Positive discrimination

[MatureUniStudent]

First post, so apologies if it has been covered before - I couldn't find a search facility on MN.

Positive discrimination in favour of women? I watched Silks last week where a statistic was thrown out where a tiny percentage of women were Barristers.

David Cam has talked about having more women in his party.

I have, in the past, held a position where positive discrimination in my favour was promoted, due to the lack of female applicants.

Should a minority be promoted when there are equally good majority candidates? Or should we be more concerned with doing whatever we need to ensure that minorities are represented? And that then brings me on to my next question, if positive discrimination is being promoted, then why does it fail so dramatically when it comes to the practicalities of having a minority, say with a caring roll or other responsibilities?

Phew. Let the Lions Roar at me...

Well women may be a minority, however not in a lot of higher profile positions. Hence my post about positive discrimination.

I also was non gender specific about a minority being promoted over equally good majority candidates.

I think the thing about 'positive discrimination' or quotas, is that it's making sure people stop not employing women because they're women, which definitely goes on, even though it's not overt any more.

It may well make the industries who have to employ more women think a bit better about how to educate girls so that they are as good as their male counterparts who, if they are better, are probalby only so because they haven't had to fight battles all their life to be taken seriously. Having a dick is an extremely helpful thing when it comes to education and employment.

And that's why, I think, that, contrary to popular belief, the situation for women is even less fair than it used to be, because at least we could see the issues then. Now there are laws to stop people behaving like that, so they have to be more devious and peddle the 'he was just better at the job' and that it's just coincidence that it's always the man who's better for the post - probably because women are just not genetically wired up to be good at X,Y,Z.

I agree Flamingo.
there's no point in having laws if they don't get enforced - and they don't, because very few women are in a position to take their employer to a tribunal. And it allows people to say 'you can't possibly be discriminated against, it's illegal.'

And if you do dare to question discrimination formally, then you get blacklisted .

It's utterly, utterly shit and way worse, I think, than it used to be.

Positive discrimination is about women, but ALSO ethnic minorities or even sometimes men of a minority - hence my determined refusal to be gender specific.

I think women are passed over because it is assumed they may go off to have children, or be tied to childcare issues.

Do you think that women change themselves to fit in? Re your point about the government - being full of white middle class men - are the women in the Lib/dems Tories any different in outlook from the men?

Had the cabinet been made up of a majority of Libdemories women - would the outcome have been any different? I am not sure it would have been.

Positive discrimination has been used for the advantage of men for years. Take the Silks example that you used OP. This week on Silks they were discussing whether Maxine Peake or Rupert Penrhy-Jones should be made a Silk and despite the fact that Maxine Peake's character worked harder and was a better barrister they weren't going to recommend her as she might not work as hard once she achieved that status. Whereas RPJ's character would step up to the mark if he was made Silk. I mean, wtf? So much rife sexism going on in that programme it could have a thread of it's own (and in fact it has!).

A lot of positions of power are "old boy networks" and they continue to be so. I have worked in a particular sport and at a University. At ground level there is very little discrimination but as soon as you get to the decision makers suddenly there is a dirth of women!

As Prolesworth said if you (as in the general populus, not you, OP) don't recognise that there even is a problem to be solved then how are you going to recognise a valid solution?

Oh and I don't believe it is worse than it has been. I remember being told that I would get married and have children. I never believed I could have a career. I would have LOVED to be an independant woman with a career. I lost so many opportunities, that perhaps were not even there, although a few women made it through, because my horizons were, like most women, so limited. I love the fact women are empowered now, bolshy and expect to have the same, if not more than men. And if positive discrimination has to be used to ensure minorities are promoted, so they don't have to change themselves to "fit in", then I think I like that society.

Ok Proles - good point - I try hard to be fair - I have two of each DC you see!

I once (about 10 years ago) heard two elderly academics discussing an appointment that had been made to a junior lectureship. There were several candidates of both sexes and the job went to a bloke; the academics were saying how nice it was that it had gone to the bloke because he was about to get married so would need the money.
As it happened, the woman he was about to marry was a high earner in the City so in fact the reverse was true. It struck me, though, that if it had been a woman who was about to get married the logic would most likely have been the other way round - she's getting married so she won't need the money.

"Positive discrimination is about women, but ALSO ethnic minorities or even sometimes men of a minority - hence my determined refusal to be gender specific." I'd also be interested for you to give examples of where men are a minority?

"Do you think that women change themselves to fit in?" - No - but I am a radical feminist and think that the system should be changed. After all it has suited men for thousands of years, why can't it suit women now?

seth, more like "she's getting married so she won't need the job".

It may be better in some ways, OP, but the situation is far worse in many other ways.

Hand - ethnic minority men. To be role models for young men. Think London and the wonderful projects for young men going on there. Think NHS boards. Think ethnic minorities in high positions. Think Judges. I am sorry, I am going to be a rubbish feminist because I want ALL sides to be equal and whoever isn't equal, I want made equal! I think I may have failed in my attempt to be a feminist.

And yes, I think women "man up" to ensure they get the positions they want. I do. And thank goodness they do, so they can "women down" and facilitate other women into higherpowered rolls.

And I like this Jessie J person who sang that "do it like a Dude". A song like that would have NEVER been aired back in the days...

I agree, I think there have been gains and losses.

obviously maternity rights are way, way better. But the glass ceiling is pretty resistant to breaking in so many jobs.

Yes men from ethnic minorities are under-represented and discriminated against. But a woman from an ethnic minority has an even harder time because of her gender. So gets discriminated against twice effectively!! I think that is where feminism really needs to be counted, as the inequality suffered is regardless of race.

Cultural attitudes don't change by themselves: - people have to see differences, and experience differences before their behaviour and culture changes. You can tell the top tier until they are blue in the face that diversity will improve their boards and decision-making, but until they experience it it means nothing to them, which is why I support positive discrimination, although I also recognise that for the first few hires under such a a policy the concept of tokenism would be personally a hard burden to bear.

Interestingly in all the countries that have introduced positive discrim it has been very positiely accepted in retrospect even though these countries had same attitude as general British public prior to introduction of the laws.