What does true equality of opportunity look like?

myshirt

It's like a big buffet of rights! And no responsibility! Woohoo!

Franz Von Peppercorn

Bambi wrote: »

The only overwhelming privilege in most western countries is your parents bank account balance. Your skin colour and genitalia mean **** all if daddy is loaded

Rich women love this gender equality nonsense, suddenly they can claim they're at the bottom of the ladder instead of the top AND be given a leg up over their male peers

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner.

Exactly. A british university professor (grad from Cambridge) accused me of “privilege” in a twitter spat last year. That’s a lad from working class north side of Dublin being accused of privilege by a woman who is part of the English elite, went to a private school and has an “ancestral home” in Kent. Not downtown abbey but a a Georgian pad all the same. (I googled her).

Identity politics is a joy for elites. It ignores class (in Britain it ignores Englishness as well as if “whiteness” was some kind of useful explanation of culture). Not surprising it has caught on.

steddyeddy

It's rightly pointed out that men and women aren't really categories at all.

Inner city Dublin like myself, some lad like Boris Johnson who attended Eton, some girl who attended a top UK private school and a girl from a single parent family who attended a school in school in the roughest part of hull. These are evidence of the fact you cannot say men have it easier than girls without knowing the background of each.

steddyeddy

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Exactly. A british university professor (grad from Cambridge) accused me of “privilege” in a twitter spat last year. That’s a lad from working class north side of Dublin being accused of privilege by a woman who is part of the English elite, went to a private school and has an “ancestral home” in Kent. Not downtown abbey but a a Georgian pad all the same. (I googled her).

Identity politics is a joy for elites. It ignores class (in Britain it ignores Englishness as well as if “whiteness” was some kind of useful explanation of culture). Not surprising it has caught on.

As I say I share an Athena Swan panel with people from diverse backgrounds. One of the people on the panel is someone who continually likes to divide success and opportunity by gender alone. She will talk about male opportunity. I'm from Crumlin and she attended St.Mary's private boarding school in Ascot and partly as a result of that got into Oxford. I've had far more success than her in terms of research having reached a global audience and as a result she always finds ways to link my chromosomal gender to my success.

The Athena Swan rightfully breaks down gender by private/public education as well as other background factors. Yet this panel member completely refuses to see the vast benefits she had over other girls and boys from another social class. She was objecting to any initiative which was aimed at fixing a class disparity. She openly said that Private school children are there simply because they are more intelligent that the rest. She's no different from another professor who says that boys are better at science because they're generally more intelligent. You'd be surprised at how many people from privileged backgrounds are the first to claim discrimination in terms of gender and then promote discrimination in other ways.

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hmm, there’s a lot more to it than that though. While it’s true that qualified teachers who can get permanent positions after they have been probated are on the ladder to potentially earning a middle class salary (can we agree that a middle class salary is €55k? Teachers payscales for reference), the fact is that the vast majority of newly qualified teachers are unable to secure a post in a school and end up taking minimum wage jobs to make ends meet, or working piecemeal hours across as many as three different schools due to teaching shortages. It’s true that women dominate primary school teaching, which is why thanks to recent tokenism efforts - men applying are far more in demand and more likely to be hired than women, purely on the basis of the assumption that boys need male role models. What boys need are role models who inspire them to want to learn and take an interest in their own education. It’s not much good having a male teacher who isn’t capable of much more than scratching their arse who has no interest in educating children. I had a few of those in an all-boys secondary school, which were fortunately for us at least balanced out by female teachers who were passionate about education in spite of the pay being peanuts. Upon her retirement, I would hardly suggest my mother is living the high life on her Government pension.

Most teaching is done by tenured teachers. So the argument that teaching isn't a middle class salary is nonsense. And what bigotry the part on bold is regarding the male teachers ( as well as the claim that the pay is peanuts again).

On, and your mother is living on a pension which is 2-3 times the state pension. Which is what most people get. So she not only earned more during her life, but she gets a better pension than most private sector workers.

Which is precisely the kind of behaviour that is stamped out when a workforce is more diverse, and the more diverse a workforce is, the more checks and balances are naturally in place to prevent people from stomping on other people who they imagine themselves to be superior to.

Women who get to the top are as schemeful as the men.

Why the concern with the boardroom? Representation. It’s not simply a question of money, it’s also about people in positions of power and influence who represent role models for young people. Remember when you were a child and you’d tie a tea towel around your neck and jump off the back of an armchair thinking you could fly? Superman was responsible for a lot of childhood injuries back then, but he was also responsible for inspiring generations of young people, as of course was Wonder Woman for young women! New generations of young people are being inspired and influenced by Black Panther. Can’t say I could really relate to it myself, I thought the movie was terrible, but it’s what the movie represents for that black inner city male who might just be inspired to want more from their life than following their fathers and their brothers into a life of crime and anti-social behaviour.

Thats a move to fantasy. An, no the posh males on the boardrooms don't act as a role model for working class people. Never did. Somebody on the streets of inner Dublin or Detroit don't aspire to being corporate CEOs, unless they can do via rap or music or sports. A la Dr Dre or Connor McGreggor. Listen to the accents where you work.

The boardroom (or the C-suite as it’s becoming more commonly known) is the ultimate representation of success in life - a seat on the board in a successful company represents power, authority and commands a great degree of respect. Getting there, of course, is the hard part. Harder again if you’re a male from the inner city, but the days of breaking people’s balls and offering them meagre rewards for their labour are fast becoming a thing of the past, as the path to the C-suite has changed significantly over the last 20 years (article from 2011) -

You live in a fantasy world. In that world class doesn't exist and the only thing that needs to be fixed now, is gender imbalances. That bold part is unbelievable.

Going forward, C-level executives will not simply manage their own business areas; they will be active members of the firm’s senior leadership who advise the CEO on key decisions. As one executive recruiter put it, “The C-level person today needs to be more team-oriented, capable of multitasking continuously and leading without rank, and able to resist stress and make sure that his subordinates do not burn out. And he needs to do all of this with a big smile in an open plan office. In other words, we’re looking at a whole new breed of top executive.”

The 99% of people who don't have a chance of becoming part of the C-Suite ( what a bollocks term by the way) don't care. ( Had to laugh at going forward, too. The ultimate is corporate bollocksology).

While that’s true, I’m glad computer science isn’t the only path to a successful career in IT any more. Computer science qualifications are generally only useful if your career aspirations begin and end with being a code monkey in a cubicle for the rest of your career. I should know, I have one, and while it was useful in getting a foot in the door 20 years ago, I wouldn’t rely on it on it’s own to secure a position in an IT company nowadays as they’re being handed out like tissue paper. I look for more in any candidates nowadays than just whether or not they possess an IT qualification. It may well be their qualifications in an Arts related field which makes them an invaluable asset to a progressive company operating in a modern economy where often nowadays it’s not just what you know, but it’s whether or not you fit in with the company culture. I think that’s the path which will see more diversity in the workplace than in previous generations. I think it will happen naturally without State-sponsored tokenism efforts. Who knows? I may even shed my shirt and tie and start turning up to work in “smart casual” like everyone else in the office...

Probably not though

Why would computer science degrees begin and and with being a "code monkey". Why wouldn't people with science degrees become the CEOs or Managers? Shouldn't they, in fact do that? Haven't they in most of the most successful companies done that? Most of the rest of that paragraph is utter guff, Arts degrees are used in "progressive" IT companies to hire people ( outside of design, not really, not without other qualifications - try getting into Google). And by diversity you seem to again mean more women, because IT is diverse in this country. Irish people might well be a minority in many IT companies.

