positive discrimination and quotas - right or wrong? And how do you justify it?

[LRDTheFeministDragon]

I was wondering what you think about evening up the balance of women and men in certain professions (not politics if that's ok - seems to me it's a different discussion seeing as their job is to be representatives)? Which way(s) are best/most justifable morally - quotas? Encouraging women to apply but treating their applications just like men's? Positive discrimination during the selection process?

I'm asking because I had a conversation where I didn't feel equipped to argue my side. A friend is just starting out on a career as a conductor. I think he's very good. He knows it is a very male-dominated profession. He is really fed up because he's applying to some programmes in the states (think hundreds of applicants for a handful of places). He's heard that they encourage women to apply by interviewing virtually all women who apply - so it is much easier for women to get to the interview stage. And some places, he worries, may also accept women who are less good than men.

On the one hand, I feel for him. But I also felt angry that when I suggested women who got as far as applying to this very male-dominated course might already have had to fight quite a lot of prejudice, he dismissed this. He also reckons he should not 'have to feel guilty' about discrimination against women 'in the past'.

Should we justify positive discrimination? Does what I'm describing even count as positive discrimination, or might it not be recognition that the women applying are a self-selecting bunch? How would you feel if this was your DS or DH (it's not mine but I'm trying to think of it that way) - would you be fed up?

'The discrimination has already happened in a thousand ways before anybody applies for a job, the only differernce in postive discrimination is that it would be obvious instead of hidden.'
Very much agree. Also, I want my family to be treated by the best doctor regardless of gender, colour, sexuality or ideology and not the one which ticks all the relevant boxes on the HR papers.

Recruitment is not where these wars should be fought strategically.

KRITIQ may I ask you a question please? I should caveat it by saying I think the recruitment process for firefighters on the face of it does a lot to avoid discrimination which is why I am curious, but my information is purely academic and anacdotal so your experience is interesting.

Do you think an inclusive recruitment process (ie one where men and women candidates for firefighter roles are treated exactly the same) has hindered the recruitment and retention of women by making a blanket standard? And that if they were to divide the job up into those who go out on shouts and those who do education/home visits and other non-physical work there would be more women? I can see why from an anti-discrimination point of view it would probably not be encouraged but I just wondered if you thought, on a practical level, it would help?

Women are capable of lifting deadweights and pulling people out of buildings though. We aren't that less strong than men. There seems to be a misnomer that women can't do physical work. Women have been doing hard physical work for centuries. If they can't physically do it then they would use other methods/tools to do it - just as men would.

I am right in thinking that if a candidate doesn't pass the physical that's it for a firefighter role? Although there are many roles within the fire service for all sorts of people regardless of physical capabilities.

HandDived I think that's what I was trying to say before. Women are capable but the old rules used to rule out capable women.

Ahh right!

I went for an interview for early years teacher training many years ago and I came away with the impression that they were discriminating in favour of male applicants. The ratio of applications for the course (I learned from published figures) was c. 95% female, 5%, but more than half of the other applicants at my interview session were male. If the gender mix at my interview was representative of the others, then they must have been interviewing every male applicant. I'd imagine they were offering places purely on merit after interview (and I was offered one, so i have no reason to be bitter about it).

I was (and still am) ambivalent about the possibility that they may have been 'positively' discriminating towards men. On one hand, I can see that it would be very valuable to have more men working (in all roles) in the early years. But it still felt very wrong to start discriminating against women, particularly in one of the few careers in which we don't tend to be discriminated against (or at least one that is stereotypically seen as 'women's work', and which is relatively undervalued in society). Also, given that the area doesn't attract many male applicants, it's unlikely that their under-representation in the workforce is due to discrimination.

This, of course, is a very different situation from positive discrimination in favour of women in very male dominated jobs where they are under-represented because of discrimination (both overt and more subtle).

I read an interesting paper by Peter McHugh about affirmative action recently, and the need to distinguish between equality and equity in a just society. I'll come back when I've properly considered what I think about this in relation to this topic.

Damsel - yes...I think there's probably a strong element of, 'we could do with a bloke...role model...footie' so whether deliberate policy or not, I wouldn't be suprised if more of them make the first cut. And is it my imagination or do a disproportionate number of the males who do enter primary education seem to end up as head/deputy head masters?

