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

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    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.
    The situation is very different given the fact that women comprise 50% of the population, but only 16% of politicians. :shifty:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amjw)
    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.
    ^ Even if women were not discriminated against, still the men could have been positively discriminated for. "Removing discrimination completely" as you say, rather than affirmative action, is not going to work, as it hasn't worked so far. Getting to that 0 is going to require action, as getting away from it did. Of course discrimination is wrong in all its forms and degrees, however the indoctrinated culture is not going to be solved by itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Harriet Harman is an evil harpy, she is sexist against men.

    Regardless we all know men make better leaders hence why there is more male MP's.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    The situation is very different given the fact that women comprise 50% of the population, but only 16% of politicians.
    50% of the whole black population live in London, making it just over 10% of the whole population in London. Shall one in ten policemen in London be black then? And I'm not sure how many politicians went to a comprehensive school and did not attend Oxbridge. The only one who stands out is John Major and that's it. You only see it as different because you judge it to affect you, but when an institution is argued to mirror society under certain categories then arguments for other categories and other institutions will inevitably follow.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    ^ Even if women were not discriminated against, still the men could have been positively discriminated for. "Removing discrimination completely" as you say, rather than affirmative action, is not going to work, as it hasn't worked so far. Getting to that 0 is going to require action, as getting away from it did. Of course discrimination is wrong in all its forms and degrees, however the indoctrinated culture is not going to be solved by itself.
    You cannot fight a wrong with another wrong, particularly not the same one.

    And I think the culture is far from indoctrinated, in fact, I think now it is made fairly obvious that women can do what they want and get where they want, and everybody I've met (even at my all boys' school) agrees with this.

    Discrimination in favour of women is just going to **** this country up even more.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    50% of the whole black population live in London, making it just over 10% of the whole population in London. Shall one in ten policemen in London be black then?

    And I'm not sure how many politicians went to a comprehensive school and did not attend Oxbridge. The only one who stands out is John Major and that's it. You only see it as different because you judge it to affect you, but when an institution is argued to mirror society under certain categories then arguments for other categories and other institutions will inevitably follow.
    Theoretically, yes. This would make the police force in London better representative of Londoners.

    Gordon Brown didn't attend Oxbridge.

    You are simply regurgitating your argument. Do you not agree that more women should be in Parliament?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Theoretically, yes. This would make the police force in London better representative of Londoners.

    Gordon Brown didn't attend Oxbridge.

    You are simply regurgitating your argument. Do you not agree that more women should be in Parliament?
    Do you not agree that the people representing our country or fighting our wars or caring for our children should be the best people for the job?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's difficult, I dont know if it makes me racist but I would say this sort of discrimination would work for non caucasian people(though maybe not mixed race) i.e I dont like walking into shops or more loads of shops in the same street with all or at least 90% non caucasian people since I feel like that is refusing the caucasian people jobs.

    But when it comes to women(or men) its different for me, equality is a tough issue I get fed up with seeing jobs advertised in many of the shops I regularly visit like small convienence stores, Blockbuster, even cafes as they advertise as staff wanted then in all the years of visiting them(as many as 7 years for 1 store) they have NEVER hired a male member of staff apart from the 1 they are legally supposed to hire(I think its a 7 to 1 ratio or something)

    And on various occasions have been to different stores like Argos round the UK and see the female staff at the front serving and the male staff doing the lifting and hard work in the back, even when they have a guy working the tills he is sort of cannon fodder as any time a customer buys a heavy item they make the guy lift it, in the past I have seen scrawny stick insect thin guys get told by butch massive supervisors(or maybe just till workers) to help the customers to the car and you can see the guy barely standing up and tumbling about.

    Equality should mean just that not just positive discrimination.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    this is like proposals at my dads work where they are on about splitting the board 6 men/6 women.