Anyway its clear your worldview is entirely corporate. In that world what matters is corporate strategies to get women in general ( and you in specific I suppose) to the "C-Suite". Theres a mixture here of corporatist jargon and victim feminism which is unappealing, and you don't really seem to know how the other half lives.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Exactly. A british university professor (grad from Cambridge) accused me of “privilege” in a twitter spat last year. That’s a lad from working class north side of Dublin being accused of privilege by a woman who is part of the English elite, went to a private school and has an “ancestral home” in Kent. Not downtown abbey but a a Georgian pad all the same. (I googled her).

Identity politics is a joy for elites. It ignores class (in Britain it ignores Englishness as well as if “whiteness” was some kind of useful explanation of culture). Not surprising it has caught on.

That was your first mistake Franz :pac: Entertaining numpties on Twitter is never likely to lead to a productive outcome for either party. Your post though did remind me of a post I wrote a couple of years back now, and I actually refer to the Athena SWAN program that eddy is referring to in his opening post (I can only wish you good luck with that one ed ) -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The simplest answer to that is - it doesn't stop, and it'll never stop, because a lot of this identity politics stuff really doesn't apply in Ireland. It's more applicaple to the UK and the US, and it's being imported here to try and point out "systematic, problematic" issues where really there aren't any. From the Athena SWAN FAQ -

"What do we mean by ‘intersectionality’?

By intersectionality we mean people’s identities and social positions being shaped by several factors at the same time, creating unique experiences and perspectives. These factors include among others, age, disability, gender, race, religion and sexuality.

For example, the experiences of, and outcomes within, higher education will be very different for a Black woman compared to a white woman. In practice, intersectionality is less about bringing two different factors together, eg older people and disabled people; and more about considering the experience of older disabled people, people at the ‘intersection’ of older age and disability."

The above sort of tokenism reminds me of a conference I was at last year regarding the future of education in Ireland, and one of the speakers was from the UK, and she was giving it welly about the lack of women and BME at third level, which was definitely more relevant in a UK context. It's as though she hadn't even thought of her audience and tailored her presentation accordingly, when the room was filled with Casper white Irish women and only a handful of men.

Now granted it was a teacher training college so I didn't expect much variance in the audience, but that didn't stop this woman going on to talk about how there weren't enough women in STEM, and how it was mostly socially awkward men (I'd lost the will to listen at this stage), before she moved on to the topic of 'unconscious bias', without so much as stopping for a breather to spot the irony.

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That was your first mistake Franz :pac: Entertaining numpties on Twitter is never likely to lead to a productive outcome for either party. Your post though did remind me of a post I wrote a couple of years back now, and I actually refer to the Athena SWAN program that eddy is referring to in his opening post (I can only wish you good luck with that one ed ) -

Yes

People who whine about intersectionality use is to promote their own agenda. Class dominates most other things. Being born rich is better than being born poor, being born middle class is better than being born working class. All the statistics show this. The wage gap between men and women is not anywhere significant as that between the rich and poor or even middle class and poor. In this country its 13%.

Life chances of upper middle and middle class women are far better than working class men. Some parts of Dublin (6w) send 100% of people to university, in other parts its < 20%.

I once in fact did an intersectionality test where I ended more privileged than the Queen. Class wasn't mentioned. She and I had cis privilege, straight privilege, "white" privilege, and some others but I gained on her with my male privilege.

steddyeddy

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Yes

People who whine about intersectionality use is to promote their own agenda. Class dominates most other things. Being born rich is better than being born poor, being born middle class is better than being born working class. All the statistics show this. The wage gap between men and women is not anywhere significant as that between the rich and poor or even middle class and poor. In this country its 13%.

Life chances of upper middle and middle class women are far better than working class men. Some parts of Dublin (6w) send 100% of people to university, in other parts its < 20%.

I once in fact did an intersectionality test where I ended more privileged than the Queen. Class wasn't mentioned. She and I had cis privilege, straight privilege, "white" privilege, and some others but I gained on her with my male privilege.

I understand completely what you're saying. I can only reassure that at least in England, class and schooling is something that's being recognised as more important than gender in terms of opportunity.

Actually one of the things being used against doing anything about class is the recent series of research articles that state students do better at university such as the one here. To me that just ridicules the private school intelligence link, not invalidates the need for action to provide equality of opportunity for different classes.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Most teaching is done by tenured teachers. So the argument that teaching isn't a middle class salary is nonsense. And what bigotry the part on bold is regarding the male teachers ( as well as the claim that the pay is peanuts again).

Well of course most teaching is done by tenured teachers, I already pointed out that newly qualified teachers can’t get permanent positions in schools and are effectively working part-time. I didn’t argue that teaching wasn’t a middle class salary, I asked specifically could we agree that €55k is a middle class salary? I accept that it’s possible we could differ on what we regard as peanuts, but for the work they are actually expected to do, I personally would expect a lot more than €55k to do it. You’re also ignoring the fact that many teachers will be expected to put in hours of unpaid work in the form of extra-curricular activities, which is another reason why men are more in demand nowadays than women - the need for children to do physical activities such as getting involved in sports and so on.

On, and your mother is living on a pension which is 2-3 times the state pension. Which is what most people get. So she not only earned more during her life, but she gets a better pension than most private sector workers.

I wouldn’t hazard to guess how true that actually is, but it doesn’t negate my point that she is hardly living what I would call the high life on her Government pension.

Women who get to the top are as schemeful as the men.

You accuse me of bigotry, and then go on to imply that not only are men in prominent positions schemeful, but women are too? Again, I’ve yet to meet a schemer at the top who got there solely as a result of scheming, but in my experience, schemers regardless of their gender, generally don’t rise above bottom-feeder level. They’re generally the type of person who will accuse men at the top of scheming their way there, and women at the top of sleeping their way to the top, as opposed to recognising the work they put in to get where they are, that that person isn’t willing to put in, and then claim they could have been a contender.

Thats a move to fantasy. An, no the posh males on the boardrooms don't act as a role model for working class people. Never did. Somebody on the streets of inner Dublin or Detroit don't aspire to being corporate CEOs, unless they can do via rap or music or sports. A la Dr Dre or Connor McGreggor. Listen to the accents where you work.

That’s simply not true Franz. I can think of numerous CEO’s who’s accents are associated with inner city socioeconomically deprived areas. They come from working class backgrounds and they often remind anyone who cares to listen of this fact. I’m not talking about “I sold penny apples with me maaaa” Bill Cullen types, they’re generally spoofers, “looking for warriars” me hole, I’m talking about people who are biased against spud munchers like myself who didn’t grow up in the inner city but rather grew up in the arse hole of nowhere and in a way I’m glad I was never exposed to role models like Conor McGregor and Dr. Dre who have no regard for the responsibility they have as role models for young men. I wouldn’t want my own son to turn out anything like Conor McGregor, and I live smack bang in the middle of the inner city so I see exactly the type of behaviour he inspires in young people - behave like a scumbag, and you’ll earn a reputation for yourself as a scumbag. No amount of money will ever buy class, and Conor McGregor is proof of that if ever proof was needed.

You live in a fantasy world. In that world class doesn't exist and the only thing that needs to be fixed now, is gender imbalances. That bold part is unbelievable.

