This "pro women" thing?

I’d really like to see evidence that the best person for a job isn’t getting it soda and examples of how things have gone too far

In trying to redress the balance things have gone too far. I agree it should be the person most suited/qualified for the job who gets it regardless of gender, ethnicity etc.
Paddyann I have been retired for 14 years now but even back then we were not allowed to ask women applicants the baby question.

Here it is

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0004sbb

Lully did you listen to The Reunion on R4 a few weeks ago on this very issue? It might be on catch up if you didn’t

If anymore females have articles written about them in the papers declaring they want to find themselves or have more ME time, I shall be sick. ?

If the women football commentators don't speak in one long string of stupid clichés, as most of their male counterparts do, I for one think that can only be a good thing! ?

I.understand that was once said about women newsreaders.

My husband doesn’t like the football commentary by women

Me neither Urmstongran they are mostly not very good and as your DH says they just don’t get the terminology right. They don’t conjure up the same kind of atmosphere as an experienced male commentator does.

There is absolutely no real cause for concern in regard to equality for women. There is a peak of feminism which hates men. This is perpetuated by the media. It is deliberate. But when I see these foul-mouthed women holding banners saying ... More women in the Mines... Women must be in front line battle during war.... women first for fighting criminals in riot gear.... no, you don't see that do you. The current group of women in parliament, in recent times, are literally the most useless bunch ever known. This is because they were pushed to the position because they are women not based on merit and ability alone. The men are also the most useless bunch of morons. I never, ever accept or judge a position by gender equality. If you are good enough, you will get the position.

Some years ago, our government decided on what the stupid called 'reverse racism'
Companies and institutions such as universities, had to show they had a tiny, tiny percentage of Maori in the ranks.

Why? Because for decades, bright, capable Maori had been victims of those who decided who got jobs and places at uni. Predominantly white, male and prejudiced against anyone who wasn't of their ilk. .

Some people got up on their hind legs and said this sort of discrimination was wrong.

They hadn't been as vocal about discrimination when for the previous decades, only white students were taking university places.

Why shouldn't a promising young Maori engineer have the same chances as his/her graduate peers? Under the previous system s/he didn't.

Why shouldn't a woman, a disabled person, a trans-gender person be given the same chances as everyone else if they can do the job equally well?
But the fact is, if the 'deciders' are prejudiced, they are not.

In the past, these deciders had the arrogance to bar Jews or Catholics from sports and social clubs and that changed only slowly, when public opinion changed when people began to speak out about the unfairness.

So that's why we need pro legislation, opinions and rules because when people speak out about unfairness, we begin to listen (some of us anyway) and rethink our own attitudes.

Left to our own devices, human bigotry will hold sway and win - as it has been doing for generations.

Any woman (or Catholic, or Jew, or trans-gender, or disabled person) can tell you that.

Assuming there is equal opportunity in training and in getting work, level playing field etc, the comment "Let's hope it goes to a woman" could mean "Let's hope a woman turns out to be best, as this didn't happen when it wasn't a fair competition."

If all that equality isn't in place, though, the comment could mean "Let's hope that a woman nevertheless manages to break through and win, against the odds."

I listened to an interview with Sarah Jessica Parker, about a show she acted in and produced, and what it's like to work with other women who solely produce on the same show- She said it was difficult, and that she realizes some women still operate within the confines of what they picked up from their male mentors in regards to how they treat women, but that she was perfectly willing and willing to be patient breaking down those old barriers-

Yep! paddyann- That strikes a balance-

phoenix Saying that companies should employ the best people for the job rather than being told to employ more women, ethnic minorities, etc, etc, rather suggests that
the unrepresented groups aren't represented at senior levels because they are inherently NOT the best people for the job. I don't believe that is true.

In my view, underlying prejudices and preferences are often responsible for the lack of representation of certain groups. For instance, the I reported today that research has shown how the frequently misplaced confidence exhibited by many people of higher social standing is often mistaken for superior competence. In fact, experiments showed that those who felt the most confident were no more competent than anyone else but were nevertheless perceived by others as being more competent. www.pressreader.com/

So far as films and other popular entertainment are concerned, though, I tend to think that film goers aren't really bothered who the director or producer is but it is probably much more difficult for, for instance, a woman to get the opportunity to direct films. I wouldn't want to see a film receiving awards just as a token gesture to women, ethnic minorities, etc, etc., but I do want to see groups who are poorly represented get the same amount of opportunities and favourable exposure.

There aren't equal opportunities for women in any field.Women in general have to work harder and smarter and be BETTER than all the men surrounding them to get anywhere .I can understand why some are vocal about hoping a woman gets the job or the award where the odds are so unfairly stacked against us .Positive discimination is something different..of course the job should go to the best PERSON but often employers ask loaded questions and then make the decision against the woman being interviewed.Surely you've come across the "you're recently married will you be thinking about babies" type of question...they dont ask any man that !

Yes jane that’s it - I think the real point is whether the legislative/procedural framework is effective in ensuring equality of opportunity. I think that in some areas of life, there is still some way to go on that and of course, some rowing backwards is an ever present threat. For example, some of the excesses of the transgender movemen and the impact on women’s sports.

I read recently, can’t remember where now, that legislation and procedure should ensure that what results is equal opportunity for all, rather than the creation of privilege for a certain group.
I think positive discrimination does the latter.

I think it’s a little more complicated than that. Doodle alludes to it re disability. There may be barriers ( not to do with ability) that mean certain groups may be disadvantaged in accessing opportunities. What a society needs to do is to be able to do is to identify those barriers and deal with them to ensure a more level playing field. That isn’t the same as positive discrimination but is about reducing structural inequalities. Recently when PM was appointed Defence Secretary I was profoundly unimpressed by those making a ‘thing’ about her being the first female DS. However, I do think it was right when there was a real push to get more female MPs selected especially for winnable seats as there were many structural inequalities in the selection process that militated against women being selected.

I also agree with all you say Phoenix. I worked in public service for many years and they were the masters in box ticking !

I agree with you phoenix and grandma60

phoenix usually posts on fluffy matters ????. (Sorry I couldn’t resist)

I agree (I think) with your post phoenix that the best person (male/female whatever) for the job should get it but with a slight feeling that someone with a disability that means they will never be the best one for any job perhaps should have a chance. Not for the purposes of ticking the ethnic, disabled box but because they have so many of the skills needed for the job but just fall a little short because of whatever their specific disability is and there is nothing they can do about it. (Sorry, hopeless at explaining what I mean) .
Ignore me, I think what you mean in this context is correct.

Haven't seen any women going down the sewers-------yet !!

Urmstongran Glad I'm not the only one thinking that way

We were saying the same last week grandma60 - presented by women, played by men.

My husband doesn’t like the football commentary by women - just doesn’t - says they don’t have the right terminology. They will say ‘oh it hit the upright’ instead of ‘argh it hit the post!’

Horses for courses it seems.

Well I may have to join you all behind the sofa but why is it that all sports presenters on news programmes now seem to be women? I'm not saying that no women should present sport, but there now doesn't seem to be many male presenters.