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?

Re the UK parliament, there were some substantial changes made to the way it operated to make it more family/women friendly under the Labour government (spearheaded by Harriet Harman, I think, and good for her). Late-night sittings were drastically reduced and various other innovations made (can supply details later if anyone interested!).

I think this has had an effect - 1 in 5 MPs and members of the House of Lords are now female, which although not great is the highest proportion ever.

Interestingly, 35% of the members of the Scottish Parliament, 47% of those in the National Assembly for Wales and 33% of MEPs are women. Wonder why this is higher than UK MPs? Perhaps Scotland/Wales/EU parliaments are seen as less of an old boys' club?

Mooncup - don't most of those other parliaments use some form or another of PR? maybe that helps? (I dont know, just asking in case someone else does)

Interesting point Grimma - yes, they do. I wonder if that makes it easier for women to get onto the candidate list, because they don't have to go through the constituency selection process (which according to anecdotes is run, both Tory and Labour, by mostly ageing and old-fashioned local party members who tend to ask questions like, 'And who will look after your children?').

Would be interested to hear from anyone with more knowledge of these things.

LRD interesting re. computers. When the first astronauts were being trained, the top performers were women. Which explains why the first person on the moon was a woman. Oh, wait...

Yeah, I think I remember reading that - didn't they come up with some trumped-up argument that women were less 'emotionally stable' and might panic, or somesuch bollocks?

Mind you, Laika was a girl ...

Re the Welsh and Scottish I'd say PR has a lot to do with it. In majoritarian systems you're putting all your eggs in one basket as it were, so you don't go for the 'risky' candidate who doesn't fit the mould. Whereas with proportional systems you can have the obvious candidate who fits the stereotype (so white and male) plus the 'special interest' candidates.

I know HH did a lot, I just think that there's still a way to go.

I'm not against positive discrimination, I think it can be effectively used as a short term tool to address a long term inequality. I think that it's important to look at all the factors.

Digression
The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) does a lot of conservation work. The first (I think) project it took on was an attempt to reverse the decline of a Hawaiin goose called the Nene. It was at risk of extinction.

They started a captive breeding programme that was very successful and reintroduced lots of the birds into the wild. It didn't stop the decline in population.

They realised that boosting the numbers alone was ineffective because it didn't tackle the reasons that the birds were dying out ie an environment that was hostile to their existence. From then on they adopted a dual approach of boosting numbers and making changes that ensured that the birds they introduced had much better chances of thriving.

Back to topic

Positive discrimination gets numbers up, which is often necessary, but if other issues aren't also addressed it can fail to make significant long term changes or have the desired level of impact. Worse case scenario (without additional changes) it can actually reinforce the idea of women as suitable because of a comparitively high 'drop out' rate.

I'm not in any way suggesting that women cannot cope with the job and what that entails, or need special treatment. I'm saying that when women have never been a large % of the workforce the working environment may be based around male needs/requirements.

unsuitable ^

Yes, quite right Puffin - good point excellently made.

Unnecessary picture of Nene.

puffin loving that nene and it's analogy

[we have lots of pictures of Ne-nes, mostly of DD handfeeding them. Its not suprising they were endangered, if I was a hungry Hawaian ...]

They're very different at different WWT centres. Some are quite delicate and will be hand fed. Some see the seed from 20 paces and practically mug you.

If you've seen them in Hawaii I'm

no, only various WWT - hadn't noticed difference between locations!

I have no problem with actively encouraging certain groups to apply to have a better pool to choose from, but I don't like quotas for the actual hiring practice or the way women don't have the same physical requirements to join places like the police and firefighters.