I live in the same world as you live in where of course class exists, but it’s not as influential a factor in children’s outcomes as adults as their sex. Social mobility dictates that people can move from the lower socioeconomic classes to the upper socioeconomic classes, but what they can never change is their sex, and that will have different impacts both positive and negative on their lives as they move up the social ladder. The fact that many Irish CEOs are men who come from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds is a testament to the fact that socioeconomic class isn’t so much a barrier to children’s outcomes as adults, as their sex.

A good case in point being I met a woman out the other night and I didn’t recognise her at first, she recognised me (in spite of the fact I was no longer in possession of a six pack, but have gained a few kilos in the intervening 20 years, and she had lost a few kilos ). We had both been at the same level in a company where we both worked 20 years previously, and I had progressed much further in my career than she had in hers. The key differentiator between us? She was a single parent at the time, whereas I was not, I had the support to be able to get the promotions I got due to the fact that my wife had chosen to stay at home and raise our child, and now my wife too has chosen to focus on gaining a third level qualification in an area of employment she is interested in, that could prove to be quite lucrative if it works out for her.

I don’t see what’s unbelievable about suggesting that the days of breaking people’s balls and offering them meagre rewards for their labour are fast becoming a thing of the past. They are! In Western society we are becoming more well educated, and people who previously wouldn’t have had access to education, let alone higher education, are now able to avail of opportunities that weren’t available to them before. This increases their expectations of their value to potential employers, and employers are beginning to recognise that in order to attract top talent - they need to offer top renumeration packages, or better than their competitors anyway at least.

I don’t expect Government will recognise that reality any time soon though, as long as we still elect scheming nest featherers who are more interested in looking after themselves and their own, and so we will inevitably have to put up with the introduction of programs like the Athena SWAN program which for all intents and purposes are nothing more than a vehicle to keep a small number of people in some very well paying jobs. In reality they will do little to nothing to address the issues they claim to want to address, and as has been pointed out already by eddy - the program is hardly even out of the starting blocks before they’re arguing like children over who should be leader, each one seeing themselves as the bigger victim of some perceived social injustice. It’s all academic anyway, thankfully :pac:

The 99% of people who don't have a chance of becoming part of the C-Suite ( what a bollocks term by the way) don't care. ( Had to laugh at going forward, too. The ultimate is corporate bollocksology).

They clearly do care though, as demonstrated by the fact that we’re even having this conversation, never mind the fact that the boardroom is no longer perceived to be the preserve of stuffy starched collar types, but we have the likes of CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Elon Musk, Larry Page and Sergey Brin - hipster types who generally give me a pain in my face, but there’s no denying their appeal to millennials.

In fairness to the use of terms like C-suite’ and ‘going forward’ in that article - generally in Ireland anyone using the terms should be taken out back and shot with balls of their own shìte, but the article is about 10 years old and sourced from the US, did you really expect that there wouldn’t be cultural differences in the language used? That kind of language appeals to a small minority of people, most people would be unlikely to use the terms outside of the boardroom.

Why would computer science degrees begin and and with being a "code monkey". Why wouldn't people with science degrees become the CEOs or Managers? Shouldn't they, in fact do that? Haven't they in most of the most successful companies done that? Most of the rest of that paragraph is utter guff, Arts degrees are used in "progressive" IT companies to hire people ( outside of design, not really, not without other qualifications - try getting into Google). And by diversity you seem to again mean more women, because IT is diverse in this country. Irish people might well be a minority in many IT companies.

People with computer science degrees alone, generally do begin and end as code monkeys. In order to become CEOs, they have to have a lot more to offer than simply a degree in computer science. I also didn’t say that Arts degrees are used to hire people, I said it may well be a persons Arts degree makes them an invaluable asset to a progressive company operating in a modern economy where it’s not just what you know, but it’s whether or not you fit in with the company culture. James Damore no longer fitted in with the company culture at Google, and found that out when he decided to pull a Jerry Maguire and made himself a liability as opposed to an valuable asset :pac:

Software engineers are generally easily replaceable, software engineers who fit with the company culture on the other hand, are an invaluable asset, including software engineers from India who generally work for peanuts compared to their American counterparts. Just ask anyone who works at Disney

Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers With Immigrants


We’re not even close to being at that level in Ireland yet where Irish people are a minority in IT, in fact we’re punching well above our weight in that regard with the number of indigenous Irish people employed in Irish IT HPSUs -


High Potential Start-ups (HPSUs) - Do I qualify?

Anyway its clear your worldview is entirely corporate. In that world what matters is corporate strategies to get women in general ( and you in specific I suppose) to the "C-Suite". Theres a mixture here of corporatist jargon and victim feminism which is unappealing, and you don't really seem to know how the other half lives.

Not at all Franz, my world view is just that though - global, as we are now playing in a global economy. In that world what matters is strategies to diversify and increase profitability and sustainable growth, and part of that is of course recognising and acknowledging how the other half lives, as opposed to a formerly insular world view which was dominated by men who imagined they would always be entitled to a job for life solely by virtue of their sex, and are now finding out that such an insular world view is simply neither sustainable nor particularly profitable in the long term. That’s exactly why corporates have had to change their attitudes towards the other half - because they’re beginning to recognise the influence the other half has, ironically in part thanks to their own inventions like social media which made the global economy a whole lot smaller and does away with many of the physical barriers to employment allowing for the creation of new opportunities which didn’t exist before, like competing for market domination in IT in industrialised fast growing economies like India -

India, home of the world's fastest-growing economy, is quickly becoming one of the globe's greatest technology hubs.

That is partially thanks to the country's abundance of highly skilled technical graduates, whose numbers are growing at a rate of 7 percent per year, according to the latest study from India's ministry of commerce and industry.

It is also credit to India's thriving start-up scene, which is ranked third in the world, accounting for 4,750 businesses.

However, this means competition can be fierce and choosing the right place to work is all the more important. Based on reviews from current or former employees, U.S. employment search engine company Indeed has ranked the top technology companies to work for in India.

"The companies featured on our Best Places to Work — Tech Companies in India list are not only industry leaders, but also firms known for valuing their employees and offering them great opportunities for career progression," said Sashi Kumar, managing director of Indeed India.

He added that they also placed a strong emphasis on leadership programs and company culture.

"Companies that can attract the best talent across sectors are able to create and maintain a strong sense of community and provide capable mentorship. This is especially true of technology firms which strive to create a productive environment for their employees, ensuring optimum levels of job satisfaction," he said.

These are the top 10 tech companies to work for in India


It certainly puts your complainants about the employment prospects for your token inner city white boy in Ireland and accusing me of not knowing how the other half lives, in perspective.

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed jack.

Most of that reply was wrong or irrelevant. I find that your way of arguing by multi quotes causes a response by multi quotes which you then multi quote. The difference is you reply with increasingly larger walls of text , paragraphs that are much larger than the reply to you. That doesn’t scale. If I were to reply to that the reply would be, by necessity, much longer than I’d like and your response would be boook length. So I’m out.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

One eyed jack.

Most of that reply was wrong or irrelevant. I find that your way of arguing by multi quotes causes a response by multi quotes which you then multi quote. The difference is you reply with increasingly larger walls of text , paragraphs that are much larger than the reply to you. That doesn’t scale. If I were to reply to that the reply would be, by necessity, much longer than I’d like and your response would be boook length. So I’m out.

