Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

Original poster

grr... i've finally witnessed sexism at work :(

21 replies

fluffles · 05/02/2011 12:44

i've been so lucky so for in ten years of professional life (and five years of study before that) to have not really experienced sexism before.

now i am sorry i can't say too much here as i'll be identifiable but the core of the issue is that the head of my organisation (big, and well thought of organisation you'd never expect this from) genuinely believes that if we have two "public faces" to choose from a balanced gender pool of potential people then suggesting that one should be female is 'tying outselves in knots to try to be representative'

OP posts:

Original poster

fluffles · 05/02/2011 12:45

i did retort that discounting half the population wasn't exactly sensible.. and i am heartened that all other staff male and female are as horrified as i am... but still... this man is the uber-boss

OP posts:

HerBeX · 05/02/2011 12:51

Ah well, he has the luxury of not noticing his privilege.

Training need?

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 05/02/2011 16:01

Bloody hell. Are these jobs quite high-profile then?

Aargh.

Lougle · 05/02/2011 16:11

I agree with your boss...if he is saying that gender shouldn't be a consideration and ability to represent should.

If there is as much opportunity for the two 'faces' to be female as male, then there is no sexism.

If, on the other hand, he is saying that the female candidates should not be considered for the positions, I agree with you

rainbowinthesky · 05/02/2011 16:14

How is this sexist? I think your boss is right. The people chosen should be chosen as they are the best regardless of gender.

TheCowardlyLion · 05/02/2011 16:23

You're not very clear in your OP. Is he saying that only men will be considered for the post? In which case, you are right to be furious - and he is probably breaking the law anyway.

But if he is saying that he will choose the best two candidates for the positions but anyone is welcome to apply regardless of gender, then - I'm not sure what your problem is?

purepurple · 05/02/2011 16:27

I agree with your boss. I hate positive discrimination. Choosing someone becasue one has to be female is just as wrong as only choosing men, because they are men.
If you have a pool of people to choose from and some are men and some are women, then it is possible that the 2 most suitable candidates might be 2 men. They might be 2 women also, or even 1 of each sex. There doesn't have to be 1 man and 1 woman.

potplant · 05/02/2011 16:35

I don't get why that is sexist I would agree with him.

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 05/02/2011 17:30

Well, perhaps I am wrong but based on my own experiences, I interpreted the OP as meaning that out of a pool of potential people, the boss is only thinking of choosing from the men. And suggesting that having a man and a woman would be a) fairer (assuming all equally qualified), and b) likely to give a more balanced and realistic impression of the company, has been dismissed out of hand.

Where I used to work, if we had to put together a panel of any kind that would be at a public/high profile event, the male bosses would come out with a whole list of suggestions for men to be on the panel. When I pointed out that this might make the company/event look like we were stuck in the 1950s, and maybe we should have women and men together, it turned out they actually could think of lots of women who could do the job too. They just hadn't occurred to them at first

HerBeX · 05/02/2011 18:56

"Choosing someone becasue one has to be female is just as wrong as only choosing men, because they are men."

Yeah but the former hardly ever happens whereas the latter happens all the time.

See Elephant's post.

Original poster

fluffles · 05/02/2011 21:16

it's not a 'post' it's just being a 'face/voice' so there's no 'ability to do the job' except for looking/sounding good.

obviously i have to be opaque here.. it's high profile..

it's not sports, but imagine it was, it would be the equivalent of them saying we need to pick two athletes to put on the olympics poster.. but considering a female as one of the two would be 'tying ourselves in knots to be representative'.. because it's only two.. he acknowledged that if it was more than two faces, THEN we'd be forced to consider female faces too.

OP posts:

Original poster

fluffles · 05/02/2011 21:18

and it's not illegal cause it's a face/voice, sort of like an acting/modelling job... which i believe are exempt from equalities legislation.

OP posts:

Original poster

fluffles · 05/02/2011 21:24

i wish i could say more but i can't, my job would be at risk. so i'm going to change the subject slightly and ask those who are very against positive discrimination if you are also against schools having a head girl and a head boy? or against picking one boy and one girl to speak to parents on open day?

although i am not sure where i stand on positive discrimination, my feeling is that the examples i've given above are fine.. the school has boys and girls and so you pick one of each to be representative... although you could just have two 'head pupils' regardless of gender.

what does everybody else think?

OP posts:

karmakameleon · 05/02/2011 22:03

I suspect that if schools were to pick two head pupils regardless of gender, a lot would have to pick two girls as they would be the best candidates and then there'd be uproar in Daily Mail land.

bit like this story www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295000/The-boys-arent-good-Headteacher-appoints-head-girls-boys-fail-make-grade.html.

It does give the impression that "best person for the job" only goes one way.

karmakameleon · 05/02/2011 22:03

Try again.

blueshoes · 05/02/2011 23:05

What he said is sexist.

Why should choosing a female be akin to tying themselves in knots. The implied assumption is that there is not likely to be an obvious female candidate, hence the need to tie themselves in knots. If he is choosing from a balanced gender pool, the balance should not automatically favour either gender.

But it is does, and we all know that because of twats like him.

Lougle · 06/02/2011 00:33

"i wish i could say more but i can't, my job would be at risk. so i'm going to change the subject slightly and ask those who are very against positive discrimination if you are also against schools having a head girl and a head boy? or against picking one boy and one girl to speak to parents on open day?"

No, I am against that sort of positive discrimination too

If there are no boys who are suitable to take such a position of responsibility, there should be either just a head girl, or two head girls. And vice versa.

However, I do think it is different, because if the job of 'head girl' is to be the representative of the girls of the school, then it necessitates that it is a girl who takes up the post.

If it is something such as sport, music, etc., it is effectively genderless, so I don't have a problem with two same-gender 'faces'.

edam · 06/02/2011 00:41

sport and music genderless? Right... I must have imagined all those sportsmen earning £££££££ while only a handful of sportswomen earn the same, and the endless hours of media coverage devoted to male-dominated or male-only sports... remind me, when is BBC1 or ITV1 covering the world netball championships?

And I must have been imagining all those orchestras where at least 80% of the musicians are male, and the conductor and first violin are almost always male...

Ephiny · 06/02/2011 08:03

It depends what he meant, if he was saying he wouldn't even consider a woman for the role then obviously it's sexist. If he meant he wouldn't commit to one of them definitely being a woman, then that might not be, depending on the context, i.e. is there any good reason for needing a gender balance in this case or would it just be positive discrimination for its own sake?

If he wants to choose purely on merit in a supposedly gender-blind way, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the two best candidates happened to be both women!

swallowedAfly · 06/02/2011 09:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster

fluffles · 06/02/2011 11:10

orchestras - i am sure i have read of or saw on a documentary or the radio a test done where musicians auditioned for some very big famous orchestra 'blind' and suddenly more female musicians were making it through on the basis of their playing..

must look that up and try to find more details.

OP posts:

Flip

Swipe left for the next trending thread