This "pro women" thing?

As for misogyny there is an equal amount of ' misandry ' taking place in general and I am not making that point to any individual poster nor Gransnet contributor and will not get into a spat. I do mean in general.

I don't like either being practiced or spouted as I prefer to keep it simple , Can a female /male do xyz in the same way or not, if not then common sense says there should be equally a different outcome.

Likewise I do not think that ' All female / All Male ' lists are anything other than tantamount to being discriminatory and I find a certain irony occasionally in their usage.

An example would be the recent ITV decision to ban ' all male ' comedy writing teams. If the reverse had happened and ITV set a ban on ' all female ' writing teams you can just imagine the uproar that would have produced.

I think there is certainly a case for looking at discrimination in pay and conditions if the job description and working practice are ' identical ' to both male and female then so should the conditions and pay follow suit.

Political parties who use all-women shortlists for candidates, do so only in some of their seats.
It is to try to combat the norm of women automatically being overlooked in favour of men and thus to get a reasonable proportion of women elected.
The pro-men discrimination has always been the case until very recently, so I don't see any problem with discriminating in the other direction for a change.
The House of Commons is still overwhelmingly male, so I don't think men are suffering too much.

Probably it is the same situation with comedy writing teams, that women have so often not even been considered for them that's it's been felt necessary to give women compulsory inclusion.

I actually know nothing about comedy writing teams but that's my guess.

Far North

I like to think that the likes of French and Saunders, Victoria Wood, Phoebe Waller-Bridge et al received their recognition as female comedy writers because of their work, not because they were born female.

POGS, there is much I can agree with in your post @11:55 today (21/06/19) with the exception of this one paragraph.

POGS Quote [I think there is certainly a case for looking at discrimination in pay and conditions if the job description and working practice are ' identical ' to both male and female then so should the conditions and pay follow suit.] End Quote

POGS, any employer holding differentials in Salaries between genders when the positions have the same job description and working conditions would be in breach of the Equalities Act 2010.

The problem in the above comes about when greater flexibility is offered by those working within similar contracts and conditions, as in such cases some will be paid more than others due to that flexibility.

By example to the above, let us consider our company has two Assignment Handlers both with thirty-five-hour basic contracts, but one regularly offers to work extra hours while the other cannot carry out similar due to home comments.

In the above, the first employee will receive higher pay and/or bonus payments due to the percentage of the total hours he/she has committed to bringing about the assignment revenue total.

When training is considered that employee will be given the first opportunity as a preference over the other employee because he/she is a more significant economic asset to the company than the second employee due to that flexibility.

The above eventually means higher grading and higher basic salary due to the flexibility that the employee can offer to the company.

Unforchanetly, greater flexibility of working is in the main offered by male employees over women even when both have families to consider in their personal lives.

Apologies should be "commitments." Above not "comments"

Been a long and very busy week.

Mumsnet has lots of women who are in high-pressure responsible jobs.
Many of them also have the major responsibility for childcare and household management.
So, even if they are being as flexible as can be, it is at a cost to themselves not to their male partners.
Although society has changed a bit, this still has to be negotiated and sorted out between individuals in each partnership/marriage.

I think you've understood what people mean when they say things like this.

It's not "I hope the deserving man is passed by just to give it to a woman". It's more like "I hope society has come far enough to support young girls in their dreams that a woman will be the most deserving this year."

I can hope a woman wins while also hoping the most deserved wins. The same things goes for, "Companies need more women/ethnic minorities/disabled people at board level". It says something about our history as a nation that 99% of board rooms are filled with white men. Yes, they may very well be the most qualified. But we need to address why they're the most qualified. As an example, most black Americans live in inner cities with dysfunctional, impoverished school systems. It's a viscous cycle that makes it tough for anyone in that situation to get out. I do want more minorities and women in board rooms because the system is built against them/us (moreso minorities than women I suppose).

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Reported
It’s horrible when this happens

(reported the silly spam above)

Working in education, I did find positive discrimination and box ticking a real pain - yes, it got on my nerves.

However, I think it was needed then, somehow, that real push, to overcome barriers and provide positive role models for the students.

For a time, we had some staff obviously not up to - or thriving in their roles but it led to us all questioning the traditional way of doing things, the outdated approaches, the whole culture of the place.

It was unsettling and brought changes, some good, some bad. Still, you had to work full time to make progress - and many women were part time. Job sharing never took off.

Thread from 2019!

Drat - didn't notice!

The post was started by Phoenix.

I noticed the date too, Miss cursing the gammon with Phoenix

Positive discrimination in favour of women and ethic minorities happens in many areas not least parliament, also its obvious in local authority, advertising and media companies. Positive gender selection will be next for sure, the ability or qualification criteria went out of the window ages ago, thankfully women do rather well in most areas, despite not getting pay equality

silverlining48

The post was started by Phoenix.

Yes, my stomach gave a lurch.

The gammon is in the fridge, waiting for a large enough pot.

Oh! Mine, too, Cali

That’s where my gammon is Callistemon. Not sure if I shoukd cut it in half. ?

Yes, I had a double-take too, when I saw Phoenix's name. She is still missed!

But in the past, I can so well remember my husband and his problems with employment. He had MS, which meant he used a wheelchair. He had both a professional qualification and an MA in his profession, which was done sitting behind a desk

Yes he found it impossible to get a job in the 1980's on a sort of strange 'Does he take sugar?' basis. No-one not having use of their legs could possibly be knowledgeable enough to be a Company Secretary!!! Even those who did not have this attitude worried about (a) having to make some sort of adaptations at the place of work for a wheelchair or ( in the case of one very large, international company), their pension scheme would not admit him as he had MS, even with a letter from his OWN consultant saying that his other health was fine. He is still alive at the age of 81 years!!!!

So, Yes, I welcome some sort of postive discrimination at times.

I've just found this. But I do have a different perspective. My DS has been involved in instances where women and ethnic minorities have been favoured. I was at first quite annoyed at this, but he is quite philosophical and relaxed about it. He recognises the area he works in has less women and black or mixed race people working in it and he supports them being advanced. He says some of the work chosen is excellent. He does however have real problems with those who have connections already working in the field who sometimes get advancement and whose work is (in his words) crap. It is sometime still who you know. It has quite changed my thinking on the subject. (The boy was raised to recognise inequality when he saw it!!!)

Season's Greetings to Phoenix her memory lingers on.

silverlining48

That’s where my gammon is Callistemon. Not sure if I shoukd cut it in half. ?

I gave away my very large cooking pot because it was too heavy, I could barely lift it even without the gammon in it.

Yes there has been a lot of discrimination in the past and it is still going on but any form of discrimination always causes more discrimination as it is used to justify it. This can either be they discriminate against us so we can discriminate against them or unconscious bias by dividing the world into us and them and only thinking about us. You can not solve discrimination by discriminating.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

What a shock to see Phoenix name at the top of this. Dear Phoenix what joy she brought to us all.