#metoo

There’s no point in asking you to take even one point and point out what you think is wrong about it as it’s quite clear we’re operating off completely different parameters as it is where you imagine your token inner city white boy is the real victim in a fundamental change in the way society is structured, designed to elevate people who would previously have been discriminated against to give them equal opportunities as token inner city white boy which would lead to everyone in society having the same opportunities as each other regardless of their immutable characteristics.

You’re completely ignoring the fact that token inner city white boy is more likely as an adult to live in the leafy suburbs than token inner city white girl who is more likely as an adult to end up dependent upon financial aid from the State. I’m ok with comparing like for like if your complaint solely rests upon people from the same class as opposed to a persons sex and the opportunities they will have in life which will lead to vastly different outcomes.

engiweirdo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

#metoo

There’s no point in asking you to take even one point and point out what you think is wrong about it as it’s quite clear we’re operating off completely different parameters as it is where you imagine your token inner city white boy is the real victim in a fundamental change in the way society is structured, designed to elevate people who would previously have been discriminated against to give them equal opportunities as token inner city white boy which would lead to everyone in society having the same opportunities as each other regardless of their immutable characteristics.

You’re completely ignoring the fact that token inner city white boy is more likely as an adult to live in the leafy suburbs than token inner city white girl who is more likely as an adult to end up dependent upon financial aid from the State. I’m ok with comparing like for like if your complaint solely rests upon people from the same class as opposed to a persons sex and the opportunities they will have in life which will lead to vastly different outcomes.

So class discrimination doesn't exist or isn't important enough to care about is the message. We'll concentrate on the other isms because they're:

1. Easier to define.
2. Invoke more societal gravitas and give one's ego an enormous massage.
3. Not really in existence to any great extent so a life's work can be built from the exercise of perpetuating mythology.

One eyed Jack

engiweirdo wrote: »

So class discrimination doesn't exist or isn't important enough to care about is the message. We'll concentrate on the other isms because they're:

1. Easier to define.
2. Invoke more societal gravitas and give one's ego an enormous massage.
3. Not really in existence to any great extent so a life's work can be built from the exercise of perpetuating mythology.

I’m not saying class discrimination doesn’t exist, of course it does, in the same way as discrimination on the basis of sex exists. However, with social mobility - one can elevate themselves above their class, and many people on just this thread alone are testament to the fact by reminding us of how they came from socioeconomically deprived circumstances and have done well for themselves, yet somehow when people who use a different measurement of success are successful in lobbying to change how society measures success, suddenly the people who once regarded themselves as successful are now seeing themselves as victims of other people’s ways of assigning value and meritocracy to people?

Whatever happened to those people’s “I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps” nonsense? It turns out their life’s work was indeed based upon an exercise of perpetuating a mythology which fed their own egos, the idea of equality as they saw it which conferred upon them certain social advantages which are now being distributed more evenly - they haven’t actually lost anything, they just don’t like the idea of other people having the same opportunities that they once took for granted.

professore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not saying class discrimination doesn’t exist, of course it does, in the same way as discrimination on the basis of sex exists. However, with social mobility - one can elevate themselves above their class, and many people on just this thread alone are testament to the fact by reminding us of how they came from socioeconomically deprived circumstances and have done well for themselves, yet somehow when people who use a different measurement of success are successful in lobbying to change how society measures success, suddenly the people who once regarded themselves as successful are now seeing themselves as victims of other people’s ways of assigning value and meritocracy to people?

Whatever happened to those people’s “I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps” nonsense? It turns out their life’s work was indeed based upon an exercise of perpetuating a mythology which fed their own egos, the idea of equality as they saw it which conferred upon them certain social advantages which are now being distributed more evenly - they haven’t actually lost anything, they just don’t like the idea of other people having the same opportunities that they once took for granted.

The class structure in Ireland is very flat. As someone recently said most Irish people have grandparents or great grandparents who kept pigs in their house. This is unlike England or continental Europe.

Of course the wealthy can give their kids a leg up. However I've noticed that generally they tend to push their kids much harder than poorer people who default to blaming the government.

engiweirdo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not saying class discrimination doesn’t exist, of course it does, in the same way as discrimination on the basis of sex exists. However, with social mobility - one can elevate themselves above their class, and many people on just this thread alone are testament to the fact by reminding us of how they came from socioeconomically deprived circumstances and have done well for themselves, yet somehow when people who use a different measurement of success are successful in lobbying to change how society measures success, suddenly the people who once regarded themselves as successful are now seeing themselves as victims of other people’s ways of assigning value and meritocracy to people?

Whatever happened to those people’s “I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps” nonsense? It turns out their life’s work was indeed based upon an exercise of perpetuating a mythology which fed their own egos, the idea of equality as they saw it which conferred upon them certain social advantages which are now being distributed more evenly - they haven’t actually lost anything, they just don’t like the idea of other people having the same opportunities that they once took for granted.

Meritocracy doesn't apply to all equally. I've never been more taken aback by the vitriol of someone who seemed incensed by my mere presence than by the female panel lead, incidentally also vice chair of the institute, at an interview I attended for a role in the educational institute I had just graduated from. The disdain was palpable, refused to even shake my hand at the end. My error? Straight white male from a working class background with the temerity to consider sharing the same domain as such a decorated and dignified academic.

Compare that to the experience of a female/minority applicant where you can stone wall guarantee all and sundry will be falling over themselves to avoid any potential offence and obviously it'll look great for the statistics if they were to get the position.

Dyr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

as opposed to a formerly insular world view which was dominated by men who imagined they would always be entitled to a job for life solely by virtue of their sex, and are now finding out that such an insular world view is simply neither sustainable nor particularly profitable in the long term.

It's fascinating to see someone accuse others of living in a fantasy world when they're creating their own fantasy history. When did any man think he had a job for life because he was a man?

And in case you missed the history of the western world, the accusation leveled at white men was that they should have been far more insular rather than going out and conquering the globe

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not saying class discrimination doesn’t exist, of course it does, in the same way as discrimination on the basis of sex exists. However, with social mobility - one can elevate themselves above their class, and many people on just this thread alone are testament to the fact by reminding us of how they came from socioeconomically deprived circumstances and have done well for themselves, yet somehow when people who use a different measurement of success are successful in lobbying to change how society measures success, suddenly the people who once regarded themselves as successful are now seeing themselves as victims of other people’s ways of assigning value and meritocracy to people?

Let me clear about this. It has always been the case that being middle class trumps being working class, and upper middle class trumps being middle class, and rich trumps the upper middle classes. Within those classes women can be worse of than men but not by much. The difference in male to female earnings is 13% and falling. The difference between arbitrary postcodes in Dublin is greater than that. The difference between Northside and Southside is greater than that. The difference between Dublin and some of the provinces is greater than that. Girls do better than boys at school, and now in College. They are more likely to work in the public service, which is a nice pensionable job so they will end up in less poverty after retirement.

Whatever happened to those people’s “I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps” nonsense? It turns out their life’s work was indeed based upon an exercise of perpetuating a mythology which fed their own egos, the idea of equality as they saw it which conferred upon them certain social advantages which are now being distributed more evenly - they haven’t actually lost anything, they just don’t like the idea of other people having the same opportunities that they once took for granted.

That does not make sense. Firstly if people were working class they did pull themselves up, although of course the State has also helped them. I tend to dislike people who think they are self made if the state helped them.