I don't think it's your imagination at all.

That sucks so badly. Not just from the POV of female teachers, but the message it sends to the kids.

This is really interesting - thanks everyone (especially about the firefighters, I had no idea).

I have certainly heard re. education that children 'need' male role models, and the more disadvantaged the school, the more male teachers are 'needed' to make up for all the evil single mums and evil absentee dads. No-one seems to consider whether it's healthy for children to use their male teachers as substitute dads!

My friend is a firefighter. There are many examples where she was / is the best person on the team to deal with the task on front of them. Small spaces / elderly lady stuck in the bath etc. I'm under the impression that the fire service is actually really badly named! She has to be physically and mentally up to the task. It would be da gerous otherwise !!!! One of the first shouts involved several of them transferring a deceased obese man from the morgue to an undertakers. She was one of the few that didn't vomit.

Katie, it might be possible that if the Fire Service recruited for more specific roles rather than a one-size-fits-all job spec as fire fighter women would be more likely to apply. I have to say that, imho, the reason they have trouble recruiting and retaining women and minority ethnic staff is down to institutional discrimination.

Although the Fire Services have progressed considerably in the past couple decades, they are still quite traditional in culture and trying to modernise practice can be like pulling teeth. My hunch is it's because they haven't really had to change much.

The police have been open to criticism due to cases were women (e.g. victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking, etc.) have been treated crappily and where Black and minority ethnic citizens have got a shabby deal. Things like the Lawrence Report have meant that while they haven't completely moved with the times, they have been pushed into some changes, and most forces have put more "welly" into recruiting from minority ethnic communities and amongst women.

The Fire & Rescue Service, on the other hand, haven't been under any such pressure. Everyone loves fire men (and women,) and most folks rather assume that gender or race discrimination isn't an issue when you just want someone to put out a fire / safe you from a fire. But, as mentioned, they do lots, lots more than that and there are situations where having a bigoted "firefighter" can mean a bad/lesser service. Also, because they really haven't been pushed to be more inclusive and accessible in service provision, they haven't really done much along those lines in recruitment and retention, either.

I'm very late back to the thread and I realise it's moved on somewhat, but my view on quotas has got nothing to do with revenge and plenty to do with levelling the playing field by whatever means necessary. As the second part of my post makes clear: groups that aren't white and male have been losing out for years even when their qualifications are identical.

The system is unfair and unbalanced to begin with. Quotas and positive discrimination do not introduce unfairness; they level out a playing field that is, and always has been, unfair.

Thanks KRITIQ that makes complete sense to me. I knew a bit about the police (again academic work rather than hands on) and had been pondering on why they might be different and had considered the points you made so good to get another opinion

Going back to the op I'm still not convinced on the quota idea though simply from a behaviour begets behaviour point of view and more discrimination just seems a bad idea.

Ironically positive action is allowed so offering a training programme for women to become managers to address a lack of women managers in your organisation is legal in UK.

I don't think it's necessarily about introducing more discrimination though (and this is probably why the term 'positive discrimination' is so inadequate and problematic).

In the paper I was talking about earlier, McHugh poses two different scenarios: one to do with triage following an accident and another to do with slavery ending. He argues that in the first situation treating everyone equally according to the clear principles of triage is the most equitable thing to do. However, in his end of slavery scenario, there are two choices in allocating jobs and educational opportunity. One is to treat everyone equally according to a single set of rules. The other is to treat people differently depending upon whether they'd been slaves or not, so as to ensure that each group is proportionally represented in all areas. He argues that this latter scenario is more equitable (if not more equal) because it takes into consideration the very simple fact that some people have been systematically denied education and training (and a whole host of other skills that are highly valued in society). This is the more just because it affords opportunity to everyone rather than further entrenching an inequitable system.

So, while quotas and such like may seem clumsy and unfair on an individual level. They are designed to ensure a collective good.

The idea of "collective good" is at its core, a very fualty premise upon which to base a capitalist system.

I continually see clients and companies that move various divisions overseas in order to escape the notion of "collective good". Capitalism only works when individual rights are exercised. These companies refuse to deal with the regulations imposed by the government as concerns hiring practices. Ultimately, this decreases tax revenue for the government, upon which many feminist sponsored programs rely.

