Feminist Pub VII - Chat, questions, random thoughts too small for a thread ...

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Just setting this up while we finish off the last few posts on the old thread. Come in and pull up a bar stool!

Just got a thought brewing about school uniforms and how my DDs now refuse to wear trousers to school - because trousers are for boys. They were always quite happy to wear trousers when they went to nursery where there was no uniform and lots of girls wore trousers. Do you think genderized school uniforms act as a reminder to behave in gender stereotypical ways and so direct girls down a more 'feminine' path than if they didn't have that unconscious reminder? A stereotype threat example possibly?

I don't know. Dd1 has been to 3 different primary schools and is now at secondary. The majority of girls in all 4 of those schools wore trousers in the winter and summer dresses in the summer. The only reason they mostly went over to the dresses in the summer was because they were too hot in trousers, but quite a few of the girls wore shorts the same as the boys (not in secondary, they mostly wear trousers all year round)

And the changing rooms thing, no we are not prudes for not wanting to get undressed in front of random men. It is completely abnormal in this country to be expected to. The norm is for adults to use the changing rooms for their own sex and any children they are supervising need to accompany them into that changing room. So a man helping his daughter change should be doing that in the men's changing room, just as a woman helping her son change would do so in the women's changing room. I didn't see that thread and I think I'm glad I didn't.

I also think it's because they are very male-identified women while wanting to be liberated and cool at the same time.

We swim in a sea where everything that is directed at us, is seen from a male POV - a female one is one you actually have to actively seek out to find. So when women tell you xyz, you're simply not used to hearing it and you think it must be wrong. The default assumption is that what men want, is OK and reasonable and women have to make the case for what they want because it's not the default.

Hallo, all

I seem to have lost the pub for a long bit - not really sure why

May I have a large latte please? 'Tis my Sunday tipple

Feminist life is rather depressing at the moment, isn't' it?
Thank goodness for the pub.

Welcome back Pacific. I'll join you for a black coffee.

Yes, welcome back Pacific. I wondered where you'd got to. Were you too busy playing Heyday to miss us? I'll have a hot chocolate please.

Hi, Penguins, how are you doing?

I've been thinking about positive discrimination these past few weeks/months.
We have a situation at work (I don't want to go in to details) where we have a strong preference for filling a post with a particular gender. There are sound reasons for this preference, but it is just so counterintuitive and feels wrong .
The post has now been filled with the somebody of the non-preferred gender (best candidate), but I am struggling in principle with the concept of positive discrimination on grounds of gender.

Any thoughts?

HayDay? I don't know of what you speak, Dragon

My feeling is that it depends on the reasons. Will ponder and report back. Have to bake a cake!

Legally, you would be foolish to fill a post with anyone who is not the best candidate unless it is exempt from sex discrimination law.

I do believe in positive discrimination though.

I agree with penguins that it depends on the reason. So if you already have 5 male gps and only 1 female then I would be perfectly happy for a vacancy to be filled by a woman purely because a lot of women prefer to see female gps about intimate issues. The same thing would apply in reverse about nurses I think.

Legally you have to appoint the best person for the job unless there is a very pressing reason for choosing one sex over the other.

Hello!

Re positive discrimination: It already happens a lot. In favour of men. I used to be against the idea but I'm rethinking a lot of things.

The thing about 'best candidate for the job' in a patriarchal society which interprets men as authoritative, more emotionally stable, more dependable and more knowledgeable in professional environment, and casts women as inferior in these qualities while simultaneously socialising women to appear more deferential, more equivocal about their opinions, more keen to appease, etc etc means that two equal candidates for the same position will be interpreted differently via gender bias by most people, even those aware of and concerned about gender politics. People will interpret individual men to be more authoritative, confident and knowledgeable about their job, for example, partially through vocal range and partly through conversational style, neither of which actually pertains to the actual doing of a job. This means people will usually assume the guy is the best person for the job, all things being equal. So yay positive discrimination!

I agree with all those reasons for positive discrimination. We all know that normally women have to be better at a job than a man, to get it. But legally, you do have to be careful.

Personally, I find women tend to be more conscientious at work than men. Not always the case, but in general I think it is true.

So personally when recruiting, I wouldn't positively discriminate. Although I agree with the reasons for doing so.

Maybe Kim what you are experiencing is misogyny?

Have you asked for feedback?

Also in more traditional industries, those who are non conforming in any way, are more likely to be discriminated against. If it is the kind of place that will employ gender non conforming lesbians, it will probably employ Trans people.

Schools can be quite conservative in many places.