What do you mean by "haven't lost anything". Your posts are becoming more incoherent, you are ascribing social advantages to working class males who have made it, but also say they don't want other people to have the same opportunities without proof. The idea that women don't have the same opportunities is not born out by the figures either, women do better than men across the board in education, across the class divides.

Actual stats on the subject of class and education ( for instance).

https://www.thejournal.ie/higher-education-income-1628957-Aug2014/

(99% of young adults in D6 go to college, just 15% in D17)

Franz Von Peppercorn

engiweirdo wrote: »

Meritocracy doesn't apply to all equally. I've never been more taken aback by the vitriol of someone who seemed incensed by my mere presence than by the female panel lead, incidentally also vice chair of the institute, at an interview I attended for a role in the educational institute I had just graduated from. The disdain was palpable, refused to even shake my hand at the end. My error? Straight white male from a working class background with the temerity to consider sharing the same domain as such a decorated and dignified academic.

Compare that to the experience of a female/minority applicant where you can stone wall guarantee all and sundry will be falling over themselves to avoid any potential offence and obviously it'll look great for the statistics if they were to get the position.

Where was this?

I’ve long been convinced that much of identity politics is a screen for snobbery.

engiweirdo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Where was this?

I’ve long been convinced that much of identity politics is a screen for snobbery.

Don't want to say directly as I haven't really dropped the matter if you catch my drift. I went to college at home.

One eyed Jack

professore wrote: »

The class structure in Ireland is very flat. As someone recently said most Irish people have grandparents or great grandparents who kept pigs in their house. This is unlike England or continental Europe.

Of course the wealthy can give their kids a leg up. However I've noticed that generally they tend to push their kids much harder than poorer people who default to blaming the government.

The explanation for that is fairly simple in fairness - who wouldn’t want to give their children every opportunity to enable them to have a better life than their parents? That’s what parents generally tend to do - is try to create opportunities for their children that they didn’t have. This is of course easier to do if you come from a wealthy background already as opposed to if you don’t come from a wealthy background and are then dependent upon the State for the opportunities you can provide for your children. The State isn’t too bothered to meet it’s obligations in this regard as is evidenced by our poor education system. Our Government which is responsible for our education system, is also responsible for it’s abject failure. If your parents are wealthy enough however, they are in a far better position to support their children’s education than parents who are not in a position to be able to offer their children the same opportunities.

One eyed Jack

Bambi wrote: »

It's fascinating to see someone accuse others of living in a fantasy world when they're creating their own fantasy history. When did any man think he had a job for life because he was a man?

Generally up until the 80’s in Ireland before our economy took a nose dive. Before then, men did have jobs for life and were able to provide for their families, and the recession was like a smack in the stones.

And in case you missed the history of the western world, the accusation leveled at white men was that they should have been far more insular rather than going out and conquering the globe

They didn’t so much conquer the globe as plunder resources from indigenous peoples in the lands they claimed for their Monarchs and have never been too keen on returning what they stole to build their own Empires. When people are now in a position to demand that turnabout is fair play, whitey laughably tries to claim that they are now the victims of mass immigration :rolleyes:

igCorcaigh

professore wrote: »

Of course the wealthy can give their kids a leg up. However I've noticed that generally they tend to push their kids much harder than poorer people who default to blaming the government.

Little bit unfair, that comment.

I've met middle class students in college forced into my course by their well-minded middle class parents, but of course they were unhappy and dropped out.

My working class parents encouraged me and my siblings to do our best and engage in whatever pursuit of life we wanted. Be that college or otherwise. We felt loved and supported, never pressurised.

And no blathering on about the "government" either.

igCorcaigh

Anyway, class will always be the compounding factor behind race and ethnicity in regards to achieving equality of access to jobs and education. Particularly in countries like USA. (or, religion too, as the history of NI shows).

Today's problems in Ireland of the cost of student rents have just replaced the older barriers of college fees and barefaced exclusion.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Let me clear about this. It has always been the case that being middle class trumps being working class, and upper middle class trumps being middle class, and rich trumps the upper middle classes. Within those classes women can be worse of than men but not by much. The difference in male to female earnings is 13% and falling. The difference between arbitrary postcodes in Dublin is greater than that. The difference between Northside and Southside is greater than that. The difference between Dublin and some of the provinces is greater than that. Girls do better than boys at school, and now in College. They are more likely to work in the public service, which is a nice pensionable job so they will end up in less poverty after retirement.

Yeah, about that, have you looked at the figures from the CSO in relation to the number of people in higher positions who are far more likely to enjoy higher pensions than the vast majority of staff in lower positions-

Just under two-thirds (65%) of Irish civil servants in general service were women in 2016

About three-quarters of Clerical officers and Staff officers were female in 2016. In contrast, less than two in ten (17.6%) of those at Secretary General level were women while less than three in ten (28.9%) of those at Deputy and Assistant Secretary level were women.

A clear majority of those in the four most senior general service grades were men in 2016.

The middle management grade of Administrative Office was the most gender balanced of all grades.

And some more stats:

The average income liable for social insurance for women in 2016 was three-quarters of men's with average income for women of €26,649 compared to €35,766 for men.

Men were more likely to have income of €50,000 or over with 21.4% of men and 13.3% of women in this income band. Nearly half (48.5%) of women had income under €20,000 compared to 39.6% of men.

The difference between men and women for average income liable for social insurance increased with age in 2016. The average income of women aged 15-24 was 89.5% of men's in the same age group while for the 55-64 age group women's average income was 64.5% of men's.

When interpreting this table note that no account has been taken of the number of hours being worked or of the occupations being performed by men and women, (see tables 2.6 and 2.8). See Appendix 1 for further information on income liable for social insurance.

TL:DR? Women are far more likely to end up in greater poverty after retirement than men, even among women and men working in the public service - there may be more women, but they still earn far less than the minority of men working in the public service.

That does not make sense. Firstly if people were working class they did pull themselves up, although of course the State has also helped them. I tend to dislike people who think they are self made if the state helped them.

What do you mean by "haven't lost anything". Your posts are becoming more incoherent, you are ascribing social advantages to working class males who have made it, but also say they don't want other people to have the same opportunities without proof. The idea that women don't have the same opportunities is not born out by the figures either, women do better than men across the board in education, across the class divides.

Actual stats on the subject of class and education ( for instance).

https://www.thejournal.ie/higher-education-income-1628957-Aug2014/

(99% of young adults in D6 go to college, just 15% in D17)

You’re being very selective in your comparisons and when we compare outcomes of like with like over their lifetimes, women will have less capacity to be self-sufficient than men, as in they will not have the same opportunities to provide for themselves and to elevate themselves out of poverty as men, and they are far more likely to be dependent upon State aid to provide for themselves and their families than men with 98% of women working in the home as opposed to the 2% of men who will not be in a position to contribute to their pensions and will therefore end up dependent upon the State pension.

Sure, girls outperform boys in school, with the top five secondary schools in the country based upon their academic performance and entry to third level being all-girls schools, while the rest of the top ten are all-boys schools. But that doesn’t translate into employment opportunities, where it’s quite clear that men currently have significant advantages in employment with the way the labour market is structured in favour of men.

