This "pro women" thing?

Nah don't worry Phoenix I agree, at least as far as awards are concerned. However, it seems to be harder for women to get backing to produce and/or direct films so they have less chance of winning. Give them equal opportunities in producing/directing then see whose films are best in a truly equal competition.

Yes I agree with you, man or woman, whoever is best for the job. end of.

Where did you get your tin helmet from? I am behind the sofa as we speak. You post the cats, I will post about dogs.

Phoenix great to hear someone say what I've been muttering to myself and the dog for ages. All this blinking box ticking you can see it on TV all the time, and another thing Women's Hour is beginning to get on my wick, nerves, doing my head in.

Thanks to all who have posted, your responses are appreciated!

It is very rare for me to post something along these lines, usually stick to the "fluffy" stuff!

Phoenix, another in complete agreement.

As for Womens Hour....... stopped listening ages ago, it is now so dreary and boring, a perfect solution to mid morning insomnia.

I agree it should be the best person for the job.

I don't see the problem in someone wishing the best for someone who is disadvantaged, by their sex, disability and so forth.

I don't mind a short period of time where positive discrimination is used to give disadvantaged people experience so that a class of people they can join those best suited to a job.

I agree with you, pheonix.

It is very, very annoying to work hard, excel in your field, get a promotion and then have the muttering behind your back ‘Of course she only got it because......”

I only ever wanted to get the job because I was the best of the bunch?

I have some experience of this "positive discrimination" in relation to musical projects. It is somewhat problematical in that sphere as it is not necessarily the musician most suited to that project who is selected. It also strongly influences Arts Council grant funding - you have to ensure a gender/ethnic mix in a project and this does not necessarily work create the best artistic outcome - e.g. inappropriate instrumentalists selected not because of the musical mix, but on non-discrimination grounds.

I do understand that exclusion on the grounds of ethnicity/gender should never happen, and hopefully things are moving towards selection on the grounds of skill and suitability, which is entirely as it should be.

With reference to the OP, it would indeed be great if a woman won best director and we would no doubt all raise a cheer - but not at the expense of choice by merit.

Well, what a relief!

So far it seems to be that we all are in agreement that it should be the best person who gets the job or award!

Which is as it should be, surely.

Luckygirl thank you for an interesting and very informative post, which seems to back up my HR " box ticking" theory.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

I agree with you phoenix and grandma60

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 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 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.

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.

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 !

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.

Yep! paddyann- That strikes a balance-