Opinions on my conversation with DP please, re job quotas

*martinedwards" you can rest assured that no one here wants to put you out of a job simply because you're a white man.

But look at your words: "just because they were of a gender/race/religion/sexual preference that the company was a wee bit low on."

The just and the wee make you sound very dismissive of something that is actually a huge problem. Ask yourself this why are so many industries more than a "wee bit" low on women? And why do those industries tend to be the better paid ones?

To answer that you have to open a can of worms: societal expectations, stereotypes, history, role models, the different ways we bring up our children, the words we use in front of them, the toys we buy them. All that adds up and once that is changed then there will be no need for quotas.

"that the company was a wee bit low on" Now how would that come to be?

Martin, black people and women live in a world where if they are equally qualified for a job, the other person with the right coloured skin or the correct genitalia will get it. Should women be as furious as you would be if that was your reality, or is that unfeminine?

Me too Martin

For years men have been getting jbs ahead of equally qualified women. Just because of their sex! thank god we are starting to redress the balance. a while to go yet though

I would be furious if a person got the job that I was equally qualified for just because they were of a gender/race/religion/sexual preference that the company was a wee bit low on

So, what criteria would you prefer they use, given that you're all equally qualified, hypothetically?

as a white male who's currently looking for work, I would be furious if a person got the job that I was equally qualified for just because they were of a gender/race/religion/sexual preference that the company was a wee bit low on.

Yes there was that maths test where when students had to put their gender on the form, the female students' marks went down - because just putting that they were female, reminded them that we're not supposed to be good at maths and they performed less well.

I agree KaseyM. Was it Cordelia Fine or some other study that compared exam results between pupils who were told they could do the subject and those that were told they can't, even though they were equally capable. The results for those who were told they could do the subject were above the others. I can't remember the exact parameters now.

But it is the effect of positive discrimination. And white men have had it for centuries basically.

I think the problem is that the assumptions become real in the end. People who are given more chance, more exposure and have higher expectations made of them will end up being far more competent than those who aren't.

Which just widens the gap and reinforces the prejudice.

"I think in a job interview situation for a senior/promoted post, very often women and non-white men are expected to prove themselves in a way that white men aren't - because the starting perception is different."

Yes, the starting point is that white men are natural leaders, competent, reliable and that the woman/ non-white person may have got there by some sort of fluke so we'd better be more careful about him/ her.

I remember once having a subject teacher who wildly over-estimated my ability in her subject and wildly under-estimated that of a classmate (I'll call her N). This is because I was very good at everything else so she expected me to be very good at what she taught, while my classmate was only average at most things, but she was passionate and excellent at this particular subject. My teacher didn't even want to let her do the A Level because she didn't think she was good enough.

Every time I said or wrote the bleedin' obvious, I got credit for covering the basics, while my classmate got a "FFS, that's so bleedin' obvious why are you bothering, that's as far as you can go, you'll only ever be able to deal with the basics, you can't possibly handle the complexities" look. When she got a higher mark than me for the A Level, our teacher was astonished, but we weren't - we knew she'd been favouring me and underestimating N.

That's what happens with white men versus other groups all the way through life. The difference being, that I knew it was happening even though I was 16-18 and many of them don't, even if they're 60 (largely because they don't want to know). And of course, that at some point we got assessed by someone who assessed us purely on our ability, not on what s/he thought she knew about us. That never happens in real life.

Doctrine: "The fact of the matter is that, by the time you are in the late stages of interviewing candidates for a role, the chances are most of them could do the job perfectly well. The final decision between candidates is usually subjective in some way. I think it's very unlikely that incompetent women would beat competent men simply because of a quota."

Totally agree. As jobs become more senior, there are generally more people qualified for them than there are senior jobs. It's a nonsense to suggest that incompetent people would have jobs if there were quotas.

Yeah, grimble's first sentence.

Kim, do you know if other councils monitor that metric?

On the other hand, being beaten by someone because of a characteristic rather than ability really hurts and is not conducive to a harmonious society.

How true, as women down the ages have found .

Actually, I am not typical on this board as I don't particularly like quotas, because even if a woman is top notch a quota in operation can mean she is viewed with suspicion. I certainly would not have wanted to benefit from it. However, in some circumstances it looks as if it may be the only way to ensure equal opps. if there is a persistence in overlooking female talent by companies who can't get past a clone mentality.

I've turned down job offers in the past, I know they've shrugged and offered it to the next person on the list; I've also been the next person on the list who stepped in when the first choice candidate got a preferred offer.

I don't think "this is what happened in a completely different cultural context" is a strong argument against quotas. For one, I don't think we're at the stage where women are getting "jobs for the boys" owing to their political power.

The fact of the matter is that, by the time you are in the late stages of interviewing candidates for a role, the chances are most of them could do the job perfectly well. The final decision between candidates is usually subjective in some way. I think it's very unlikely that incompetent women would beat competent men simply because of a quota.

Skrumle,

I can see that as a reason for better interview and interview monitoring, not quotas. I think quotas can be a benefit for a short while and in very specific situations. However, after that they are both unfair and counterproductive. It is about equality of opportunity, not of outcome.

If you take South Africa for an example, it is clear to see why they introduced quotas and why it made sense to do so. Now, many years later, the quotas merely serve as jobs for the boys (well connected politically) and your doctor/dentist/lawyer is highly likely to be a well educated white South African who knows he has zero chance of securing a good job in SA.

I think that quotas by sex are not sensible in the UK, except possibly in a very small number of areas. I am torn re politicians, for instance. I do see that more even representation by sex makes sense and it is out of kilter right now. On the other hand, being beaten by someone because of a characteristic rather than ability really hurts and is not conducive to a harmonious society.

In a world where four equally qualified candidates apply for a job, the employer (who is likely to be male and white) is likely to pick the one that most resembles them (male and white)

i think it's more than that - i think we all internalise "expectations". so, a man and a woman in scrubs walk into a room and you know one is a doctor and one is a nurse - most people will assume the man is the doctor. i've experienced sexism in my work from other women because most people doing my job are men and are (significantly) older than me. it's not deliberate, but just a reaction to how you expect things to be, and the disconnect obviously jars sometimes.

i think in a job interview situation for a senior/promoted post, very often women and non-white men are expected to prove themselves in a way that white men aren't - because the starting perception is different.

if they're any good they'll get the job on merit

Erm, no, not necessarily. In a world where four equally qualified candidates apply for a job, the employer (who is likely to be male and white) is likely to pick the one that most resembles them (male and white).

Yes, the OP's DP seems to have a touch of the Godfrey Blooms about him - believing that jobs are doled out strictly on the basis of who's best at finding the mustard in the pantry.

If someone else tells me that because I'm a feminist I must be middle class I'm gonna scream!!

It sounds to me that your DH doesn't see it because he hasn't experienced it. But ask him how he would explain the current imbalance in the type of jobs that men and women take on. I mean something must be going on....

You either believe that this gender imbalance exists because men and women are made for different roles or you believe that something skew-wiff is going on in the birth-to-adult pathway.

And if you believe in the latter the next logical step is to ask yourself what is it that happens to make things so different and how can we make things more even, whether that be with quotas or through changing things from the ground up.

And if none of this bothers him at all, then he's lacking somewhat in empathy! And I'm sorry about that!

Also, I am not friends with Rachel Reeves. I have never made her acquaintance.