Fight discrimination with discrimination

EamonnKeane

Earthhorse wrote: »

This policy saw male board members replaced by female board members with more education and professional qualifications. And no one seems to have complained about any female replacements being incompetent in any way

Perhaps because they'd get a massive fine if they had?

kowloon

Might be worth pointing out that this is not solely a gender war.
If you want to take things logically white females need to be discriminated against too, there are plenty of places that seem to hire only white females.

Earthhorse

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Perhaps because they'd get a massive fine if they had?

And why would they be fined for saying that, exactly?

Overheal

dsmythy wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm

Across the water they are planning to allow companies to discriminate in favour of women and ethnic minority groups in an effort to end discrimination against them. That's what it seems to be to me anyway.

So if a company has a female and male candidate of similar ability it would be legal to choose the woman over the man because you want a another woman on your staff. The man would have no protection for this.

Same goes with a choice between a white candidate and a black one for example. Personally this seems to defeat the purpose of what anti-discrimination should be all about.

Would you like to see similar laws here?

Trading one discrimination for another. Is this really the best we haave come up with?

Sleepy

gogglebok wrote: »

Four posts in a row is looking a bit soap-boxy, but this sounds like a good idea, except for the bit about forcing people to take leave. Is it that you don't want a situation where men are entitled to leave, but there is huge pressure not to take it?

Precisely.

If this was introduced as a 'parental leave' entitlement where it's up to the individual couples to determine who takes what leave, our current societal leaning towards female as primary carer would ensure that the majority of males would make little or no use of it which would simply leave the status quo in place. i.e. in the vast majority of cases women would still be missing out on the experience on which most promotions are based.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Look, normally, I would be against this sort of thing but first off the measure being introduced here is pretty meek (and I guess people aren't even talking about it really anymore). But it's interesting, I was reading this article in the Sunday Times recently about what they're doing in Norway and it's a real eye opener.

The article is far too long to post but here's the gist of it.

Norwegian minister (burly old man, not a feminist) introduces measures to ensure 40% of all Norwegian companies boards are comprised of women. He doesn't consult the government and they are all like "Wha?" but there's fuck all they can do about it so he introduces the legislation. As a little incentive any company that does not comply faces closure.

All the business heads and politicans and shit, including female heads of industry, are going "What the fuck, you can't do this, investors will leave and no one will like us and you suck!", except in Norwegian, but he is just like "Tough shit!".

By spring of 2008 there was full compliance with the measure and guess what?

Everyone loved it. From the article:

I read that article too and have to say I disagreed with the conclusion that they drew from the results of the implementation of this sexist policy.

The key is in the line "The women are not only brighter, they are younger". IMHO, what's happened here is that by forcing the companies to hire board members that were female, these companies were forced to employ younger people into these positions than they normally would. These younger employees, while lacking in the experience of their colleagues would be, in general, better educated and more energetic/enthusiastic. To my mind, this was a victory for the policy of promotion of a company's smartest employees versus the historic promotion based on longevity/experience.

Surely any benefits to this policy would have been even greater if they'd been forced to promote the best of their younger males as well (given that logically, any benefit accrued from promoting your top x percent of females would be improved upon by prmoting your top x/2 percent of males and females).

JC 2K3

Sleepy wrote: »

The key is in the line "The women are not only brighter, they are younger". IMHO, what's happened here is that by forcing the companies to hire board members that were female, these companies were forced to employ younger people into these positions than they normally would. These younger employees, while lacking in the experience of their colleagues would be, in general, better educated and more energetic/enthusiastic. To my mind, this was a victory for the policy of promotion of a company's smartest employees versus the historic promotion based on longevity/experience.

Surely any benefits to this policy would have been even greater if they'd been forced to promote the best of their younger males as well (given that logically, any benefit accrued from promoting your top x percent of females would be improved upon by prmoting your top x/2 percent of males and females).

That's exactly what came into my head when I read that. It's the most logical conslusion IMO.

Piste

kowloon wrote: »

Might be worth pointing out that this is not solely a gender war.
If you want to take things logically white females need to be discriminated against too, there are plenty of places that seem to hire only white females.

And heaven forbid they may be straight!

Dinter

Having read over the thread I think there is a couple of glaring problems with this whole policy if it were to be introduced in Ireland.

Firstly although this directive might be implemented, begrudgingly, from on top do we really think that by “rewarding” and “highlighting” peoples differences we will make society more integrated? I doubt it. If I was a director of a firm and I knew I was losing my job so my company could escape the punitive measures of this scheme would my attitudes to women or homosexuals really change for the better? I doubt it. In fact I think it would make me a homophobe and misogynist.

Similarly if I was on an interview panel and I was told that my recommendations were going to be ignored in favour of some particularly stupid government policy would I really feel all warm and fuzzy inside that I was helping to promote equality? Do I really, when my bonus is as stake, wish to chance bringing in what is in my opinion a lesser candidate, purely to right society’s wrongs?

Unfortunately the sole reason discrimination occurs is because the majority of the population subscribe to the stereotypes attached to the minorities in our community. These prejudices are, except in the most extreme people, mild, unconsciously held to and would probably never be aired or even acknowledged. However they do exist. Will a heavy-handed, state led, approach right them? I can’t see how.

In fact I think the only thing that will change this is more exposure by the majority to the minorities that make up our country today. For example when I was in secondary school in the late 1990’s I didn’t know any homosexuals. It was only as I got older I realised I had known some all along. I would say that situation is different today. People are more open and it is harder to maintain your inbuilt prejudices in the face of modern Ireland. As the teens of today get older and enter the employment market they will bring their comfortableness with minorities into it.

This will happen gradually and over time but hopefully the society of 2020 will not need a blundering official cudgel hanging over them to do the right thing.

kowloon

What he said ^.

the_syco

Earthhorse wrote: »

Norway didn't have to deal with that problem because it was only boards of companies, and not all jobs, to which this applied. Also, it's amazing how resourceful people will be when you light a fire under their ass.

Ah, that's totally different. Women only got equal job prospects in the good jobs. Sure, that's fair, isn't it... :rolleyes:

DemocAnarchis

Positive Discrimination - Because people who look different think different! :rolleyes:

Captain Ginger

gogglebok wrote: »

Up until 1973 males benefited from not being forced to leave the civil service if they got married, for example. That was discriminatory. A little payback wouldn't hurt, would it?

It's people with attitudes like yours that are running the world into the ground.

I'm all for equality, but not for "payback" when I myself have done nothing wrong.