Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    One for the feminists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Completely disagree. Discrimination against any social group is wrong.
    Offline

    14
    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.
    It is discriminatory and ultimately I disagree with it however there is an undeniable split of labour between men and women. In the short-term I'm happy to see the equality between genders in the workplace grow, however this preferential system shouldn't be around for long.

    We shouldn't get hung-up on this being THAT unfair. Although it is unfair on the individuals, if you look at how female employees have been treated it's been doubly unfair on them for a long time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its a good idea because most jobs at a higher level are not advertised and the men get them by being headhunted. Lots of women are the main breadwinners in families these days and it is no longer OK to be earning less than equally qualified men.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So I have a better chance of getting a job now because I have a fanny? Excellent! Maybe I should lick someone else's fanny for double priority!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone please qxplain to me why a perfect male:female ratio is so important? I genuinely don't get this. Maybe if a certain job has more men doing it than women, it's because that job generally interests men more than women? As much as we try to pretend otherwise, men and women ARE different, and if no discrimination was ever made on gender, I'm sure you wouldn't find that every job had exactly 50% male and 50% females.

    But if someone wants to go into a certain career path, why should we stop them? And equally - if someone DOESN'T want to go into a certain career path, why should we force them to?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It's not going to happen, because when are two people ever going to be exactly the same apart from sex.

    Doesn't it work both ways though btw? The telegraph article implied that. Example they give is primary teaching, where they actually want more men at the minute. And isn't it not just about sex.

    Realistically, if two candidates were EXACTLY the same, I wouldn't have a problem with this policy, it could be used for good things. Taking the teaching example again, the reason they want more male teachers is to supply children with a male role model, and I think this is a good thing, so it makes sense to choose a few more males. It would only be when sex or other qualities like it took priority over ability/experience/references/qualifications/interview etc. that I would say it's wrong, and this policy does not allow that at all.

    But like I said, the situation is never gonna happen anyway, and I doubt that many companies`would dare use it as a reason anyway, for fear of being accused of not sticking to the 'equal ability' rule.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This is already prevalent in prisons for warden/officer posts.

    Why would a 5ft 3" woman be able to do a prison guards job at a MALE prison? youth prisons as well.

    If they are around average looking I guarantee you they will be spreading their legs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It will also apply to gay and transgender people. In theory, men could also be favoured in some areas where they are under-represented, such as primary teaching.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz175cOyuGZ

    It's not just women being favoured. It seems like they're trying to favour minority groups is all.

    Still dont quite agree with it though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Unfortunately political correctness has degenerated into a contest of who is the least offensive instead of motivating people to adress the problems themselves. Even the major parties are afraid of tackling sensitive issues for fear of looking un-progressive.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Appalled that the Tories allowed this remnant of Harriet Harman to go through.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tha_Black_Shinobi)
    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
    But the state is facilitating and arguably 'sponsoring' a discriminatory act. It's like the state removing laws on not promoting people because they are black or whatever - the state isn't forcing employers to not promote people because of their skin colour, but they are facilitating it. And the act of removing such legislation would symbolise approval and sponsorship, as it does in this case (albeit the opposite - introducing legislation, which is arguably worse).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wow that's very interesting and I completely 100% disagree.
    Obviously as a female we can sometimes feel undermined or as if we are looked upon as being not as bright or able as men....but I'd rather be given a job because I'm the best for it as opposed to fulfill some sort of quota.
    That said, many firms adopt these quotas already and adhere to them pretty strictly. So this is essentially just legislation stating it more officially?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo

    Positive discrimination is STILL discrimination. It discriminates against something you cannot change. You can change the bias concerning typical 'motherly duties' although it will take time, the educational bias can be changed etcetc. Not easily but it can be changed.

    Positive discrimination makes it seem like the were unable to attain that position without special legislation.

    I would not want a job where I only got it because I am female. How patronising.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tha_Black_Shinobi)
    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
    So what you're saying is they're giving people a bonus/disadvantage because of their gender.

    Ie. Discrimination supported by the state.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ugh great, yet another nail in the coffin for my job prospects after I graduate.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Should be illegal to do this, no matter WHO you discriminate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The only way this would even close to be legitimate if it took the person's individual background into account.


    Why do hardcore equalitists judge people based on inherited characteristics? By this system a white male who has had a **** life, and a single parent can be denied a job due to a women from a rich family, having backing financially and emotionally throughout her life.

    I hate it. **** harriet harman.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katyness)
    With so many things to worry about, this is what they come up with?
    How very true.

    As a feminist, I'm not ok with this. It's not a good way of making white men more sympathetic to non white/females causes- and we aren't being judged on our own merit as has been stated.

    Potentially, it's not fair on families where the woman wants to stay at home, if now her husband is going to have a harder time finding the work he needs to support her decision.

    Also, I dislike the thought that in a workplace, I'd be seen as there simply because I'm more 'diverse', rather than capable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So not only will I have to contend with an overflowing graduate market, a stagnant economy, massive outsourcing and student loans to pay off, but I'll be discriminated against because I'm a white man?

    I fully support the principle that all people should have an equal opportunity to get any job without prejudice based on gender, ethnicity or race. Discrimination to stop discrimination is utterly self-defeating and fails to achieve employment equality in any measure.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

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

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