Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
"it's also bitterly divisive to carve up our society into artificial social catergories"
To be honest, the actual article can only disappoint after that URL.
I love their 'ludicrous' examples, especially their outrage at encouraging victims of homophobia to report it to the police. also the damning 'so-called' before 'equality impact assessment'. They're the law, you have to do them before all major public events!
The URL is far too perfect.
cuz they're both wimmin, innit
also love the wording of this: "Other controversial provisions in the Act allow employers to reject male job applicants in favour of women who are no better qualified"
so, if i understand correctly, you have a male applicant and a female applicant and they both have exactly the same qualifications, and you're ALLOWED to choose the woman over the man?!?! even though she is NO BETTER QUALIFIED?!?!?! mental
but the mail's comments never fail to plunge me into a pit of despair for humanity. not even so much the comments themselves as the rating system. take a look at the "worst rated" - full of dangerous commies saying preposterous things like "I would rather live in an educated, informed and respectful country at any cost". the highest rated comment, on the other hand, is this complex and incisive gem of political reasoning: "This country needs to stop and take a good look at itself before it is too late. And perhaps if we can put the clock back 30 or 40 years - DO IT." 968 votes. JFC
I would see any guidance other than "you should give the job to the most capable candidate regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality or disability" a bit worrying.
i don't think positive discrimination is always a liberty-destroying english-hating PC-gone-mad travesty
can't say i've read the act in any detail but i expect it's probably something to do with this bit:
which seems perfectly reasonable to me
I do think it's almost always misguided though for two reasons.
a) First off I think it's a bit patronising and offensive. I'm a member of a group with a 'protected characteristic' but if someone gave me a job because of that when they thought another candidate was better and I found out about it, I'd feel pretty shitty about the fact I wasn't given the job on merit but as an act of charity as I fit the right profile.
b) Ultimately it's not majority or minority groups that go for jobs. It's a group of individuals on that shortlist. They're not statistics in a social trend and, even in a 'majority' group, may still have had to work hard to achieve what they have. Just because there are more over-priveleged white men, for example, doesn't mean every white man has an advantage in life or that no woman or member of ethnicity group has ever been born in fortunate circumstances. So, whilst I support any method to make sure that job shortlist is as open to everyone as possible, I think once you get to the shortlist stage the candidates you have deserve to be respected as individuals and judged for that, not the group they happen to belong to.
I'm losing my job in a couple of months time as are many other people I know, who don't belong to 'protected groups'. When they go to interviews they've still got the same bills to pay as everyone else and the same need to work as everyone else. If they're the best candidate I don't think it's fair that they still be out of work just because some other people of the same gender or ethnic background happen to be doing alright for themselves.
If you want proof of that, just look at the post-World War II creation of Israel...
and your point about Israel is well thought out and really does hold water.
The point about Israel was needlessly glib I admit. The fact the first two arguments have been made before seems a bit irrelevant. Either it's right or it's wrong and whether I'm the first person to make it is entirely irrelevant. if you think I'm wrong then feel ditch the sarcasm and make a counter-argument. But positive discrimination makes me uncomfortable, especially on the occasions I've benefitted from it.
We'll probably continue to have bugger all women or non-Caucasians at the top of the jobs ladder - it's nice to think the best candidate should get the job regardless but you suspect this isn;t happening in a lot of places (or the opportunities aren't becoming available).
I wouldn't dispute that's the problem. I'd just dispute that this is an effective or appropriate solution.
but i think there are situations where it is appropriate, not so much for the sake of individuals but for the sake of making a conscious effort to promote equality in your workplace or your job sector if you feel that a certain section of society is unfairly under-represented in that sector. also: "if someone gave me a job because of that when they thought another candidate was better" - no, i don't think that's what's being suggested and i don't think many rational employers would consider it. but most jobs get LOTS of applicants, many of whom will have identical qualifications. and in a situation where you're having trouble deciding between a few candidates who are fairly equal in all other aspects, it's not unreasonable to base the decision on equality grounds. and the act is only saying you're ALLOWED to do that if you think it's appropriate, not that you *must* always pick the minority
I guess all there is to do is wait and see how the act ends up being applied...
i don't think there's a huge risk of this country's employers being over-zealous in their application of equality guidance
what if queers see it?