One of Top Labour Posts MUST be a Woman - BS

[studyinghard]

See news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8180195.stm

FFS - people should be in jobs regardless of whether they are men or women. If the two best people in the Party are women, then both should be women. If the two best are men - then both should be men.

Maybe she should say: One of the top 2 jobs should also be from a "minority group", one should be from an "alternative sexual preference group", one from the "over 60s group", one from the "under 30s group" and one from the "UK Philately Group".

It's about what I've come to expect from Harriet Harperson.

You are the voice of sanity! Was worried I was being a 'bad' feminist for thinking the idea was bonkers. It should be on merit, then very soon all the top jobs will be held by women .

Bingo cards out, dabber poised - best person for job; Harriet Harperson; on merit - this is brilliant!

Harriet Harman is a nutcase!

Harman is stupid. Imposing "equality" at the (metaphorical) barrel of a gun will just lead to mediocrity.

Of course, Labour adores mediocrity - just see their boneheaded defence of one-size-fits-all state education for another example - so this is no surprise. But it is still stupid.

Obviously you feel this way because you realise that the reasons for unequal representation happen way before the stage where appointments to the (shadow) cabinet are made. So what are your proposals to remove those barriers to women?

On the contrary. I am extremely happy for Labour to take this path to mediocrity, and hope Batty Hattie goes full steam ahead with it.

The crappier the Labour candidates are, the more likely voters are to vote for them, and the shorter the eventual Labour stay in government will be.

Sorry - typo - obviously I meant the less likely voters are to vote for them.

What exactly are the barriers Alice?

If anything Labour already employ positive discrimination with their women only shortlists.

I can imagine the outcry right now if they (or anyone else) imposed "men only" shortlists.

'What exactly are the barriers' - the same apply to surgeons, MD's, judges, artists, pick something. I'm sure you could come u with a few possibilities. Or maybe it's just that men are inherently better. At everything.

Still no clearer what you see as barriers.

As far as I am aware none of those professions have any rules which restrict a woman's right to join their ranks.

Perhaps you think that just because there are more men in an industry must mean that therefore there's some hidden sexist agenda. If that's true then there must be some conspiracy to keep men out of children's nurseries. Or teaching. More teachers are women, therefore should we force schools to take male teachers regardless of their aptitude for the job?

As far as I am aware none of those professions have any rules which restrict a woman's right to join their ranks.

And yet prejudice and inequality remains.

The fight for equality under legislation (for women and minorities) has been (mostly) won. The next stage is tackling the prejudices that mean that, all other things being equal, a women is less likely to be hired than a man, and a woman is likely to be paid roughly 3/4's of what a man earns.

Perhaps you think that just because there are more men in an industry must mean that therefore there's some hidden sexist agenda.

No, that's pretty stupid. No one is alleging there is a conspiracy of men in smoky rooms scheming to keep women out of jobs. There doesn't need to be any conspiracy because prejudice and sexism is endemic, in the same way that we all find it perfectly normal to use women's bodies to sell every unrelated product under the sun, but would think it pretty strange if we treated men and men's bodies the same way.

More women are in children's nurseries and other 'caring professions', it is true. These same professions tend to be lower paid than typically 'male' professions. This is not a co-incidence. Women's work isn't valued as much as men's, otherwise we'd be paying teachers are carers more and sociopathic bankers less.

Hi, ttosca! It has often been pointed out that legal equality reveals the true cause of inequality. I'm sure a basic sociology book will give you a basic grounding in the various causes of social/political/economic inequality. But it's probably more amusing to take the piss. Have you considered Barack Obama as a target? Could prove fruitful. Though you have towering intellects like George W and Sarah Palin to compete with.

niceguy, I'm sure you've heard about the phenomenon of people recruiting in their own image. Haven't you?

I'm not doubting that there are more men in senior positions nor that there are more women in low paid jobs.

But the law is already pretty clear on discrimination so if anyone suffers from it, they already have legal recourse.

But my point is that if you want equality, it has to be EQUAL. And that by stupid stunts like having women only shortlists or mandates that a top post MUST be a woman is a form of positive discrimination which is well.......discrimination.

I have absolutely no problems with a woman who wants to aim for the top job and gets it from her own merits. No problems at all. I do have a problem with jobs reserved just for women, just as I suspect there'd be an outcry on the feminist boards if the Tories decided to have "Male only" shortlists.

But my point is that if you want equality, it has to be EQUAL. And that by stupid stunts like having women only shortlists or mandates that a top post MUST be a woman is a form of positive discrimination which is well.......discrimination.

Yes yes, very good. That's a very old and very tired argument, you know. You're not the first person to make it.

You should consider the fact that fighting prejudice takes more than equalities legislation. African-Caribbean (i.e. dark-skinned) people today still suffer a great deal of discrimination, for example, even though anti-racist legislation was passed decades ago.

The fact is, women and minorities are still going to be unequally represented (when they could be equally represented) until it is seen as 'normal' or 'typical' for them to fill those positions where they are currently underrepresented.

There is absolutely no good reason why a female MP can't do the job just as well as a man, and no good reason why there should be so few female MPs in Parliament. Getting more women in will help contribute to a change of mindset and culture where half or almost half of all MPs are women.

Just because it's an old argument doesn't make it any less valid. It also doesn't make positive discrimination any less wrong either.

You can't fight sexual discrimination by erm....discriminating against the other sex. As the old adage goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That's great, niceguy, but you didn't actually address any of the points I made or extended your argument. You merely repeated what you said in an earlier post.

"and a woman is likely to be paid roughly 3/4's of what a man earns."

Is it just me or is this total bollocks?

Everyone in my workplace applied for their job and the salary was advertised. They did not offer two salarys. In fact ever job I have ever seen has one salary.

Is it not that the case that by surveying enough people it will appear women earn less because it includes those in part time work. I would expect 2x as much as a colleague working 20 hours.

Harriet Harman is one of the best politicians this country has got. She is fantastic. She has the intelligence, the core beliefs in doing the right thing and basic equality. I would like to see many more like her in every party, our country would benefit hugely.

The business world shows us that when you have systems that mean the best, most talented people get to the top (regardless of wealth/gender/colour), your organisation will perform better. This is a really basic concept which does not seem to be widely understood yet.

The tory party is the worst. Just look at the bunch of goons at the top now. They have not looked further than the end of their noses when selecting leadership positions (I know this guy from school, I know this guy from Oxford). They have ignored the other 99.9 % of the population (when they are supposed to be representing us!). No wonder they have to backtrack all the time, as they realise their policies are unworkable nonsense.

The business world shows that companies which have better gender balances at the top perform better. Now isnt that interesting. :)