Attempting to restructure the labour market to balance the scales is met with claims mostly from men that women are now getting above themselves and taking more than they are entitled to, when the reality is that women aren’t taking anything from men. It’s simply the fact that the labour market is changing and becoming more balanced has some men imagining that they are being treated unfairly on the basis of their sex. They’re not being treated unfairly - the market is just balancing itself out and women are taking advantage of opportunities that weren’t there before in areas where they were previously under-represented in terms of employment and their potential to generate wealth and become as self-sufficient as men already are.

steddyeddy

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Little bit unfair, that comment.

I've met middle class students in college forced into my course by their well-minded middle class parents, but of course they were unhappy and dropped out.

My working class parents encouraged me and my siblings to do our best and engage in whatever pursuit of life we wanted. Be that college or otherwise. We felt loved and supported, never pressurised.

And no blathering on about the "government" either.

Actually poorer people usually do better at university.

mariaalice

The core question of equality of what has to be answered first.

TCM

biko wrote:

It's confusing. On one hand we are supposed to disregard gender - on the other hand we are supposed to promote women, for being women.

Sure women are great.

steddyeddy

mariaalice wrote: »

The core question of equality of what has to be answered first.

That's the thing. I don't believe in equality of outcome. I think that it's a very patronising way to deal with underrepresented groups.

Sky King

What gets me about most of this is that a lot of it seems to have been copy-pasted from the USA which is totally different socially and a lot of it doesn't make sense here.

I saw one Irish twitter SJW type looking for Irish 'women of colour' writers to contribute to something she was at. I was thinking, yeah good luck with that, there's probably about 3 of them in the entire country.

But they need a leg up, apparently.

TomSweeney

Paddy Cow wrote: »

It looks like the CAO where you are just a number and it is your merit, not your age, race or gender that gets you into university. Quotas are ridiculous. Not every career is going to have a 50/50 split. More men than women are interested in STEM and that's ok. Trying to entice a woman who has no interest into STEM is like trying to convince a man to train as a nail technician.

Equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome.

^^ This .


/thread

Ray Palmer

I work in IT and I can say there is a disproportionate distribution if observing gender. There are more women in decision making positions in consultancy firms. The developers are generally male but the BAs and Project Managers tend to be women. On top of that many of them are on short weeks. The people meant to make decisions aren't about 2 days out of the week.
It is just a weird breakdown that the people with technical knowledge are often not involved in the decisions and the people that make the decisions aren't about.

It seems to be the same with all the big consultancies. Does cause problems but seems to be accepted because people don't complain about it. Strange if I take a day off I have to make sure everything is handed over and fully detailed.

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well of course most teaching is done by tenured teachers, I already pointed out that newly qualified teachers can’t get permanent positions in schools and are effectively working part-time. I didn’t argue that teaching wasn’t a middle class salary, I asked specifically could we agree that €55k is a middle class salary? I accept that it’s possible we could differ on what we regard as peanuts, but for the work they are actually expected to do, I personally would expect a lot more than €55k to do it. You’re also ignoring the fact that many teachers will be expected to put in hours of unpaid work in the form of extra-curricular activities, which is another reason why men are more in demand nowadays than women - the need for children to do physical activities such as getting involved in sports and so on.







I wouldn’t hazard to guess how true that actually is, but it doesn’t negate my point that she is hardly living what I would call the high life on her Government pension.





You accuse me of bigotry, and then go on to imply that not only are men in prominent positions schemeful, but women are too? Again, I’ve yet to meet a schemer at the top who got there solely as a result of scheming, but in my experience, schemers regardless of their gender, generally don’t rise above bottom-feeder level. They’re generally the type of person who will accuse men at the top of scheming their way there, and women at the top of sleeping their way to the top, as opposed to recognising the work they put in to get where they are, that that person isn’t willing to put in, and then claim they could have been a contender.





That’s simply not true Franz. I can think of numerous CEO’s who’s accents are associated with inner city socioeconomically deprived areas. They come from working class backgrounds and they often remind anyone who cares to listen of this fact. I’m not talking about “I sold penny apples with me maaaa” Bill Cullen types, they’re generally spoofers, “looking for warriars” me hole, I’m talking about people who are biased against spud munchers like myself who didn’t grow up in the inner city but rather grew up in the arse hole of nowhere and in a way I’m glad I was never exposed to role models like Conor McGregor and Dr. Dre who have no regard for the responsibility they have as role models for young men. I wouldn’t want my own son to turn out anything like Conor McGregor, and I live smack bang in the middle of the inner city so I see exactly the type of behaviour he inspires in young people - behave like a scumbag, and you’ll earn a reputation for yourself as a scumbag. No amount of money will ever buy class, and Conor McGregor is proof of that if ever proof was needed.






I live in the same world as you live in where of course class exists, but it’s not as influential a factor in children’s outcomes as adults as their sex. Social mobility dictates that people can move from the lower socioeconomic classes to the upper socioeconomic classes, but what they can never change is their sex, and that will have different impacts both positive and negative on their lives as they move up the social ladder. The fact that many Irish CEOs are men who come from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds is a testament to the fact that socioeconomic class isn’t so much a barrier to children’s outcomes as adults, as their sex.

A good case in point being I met a woman out the other night and I didn’t recognise her at first, she recognised me (in spite of the fact I was no longer in possession of a six pack, but have gained a few kilos in the intervening 20 years, and she had lost a few kilos ). We had both been at the same level in a company where we both worked 20 years previously, and I had progressed much further in my career than she had in hers. The key differentiator between us? She was a single parent at the time, whereas I was not, I had the support to be able to get the promotions I got due to the fact that my wife had chosen to stay at home and raise our child, and now my wife too has chosen to focus on gaining a third level qualification in an area of employment she is interested in, that could prove to be quite lucrative if it works out for her.

I don’t see what’s unbelievable about suggesting that the days of breaking people’s balls and offering them meagre rewards for their labour are fast becoming a thing of the past. They are! In Western society we are becoming more well educated, and people who previously wouldn’t have had access to education, let alone higher education, are now able to avail of opportunities that weren’t available to them before. This increases their expectations of their value to potential employers, and employers are beginning to recognise that in order to attract top talent - they need to offer top renumeration packages, or better than their competitors anyway at least.

I don’t expect Government will recognise that reality any time soon though, as long as we still elect scheming nest featherers who are more interested in looking after themselves and their own, and so we will inevitably have to put up with the introduction of programs like the Athena SWAN program which for all intents and purposes are nothing more than a vehicle to keep a small number of people in some very well paying jobs. In reality they will do little to nothing to address the issues they claim to want to address, and as has been pointed out already by eddy - the program is hardly even out of the starting blocks before they’re arguing like children over who should be leader, each one seeing themselves as the bigger victim of some perceived social injustice. It’s all academic anyway, thankfully :pac:





They clearly do care though, as demonstrated by the fact that we’re even having this conversation, never mind the fact that the boardroom is no longer perceived to be the preserve of stuffy starched collar types, but we have the likes of CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Elon Musk, Larry Page and Sergey Brin - hipster types who generally give me a pain in my face, but there’s no denying their appeal to millennials.

In fairness to the use of terms like C-suite’ and ‘going forward’ in that article - generally in Ireland anyone using the terms should be taken out back and shot with balls of their own shìte, but the article is about 10 years old and sourced from the US, did you really expect that there wouldn’t be cultural differences in the language used? That kind of language appeals to a small minority of people, most people would be unlikely to use the terms outside of the boardroom.