    It is propostorous to say they should be more women in these jobs and so all should comply immediatly. I wouldn't care if they was an all female government, what is right is that the best person for the job gets whether they be man, woman or dog.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    You are simply regurgitating your argument. Do you not agree that more women should be in Parliament?
    And there are ways you achieve things. If you're that worried about representation of Londoners perhaps the London Mayor should live in London for a start. I would happily remove that clown by force in the name of better representation. And, as a little extra, I become public enemy number one on this site.

    You see if a Muslim MP stated there should be more equal representation to match society's reflection in Parliament would you agree with him? I'd imagine if a thread featured this scenario the response would be very different.
    Offline

    14
    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.
    Yes it will. Graphs and overall figures are unimportant. Each case of discrimination is an individual injustice where real people suffer. Just because you can make something look right on a graph with affirmative action doesn't mean it's right. In exactly the same way it wouldn't be right to "balance out" the injustice of slavery by sending the same number of people from England to work as slaves in Africa.

    The way to end discrimination is just that, to end it. Provided that from now on things are meritocratic the imbalance will fix itself over time.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeiou81)
    You cannot fight a wrong with another wrong, particularly not the same one.

    And I think the culture is far from indoctrinated, in fact, I think now it is made fairly obvious that women can do what they want and get where they want, and everybody I've met (even at my all boys' school) agrees with this.

    Discrimination in favour of women is just going to **** this country up even more.
    The truth is that there is still discrimination - of course there is 99% less than in most parts of the world and that's something to be proud of as a country. Although the UK is probably doing acceptable in terms of MP representation, it's still not as good as it can get. There are obviously certain areas of work that men and women prefer particularly, but the issue is that we haven't got to the point where we have enough information to establish whether there are more men in politics because they tend to prefer the job, or if it is because of the past which encouraged men to do it as a job and failed to portray women in the job. That's why we need to give affirmative action a try -
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nefarious)
    Yes it will. Graphs and overall figures are unimportant. Each case of discrimination is an individual injustice where real people suffer. Just because you can make something look right on a graph with affirmative action doesn't mean it's right. In exactly the same way it wouldn't be right to "balance out" the injustice of slavery by sending the same number of people from England to work as slaves in Africa.

    The way to end discrimination is just that, to end it. Provided that from now on things are meritocratic the imbalance will fix itself over time.
    This is not just about discrimination, though. It's about the image of politics which is male. If people are not nudged to consider the job by being reinforced by female figures, they're not going to consider it - not because they can't or dislike it, but because it's not portrayed as an option.

    Most people hopefully don't need a role model to pursue a career e.g. male nures, but those who do will feel unwanted or liked and socially inadequate. Don't just expect women to plunge in a political career, in a room full of men and not feel "in the wrong place, doing the wrong job". People know that is wrong and don't believe this is the case, however, the attitudes are still there and it's them we need to get rid of.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    The truth is that there is still discrimination - of course there is 99% less than in most parts of the world and that's something to be proud of as a country. Although the UK is probably doing acceptable in terms of MP representation, it's still not as good as it can get. There are obviously certain areas of work that men and women prefer particularly, but the issue is that we haven't got to the point where we have enough information to establish whether there are more men in politics because they tend to prefer the job, or if it is because of the past which encouraged men to do it as a job and failed to portray women in the job. That's why we need to give affirmative action a try -
    All children need to be made aware of this possible career path, yes, but it shouldn't be made easier for girls. The world is a competitive environment and we can't let people through who don't cut it. Also, if we make it easier for girls, not only will boys be put off but girls may see it as an easier option to other careers, skewing things even more. Affirmative action should not be "given a try" if there's any reasonable doubt it won't work (which it won't as it's still discrimination) - and even if it's a trial run, a) we cannot risk the health of the country any further and b) things will never be restored when it doesn't work, thereby messing things over more.

    We just need to ensure that the future generations know they can do anything regardless of gender, which I personally find is happening to an adequate level already, although obviously any more is good as long as it happens for boys and girls.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nefarious)
    And at interview they'll have performed in the same way too, will have exactly the same motivations, commitment levels, will be equally well rounded as people, will have the same extra curricular stuff etc. etc. It's not all about the grades you know.

