journalism? Grateful for your confirmation that this is what you're after...

How lovely of them that they've offered to bear women in mind for 'freelance or voluntary roles'. Look, everyone, it's fine, women can still make the tea without being paid, you can stop worrying!



Depressing enough when you have to confront sexism from the usual sources, such as the current government. Really frustrating when it's from liberal organisations that supposedly fight for civil rights.

Actually, yes - they are rather strange examples SW82...

Jenny I refer you to my post of 11.47

Don't know what you're on about viz journalists. HAving a degree doesn't make you middle class.

Edam - are you willfully trying to be offended? First the criticism is for not having women on the team and when they then say 'you're right, we'l try and get some' you start smacking them over the head for offering them voluntary work... I do think it just isn't possible for anyone to win with some of the attitudes in these posts.

They're strange examples because the poster setting them up is someone who isn't interested in what we're discussing here: women's voices being heard and represented properly.

Well actually, they do win Jenny.

They get the best jobs.

That's winning IMO.

I want to talk about your random and incorrect generalisation at 2344 - I hardly think a post you made at 1147 can justify a mistake you made twelve hours later.

If you want to say that it is significantly easier to get into the boardroom of a FTSE 100 company if you're a middle class white male I'll agree with you, but what you said was just absurd.

What is your definition of middle class please? I would suggest that a university degree is certainly one of the criteria.

Jenny - are you wilfully trying to offend? Or are you genuinely unaware of feminist issues, or do you just not think they matter? I'd be very interested to hear you explain your perspective.

What are you on about?

11 hours earlier? Can you stop this crap please?

I'm not interested in going down the wanky examples post Jenny, I'm interested in discussing why a human rights organisation thinks it's OK to cut women out of the decision making process and public profile of its TV venture.

And I don't have to justify myself to you Jenny.

That would be a separate discussion wouldn't it? You could tell me which bit of the above you find offensive and you also what you think I've said that suggests I think equal opportunties for women does not matter. I might then ask you what bit of what is written above does not count as a genuine opinion.

Before all that though, I think I'd prefer if someone who is critical of AI here would have rejected the offer of help from the men concerned and waited until a female proponent of their skillset was found. This is a question I've asked three times already, but people seem more concerned with asking me 'what my agenda is'. I feel like I have to be put into a box or classified!!

"Before all that though, I think I'd prefer if someone who is critical of AI here would have rejected the offer of help from the men concerned and waited until a female proponent of their skillset was found. This is a question I've asked three times already"

I don't accept the framework of your question.

AI have a duty to ensure that they proactively go out and find women and BME group members to ensure their voices are heard in the decision making process and up front, as well as behind the scenes.

AI know that posh white men have the loudest voice in society, politics and the media. As a human rights organisation, they should be constantly seeking to redress that balance.

HB So why do I have to justify myself to you repeatedly? Can you make your rules for me the same as those you follow yourself please?

You tried to explain away a statment of yours that made no sense by reference to an earlier post - I didn't bring it up from the blue did I? I notice that you still haven't referred to it so I guess you know you made a mistake. Ok, I don't expect you to acknowledge this and I'll let it go. It does get a bit boring when you try to disparage a lot of what I say, but always hide behind dismissive statements when I query your posts.

Since you say you want to discuss it then PLEASE DO and answer my question as to whether you would reject the male volunteers and await female ones.

Ok, thank you. Not a bad answer.

I'd still suggest that in proactively going out and finding women and BME group members they are exercising positive discrimination. I am not saying that PD is bad, by the way, just that they are - by preferring women and BME members. On that basis the framework of your answer matches the framework of my question doesn't it?

the world is set up to exercise positive discrimination in favour fo white men (with a few exceptions), so attempting to redress that is not positive discrimination - it's trying to redress the balance. Or pissing in the wind, if you prefer.

The latter part of that post is meaningless and offensive and I'm reporting you. I'll report you every time you refuse to debate and just aim personal insults about me or disparage what I have written. I' have had enough of your behaviour and it needs to stop. My opinion is every bit as valid as you believe yours to be.

