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

One of Labour's top two posts should always be held by a woman Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This was in The Times, so maybe her comments were taken out of context, but if this is what she said then clearly it's not right. It doesn't matter who's in charge as long as the jobs done. Although diversity between sexes/races/age/background etc. in parliment is needed.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nefarious)
    So never then, which of course begs the question, why bring in that legislation at all?
    Absolutely. Its purely symbolic. Employers aren't going to use the provision because if they do the risk of a lawsuit is huge. The whole idea is to "look" like something positive is being done for women - its a stupid provision, which masks the very good work done by the rest of this Bill (making anti-discrimination accessible to people who have to represent themselves in the Employment Tribunal).

    (Original post by MrBOOBOO)
    MAybe it should kick in the education system, and let men go to uni more? or maybe they should be helped to work harder and change the system a bit.

    More young men are unemployed than young women, maybe it should kick in and give the jobs to men if the candidates are equally desirable???

    Its funny when men are disadvantage they don't cry for special treatment.
    It works two-ways more than you think.

    For example, there is currently a problem with the lack of male teachers in primary schools. Councils are giving guaranteed interviews, information days and preferential treatment to male candidates. A lot of effort is going into encouraging men not to be put off from it. Similarly, people have questioned the way in which we teach children on the grounds that it does not suit boys.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feral Beast)
    No it doesn't.
    How come?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    She didn't actually say that she doesn't want men in the top positions, she just said that there must also be a woman. If a male MP said that, I think people would consider it perfectly fair. It doesn't make sense that the population is roughly half half male:female ration, but the government isn't - it shows a clear fault in the representative system. And frankly, in times of discrimination, affirmative action is needed until there is no longer discrimination. Makes perfect sense.
    Affirmative action is discrimination pure and simple. No matter the intention it perpetuates and adds to the injustice, and does little to fix it. In fact, by continuing to make gender etc. an issue, it makes things worse not only through the injustice to each individual discriminated against but by maintaining a the general culture of discrimination.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrBOOBOO)
    MAybe it should kick in the education system, and let men go to uni more? or maybe they should be helped to work harder and change the system a bit.

    More young men are unemployed than young women, maybe it should kick in and give the jobs to men if the candidates are equally desirable???

    Its funny when men are disadvantage they don't cry for special treatment.
    No sexism here, course not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feral Beast)
    Because it is bound to sacrifice talent at some point.

    You have a man and a woman who are equally talented, then it works.

    If it happens that the best talented candidates are male, yet you have to choose one female because of this bloody rule, then talent will be sacrificed, and it's not fair on the talented male. He's being discriminated against because he doesn't have a vagina.

    It's ludicrous.
    No, no. The "rule" says it only works if both of them are equally well qualified. This is the condition.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    She didn't actually say that she doesn't want men in the top positions, she just said that there must also be a woman. If a male MP said that, I think people would consider it perfectly fair. It doesn't make sense that the population is roughly half half male:female ration, but the government isn't - it shows a clear fault in the representative system. And frankly, in times of discrimination, affirmative action is needed until there is no longer discrimination. Makes perfect sense.
    No... men and women should both have the opportunity to get that far, but ultimately the best candidates should be chosen regardless of gender. Same goes for race and disability as well as gender in any job.

    It's not like women don't have the opportunity to go into government and work their way up (just like men), it just so happens that there are fewer good female candidates at this current time, so they hold fewer of the high-up jobs. Nothing "unfair" about this.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nefarious)
    Affirmative action is discrimination pure and simple. No matter the intention it perpetuates and adds to the injustice, and does little to fix it. In fact, by continuing to make gender etc. an issue, it makes things worse not only through the injustice to each individual discriminated against but by maintaining a the general culture of discrimination.
    You maintain a culture of discrimination by not applying affirmative action.

    To put it in a simple way: In the past, or in the present, we are at -1 on a scale of discrimination, having 0 being no discrimination at all. If we don't do anyting about it, we'll remain at -1 and have discrimination creep into day to day lives and becoming a norm. We need affirmative action which acts in the opposite direction, +1 and brings us to 0, which is zero discrimination. That's how the universe works, you need to balance things out. Discrimination ain't going to resolve itself.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    By the two top posts, I take it she means leader and deputy leader. Aren't these two positions decided by an internal vote amongst party members? So, how can her idea ever materialise?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feral Beast)
    No, that's the equality bill. Regarding the party leadership, she said she wants 'any one of the two top positions to be occupied by a female' at any time.
    Well, in the case that she means "at any time", as in affirmative action not based on candidates being equally well qualified, then it's wrong, but then again, unlikely. I'm sure there's enough good competition.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeiou81)
    No... men and women should both have the opportunity to get that far, but ultimately the best candidates should be chosen regardless of gender. Same goes for race and disability as well as gender in any job.

