Amnesty TV launches with 11 men and 0 women on its production team

[Bidisha]

bidisha-online.blogspot.com/2011/07/to-coincide-with-its-50-th-anniversary.html

Is this really a product by the same charity that tells us "Women's rights are human rights" on its web site?

And I don't have to justify myself to you Jenny.

That would be a separate discussion wouldn't it? You could tell me which bit of the above you find offensive and you also what you think I've said that suggests I think equal opportunties for women does not matter. I might then ask you what bit of what is written above does not count as a genuine opinion.

Before all that though, I think I'd prefer if someone who is critical of AI here would have rejected the offer of help from the men concerned and waited until a female proponent of their skillset was found. This is a question I've asked three times already, but people seem more concerned with asking me 'what my agenda is'. I feel like I have to be put into a box or classified!!

"Before all that though, I think I'd prefer if someone who is critical of AI here would have rejected the offer of help from the men concerned and waited until a female proponent of their skillset was found. This is a question I've asked three times already"

I don't accept the framework of your question.

AI have a duty to ensure that they proactively go out and find women and BME group members to ensure their voices are heard in the decision making process and up front, as well as behind the scenes.

AI know that posh white men have the loudest voice in society, politics and the media. As a human rights organisation, they should be constantly seeking to redress that balance.

HB So why do I have to justify myself to you repeatedly? Can you make your rules for me the same as those you follow yourself please?

You tried to explain away a statment of yours that made no sense by reference to an earlier post - I didn't bring it up from the blue did I? I notice that you still haven't referred to it so I guess you know you made a mistake. Ok, I don't expect you to acknowledge this and I'll let it go. It does get a bit boring when you try to disparage a lot of what I say, but always hide behind dismissive statements when I query your posts.

Since you say you want to discuss it then PLEASE DO and answer my question as to whether you would reject the male volunteers and await female ones.

Ok, thank you. Not a bad answer.

I'd still suggest that in proactively going out and finding women and BME group members they are exercising positive discrimination. I am not saying that PD is bad, by the way, just that they are - by preferring women and BME members. On that basis the framework of your answer matches the framework of my question doesn't it?

the world is set up to exercise positive discrimination in favour fo white men (with a few exceptions), so attempting to redress that is not positive discrimination - it's trying to redress the balance. Or pissing in the wind, if you prefer.

The latter part of that post is meaningless and offensive and I'm reporting you. I'll report you every time you refuse to debate and just aim personal insults about me or disparage what I have written. I' have had enough of your behaviour and it needs to stop. My opinion is every bit as valid as you believe yours to be.

Rant over.

Yes, employing only white men is indeed exercising positive discrimination. I don't disagree with you. But this is not contradictory to my statement that if you actively seek to employ women you are also practicing positive discrimination. Actually, I think that this can be justifiable in a variety of situations, but let's be clear that this is what you are suggesting.

PS Just realised that when you said 1147 you meant 2347. I work in 24 hour time (like MN). You didn't get that when I mentioned the 12 hour time difference? Oh dear...

It's odd Jenny that all of your posts seek to dismiss feminists concerns about - well anything, really. That's why I asked you to clarify your perspective.

I haven't personally insulted you,.

I have criticised your behaviour.

I can't be bothered to engage with it.

And LOL at reporting me for not debating with you and disparaging what you've written. No one is under any obligation to debate with you (although it's rather grandiose to describe your engagement here as debate) and we're all allowed to disaparage what each other have written. What you write isn't uniquely sacred text.

And I disagree that what I am describing is positive discrimination. You will have to accept that no matter how many times you post telling me that it is, I am not going to agree with you. Even if you threaten to report me for not doing so.

And now I can't be bothered to engage with you any further tonight.

No I didn't get it Jenny, I don't study your posts that carefully, I don't find that a good use of my time.

Good night.

Ok, most posts, possibly, take issue with something someone has said. Certainly not all though... That's kind of how debate works though isn't it? If I agree with something, tbh, I'm not as likely to post 'I agree' as I am to take issue with something that I think is wrong. I would also agree that my personal world view is often not in line with the feminism 101 (as someone other than me called it recently). That is not to say that I do not believe extremely strongly in an equitable world in general and equality of opportunity for men and women specifically. What I certainly cannot stomach is general belly-aching, morally superior outrage and complete fiction.

In this case, do I think that AI set out to exclude women? No. Do I think they have a 'power club' as the blog suggests? No. Do I think they made a mistake? Probably. Much as it pains me to say it, I thik Herbex is correct when s/he says that they have a responsibility to ensure the minority voice. However, I would suggest that in the actual content of AITV they have done this. This fact seems to be irrelevant to a great many of the posters on this thread.

I also have to say that I also find the hectoring and condescending tone that the blogger adopts with the people at AI (who are genuinely attempting to deal with the issue) completely self-aggrandising. I think this can be a common fault with people who spend too much time grinding their axe on the internet!

HB It is abundantly clear that you don't study my posts very carefully and perhaps when you do we can have more constructive debate.

No, ok, we won't agree. But it simply isn't valid to suggest that positive disrimination within a single organisation cannot exist due to imbalances in other, completely separate, organisations. If you deliberately choose something you have deliberately chosen it. It doesn't matter if the rest of the world decided to choose something else! Whatever - this is semantics again.

To those who say its AI duty to go out and pick secondbest women and BME in order that their voices are heard:

Are these producers making their own voices heard, are they making TV about themselves? Seems to me they are acting as a megaphone and putting spotlight on others, making other peoples voices heard. Do you wish them to do this well and gain the most attention/donations/help or badly?

If you wish them to do it well then you must accept they pick the best people for the job and if thats not working class ugandan asian disabled muslim single mum leasbian asylum seekers with learning disabilites thats probably because they are all working for the BBC.

The available pool is smaller and liklihood of being picked, not to mention the lag time between demographics now and the deomgraphics of when these middles age white men passed out of uni

They clearly don't pick the best people for the job. Otherwise the team wouldn't be restricted entirely to white, middle class men. Unless you think the best person for the job is always a white, middle class man.

ALWAYS? Always what? AI always pick white men or tv production?

Statistics.

How many people are in the industry of a suitable age with the suitable amount of experience?

what is the gendersplit

what is the class split

what is the ethnic split

Well, yes. But I think it's clear that the actual content and aim of AITV is of little relevance to the blogger who is fixated on the gender of the people taking part.

That said, I do think that AI (and indeed any organisation) should have the composition of its teams at the back of its mind. By all accounts the team is 50:50 in reality - so why was this not represented initially? It does indicate a lack of thought...

Edam - you think they put that team together thinking they needed middle class white men? Are you really that paranoid cynical?

Unless the industry is entirely composed of white men you'd expect a little more diversity in the team they chose. And the industry isn't.

It very probably isn't overt racism and sexism. It's probably recruiting in your own image and not thinking about diversity - not making any effort to avoid the innate preferences and prejudices that everyone has shaping your recruitment policy. Which is extremely disappointing from Amnesty, of all people.

jennyvstheworld

I think something that most posters here are missing out is that the conspiracy theorist blogger is as equally obsessed with race

I'd go along with that Edam... (post@1335)

Why do you think they are the best people for the job somethingwitty? Do you know something we don't, because their past form certainly doesn't seem to warrant it?

Oh and why do you think that women would be second best?