Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

"Women to get priority over men in job market under new guidelines" Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nmac94)
    Jeez, these muppets in government seem to be on a mission to make sure each policy is more ridiculous than the last. General strike soon anyone? Don't know about you, but I'm pretty fed up with these lot after seven months, and don't fancy waiting much longer to let them know their policies aren't welcome this century.
    Are you aware Labour wanted to implement the same policy with added requirements on employers?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Fantastic idea! Lets combat sexism with blatant sexism :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So equality means putting out the white heterosexual males? Political correctness gone ****ing retarded.

    We should all write a letter to our MPs, or this crazy *****.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Possitive discrimination is still discrimination, as shown in this case as it discriminates against someone for not being female or an ethnic minority. All candidates should be treat equally in terms of age, gender, race, religion etc. And the person who is best for the job (in terms of qualification and how well they interview) should get it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmartFool)
    I don't see how this is unfair, they need to do something to stop the severe lack of women and ethnic minorities in the workplace, so why not this? If not this then what do people suggest to make sure the underdogs are not discriminated against?
    What statistics are you basing this on?

    (Original post by SmartFool)
    Not suited for the jobs how? Employers have discriminated against women (especially in their 20s) because of their likely "maternity leave" they could be just as good if not better than the man yet because of this don't get the job, not really fair is it?
    Sounds fair to me. Why would I want an employee who's quite likely going to disappear for a year at a moment's notice? And why should we be forced to employ such people?


    The big question is, why the **** should every work place have some forced gender/ethnicity/sexuality distribution? How does that help anyone? And why those things, why not make sure each company has the right number of ginger people, violinists and motor-racing fans?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The guidelines seem to be forgetting that women are just not as good as men.

    -at university you find women tend to take softer, less scientific flimsy subjects like english lit and art, that dont prepare them for the professional world of work like more male-dominated subjects such as maths, computer science, and economics.

    -women are hormonal and irrational, which makes them difficult to work with and horrible for leadership roles.

    -most women to have babies half-way through their careers, so up and leave for a year or two, and assuming they return to their jobs they're not the same unencumbered independent woman they once were. Now they're newly-born mothers with a whole host of commitments outside of work and this affects their productivity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zweihander)
    -at university you find women tend to take softer, less scientific flimsy subjects like english lit and art, that dont prepare them for the professional world of work like more male-dominated subjects such as maths, computer science, and economics.
    Product of bias in education - more should be done to address this earlier.

    -women are hormonal and irrational, which makes them difficult to work with and horrible for leadership roles.
    Most people are irrational in many ways. Personality traits cannot be generalised over entire genders.

    -most women to have babies half-way through their careers, so up and leave for a year or two, and assuming they return to their jobs they're not the same unencumbered independent woman they once were. Now they're newly-born mothers with a whole host of commitments outside of work and this affects their productivity.
    Again, this is due to the traditional imbalance in caring duties between men and women. Men with families are allowed to be 'unemcumbered and independent' at the expense of women.

    All in all, you just want to perpetuate the same old **** and use that as some sort of excuse.

    Edit: don't like this stupid proposal though, once again trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Product of bias in education - more should be done to address this earlier.



    Most people are irrational in many ways. Personality traits cannot be generalised over entire genders.



    Again, this is due to the traditional imbalance in caring duties between men and women. Men with families are allowed to be 'unemcumbered and independent' at the expense of women.

    All in all, you just want to perpetuate the same old **** and use that as some sort of excuse.
    .I agree. + Rep for later
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lovely_me)
    Another policy with the stench of the EU about it. :rolleyes:

    As a feminist, I disagree with that policy. The best qualified ought to have the job, and legislation should ensure that. Not legislation to choose one group over another.

    How can discrimination to stop discrimination be allowed?
    I hardly think it's a EU policy. Ethnic discrimination, even positive, is forbidden by French constitution and I doubt European government pass policy who contradict members constitution. I think you just have to blame your own government.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmartFool)
    Not suited for the jobs how? Employers have discriminated against women (especially in their 20s) because of their likely "maternity leave" they could be just as good if not better than the man yet because of this don't get the job, not really fair is it? Yeah your probably right they won't be hiring White men just to discriminate, but perceived/general stereotypes of a group of ethnic minorities are especially low, as humans we all judge others initially on appearance, if your perceived notions of a group of ethnics are low, it's going to take a lot for the candidate of ethnic origin to prove he is equal/better than the other who there was no preconceived notions about. Just a thought.
    If you're taking nearly a year out for maternity leave, then in the eyes of the employer you're a weaker candidate. Surely the employer has the right to try and create a profitable business. Same rules should apply to any male candidate contemplating paternity leave.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Product of bias in education - more should be done to address this earlier.
    What makes you think that it comes from a bias in earlier education? And what form does this take?


