Quotas for females

Was that the same capable and intelligent Jacqui Smith who claimed for the hire of a porn movie on her parliamentary expenses? Was that the same capable and intelligent Jacqui Smith who claimed that a bedroom in her sister's house was her main home and the house in her constituency where her family lived was a second home?

Were there more male than female panellists on the Any Questions programme?

Yes. quite, absent - the very same Jacqui Smith.

She was the only woman on the panel - nothing new there then.

This is the old argument isn't it? Point out one successful woman, black, gay etc who has made it and assume that the rest who don't must be lacking in something. An argument usually put forward by white, straight males but sometimes backed by the odd woman who has made it as proof of her superiority over other woman. Pass me a bucket.

I am in favour of the person best qualified for the job - I don't care if its a man, woman, black, gay or whatever. This is what we should be aiming for, not having quotas for women. Yes I know it doesn't happen yet and I know there are prejudices but it is what we should all be pushing for.

This question was presumably provoked by this classic:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10244637/Ukip-treasurer-Women-are-not-competitive-enough-for-the-board-room.html
If he had had an iota of common sense he would just have said that you need the best qualified person. And kept his silly mouth firmly closed.
In these days of concern about corporate ethics, maybe a tad less macho "competitiveness" might be a good thing.
More concerning, i was listening to a R4 podcast that mentioned that NHS England is all male board - this is the strategic board for the whole of England. Apparently there was a really good woman applicant who was blocked by ministers for political reasons.
The anti quota argument is persuasive - however the policy of having all women shortlists to redress the balance in the Labour party was a success.
My heart says actually yes, you do need to take some "affirmative action" if you are to get better representation. The down side is that you do see some tokenism in which people with little to recommend them get selected.

You need the best person for the job, regardless of gender. But we also need to make sure that education and child care make it possible for women to be in the running if that is what they wish.

The absence of women in higher levels of management and business may also be due the the fact that they do not necessarily rate these as measures of success - I know I don't.

Of course we need the best person for the job but that doesn't happen. I listened to a programme on Radio 4 recently where employers were actively discriminating against 'women of childbearing age' - the only way to find these dinosaurs is to monitor their hiring statistics.

I believe that in other (successful) countries there are quotas for women, and women are thus more equally represented in top jobs. Since girls and young women are successful in school and universities but thereafter become less visible in the higher levels of the workforce, I can't see what the problem is in redressing the balance in favour of women.

I guess it has long been the case that men get a bit of a leg up in their careers from other men... Most Uk directorships in the private sector are not advertised, they are by recommendation "I know a good chap..."
It would be a huge step forward if they were all advertised openly. Until this happens I don't think it behoves UKIP officials or any other silly old chaps to pontificate on the subject.

I read an article by Karren Brady saying that the thing she really needs is a wife. However successful she has been in her professional life she still finds that children's shoes, school lunches, doctors' appointments etc. don't happen unless she organises them. I suspect this will strike a chord with many people!

My daughter has been very successful in her career, but now she is due to go back to work after her latest maternity leave and she really doesn't want to. She likes her work, she gets on well with her colleagues, but if she could afford it she would just like to stay at home and mess around with the children. I'm not sure there are that many men who would feel the same.

The definition of 'success' is still denominated in male terms. To be successful generally requires working long hours and putting family second. That is why so many 'successful' business men are divorced and 'successful' business women are childless.

What we need to do is challenge how success is reached and measured. Women may be less 'successful' in business but a large number of successful special interest groups that work for changes in social legislation are led by women

Very true Deedaa

The whole "quota" thing is a minefield. Just get the best person for the job.

If the quota issue went to an (admittedly illogical, but I do like the odd flight into la la land!) ultimate conclusion, then we might even being looking at a "quota" of black disabled lesbians, paraplegics with allergies, people born in Cornwall with someone called Denzil as a relative not less than 3 generations removed, anyone who has never been polled in the street by someone carrying out a survey on behalf of UGov, .................

And how about male quotas for Bums n Tums exercise classes??

FlicketyB, I agree.

This is an interesting video:
Unpaid 'work' usually undertaken by women isn't recognised in GDP.

www.nfb.ca/film/whos_counting/

No wonder women are elbowed out of top jobs.

