Opinions on my conversation with DP please, re job quotas

[MumblingMummy]

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.

[KaseyM]

"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 can't believe someone can type that sentence out without spotting the irony of what they're saying!

So let me spell it out for you: Men don't have to worry about childcare because women do.

And yes, lots of women feel compelled to do so (myself included) but does that mean they should be penalised for doing a job that, let's face it, is pretty damned valuable?

You want to talk about unfair disadvantage but you have no idea what it's like to go from earning a lot of money, having a lot of independence, to having to go for crappy jobs that you are overqualified for and answer interview questions like "so, how often is your child ill?"

And yes, I know that's illegal, but it doesn't stop it happening.

[BasilFucker]

You also have to question the supremely self-satisfied entitlement of a man who doesn't question the parasitical nature of men dumping most of their childcare and domestic commitments on women, leaving them free to make more money and leaving women disadvantaged in the workplace.

Privilege, they name is Martinedwards. At the moment.

[TheDoctrineOfSpike]

Maternity leaves are part of continuos periods of employment and therefore are not breaks on the CV.

Is it ok to have quotas of childless women then?

[BasilFucker]

Yep and when you look at the figures, actually, childless women also earn less than men once you get past about 40's.

So that three years out of the market place in a 40 year career, doesn't really hold water at all.

[FloraFoxForAnyFucker]

The long hours requirement is in itself a false requirement. Most jobs do not require the amount of presenteeism that has developed over the past 20 years. It's funny how that has coincided with the number of women qualified for senior jobs.

[SabrinaMulFUCKERJjones]

The long hours culture doesn't have to exist - it is bad for everyone imo (except the companies who squeeze every last drop of blood out of their employees). Most other European countries don't seem to have developed this working culture fancies a siesta

[BasilFucker]

Yes the long hours culture didn't exist when most married women were housewives.

[CaptChaos]

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

So then, you can have no quarrel with a quota system in this instance, especially as you have pointed out one of the major reasons why a women might not be offered a super high up position within a company. This despite women being pretty aware that super high up positions sadly usually mean very long hours, and women who are qualified for these positions being able to work that out for themselves.

You do realise that it's illegal to even ask whether a candidate has children/planning a family, let alone consider their childcare arrangements when offering the job.

[SinisterSal]

I don't KNOW how to separate two equal candidates

I suspect in comes down to the intangibles in the end.

Is s/he a good egg. Will s/he mix in well with the team. Is s/he one of us.
In a world where the gender binary divides us all, I guess the person's sex will come into play at a subtle 'likeability' level here. When it's mostly men who run the show, it's their answers to those questions that will be the subtle decider. In most cases it would be totally unconscious process, I imagine, but real enough to make a difference.

[BasilFucker]

That's exactly it SS.

If you don't have a system to ensure that you don't reproduce what's already there, where there is equality of ability to do the job, the tendency will be to employ someone who will "fit in" with the team, the company, the values etc. - and that means someone I feel comfortable with, instantly at ease with, someone who looks and acts like me.

That means a white able-bodied male in most cases. It's subconscious positive discrimination in their favour and they can congratulate themselves that it's because they're better than all the other candidates and if not, it's just co-incidence that they happened to be chosen out of all the candidates who were capable of doing that job.

Because the sexism-deniers are determined to put all the data down to coincidence.

[martinedwards]

so, let me get this straight.

you are PRO prejudice, PRO sexism, PRO racism, so long as it's all in your favour.

and this is different from your perception of the status quo in WHAT way exactly?

[SabrinaMulFUCKERJjones]

[BasilFucker]

martinedwards why don't you actually engage in the discussion honestly instead of setting up aunt sallys?

It seems to me that you are actually pro prejudice, discrimination etc, because you benefit from it. In your case, you are actually the REAL beneficiary of all this "PRO" stuff, as opposed to the theoretical beneficiary in a terrible world where white men might not hang on to their automatic privilege.

[SinisterSal]

how on earth did you get there? Nonsense.

[martinedwards]

how did I get there?

because I read the previous posts which say women should be given jobs because they are women over men with the same qualifications, because years ago men were given jobs because they weren't likely to have babies or PMS.

what's an Aunt Sally?

I HAVE entered into the discussion, its just that I take the absolutely ridiculous stance that folks should get jobs on merit, rather than gender......

I've posted several posts in this thread, repeatedly stating that I am not sexist, that I have worked for female bosses (and incidentally male ones too) and that I BELIEVE IN EQUALITY.

as to how I got here, I mistakenly believed the Mumsnet banner that this site was BY PARENTS for PARENTS, where actually it seems to be for militant feminists who cannot engage in a reasonable debate.

[SabrinaMulFUCKERJjones]

Could I be more eye-rolly?

[prettybird]

Many years ago when I worked for ICI I was indeed faced with the conundrum of two equally qualified candidates for a sales and marketing role, both of whom could have done the job well and both of whom I liked.

I chose the female . If I had been asked to justify it further, I would have said (truthfully) that the guy had been successful getting to where he was while enjoying excellent support from his manager (and I knew he would get the next similar job that came up within ICI as it was a company that was quite pro-active in developing its management trainees) where the girl had succeeded despite not because of her management and might not get another opportunity.

This is the only limited circumstance in which I think that positive discrimination should be applied.

I do however feel very strongly that the environment in which people work should be reviewed to ensure that there is no institutionalised discrimination. Things like ensuring easy access to childcare, flexible working - and even more importantly - no negativity about working "different" hours because that is more convenient for families. And not just children - caring responsibilities too for elderly relatives.

I wish more men would take up flexible parental leave: that way potential employers couldn't even subconsciously discount women because a man is could also take some time off when they start a family.

[FloraFoxForAnyFucker]

martinedwards you asked on your deleted thread how you could have your opinions listened to on this board. ^^ this isn't how.

[martinedwards]

I'm not supporting the imbalance.

I'm merely suggesting that to do the opposite is JUST AS BAD.

but then that's clearly a little too balanced for some folk round here!

[SinisterSal]

Nobody here wants an imbalance we are all aiming for 50/50 ish.

Give Buffy's question a stab

[martinedwards]

I dunno.

y'see I'M NOT A WOMAN.

for the full history of Industrialisation, women have been under represented. that WAS certainly because of prejudice and unfair recruitment/promotion practice, and a section of the female workforce NOT applying for jobs because (then) there was no point as a bloke would get it.

NOW women apply for the jobs (rightly) and they are getting them. but it will take time for these women to ballance out the previous male dominated policies.

if you want to be taken seriously, campaign for EQUALITY and you have a chance. I for one will support you to my last breath, as I am committed to EQUALITY.

demand that you want special, made just for you, unfairly beneficial treatment on the grounds of gender, race, religion sexual preference etc etc etc will result in you being ridiculed.

as I've repeatedly stated.

Equality is good. discrimination is discrimination be it positive or negative.