Advanced search

Opinions on my conversation with DP please, re job quotas

(135 Posts)
MumblingMummy Sun 20-Oct-13 23:13:42

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>

BasilBabyEater Sun 20-Oct-13 23:28:21

I gather he's a white man?

Anyone who thinks that people get jobs on merit, has a vested interest in holding that view usually because they're the ones who have got the good jobs.

It's very convenient for them to ignore the figures - because after all, the figures show that people from ethnic minorities and women are just really, really thick and incompetent, while people with white skin and penises are fucking brilliant. So they can comfortably tell themselves they're brilliant because being white and bepenised gave them no extra advantage (or rather rendered them with no extra disadvantage).

There's a lot of this sort of thing about.

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa Sun 20-Oct-13 23:38:00

That's horrible mumbling. I think his reaction to the discussion says more than his opinions. Extremely defensive and not willing to engage...he doesn't sound lovely sad

I think it's common for people to feel a bit of misplaced resentment when they see others getting help (and thus competing with them) when they feel they got where they are through pure merit (i.e. no such thing as privilege). But to get angry and shut down the conversation like that is not promising.

This is quite a good cartoon that illustrates the principle of the need for quotas.

RadagastTheBrown Mon 21-Oct-13 00:22:31

Sorry, male privileges along with white skin and penises.....since when were caucasian males exclusively responsible for the current workforce demographic?!?

Women and minority groups may well be under represented in certain areas of the workforce but they may also be over represented in others. To say that this imbalance is solely the responsibility of white men is both racist and misandristic.

Equal Ops is all about making sure that the playing field is level for all and changing that is illegal unless certain prescribed conditions are satisfied.

The use of the word 'quota' is divisive in itself but it is certainly true that wherever ANY group is under represented within the workforce, the reason for that disparity should be identified and steps taken to redress the situation.

TheDoctrineOfSpike Mon 21-Oct-13 00:26:21

Does he think that the current imbalance is due to the fact that white males are intrinsically more talented?

If not, what does he think it is down to, given everything is now happening on merit?

(You can reverse that too - does he think that the vast majority of child care roles are filled by women because women are better at those roles? Or might there be some other reasons?)

BasilBabyEater Mon 21-Oct-13 00:30:09

Where on this thread has anyone said that individual white males are responsible for the current workforce demographic?

Blah blah misandry. There's no such thing. In order for it to exist in the way misogyny does, it would have had to have a 6000 year history of the enslavement and dehumanisation of men by women and it hasn't got that.

We know what equal ops is all about, thank you for so much for explaining it though, lucky you're here to tell us.

tribpot Mon 21-Oct-13 00:31:07

I think his reaction to the discussion says more than his opinions.

I agree. I think it's perfectly possible to oppose the principle of quotas - for example they could actually undermine all the non-white-male appointments to being regarded as nothing more than quota-fillers.

But this says it all: he just raised his voice and refused to see that things need to change. Woman, know your place. This wasn't you both agreeing to disagree, this was you being minimised to save him from having to think further about his own privilege.

RadagastTheBrown Mon 21-Oct-13 00:41:26

Why so angry Basil? I think your post which begins 'I gather he's a white man?' and continues with 'It's very convenient for them' clearly blames white men, if not an individual white man.

I wasn't rude to you, so why be rude to me?

You may well disagree with my point of view and you can disrespect my opinion but why disrespect me?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 21-Oct-13 00:50:10

OP - just tell him that white males have been advantaged by unofficial quotas for generations. The old boys network being one such example.

Look up the study that found that when cv's (fake) were sent in for job applications - identical but for having either a 'male' or a 'female' name - a higher proportion of the 'male' applicants got interviews.