Rant over.

Yes, employing only white men is indeed exercising positive discrimination. I don't disagree with you. But this is not contradictory to my statement that if you actively seek to employ women you are also practicing positive discrimination. Actually, I think that this can be justifiable in a variety of situations, but let's be clear that this is what you are suggesting.

PS Just realised that when you said 1147 you meant 2347. I work in 24 hour time (like MN). You didn't get that when I mentioned the 12 hour time difference? Oh dear...

It's odd Jenny that all of your posts seek to dismiss feminists concerns about - well anything, really. That's why I asked you to clarify your perspective.

I haven't personally insulted you,.

I have criticised your behaviour.

I can't be bothered to engage with it.

And LOL at reporting me for not debating with you and disparaging what you've written. No one is under any obligation to debate with you (although it's rather grandiose to describe your engagement here as debate) and we're all allowed to disaparage what each other have written. What you write isn't uniquely sacred text.

And I disagree that what I am describing is positive discrimination. You will have to accept that no matter how many times you post telling me that it is, I am not going to agree with you. Even if you threaten to report me for not doing so.

And now I can't be bothered to engage with you any further tonight.

No I didn't get it Jenny, I don't study your posts that carefully, I don't find that a good use of my time.

Good night.

Ok, most posts, possibly, take issue with something someone has said. Certainly not all though... That's kind of how debate works though isn't it? If I agree with something, tbh, I'm not as likely to post 'I agree' as I am to take issue with something that I think is wrong. I would also agree that my personal world view is often not in line with the feminism 101 (as someone other than me called it recently). That is not to say that I do not believe extremely strongly in an equitable world in general and equality of opportunity for men and women specifically. What I certainly cannot stomach is general belly-aching, morally superior outrage and complete fiction.

In this case, do I think that AI set out to exclude women? No. Do I think they have a 'power club' as the blog suggests? No. Do I think they made a mistake? Probably. Much as it pains me to say it, I thik Herbex is correct when s/he says that they have a responsibility to ensure the minority voice. However, I would suggest that in the actual content of AITV they have done this. This fact seems to be irrelevant to a great many of the posters on this thread.

I also have to say that I also find the hectoring and condescending tone that the blogger adopts with the people at AI (who are genuinely attempting to deal with the issue) completely self-aggrandising. I think this can be a common fault with people who spend too much time grinding their axe on the internet!

HB It is abundantly clear that you don't study my posts very carefully and perhaps when you do we can have more constructive debate.

No, ok, we won't agree. But it simply isn't valid to suggest that positive disrimination within a single organisation cannot exist due to imbalances in other, completely separate, organisations. If you deliberately choose something you have deliberately chosen it. It doesn't matter if the rest of the world decided to choose something else! Whatever - this is semantics again.

To those who say its AI duty to go out and pick secondbest women and BME in order that their voices are heard:

Are these producers making their own voices heard, are they making TV about themselves? Seems to me they are acting as a megaphone and putting spotlight on others, making other peoples voices heard. Do you wish them to do this well and gain the most attention/donations/help or badly?

If you wish them to do it well then you must accept they pick the best people for the job and if thats not working class ugandan asian disabled muslim single mum leasbian asylum seekers with learning disabilites thats probably because they are all working for the BBC.

The available pool is smaller and liklihood of being picked, not to mention the lag time between demographics now and the deomgraphics of when these middles age white men passed out of uni

<sigh> They clearly don't pick the best people for the job. Otherwise the team wouldn't be restricted entirely to white, middle class men. Unless you think the best person for the job is always a white, middle class man.

ALWAYS? Always what? AI always pick white men or tv production?

Statistics.

How many people are in the industry of a suitable age with the suitable amount of experience?

what is the gendersplit

what is the class split

what is the ethnic split

Well, yes. But I think it's clear that the actual content and aim of AITV is of little relevance to the blogger who is fixated on the gender of the people taking part.