People with computer science degrees alone, generally do begin and end as code monkeys. In order to become CEOs, they have to have a lot more to offer than simply a degree in computer science. I also didn’t say that Arts degrees are used to hire people, I said it may well be a persons Arts degree makes them an invaluable asset to a progressive company operating in a modern economy where it’s not just what you know, but it’s whether or not you fit in with the company culture. James Damore no longer fitted in with the company culture at Google, and found that out when he decided to pull a Jerry Maguire and made himself a liability as opposed to an valuable asset :pac:

Software engineers are generally easily replaceable, software engineers who fit with the company culture on the other hand, are an invaluable asset, including software engineers from India who generally work for peanuts compared to their American counterparts. Just ask anyone who works at Disney

Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers With Immigrants


We’re not even close to being at that level in Ireland yet where Irish people are a minority in IT, in fact we’re punching well above our weight in that regard with the number of indigenous Irish people employed in Irish IT HPSUs -


High Potential Start-ups (HPSUs) - Do I qualify?





Not at all Franz, my world view is just that though - global, as we are now playing in a global economy. In that world what matters is strategies to diversify and increase profitability and sustainable growth, and part of that is of course recognising and acknowledging how the other half lives, as opposed to a formerly insular world view which was dominated by men who imagined they would always be entitled to a job for life solely by virtue of their sex, and are now finding out that such an insular world view is simply neither sustainable nor particularly profitable in the long term. That’s exactly why corporates have had to change their attitudes towards the other half - because they’re beginning to recognise the influence the other half has, ironically in part thanks to their own inventions like social media which made the global economy a whole lot smaller and does away with many of the physical barriers to employment allowing for the creation of new opportunities which didn’t exist before, like competing for market domination in IT in industrialised fast growing economies like India -





These are the top 10 tech companies to work for in India


It certainly puts your complainants about the employment prospects for your token inner city white boy in Ireland and accusing me of not knowing how the other half lives, in perspective.

OEJ here's some light reading form the Guardian about law and businesses firms binning resumes from people from working class areas. Can you link me to a case where people openly admit where people bin CVs of people because of their gender? If you do I'll consider it on a par.

One employer suggested firms were unwilling to sift through applications from those of working-class backgrounds. “Is there a diamond in the rough out there?” the unnamed recruiter told researchers. “Statistically it’s highly probable but the question is … how much mud do I have to sift through in that population to find that diamond?”

steddyeddy

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Exactly. A british university professor (grad from Cambridge) accused me of “privilege” in a twitter spat last year. That’s a lad from working class north side of Dublin being accused of privilege by a woman who is part of the English elite, went to a private school and has an “ancestral home” in Kent. Not downtown abbey but a a Georgian pad all the same. (I googled her).

Identity politics is a joy for elites. It ignores class (in Britain it ignores Englishness as well as if “whiteness” was some kind of useful explanation of culture). Not surprising it has caught on.

Just out of interest how did she defend calling you privileged?

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

OEJ here's some light reading form the Guardian about law and businesses firms binning resumes from people from working class areas. Can you link me to a case where people openly admit where people bin CVs of people because of their gender? If you do I'll consider it on a par.

You want me to consider an article from the Guardian, highlighting the fact that top law and accounting firms discriminate against potential candidates based upon their class, as on a par with practically all businesses that discriminate against potential candidates based upon their sex? I don’t consider them on a par in the first place. Class discrimination is of course an issue in the recruitment and promotion process that needs to be addressed, but it’s not nearly so prevalent in many areas of employment and academia as gender discrimination.

To take just two studies out of the vast, vast amount of studies done on this isssue -

How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

You’re working in the UK eddy, has your home address actually ever been an impediment to your employment opportunities in the UK?

Your sex may well be an issue in the future by which you will be discriminated against :pac:

The point I’m making is simply that your home address or your class or your background are not immutable characteristics of who you are as a person. Your sex, on the other hand, is an immutable characteristic that you cannot change, and has a far greater impact on your education and employment opportunities than your home address or where you grew up or your class you came from as you moved up the ladder of social mobility.

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You want me to consider an article from the Guardian, highlighting the fact that top law and accounting firms discriminate against potential candidates based upon their class, as on a par with practically all businesses that discriminate against potential candidates based upon their sex? I don’t consider them on a par in the first place. Class discrimination is of course an issue in the recruitment and promotion process that needs to be addressed, but it’s not nearly so prevalent in many areas of employment and academia as gender discrimination.

To take just two studies out of the vast, vast amount of studies done on this isssue -

How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

You’re working in the UK eddy, has your home address actually ever been an impediment to your employment opportunities in the UK?

Your sex may well be an issue in the future by which you will be discriminated against :pac:

The point I’m making is simply that your home address or your class or your background are not immutable characteristics of who you are as a person. Your sex, on the other hand, is an immutable characteristic that you cannot change, and has a far greater impact on your education and employment opportunities than your home address or where you grew up or your class you came from as you moved up the ladder of social mobility.

And we have law firms saying they won't hire people from working class areas nor consider looking at their resume. Can you find an equivalent statement for gender?

I.E can you find a STEM employer saying:

One employer suggested firms were unwilling to sift through applications from those of women. “Is there a diamond in the rough out there?” the unnamed recruiter told researchers. “Statistically it’s highly probable but the question is … how much mud do I have to sift through in that population to find that diamond?”

Taken from the original:

One employer suggested firms were unwilling to sift through applications from those of working-class backgrounds. “Is there a diamond in the rough out there?” the unnamed recruiter told researchers. “Statistically it’s highly probable but the question is … how much mud do I have to sift through in that population to find that diamond?”

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

And we have law firms saying they won't hire people from working class areas nor consider looking at their resume. Can you find an equivalent statement for gender?

Elite law firms in the UK admitting they won’t hire people from lower socioeconomic classes? Why is anyone supposed to be surprised by that?

Of course I can’t find the same sort of equivalent statement for gender because any employer who advertised that about themselves could find it their most expensive advertising campaign ever. Discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic background is not unlawful. Discrimination on the basis of gender, is.

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Elite law firms in the UK admitting they won’t hire people from lower socioeconomic classes? Why is anyone supposed to be surprised by that?

Of course I can’t find the same sort of equivalent statement for gender because any employer who advertised that about themselves could find it their most expensive advertising campaign ever. Discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic background is not unlawful. Discrimination on the basis of gender, is.

But you're now talking about something different. Previously you were saying that gender discrimination is more of an issue than class discrimination.

The employer didn't advertise that fact, they just acted on that prejudice by binning CVs of such individuals. Can you find even an allegation that CVs are binned because of a person's gender.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

But you're now talking about something different. Previously you were saying that gender discrimination is more of an issue than class discrimination.

The employer didn't advertise that fact, they just acted on that prejudice by binning CVs of such individuals. Can you find even an allegation that CVs are binned because of a person's gender.

I’m not talking about anything different. You have one single article where there are claims of discrimination based upon socioeconomic status, and you think that makes it worthy of equivalent consideration with gender discrimination. You expect them that I should be able to find a similar article where companies boast about unlawful behaviour as though it’s comparable to behaviour which is not covered by equality and anti-discrimination legislation.

Of course I’m not going to find an equivalent article, because an employer would have to be a particular kind of stupid to boast about the fact that they have no regard for equally and anti-discrimination legislation.