Phoenix how can you know you have got the best person for job when you don't do an advert or employ an agency even, just a recommendation by current directors and cronies. this is what happens with directorships which is what Mr Fuddyduddy was spouting about. More junior, normal roles do to a reasonable extent get appointed on merit. But there is still a "does their face fit" factor (unless they have a very good selection procedure - interviews on their own are rubbish). I know one senior management team that (apart from 2 people they inherited) are, like the boss, all white, male, over 6ft 2 and extremely skinny.

Exactly Jess how can we know the best person is being employed? Only if there's monitoring in place are the trends obvious. Firms which only or mainly employ white males for example can then be asked to explain.

The monitoring/quota arguments are still needed aren't they, despite many positive changes. I also heard the radio 4 programme Aka mentioned and felt I'd been transported back in time when I heard employers say the simply didn't interview women of child bearing age. My children are now in their late twenties. One week, I took 3 days off when one of the toddler's was very poorly. I then a meeting I couldn't miss, so my husband booked a day's leave (his own diary allowed this easily). My husband's manager phoned home to ask "where is your wife".......

I am inclined to agree with Sunseeker, in that it shouldn't matter whether a person is male, female, white, black or gay the job should go to the individual with the best abilities in the particular field of expertise they are applying for.

However, like many on GN as far as politics, medicine, journalism, law and some of the higher echelons of business are concerned it is depressing to see a disproportionate number of privately educated individuals taking these top posts. In particular, with high court judges, who on occasions reach such bizarre rulings it makes me question their relevance.

On a slightly different note, an area I would like to see MORE men would be teaching. Having only sons I feel boys, particularly those who have no male role models in their lives, suffer from a lack of male teachers, I know my boys did. That's not to say they didn't have some good female teachers but particularly when adolescence kicks in, some boys, not all, respond better to a male mentor.

Can't believe anyone would describe Jacqui Smith as capable, I think she is remembered as making a total hash of running her department but like many others across all our major parties she did excel in the devious and dishonest departments!

I am ambivalent about positive discrimination of any kind. On the one hand, I would love to see more women, people from ethnic minorities, disabled, etc. being given appropriate roles, but on the other hand I know that when I was given a top job in an educational service there was muttering from all the disappointed male candidates that I had only got the job because I was a woman/young/blonde/had a degree. I just worked very hard to prove that I had been a good choice.

The composition of the judiciary remains very largely white, male, public-school/Oxbridge educated, and we can tell from some of the ludicrous comments they have made about rape victims that they are totally out of touch with reality. Things will improve slowly, as more women and ethnic minority lawyers are working their way up through the system.

There are always going to be men who look down on women. They don't need an excuse to be insulting and abusive - just look at the awful way Mary Beard, et al, have been treated just because they are women who have a high public profile and who have either put forward their opinions or demonstrated their expertise. This is the sort of treatment meted out without there being quotas.

Of course, the best person should be chosen for a job, but are we saying that the best person is, three out of four times, a man?

Research has shown that women tend to under estimate their abilities, whereas men tend to over estimate them. Perhaps a little less machismo and a little more humility would prevent the sort of mess ups that we see time after time in business and finance.

I agree that not everybody - male or female - wants to be a "high flyer". Success shouldn't just be measured in terms of power and salary. However, women represent around half of the population and I find it difficult to believe that they are not represented at higher levels in the workforce simply because the vast majority have no desire to be.

Eloethan - agreement from me with all your points above. Greatnan, like you I've mixed feelings about positive discrimination. Maybe I was influenced by comments I overheard from the two male colleagues who were interviewed, but didn't get the team manager post that I did in that round of interviews. One of them was nodding his agreement to the other, who complained loudly, that you needed to be a breast feeding mother (me) or a lesbian (the director) to get promoted these days. That was 1986 - the derogatory comments about women don't change much do they, not does the sense of entitlement to management posts amongst some men.

I suppose that as long as women have babies, and want to spend some time at home with them, they will continue to be at a disadvantage. Firms could certainly do more to recognise that employees have responsibilities outside their work but it can be very difficult for a small company, with three or four employees, to find cover for maternity leave. Some work is so specialised that it is not possible to simply bring in an agency temp.
I think women often underestimate their own skills and apply for jobs that they know are well within their competence. I took the opposite view and always applied for those which seemed out of my reach - and I often got them.
I am playing devil's advocate and trying to look at the problems of working women from all points of view.