That said, I do think that AI (and indeed any organisation) should have the composition of its teams at the back of its mind. By all accounts the team is 50:50 in reality - so why was this not represented initially? It does indicate a lack of thought...

Edam - you think they put that team together thinking they needed middle class white men? Are you really that paranoid cynical?

Unless the industry is entirely composed of white men you'd expect a little more diversity in the team they chose. And the industry isn't.

It very probably isn't overt racism and sexism. It's probably recruiting in your own image and not thinking about diversity - not making any effort to avoid the innate preferences and prejudices that everyone has shaping your recruitment policy. Which is extremely disappointing from Amnesty, of all people.

jennyvstheworld

I think something that most posters here are missing out is that the conspiracy theorist blogger is as equally obsessed with race

I'd go along with that Edam... (post@1335)

Why do you think they are the best people for the job somethingwitty? Do you know something we don't, because their past form certainly doesn't seem to warrant it?

Oh and why do you think that women would be second best?

I think 82's point was that positive discrimination means that you are not choosing people purely on merit. I don't think there was an intention to suggest that female candidates would be second best...

Maybe it depends on your point of view when you read a post as to what you read into a post...?

My question was to somethingwitty.

At the top right of the post you'll see a link which says 'message poster'. That's what you need if you're after a private discussion.

Somethingwitty - if you want to reply to me please feel free. I am interested in your take on why you feel these men are the best for the job. Of course if you don't want to respond, that is OK too.

The idea that there's something unfair about being aware of diversity in recruitment is false. Positive discrimination is an attempt to right an unfair situation. As you can see from the 11 men situation, recruitment without paying attention to diversity is not recruitment on merit. It's recruitment of white men in preference to anyone else of equal - or better - talent. Unless you honestly believe that white men - and usually middle class white men - are always the best candidates for the job.

I've filled in Amnesty's online complaints form, pointing out I'm a donor (have a direct debit). It says I'll get an acknowledgment in a week and a full response in 20 days, which seems very slow.

.... it is probably worth pointing out that, unlike the US, positive discrimination is illegal in the UK...

Positive action which can include recruitment activities in ways/locations available to 'non' traditional' groups, retention and training activities to enable a wider diversity ( and actually strength in breath of experience and perspectives) is fairly standard fare in many organisations today....and it would maybe expected that an organisation such as Amnesty Int. would be both au fait in and keen to continue, bearing in mind what they actually do.

Think who is best for the job?

Whos past form?

Hate the game not the player, these people didn't recruit themselves Im guessing, who did? Isn't the AI CEO a woman? I blame her :p

Why do you think the 11 men on the production team got their jobs based on merit and therefore are best for the job (despite the fact that only one of them has very limited experience in producing human rights films)?

I don't hate these men - what on earth gave you that impression? Why would I - I don't even know them! And my annoyance is directed at Amnesty International rather than these men (although the one that replied to Bidisha was pretty arrogant).

Shoot them on sight!

Them post the pictures online, £1000 bounty for info leading to arrest ;)

whoops! wrong tab, my witty double entendre wasted!

It is a reasonable assumption that anyone given a job has been given that job on the basis of them being the best person to have applied - in terms of their ability to fulfil the remit. The whole point of this thread is that either AI deliberately excluded everyone but white men or they simply failed to notice. Yes, it's odd - but surely only the paranoid and/or obssessed would think it was the first of these.

A second question is whether, on considering the appointment of the final few of these positions, had they noticed that the team possessed little in the way of gender or colour diversity, they should have delberately excluded white male applicants and favoured female or non-white volunteers. If you think they should, I'll not necessarily disagree with you. This is a question that the strongest critics of AI seem shy of answering.

<falls off chair laughing at Jenny's unbelievably naive view of how jobs are awarded, particularly in areas such as media where contacts are everything>

what SB said. i saw the advert, applied and then i didn't get the job - wonder where I went wrong??

Second question/option is illegal, so not sure of the relevance of the question.