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not talking about anything different. You have one single article where there are claims of discrimination based upon socioeconomic status, and you think that makes it worthy of equivalent consideration with gender discrimination. You expect them that I should be able to find a similar article where companies boast about unlawful behaviour as though it’s comparable to behaviour which is not covered by equality and anti-discrimination legislation.

Of course I’m not going to find an equivalent article, because an employer would have to be a particular kind of stupid to boast about the fact that they have no regard for equally and anti-discrimination legislation.

Well how can gender discrimination be as bad a problem if there's legsilation to protect it?

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well how can gender discrimination be as bad a problem if there's legsilation to protect it?

Because in spite of the existence of legislation to prohibit it, it still goes on and is prevalent in all employment sectors, practiced by numerous employers, and cases of gender discrimination are regularly considered by the WRC. There are only nine grounds in law under which a case regarding discrimination or treating one person less favourable than another -


- Gender: this means man, woman or transsexual
- Civil status: includes single, married, separated, divorced, widowed people, civil partners and former civil partners
- Family status: this refers to the parent of a person under 18 years or the resident primary carer or parent of a person with a disability
- Sexual orientation: includes gay, lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual
- Religion: means religious belief, background, outlook or none
- Age: this does not apply to a person aged under 16
- Disability: includes people with physical, intellectual, learning, cognitive or emotional disabilities and a range of medical conditions
- Race: includes race, skin colour, nationality or ethnic origin
- Membership of the Traveller community.


Discriminating against a person or treating them less favourably than another on the basis of their address, is not one of those grounds, let alone complaining about cases in the UK in relation to policies in Ireland.

engiweirdo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because in spite of the existence of legislation to prohibit it, it still goes on and is prevalent in all employment sectors, practiced by numerous employers, and cases of gender discrimination are regularly considered by the WRC. There are only nine grounds in law under which a case regarding discrimination or treating one person less favourable than another -


- Gender: this means man, woman or transsexual
- Civil status: includes single, married, separated, divorced, widowed people, civil partners and former civil partners
- Family status: this refers to the parent of a person under 18 years or the resident primary carer or parent of a person with a disability
- Sexual orientation: includes gay, lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual
- Religion: means religious belief, background, outlook or none
- Age: this does not apply to a person aged under 16
- Disability: includes people with physical, intellectual, learning, cognitive or emotional disabilities and a range of medical conditions
- Race: includes race, skin colour, nationality or ethnic origin
- Membership of the Traveller community.


Discriminating against a person or treating them less favourably than another on the basis of their address, is not one of those grounds, let alone complaining about cases in the UK in relation to policies in Ireland.

So class discrimination is not important then if there is no legislation prohibiting it. Carry on old chap.

One eyed Jack

engiweirdo wrote: »

So class discrimination is not important then if there is no legislation prohibiting it. Carry on old chap.

Come back here Cathy Newman :pac:

Where did I suggest addressing class discrimination wasn’t important?

Victor Meldrew

We got a memo in from Neighbourhood Watch stating that there were two middle aged women breaking into cars in our estate. And a few weeks back there was another auld dear casing houses.

Gender equality and age equality is not always welcome...

engiweirdo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Come back here Cathy Newman :pac:

Where did I suggest addressing class discrimination wasn’t important?

Just that the other isms are far more important. If you wish to build a career in the "equality" industry at least..

One eyed Jack

engiweirdo wrote: »

Just that the other isms are far more important. If you wish to build a career in the "equality" industry at least..

I couldn’t care less about one ism or another, I’m unashamedly sexist and as far from a feminist as is possible. However, that being said, I do place more importance on discrimination that is recognised in Irish law as opposed to discrimination that isn’t.

BrokenArrows

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's simple.

If two people, one man and one woman, work in the same job for the same amount of time, with the same education and experience and perform to the same level then they should receive equal pay and opportunity to take on new tasks, promotions and so on.

It's not that simple.

Say the woman never asked for a pay rise in her whole time working there and the man hounded management every year. There will be a pay difference.

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because in spite of the existence of legislation to prohibit it, it still goes on and is prevalent in all employment sectors, practiced by numerous employers, and cases of gender discrimination are regularly considered by the WRC. There are only nine grounds in law under which a case regarding discrimination or treating one person less favourable than another -


- Gender: this means man, woman or transsexual
- Civil status: includes single, married, separated, divorced, widowed people, civil partners and former civil partners
- Family status: this refers to the parent of a person under 18 years or the resident primary carer or parent of a person with a disability
- Sexual orientation: includes gay, lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual
- Religion: means religious belief, background, outlook or none
- Age: this does not apply to a person aged under 16
- Disability: includes people with physical, intellectual, learning, cognitive or emotional disabilities and a range of medical conditions
- Race: includes race, skin colour, nationality or ethnic origin
- Membership of the Traveller community.


Discriminating against a person or treating them less favourably than another on the basis of their address, is not one of those grounds, let alone complaining about cases in the UK in relation to policies in Ireland.

OEJ you're listing laws. We're in agreement that there is no law. The point is that class discrimination isn't legislated against and therefore a bigger problem now. Address is a very small part of that problem. School and socio-economic class is the problem.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

OEJ you're listing laws. We're in agreement that there is no law. The point is that class discrimination isn't legislated against and therefore a bigger problem now. Address is a very small part of that problem. School and socio-economic class is the problem.

If we were to get real about what true equality should look like, then there would be no need for anti-discrimination or equality legislation at all. A persons socioeconomic circumstances are far more dictated by their sex than by their class.

We could argue all day over what class a person belongs to and what assistance should they be entitled to based upon what class they fit into, to give them equal opportunities as someone in another class who has those opportunities by virtue of their parents socioeconomic status.

What is inarguable however, is that no matter what class women are in, they will never have the same opportunities as men in the same class, so comparisons between inner city boy and daddy’s little rich girl are presenting a false dichotomy.

engiweirdo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If we were to get real about what true equality should look like, then there would be no need for anti-discrimination or equality legislation at all. A persons socioeconomic circumstances are far more dictated by their sex than by their class.

We could argue all day over what class a person belongs to and what assistance should they be entitled to based upon what class they fit into, to give them equal opportunities as someone in another class who has those opportunities by virtue of their parents socioeconomic status.

What is inarguable however, is that no matter what class women are in, they will never have the same opportunities as men in the same class, so comparisons between inner city boy and daddy’s little rich girl are presenting a false dichotomy.

It is certainly not inarguable and is in many situations an absolutely laughable conclusion. What exactly is stopping women from any social class from pursuing STEM subjecting they so wished? Especially now with employment procedures so mutilated that a female will absolutely be selected in most instances over a similar/ better qualified male counterpart for a good even role to promote "equality".

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If we were to get real about what true equality should look like, then there would be no need for anti-discrimination or equality legislation at all. A persons socioeconomic circumstances are far more dictated by their sex than by their class.

We could argue all day over what class a person belongs to and what assistance should they be entitled to based upon what class they fit into, to give them equal opportunities as someone in another class who has those opportunities by virtue of their parents socioeconomic status.

What is inarguable however, is that no matter what class women are in, they will never have the same opportunities as men in the same class, so comparisons between inner city boy and daddy’s little rich girl are presenting a false dichotomy.

So you should only compare genders across class? A rich girl compared to a rich boy and a poor girl comprared to a poor girl? The only logic in that is to support your weak arguement that class doesn't matter. Compare a poorer girl with a richer one and see how class affects oppertunity.

Should we also compare genders in the same race? No other variable should come into it.