    People are always different. If you can't see that then the way you're assessing people is flawed and you need to update your recruitment procedure rather than perpetuating the idea that to discriminate by Gender/ Race / Disability is ok.
    I'm not saying it's OK to discriminate on gender/race/disability- just that such discrimination does occur. And yes you're right to say it's not all about grades but even in other ways- such as motivations as you pointed out- people can be very, very similar. The most obvious example is working in the City (at least pre-recession) where so many managers and executives have highlighted the problem in recruitment as candidates have usually been educated to exactly the same level, have very similar extra-curricular achievements to beef out their CV and asked why they want to work in the City, most reply: "I want to make money and lots of it." Now clearly that is just one area of employment but I think in a number of instances candidates can be described as 'the same'. For people in general though, I don't view them as negatively as you seem to think haha! The difference is, if I were an employer I'm not looking to date these candidates- I want one who can, for instance, input all this data into a spreadsheet for me. Oh. They can all do it. Balls. Who I do I pick?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeiou81)
    All children need to be made aware of this possible career path, yes, but it shouldn't be made easier for girls. The world is a competitive environment and we can't let people through who don't cut it. Also, if we make it easier for girls, not only will boys be put off but girls may see it as an easier option to other careers, skewing things even more. Affirmative action should not be "given a try" if there's any reasonable doubt it won't work (which it won't as it's still discrimination) - and even if it's a trial run, a) we cannot risk the health of the country any further and b) things will never be restored when it doesn't work, thereby messing things over more.

    We just need to ensure that the future generations know they can do anything regardless of gender, which I personally find is happening to an adequate level already, although obviously any more is good as long as it happens for boys and girls.
    I'm glad you think that way. Girls of future generations (and this generation) will definitely find it esier getting into political jobs, however I don't think affirmative action would make it "easier" for girls, but merely equal, simply because boys have it "easier" now anyway due to the general picture politics has. When a woman appears in a political position, people rush to think (or involuntarily assume) they must have sucked some ****, or must've paid some money, or have some relative up there. That's wrong. That's why currently things are not quite fair. Whether affirmative action would fix this or not I don't know, but it seems a better option than leaving things as they are.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Women don´t get equal pay because employers care only about $$$ not about sexism.
    You see women nowadays are entitled to paid maternity leave which costs the employers $$$ so paying women less is a way of recouping their losses.
    Yes it probably is unfair to women who aren´t planning on having children, but life ain´t fair, so Harperson should stfu and deal with some of the many problems her party have caused in this country and get off her soapbox, after all it was labour´s "equality" laws which brought in this paid maternity leave, so in a way they´re responsible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    She is a stupid radical feminist moron. The reason men hold the top jobs are because they are better natural leaders.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    She is a stupid radical feminist moron. The reason men hold the top jobs are because they are better natural leaders.
    Thatcher was pretty good :yes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    The truth is that there is still discrimination - of course there is 99% less than in most parts of the world and that's something to be proud of as a country. Although the UK is probably doing acceptable in terms of MP representation, it's still not as good as it can get. There are obviously certain areas of work that men and women prefer particularly, but the issue is that we haven't got to the point where we have enough information to establish whether there are more men in politics because they tend to prefer the job, or if it is because of the past which encouraged men to do it as a job and failed to portray women in the job. That's why we need to give affirmative action a try -
    You seem to completely (and conveniently) sidestep the fact that positive discrimination brings no benefits to reducing discrimination in comparison with selecting on ability to work. You seem to think that as long as the representative ratios of men and women are similar, discrimination does not exist. No.

    I am not going to lie and say that there has not been discrimination in men's favor in the past. Of course there has been. And I will concede there probably still exists a very small amount of discrimination in men's favor even today. But the answer is NOT to favor selecting people because of their gender. The answer lies in ensuring that employers make selections based on merit and ability alone, not gender. It is that simple.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    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

    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.