If you want to make the change without breaking the industrial might of a country, then start at the scholastic level. Beginning at the end of the process, ie. "obtaining a job" is ultimately counterproductive to western cultures. It takes money form welfare programs and infrastructure programs...effects the school systems (fewer dollars gained from corporate taxes means no pay raises for teachers, lower quality textbooks for students...etc.). It also impacts the healthcare system.

The more we meddle into the affairs of private corporations directly, the more jobs they will move into other countries.

Starting at the scholastic level ensures that these "inequities" that are spoken about are rectified. Everyone should receive the same opportunity for education, or job training. This should be voluntary, and based on an individual's taste. Those that can succeed at the highest levels are hire-able. Those that do not can perform those tasks best suited to their abilities.

The key is to demonstrate to the students the minimum requirements for different jobs, and leave it up to them to use the tools provided to meet or exceed that standard.

This is the way you change the "culture", without causing an economic crisis.

Sometimes the environment is part of the problem. If you have a 99%+ male workforce then the atmosphere, working practices, shift patterns, facilities etc will reflect that. So you have a situation where the only way you can make it a better place for women to work is by having more women working there.

All women short lists help boost the numbers of women in parliament but once they get there they are in a job that was designed for someone who was a traditional father with a traditional wife - and traditional servants, as lots of the routines go back hundreds of years. The hours they sit the way business is conducted etc is not easily compatable with being a modern parent ie being involved with the day to day lives of your children. And women who suggest that it needs to change are seen as not 'coping'.

Blind orchestral auditions favour women see here www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/97/0512/0512-orchestra.html

Until it doesn't then a degree of "positive discrimination" will be necessary to combat plain old discrimination in male dominated fields.

The parliament example is an interesting one but my first question is why not change the working practices rather than introduce quotas?

Much of the time spent in the House of Commons would be seen as time wasting in any other business so having tighter schedules, fixed sitting times, spreading the holidays more and possibly reducing them and fixed days for constituency business would all those problems. As would making some home working possible. We have rolling coverage of the commons. If voting could be done remotely then there is potential for homeworking and making better use of time. Being able to follow a broadcast debate while replying to constituency enquiries is a more efficient use of time. Radical, yes. Impossible, no.

It's about thinking differently. If the problem is working practices change working practices. If the problem is recruitment practices, change recruitment practices. A sticking plaster option like quotas which we all agree should be non-permanent are not going to change that.

Thanks for the Princeton link Dione it's really interesting. Particularly because it proves recruitment should be conducted blind. Not that quotas are the answer.

"why not change the working practices rather than introduce quotas"

Women have been asking for those practices to change for a long time - but they haven't. I would generally agree that would be a good starting point, but we're long past the point where it's reasonable to think that is going to happen without doing something more drastic.

One of the reasons I don't have a principled objection to quotas any more is because we have had decades for changes to be made in other ways - and in some areas institutions are intransigent.

Quotas would at least change the game.

Dione Good link. I'd just like to point out about language and the way we talk about these things - the paper doesn't hold the position that blind auditions favour women. It points out that non-blind auditions favoured men. Women aren't being favoured by not being discriminated against.

(This isn't a dig, I do it more than I'd like myself. It's hard when we are submerged in a culture of male privilege to shake it off all the time, but I think it's worth pointing out).

I think a problem I have with the idea of 'just training people better' (which is what I think it boils down to if you don't want quotas), is that it often doesn't work the way you thought it would.

Back in the day, working with the very early computers was female-dominated, and the qualities thought most important were precision and patience. Had someone wanted to get more men into that area, yes, they could have trained little boys to be more precise and patient. But what actually happened was that the perception of the job - and to some extent the job itself -changed. It became something that required high intelligence, single-mindedness, and creative flair. Within a short space of time, work that had been female-dominated became (and largely remains) male dominated.

Obviously, training 'the right person for the job' is hugely wasteful in a capitalist system such as we have today, because job specs change so fast. We would all probably like to think that's not so because we all have a vested interest in saying our training is still valuable, but things do change and you can't hold them back.

such - yes, I agree. This thread title reflects what my mate thought but I am increasingly coming round to the idea I should have challenged him more strongly and suggested that what he saw didn't sound like quotas to me (it didn't, really!).