Many HR departments manage to have recruitment/diversity policies and processes to try and counter unconscious/implicit/inherent as well as active discrimination.

It appears here, that AI possibly didn't - I would say that is does raise questions about it's recruitment process.

<Ignoring the arrogant and patronising drone of some other posters...>

If you are 'countering active discrimination' - as you call it - and have an HR who 'manage' a diversity policy, then how does this apply in practice? Seems to me it is pretty much the same as PD except we wriggle around not calling it this. Please explain the fundamental differences because these it isn't evident from your post.

Google HR, diversity, recruitment and UK for full details and how this can be worked in practice....short synopsis

1. PD = recruitment based sole on gender or race, ie equal qualifications/experience not mandatory.

2. Equal Opps/positive action = you have 2 candidates equal qualifications and experience, you can choose to pick the person from the lesser represented demographic as the final deciding factor....basically to attempt counter peoples tendency to be subjective at this stage, and think person a is just like us, so will fit in better than person b who is different.

All of the above assumes that due diligence has been followed throughout the HR process which can often not be the case.

Yes - so hardly miles apart then are they? The principle is effectively the same. One would deliberately exclude the white male because he is a white male. Sorry Snow, but that's what I asked in the first place: I quote "(should they have) favoured female or non-white volunteers?"

Well no, I would disagree.

If we take this scenario as the example.

1. If PD was in play, AI could have recruited any woman or non white person...just to say they had, regardless of the experience of recruitee.

2. In the second scenario....they would be saying, actually we did find someone else who did have the same level of experience as the 11 white men we recruited, but we chose not recruit them anyway, which would raise the question as to why.

Which would bring the discussion straight back to all the points already raised on this thread by others....about how white men are privileged in terms of access to jobs and careers, unless policies and processes are put in place to allow others equality of opportunity.

...anyway, it is way past my bed time..so I am out.

Moving on... because clearly no one will say explicity that AI should have deliberately excluded someone for being a white male, even if this is a necessary part of what they are suggesting should have been the end result...

How can a criticism be based on an assumption that AI recieved offers of assistance from equally skilled candidates when this is not known?

Those who happen to have privilaged access to careers may mostly be white men, but that does not mean that all white men have priviliged access to careers (all spaniels are dogs, but not all dogs are spaniels etc...)

Good night.

Jenny, I suspect we simply see the world in very different ways.

Either you believe in equality of opportunity or you don't....reasons why it may be considered important include, giving a wider group of society access to interesting and/or lucrative careers and from the employers perspective trying to recruit the best person from as wide a pool as possible, giving them access to the best team possible.

.....returning back to AI, if the argument is they could not in 2011, find any equivalently qualified women and/or people of colour, in the sector of media and human rights....then I simply don't believe it. Particularly, since some of the recruitees don't have a particular record in human rights. Which to me suggests they did not find the best people for the job, and by casting there net wider and using strategies to recruit better, they would have got a stronger team with stronger relevant experience.

If the requirement was just to be a media bod, human rights experience not required....then I again don't believe they were not able to find any women and/or people of colour to recruit. Where I suspect we disagree is that you appear to feel it would be unfair to swap some of the white men out of this or any all white/ all male team, whereas I would say that it looks like the recruiment has been from a too small pot, which heightens the risk that the best have not been recruited in this process...in which case I personally would have no issue replacing one or more of the white men (during the recruitment process).

..... the result of this recruitment exercise also portrays AI as being somewhat retrograde as an organisation.

...BTW your final analogy seemed to suggest that because not all white men could apply to the job, it somehow negated the debate about including any other group...is that what you meant?

The thing is, the idea of replacing one of these precious white men is met with horror and fury.

The fact that they have "replaced" a BME man or woman or white woman, doesn't matter. Because women and BME people, simply don't matter as much as white men, so it's not such a howling outrage if they don't even make it to the initial selection stage.

I heard the other day that this is going to Amnesty's board following pressure from members. Will be interesting to see what happens...