Opinions on my conversation with DP please, re job quotas(135 Posts)
OK, Im feeling a bit upset tonight following a 'lively' discussion with DP earlier about job quotas. He commented on a newspaper article and he said 'Im sick of this PC rubbish, trying to get women and black people jobs just for the sake of quotas. If theyre any good theyll get the job on merit.'
Now, I happen to agree with quotas as without them, I dont see how minorities are ever going to achieve equality of opportunity. His response? Life is tough! I mentioned white male privilage and the wider argument but he just raised his voice and refused to see that things need to change. I think Im just disappointed in him and have a sneaking suspicion that he's not the man I thought he was. <looks eagerly for support>
I think poor Martin is labouring under the delusion that the white man is the standard human and everyone else is a deviation.
No, the glove on mine is pink.
Are those the kind of glasses that have massive comedy boxing gloves on springs at each side? Ready to shoot out and bop on the nose anyone suspected of having a penis?
Apparantly telling someone that they have "man-bashing glasses on" doesn't count as a personal attack.
Well put, Sabrina.
Buffy, you put it well.
I think martinedwards has a fair way to go before he recognises that discrimination already exists in the workplace and has done for generations. Discrimination in favour of white able-bodied men.
Legislation along the lines of quotas merely seeks to redress the existing imbalance.
So sorry to hear that Kim
Don't worry martin
You'll soon find that you find you are discriminated against when you get older as age discrimination is common in education.
I choosing? I am choosing. Sheesh
I just want to say that I probably sound almost as blind as martinedwards with my apparent concern for middle-class white women getting an equal shot at a marketing director's job or something.
I choosing examples like that because I can speak from my own experience. I know that there are many other groups who suffer much worse discrimination, it's just I don't feel its legitimate to try and speak for someone who is for example trans or disabled as if I knew what that was like.
Argh, I am being clumsy . I hope people know what I am trying to get at and can forgive this?
Let me assure you martinedwards that people who belong to disadvantaged groups don't automatically get jobs given to them. I lost out yesterday to a bloke who was just qualified (so cheap) with hardly any teaching experience or experience of working with the age group (secondary). I'm well qualified and experienced with this age group but did not get the job. They wanted someone who could just jump in and do the job - 12 years teaching experience means I can do that compared to an NQT.
And as you work in education - do you think there is a difference in the proportion of male headteachers compared to the male workforce (especially in primary?)
martinedwards why do you seem to feel the need to explain to me that it's wrong to discriminate?
I'm interested to know your thoughts on the difference between the following scenarios, where an interview panel needs to choose between two people who are equally qualified and capable of performing a role:
One is a female, aged 35. The other is male, same age. Both are married, no children. The panel know this because of polite chit chat before and after the interview, not because they've asked illegal questions about it.
Several members of the panel might be worrying about the female candidate. What if she has kids soon? Can we cope with a year's maternity right now, when so much is going on? We'll only have to go through all this again to find maternity cover when that happens. And then she'll probably leave anyway or want to go part-time. Even if she doesn't, there'll be loads of times when she won't work late or stay overnight, because her kids are ill or something. Others might be thinking about how she will cope with the sort of socialising they do. Will she fit in with the team, enjoy all our banter and jokes? Or will she change the dynamic, make us all PC and boring?
The culmination of this worrying is that they give the job to the man, because he's a natural fit with the team and they won't have to worry about his family commitments. Research summarised in Dr. Cordelia Fine's work shows that even women can think this way, even people who are trying to be 'equal' in judging job candidates think this way. They find logical reasons that are nothing to do with race or gender to give the job to the man.
Several members of the panel are conscious of new discrimination laws that will scrutinise the balance of their senior positions for gender, race, disability etc. Now they're thinking whether this woman will be an opportunity to recruit someone for their team who can not only do the job but also help to diversify their team and get them off a possible hook because they could be seen as discriminating in favour of white men. And because men now have the right to equal parental leave when they have children and increasingly they are taking up this right, the risks of the male candidate having children in the next year and choosing to take six months out of the workforce, maybe even ask to go part-time for a while, are now a factor as well.
The culmination of this worrying is that they give the job to the woman, because she's can do the job, will help diversify the organisation and there's no real extra risk that she will develop family commitments to the detriment of time spent working.
In your world, scenario 1 is not discriminatory. But scenario 2 would be? Unless you're saying that scenario 1 doesn't happen, in which case I'm here to tell you that you're living in a lovely, male privilege bubble where everything is fair and equal for everyone.
Thanks for the apology Radagast.
Thing is, I don't think these "anti xxx practices" can be described as such.
It's not that people are deliberately, consciously going out of their way to keep black people, women, disabled people etc. out of the best jobs. It's just that the way the system - not just work, but home too - is set up, is that unless you are absolutely obsessively determined to change things, you will end up with the status quo simply because changing your whole mindset and ways of working and systems and practices in order to level the playing field and try and fit that workplace/ home for the needs of everyone in it not just the people from the traditionally advantaged groups, is really, really hard work. And the people who have to lead that work, are from the group that have a vested interest in not changing it and they don't notice there's anything wrong because they've never experienced it...
See I haven't experienced anti black racism, being as how I'm white an' all.
But if a black person tells me it exists, I'm not going to tell him/ her that I don't believe it because it's never happened to meeeeeeeee.
IT'S WRONG, IT'S WRONG I TELLS YA.
It's like talking to a brick wall.
The reason I haven't acknowledged it is because I haven't experienced it.
I've worked in video games retail. Female District manager.
Restaurants (good ones mind) one with a female owner, one with a very equal husband & wife team as owners.
in teaching, with female Head Teachers, Vice Principals, and senior management (as well as blokes too.) oh yeah, a female lead inspector on our last inspection too.
maybe it's just that Northern Ireland is so much more advanced and equal than the backward Island off our east coast.......
and Buffy, what is so difficult to understand?
it's wrong to discriminate.
So........ you can't think of a way of distinguishing between a woman or a man with the same qualifications when choosing a candidate for a job, but because I and a couple of others suggested that, because the hypothetical woman might have taken 3 years out in order to have babies, this shouldn't count against her, and that's man-hating?
Did I miss the memo about changing NN's, ah well. Basil, I called you angry in earlier posts for which I apologise as you are clearly passionate and I misread the tone. Re-reading these posts has given me quite a pause for thought - I'm now a SAHD whose DW is a Senior Executive and in all the places I've worked I can honestly say I have never seen any of the anti anybody practice's described so eloquently here. I have to admit I naively thought my experience to be the norm but am beginning to realise I was wrong.
"I have REPEATEDLY said that it is wrong for ANYONE to get a job purely on their gender."
And you have REPEATEDLY failed to acknowledge that a workplace designed by white able-bodied men for white able-bodied men inevitably means that white able-bodied men do get jobs purely on their gender. This is particularly the case as they go up the career ladder where because of the way other white able-bodied men organised the workplace, the only candidates for the job are white able bodied men.
Jolly fond of you too Doctrine old chap
Why are you SHOUTING at us? Do you find that raising your voice tends to get others around you to be quiet and listen until you decide you are FINISHED talking?
Perhaps you would care to define equality so we know what we're discussing? At the moment, it sounds to me as though you have a very simplistic idea of the construct in your mind, which in reality for many women translates as 'we will let you play, but only by OUR RULES and on OUR TERMS'
If you can't see what's wrong with that and are unwilling to LISTEN rather than SHOUT AT US then there is little hope that we can communicate I'm afraid.
Calm down for fucks sake and stop shouting. You've made your point. Others disagree. Are you going to keep shouting until we agree?
Join the discussion
Please login first.