MumblingMummy Mon 21-Oct-13 00:53:00

Thanks everyone. very enlightening replies. Yes Basil he's a white man and comes from a very traditional working class manufacturing background but now that those jobs have become scarse, he works in a care home and again, during the argument/discussion, he said that he doesnt think all black people are lazy, just the ones he works with (about eight)! He has started to spend time with his younger cousins and Im wondering if this attitude shift is down to their influence as he is very easily lead. Yes Tribpot 'know your place' indeed. very depressing.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 21-Oct-13 01:00:56

he doesnt think all black people are lazy, just the ones he works with (about eight)!

shock I'd be having serious words about that too. shock

RadagastTheBrown Mon 21-Oct-13 01:08:40

Again, soz for being naive but Mumbling, I take it you've never raised your voice and refused to discuss anything with DP? Sorry to be controversial but not everything can be linked back to Man's perceived desire to put Women down.

Big shock, both Men and Women can act like idiots with no hidden agenda!

MumblingMummy Mon 21-Oct-13 01:11:20

Sabrina I know. I'm still stunned about that comment and yes, I'm aware of that study as it relates to my job.

MumblingMummy Mon 21-Oct-13 01:17:04

Radagast I appreciate your point yes, Ive only raised my voice to him once and that was because he put a taxi driver's needs above my own (fuming). He is generally kind, thoughtful and respectful. I think he may have become aggitated because it was football related (his passion).

RadagastTheBrown Mon 21-Oct-13 01:29:28

Gotcha Mumbling. I must admit that I would defend my beloved Chelsea above pretty much everything but there are certain things that are (in my opinion) indefensible.

That includes making sweeping statements that are misogynist, racist or pretty much any 'istic' category.

I see that your DP's comments went deeper than than I originally thought and whilst I couldn't ascribe his words to any particular agenda, I can see that his apparent viewpoint would certainly be cause for concern.

BasilBabyEater Mon 21-Oct-13 08:08:50

"You may well disagree with my point of view and you can disrespect my opinion but why disrespect me?"


You patronisingly ask why I'm angry (ooh, angry women, Bad) although I'd given no indicator of being angry and then ask me to respect you?


TheDoctrineOfSpike Mon 21-Oct-13 08:21:54

The phrase "if they're any good they'll get the job on merit" is telling in itself.

TheDoctrineOfSpike Mon 21-Oct-13 08:24:08

It's like my ex-boss saying of a female CEO we knew "she gives working women a bad name"

scallopsrgreat Mon 21-Oct-13 08:24:52

It comes from such a position of privilege doesn't it Doctrine?

Policing women's 'tone'. Now there's a turn-up for the books.

RadagastTheBrown Mon 21-Oct-13 08:30:54

Basil, if you read my post I didn't ask for respect I simply asked not to be disrespected. At the risk of sound patronising, there is a difference.

And for the avoidance of doubt, the tone of your posts indicated (to me) that you were angry. However, l merely asked why and did not pass judgement on your anger.

scallopsrgreat Mon 21-Oct-13 08:37:23

Why mention anger at all Radagast? I mean why on earth would a woman be angry about years of discrimination in the workplace?

Mind you I thought Basil sounded exasperated rather than angry. Having to make the same old arguments to the same old cries of misandry (a word made-up by over privileged people) for just wanting a level playing field, does that to you.

RadagastTheBrown Mon 21-Oct-13 08:52:55

I guess I raised the point of anger as the vitriol (as I saw it) in the post appeared to be directed at men as a whole rather than the situation itself.

My DW is a Senior Executive in a firm where Women are seriously under represented at that level - we have spoken many times about how that can be redressed and our exasperation with the situation but it has never been 'men's fault'.

BasilBabyEater Mon 21-Oct-13 09:22:51

And where did I say out it's "men's fault"?

This is why you're earning "disrespect". HTH.

Off to work now have a nice day y'all.

RadagastTheBrown Mon 21-Oct-13 09:35:54

I've answered that question in an earlier post, Basil. I think I'll leave it there and go and spend the day telling myself I'm 'brilliant because I'm white and bepenised'. hmm

kim147 Mon 21-Oct-13 10:48:21

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now