    It's not like women don't have the opportunity to go into government and work their way up (just like men), it just so happens that there are fewer good female candidates at this current time, so they hold fewer of the high-up jobs. Nothing "unfair" about this.
    The problem is not that. The problem is that in the past and currently we have a majority of male MPs, which maintains its culture, discouraging women from cosnidering the job. Affirmative action works well only if it's based on equally well qualified candidates and its aim is to establish a starting point which doesn't have the remains of the discriminative past.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well at least someone is trying to do something about the woefully small female representation in Parliament. :mad:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeytk)
    This was in The Times, so maybe her comments were taken out of context, but if this is what she said then clearly it's not right. It doesn't matter who's in charge as long as the jobs done. Although diversity between sexes/races/age/background etc. in parliment is needed.
    They only advocate widening the backgrounds of those in Parliament to suit their agendas. It's still, largely, a place for people who went to a fee paying school and educated at Oxbridge, white as well at that. Diversity need not be solely fixed on old categories such as sex. She has amused me with her comments in the past, this and other topics.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    The problem is not that. The problem is that in the past and currently we have a majority of male MPs, which maintains its culture, discouraging women from cosnidering the job. Affirmative action works well only if it's based on equally well qualified candidates and its aim is to establish a starting point which doesn't have the remains of the discriminative past.
    Any woman put off from a job just because of the men or the 'male culture' shouldn't be considering the job anyway. There are some things in life you have to just deal with! Nothing will change about this so called "male culture" if women don't try, obviously, but they shouldn't receive special allowances just because they have a vagina - if they're good enough they'll get it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Well at least someone is trying to do something about the woefully small female representation in Parliament.
    And how many MPs went to a comprehensive school?
    How many of these did not attend Oxbridge?
    How many are black?
    How many Muslim MPs are there?

    You see, we're in a representative democracy...err...see.

    If the electoral system was changed to a PR model there will be more women because many do not like the adversarial nature of Westminster. Look at the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament and compare the numbers if you like.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeiou81)
    Any woman put off from a job just because of the men or the 'male culture' shouldn't be considering the job anyway. There are some things in life you have to just deal with! Nothing will change about this so called "male culture" if women don't try, obviously, but they shouldn't receive special allowances just because they have a vagina - if they're good enough they'll get it.
    Tell that to the sexists. Also, perfectly applicable if you replace the "vagina" with "penis".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    nobody listens to Harriet Harman anyway
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrBOOBOO)
    I can’t believe Ms Harman can get away with making statements like this.

    “One of Labour's top two posts should always be held by a woman, Deputy Leader Harriet Harman has told a paper”

    “She does "not agree with all-male leaderships" because men "cannot be left to run things on their own" she told the Sunday Times.” --to me this is so sexist and if a man said this about women, he would be forced to resign.

    And Under her controversial new equality bill, women will find it easier to demand equal pay and employers will be given a legal right to discriminate in favour of female candidates.

    That’s like saying, just because there are more women at universities, we should favour more male students rather than making men work harder in their exams!

    Its about time men voted her out as their MP, she does nothing for men and gets their vote to get in to power and rants and makes sexist laws against men.
    I need a source first.

    Always source these things.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Tell that to the sexists. Also, perfectly applicable if you replace the "vagina" with "penis".
    I completely agree that people shouldn't receive special allowances because they have a penis either. But I honestly don't think they do. If you or anyone else wants to see more women in parliament then go out there and try for parliament - people'll never get anywhere unless they stop moaning and petering around the subject and actually give things a shot, and do it in the best and most honest way possible.
    Harriet Harman wants to be the Labour leader? She should go for it. But she shouldn't try to mess with the laws to create a sexist environment that favours her simply because it's the easiest route, she should go for the best, most honest route and if she's not up to scratch then thank god she won't get in.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    You maintain a culture of discrimination by not applying affirmative action.

    To put it in a simple way: In the past, or in the present, we are at -1 on a scale of discrimination, having 0 being no discrimination at all. If we don't do anyting about it, we'll remain at -1 and have discrimination creep into day to day lives and becoming a norm. We need affirmative action which acts in the opposite direction, +1 and brings us to 0, which is zero discrimination. That's how the universe works, you need to balance things out. Discrimination ain't going to resolve itself.
    rubbish.

    this '-1 discrimination' thing would be sorted out if choices are made based solely on ability. THEN it would reach 0, where there exists no discrimination at all and the selection process is made solely on ability. a better argument that you could have made would be to remove discrimination between genders completely, not give preference to one gender over the other. all you are doing through this process is inducing people to believe that discrimination is ok when it is not ok, in any form at all, which makes it even further away from 0.

    just because the ratios of men and women are not the same does NOT always mean that women were discriminated against. It is just that those particular candidates were not as good as their male counterparts. The ratios do not matter at all if the workforce is selected solely on ability.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.