Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Opinions on my conversation with DP please, re job quotas

134 replies

MumblingMummy · 20/10/2013 23:13

OK, Im feeling a bit upset tonight following a 'lively' discussion with DP earlier about job quotas. He commented on a newspaper article and he said 'Im sick of this PC rubbish, trying to get women and black people jobs just for the sake of quotas. If theyre any good theyll get the job on merit.'
Now, I happen to agree with quotas as without them, I dont see how minorities are ever going to achieve equality of opportunity. His response? Life is tough! I mentioned white male privilage and the wider argument but he just raised his voice and refused to see that things need to change. I think Im just disappointed in him and have a sneaking suspicion that he's not the man I thought he was.

OP posts:
Original poster
MumblingMummy · 23/10/2013 15:11

KaseyM That's very true.

OP posts:
scallopsrgreat · 23/10/2013 16:28

I agree KaseyM. Was it Cordelia Fine or some other study that compared exam results between pupils who were told they could do the subject and those that were told they can't, even though they were equally capable. The results for those who were told they could do the subject were above the others. I can't remember the exact parameters now.

But it is the effect of positive discrimination. And white men have had it for centuries basically.

BasilBabyEater · 23/10/2013 19:26

Yes there was that maths test where when students had to put their gender on the form, the female students' marks went down - because just putting that they were female, reminded them that we're not supposed to be good at maths and they performed less well.

martinedwards · 23/10/2013 19:40

as a white male who's currently looking for work, I would be furious if a person got the job that I was equally qualified for just because they were of a gender/race/religion/sexual preference that the company was a wee bit low on.

CaptChaos · 23/10/2013 19:42

I would be furious if a person got the job that I was equally qualified for just because they were of a gender/race/religion/sexual preference that the company was a wee bit low on

So, what criteria would you prefer they use, given that you're all equally qualified, hypothetically?

SinisterSal · 23/10/2013 19:44

Me too Martin

For years men have been getting jbs ahead of equally qualified women. Just because of their sex! Angry thank god we are starting to redress the balance. a while to go yet though

BasilBabyEater · 23/10/2013 19:50

Martin, black people and women live in a world where if they are equally qualified for a job, the other person with the right coloured skin or the correct genitalia will get it. Should women be as furious as you would be if that was your reality, or is that unfeminine?

FloraFox · 23/10/2013 19:52

"that the company was a wee bit low on" Now how would that come to be? Hmm

KaseyM · 23/10/2013 19:53

*martinedwards" you can rest assured that no one here wants to put you out of a job simply because you're a white man.

But look at your words: "just because they were of a gender/race/religion/sexual preference that the company was a wee bit low on."

The just and the wee make you sound very dismissive of something that is actually a huge problem. Ask yourself this why are so many industries more than a "wee bit" low on women? And why do those industries tend to be the better paid ones?

To answer that you have to open a can of worms: societal expectations, stereotypes, history, role models, the different ways we bring up our children, the words we use in front of them, the toys we buy them. All that adds up and once that is changed then there will be no need for quotas.

kim147 · 23/10/2013 19:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

martinedwards · 23/10/2013 19:55

CaptChaos, if it came to a tribunal... and the employer admitted that they had employed candidate A over candidate B because of what they had in their pants?

no way.

not 30 years ago when it WAS WRONG and not now when it is equally wrong.

I know a bloke who manages to hang onto his job in a small company in Belfast because he's the token Catholic in a predominantly Protestant area. he openly lounges around and does less work than his colleagues safe in the knowledge that if they sack him, he'll have them in court before the ink on the p45 is dry.

and that is WRONG.

should a woman be allowed to know that she has progressed in a company NOT because of merit, and the fact that she's the best for the job, but the fact that she's female?

no way.

My wife has just got a promotion in her work because she works hard and is really good at her job. and rightly so. If she thought for one minute that she got the job because of her gender she'd rip it up and throw it in their faces.

BasilBabyEater · 23/10/2013 20:01

But men get jobs because of their gender all the time.

They just don't notice they do.

They're not playing on an even playing field with women and it's just blind privilege that stops them seeing that.

KaseyM · 23/10/2013 20:04

MartinEdwards - I think you have the answer to your OP question in the other thread.

The answer is that you choose to concentrate on extreme examples and ignore the people who are genuinely trying to engage with you.

So, I'll repeat my questions in the hope that you'll answer them:

Ask yourself this why are so many industries more than a "wee bit" low on women? And why do those industries tend to be the better paid ones?

CaptChaos · 23/10/2013 20:07

Interesting. But I'll ask again, in the vain hope of getting an answer to the actual question.

What criteria would you suggest a prospective employer use when faced with 2 or more equally qualified candidates for a job? Given that the chances are that having a penis (especially a white penis) instead of a vagina is more likely to get you the job, on account of so many jobs needing pale penises handy and all.

FloraFox · 23/10/2013 20:13

martinedwards you didn't say best for the job in your first post you said equally qualified. Huge difference.

martinedwards · 23/10/2013 20:21

Maybe, just MAYBE the employers look at a 40 year old man, and a 40 year old woman and see two equally qualified candidates, but the man has 20 years experience, while the woman has 17, because she has taken 3 maternity leaves.

maybe, just MAYBE, women APPLY for fewer super high up jobs because they will be expected to work the long hours that will have them away from their young families a lot more than they are willing to accept, while men are LESS LIKELY to see the issue with that.

I don't KNOW how to separate two equal candidates.

obviously, arm wrestling is out, as is competitive eyebrow plucking and the length of belch produced after drinking a pint of warm lager.

what about the distance the candidate can carry a digestive biscuit clenched between their buttocks (outside clothing obviously)?

but what they have in their pants is, was, and ever more SHALL be, WRONG

skrumle · 23/10/2013 20:22

companies that are a "wee bit low" on women at board level if they had equally qualified applicants in front of them would be sensible in recruiting based on what's in candidates' pants, as several studies have shown that companies with mixed-sex boards are likely to make better decisions and make more money...

kim147 · 23/10/2013 20:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BasilBabyEater · 23/10/2013 20:31

Come off it, you really think that a tiny percentage of time out of the workplace, makes a huge difference in terms of capability of doing the job?

When men have taken time out (to go travelling, to be house-husbands for a while, to try their own business/ different careers in a different sector etc.) the three years they were out are judged irrelevant.

Are you actually making the argument that sexism doesn't exist and it's all about women's choices?

How dull.

BasilBabyEater · 23/10/2013 20:33

And when you look at why men are employed in senior roles and women aren't because one has taken time out to do a business and one has taken time out to raise children, you'll find that what they've got in their pants is exactly the deciding factor in why they are hired.

martinedwards · 23/10/2013 20:33

EQUALLY? maybe. but you HAVE to be able to bring out another criteria, otherwise you get:

aw there, there, there,

give the poor little "insert gender/race/creed/sexual pref" person a job.

nice. they love being patronised.

kim147 · 23/10/2013 20:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

kim147 · 23/10/2013 20:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FloraFox · 23/10/2013 20:40

17 years difference vs 20 years difference? Pfft.

Isn't it odd that acceptable other criteria always seem to be things like this that benefit men even if they make fuck all difference to the job in hand. Funny that.

I don't think anyone getting a job they have applied for and are qualified would feel patronised if they actually got the job over an equally qualified white man. They'd more likely be fucking amazed. But hey, you know you "they" feel.

BasilBabyEater · 23/10/2013 20:48

I get patronised all the time, so I'm used to it actually.

It doesn't usually come with a decent wage and social status.