    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Most people are irrational in many ways. Personality traits cannot be generalised over entire genders.
    lol... of course they can. Men and women differ in so many ways, some of which the poster you quoted mentioned. Do you really not see it yourself when you deal with people?
    Women are definitely more prone to irrational judgements, undulating emotional states, they're not as aggressive and driven as men to compete, and so on.
    That doesn't mean it applies to EVERYONE, we're just talking about the average man vs. the average woman.
    I can't see how anyone who has met people of each sex couldn't recognise the differences between them.

    When the differences appear in development (before birth or afterwards, say) is another matter. And then whether they're desirable or not - i.e. does society work well when we have men and women as separate types of people instead of just some genderless bunch of clones.


    Again, this is due to the traditional imbalance in caring duties between men and women. Men with families are allowed to be 'unemcumbered and independent' at the expense of women.
    It works pretty well, don't you think? I'd bet most mothers do a better job looking after kids than most fathers.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    That is a **** idea. Hire people who are qualified for the job not people who make the workplace a more colourful place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    women and ethnic minorities are now able to be hired over equally qualified white male candidates.


    However I do not like being lumped into a certain category just because I am a woman.
    There is no such thing as two candidates that are "equally qualified". Sure, they can have the same educations etc, but their personal traits will make them more or less suited than another candidate.
    I'd like to think I got a job on merit of achievement and character, rather than having interal reproductive organs.
    That being said, something does need to be done to achieve more equality in the workplace both ethnically and gender-wise.
    Not sure this is quite my cup of tea.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    Does the government seriously think that women and minority groups are so lacking in actual merit that they need some state-run social engineering scheme just to get a job? Does the government seriously think these groups don't possess the skils to get these jobs fairly? Not only does this awful scheme trample on the ideals of a meritocracy and equality, but what an utter insult to women and ethnic minorities it is.
    It's also pretty insulting to men.

    Insulting all round.

    Stupid policy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think this makes sense for a small number of jobs. Ones where it's actually important to have a certain gender balance. One example I can think of is the police force because there are situations that a female officer is more suited to, and some that a male officer is more suited to. So ideally there would be a certain male:female ratio. If they find they are lacking female officers, it may make the group more effective to hire a woman over a man even if they man is technically more qualified.

    Although, I'll be honest, I struggle to think of any other jobs this would apply to. Certainly doesn't apply in your average office job.
    • PS Helper
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    DISAGREE!

    It's exactly the same kind of thing as the "All woman shortlists" that Labour and Conservatives have, just makes it seem like we cannot do anything by ourselves. We don't need men making rules to "help us out"...I don't want to get a job just because I have boobs...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    Just interested to see what anyone thought of this:

    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/849250-w...new-guidelines

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tion-laws.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...imination.html

    Basically, women and ethnic minorities are now able to be hired over equally qualified white male candidates, purely to boost the diversity of the company.

    Your thoughts? Particularly interested to hear from feminists on this one - they always say that they only want equality, so it'd be interesting to see if they support this discriminating policy.
    This diversity obsession is pure madness. I am tired of seeing fake looking ads and pamphlets with a member of every ethnic group and gender artificially placed in the picture just to make the people responsible look tolerant. Ultimately, favoring someone because of their belonging to an "oppressed" group is not only unfair for qualified male caucasians but also patronizing to the promoted individuals themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Posetive discrimination should never be okay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    This diversity obsession is pure madness. I am tired of seeing fake looking ads and pamphlets with a member of every ethnic group and gender artificially placed in the picture just to make the people responsible look tolerant. Ultimately, favoring someone because of their belonging to an "oppressed" group is not only unfair for qualified male caucasians but also patronizing to the promoted individuals themselves.
    LOL I've noticed that too!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    State sponsored discrimination.


    'Coz that will make us all equal.
    Its hardly "state sponsored". Employers will be able to pick certain candidates over another if they are of equal merit if they so choose. Noone is being forced to do anything as part of this legislation
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 6, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.