Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Moral Maze radio four tonight: Equality and merit

45 replies

TheFeministParent · 08/12/2010 17:35

Examining new proposals for positive discrimination. 8pm, I think.

OP posts:
TheFeministParent · 09/12/2010 11:47

I was always hired because I am a demon in interviews, flattering, flawless and used to be quite good looking.....all people who have interviewed me have been men. The first man to interview me is now my husband....one for the feminist causeHmm.

OP posts:
claig · 09/12/2010 11:48

'I was hired because I had been to the same university as the boss's wife'

what type of company was that for? How successful was that boss? would he have hired you if you had a third class degree from that university?

Two candidates never are exactly the same. That's why coin flipping never happens in real life.

claig · 09/12/2010 11:49

Yes being a demon in interviews is a good skill, it differentiated you from the other candidates

sethstarkaddersmum · 09/12/2010 11:50

I know some barristers who openly admitted that one of their criteria in taking on a woman barrister was 'potential future wife for the chambers' resident bachelor'.

claig · 09/12/2010 11:54

Yes, I don't know much about barristers etc. My ompression of that profession, which may be wrong, is that it is a bit of a closed shop and old boy network possibly operates there. It doesn't strike me as being as competitive as the business world, so I am not surprised that they have different methods there. In business, you can't afford to have luxuries like that.

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 09/12/2010 11:54

Well probably not, Claig (touching that you think I did better than a third Grin) but OTOH there might have been other candidates with the same experience/quals as me, or better, but I got picked finally because of an arbitrary thing like that.

TFP - I think I need to learn this "demon in interviews" thing, tell me more...

Shock at SSM.

sethstarkaddersmum · 09/12/2010 11:55

two candidates never are exactly the same, that's why it's always possible to cover up if you have used inappropriate criteria.
You never need to say 'we appointed him because he was a public school educated male and will fit right in', you just attach great weight to the fact that he looked the best at whatever random aspect of the job he looked best at.

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 09/12/2010 11:55

It is a business, though, Claig.

What do you define as "business", out of interest? Is a shop a business? A publishing house? A letting agency? Or just "big corporation" type things?

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 09/12/2010 11:57

Yes Seth - which is why you see talentless doughboys get promoted up and up. Creeping up to the boss, and indulging in mild sexual harrassment of the younger female staff, thereby earning the acclaim of half of the male workforce, seem to be highly valued skills in business.

sethstarkaddersmum · 09/12/2010 11:59

I'm sure it varies a lot between different fields. In some jobs you will be relying on more subjective criteria than others so it is easier to do.

a friend of mine on an interview panel for a Cambridge college fellowship was Shock at the way the others on the panel (all male) discussed men and women candidates using different vocabulary: the men were described using terms like 'impressive' and with the women they said 'oh, she was charming!'

claig · 09/12/2010 12:03

I don't know about shops, publishing houses and letting agencies. They are businesses, but my experience has been in corporations, so that's what I know more about.

Is a transcript available for that program? because I thought the opening lawyer's case was riddled with holes and Claire spotted them all. Then Linda Bellos hardly supported any positive discrimination. The last bloke was no good and made a poor case, but Portillo and Taylor had changed the argument to one of discrimination rather than positive discrimination.

claig · 09/12/2010 12:05

In fact even Taylor didn't support positive discrimination, if I remember rightly. He and Bellos simply wanted legislation which would somehow influence businesses to change society, but were not in favour of force.

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 09/12/2010 12:10

But that is relevant, claig. Because you only need positive discrimination (not something that anyone is unalloyedly happy about IMO) if you think that there currently exists a culture of negative discrimination.

No one wants to have positive discrimination on the grounds that e.g. women don't get jobs because they are a bit shit, so we need to give them a boost and just plain tell people to hire them. It's on the basis that at the moment, whether through prejudice or habit people are discriminating against half the population who are just as capable as the other half.

claig · 09/12/2010 12:17

But is that the case? We have laws against discrimination. The lawyer at the beginning said something like it neededed a 50-50 number balance to be fair. But is that the case? It would be like Linda bellos then saying that the only way to have fairness would be for boardrooms to have 50% working class men who weren't golfers.

claig · 09/12/2010 12:30

Just listening again. It is about equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Taylor says he can't see how we will create a society of equality of opportunity without positive action, which he is in favour of, up to but not including positive discrimination. I agree with the meritocrats, Claire Fox and Melanie Phillips, that equality of opportunity is vital, but going beyond that is not right and not meritocratic. I also agree with what Taylor has said, because he stops short of positive discrimination.

TheFeministParent · 09/12/2010 12:42

I'm just quite polished, always know the business well and can regergitate facts for England.....I'm not necessarily the best candidate however, just interviews!!

OP posts:
GabbyLoggon · 09/12/2010 12:48

yes, I like the moral maze; but the regulars get predictable on any subject. Lastnight no one seem,ed to mention that the best person for a job is a matter of opinion and possitive disc is useful in some situations

HerBeatitude · 09/12/2010 21:46

For most jobs, everyone who goes for interview is capable of doing that job, whatever level that job is - you just don't get invited in, unless your application form or CV demonstrates that you can do the job. You might have a written test or have to do a presentation as well, and again, once you've demonstrated that you can do that, and you've answered the interview questions, and all the questions are answered reasonably by all candidates, you are then left with subjective criteria - "do I like the look of him?" "I'm not sure she'd get on with Rachel - they're too alike", "would he fit in with the team?" "he comes across as a bit of a knob" "she's a bit of a miserable cow" "ooh, she's great, really wants the job, would work hard and throw herself into it". Very rarely is it so easy, that you can say "she didn't get that question right, so she's out" or "he did a presentation based on what he wanted to do, not what the brief was, so he's out."

I've interviewed people both in the private and the voluntary sector, adn while the latter had much more objective, buttoned down criteria on paper, in reality, choosing the candidate was every bit as subjective -because by the time you get to interview, the person who interviews you knows already, that you could do the job. It comes down to whether they want you in the office. And that is where the issue of "employing people who look like me" comes in and where positive discrimination could be very helpful to minority groups and women.

Treats · 09/12/2010 22:08

Oooh - this is interesting. I missed the progamme but I have been interviewing candidates for a new role today and I was thinking about EXACTLY this issue.

What I was aware of, while preparing for the interview, was how influenced I've been by my assumptions about the candidates before I've even met them and the opinions I've formed of them just from seeing them in reception beforehand. Before I've even asked a single question.

And it made me think that it's frankly bollocks when people say that the best candidate will always get selected for the job. The person who most closely fits the interviewer's perception of the right person for the role is the person most likely to be selected for the job. And if white male middle class men are doing most of the selection, they are most likely to perceive those roles being done by someone like themselves.

Now that I've become aware of my assumptions, I shall be doing my best to bring some objectivity to bear on my decision, but it really surprised me when I realised how influential my prior assumptions were.

Sakura · 10/12/2010 02:00

can I butt in with me Sexual Politics again [I know, I know, it's getting embarassing now]:

"This simple test [by Phillip Goldberg] consisted of asking women undergraduates to respond to the scholarship in an essay signed alternately by one John Mackay and one Joan Mackay> In making their asessment the students generally agreed that JOhn was a remarkable thinker, Joan and unimpressive mind. Yet the articles were identical: the reaction was dependant on the sex of the supposed author"

I reckon this type of thing happens all the time in interviews.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread