This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Please read all of this before throwing your toys (I am not being racist or sexist, or at least I don't think so).
I used a poor example over in The Pub section to illustrate a point of view about positive discrimination. Namely, that the BBC has a disproportionally large number of news presenters of an ethnic background as compared to the demographic of the UK. Though, when all is said and done, we're all immigrants of differing ethnic backgrounds. Given the small numbers involved, not the greatest of arguments, I'll admit. I also have no proof of this actually being a case of positive discrimination and also have nothing to say against their individual merits. Perhaps they were the best people for the job?
A better example would be something like Labour Party all women parliamentary candidature lists. With a policy like this, who knows, we could have lost another Clement Attlee? But surely a "Clementine Attlee" would rise to the top anyway?
Here's more of my arguments taken from The Pub:
Positive discrimination, IMO, works both ways and neither is good. On one side it is, "no you can't have the job because you're not XYZ" and on the other it is, "you can have the job because you're XYZ but not because you necessarily deserve it", that's not going to make anyone feel any self worth, though neither will actually be verbalised. Let's just have the best people, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation to do the job. In the words of Bill Hicks, "I don't care if they have three titties and a trunk."
I have a theory (or rather fear) that the western world is going to hell in a handcart because of this kind of leftist-liberalism and because the yearning to be seen as politically correct outweighs any notion of a meritocracy. Not only is this leading to a general downgrading of our societal skill levels, it leaves a lot of people feeling they are forgotten, marginalised and even slandered as "swivel-eyed" racists / sexists / homophobes should they dare raise any objection because they are feeling hard done by. What's more, the far right is taking full advantage of that. I think it was the cause of the B word (that I won't mention here) and the shit-storm going on over pond at the moment. I mean, just how desperate do you have to be to even consider voting for that immoral, philandering bigot? And it's not just the membership of the KKK who are supporting him. There are many women and even Black and Hispanic Americans supporting him too, that's how desperate they are for a change of direction.
However as an aside, I also think the dumbing down of political discourse into inflammatory sound bites, pushed by a media (both of left and right leanings) that is after your money and advertising revenue is a major problem in this regard.
To conclude:
Barrack Obama (black) got the job because he was the best (standing) candidate for the job.
Theresa May (woman) got the job because she was the best (standing) candidate for the job.
Peter Mandelson (gay) got the job because he was . . . . . oh, as you were!
Diane Abbott . . . . I really don't need to go there, do I?
What we need to change is the attitudes of people who think that only a white, heterosexual man can do the job.
So, is positive discrimination a good or a bad think? Has it gone over the top or not?
Sorry, a bit of a sermon!
I used a poor example over in The Pub section to illustrate a point of view about positive discrimination. Namely, that the BBC has a disproportionally large number of news presenters of an ethnic background as compared to the demographic of the UK. Though, when all is said and done, we're all immigrants of differing ethnic backgrounds. Given the small numbers involved, not the greatest of arguments, I'll admit. I also have no proof of this actually being a case of positive discrimination and also have nothing to say against their individual merits. Perhaps they were the best people for the job?
A better example would be something like Labour Party all women parliamentary candidature lists. With a policy like this, who knows, we could have lost another Clement Attlee? But surely a "Clementine Attlee" would rise to the top anyway?
Here's more of my arguments taken from The Pub:
Positive discrimination, IMO, works both ways and neither is good. On one side it is, "no you can't have the job because you're not XYZ" and on the other it is, "you can have the job because you're XYZ but not because you necessarily deserve it", that's not going to make anyone feel any self worth, though neither will actually be verbalised. Let's just have the best people, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation to do the job. In the words of Bill Hicks, "I don't care if they have three titties and a trunk."
I have a theory (or rather fear) that the western world is going to hell in a handcart because of this kind of leftist-liberalism and because the yearning to be seen as politically correct outweighs any notion of a meritocracy. Not only is this leading to a general downgrading of our societal skill levels, it leaves a lot of people feeling they are forgotten, marginalised and even slandered as "swivel-eyed" racists / sexists / homophobes should they dare raise any objection because they are feeling hard done by. What's more, the far right is taking full advantage of that. I think it was the cause of the B word (that I won't mention here) and the shit-storm going on over pond at the moment. I mean, just how desperate do you have to be to even consider voting for that immoral, philandering bigot? And it's not just the membership of the KKK who are supporting him. There are many women and even Black and Hispanic Americans supporting him too, that's how desperate they are for a change of direction.
However as an aside, I also think the dumbing down of political discourse into inflammatory sound bites, pushed by a media (both of left and right leanings) that is after your money and advertising revenue is a major problem in this regard.
To conclude:
Barrack Obama (black) got the job because he was the best (standing) candidate for the job.
Theresa May (woman) got the job because she was the best (standing) candidate for the job.
Peter Mandelson (gay) got the job because he was . . . . . oh, as you were!
Diane Abbott . . . . I really don't need to go there, do I?
What we need to change is the attitudes of people who think that only a white, heterosexual man can do the job.
So, is positive discrimination a good or a bad think? Has it gone over the top or not?
Sorry, a bit of a sermon!
10
3
In reply to Hugh J:
Who is standing for the job is an interesting point. One of the things that can be done to increase fairness is to increase applications for any given job. Once applications are reflective of the community the job is in then you can select the best candidate without worrying. Some companies have noticed that a certain group are not seeing the advertising for jobs so are ensuring that they advertise in different places to attract more applications from certain groups.
Attempts were made at one point to advertise primary teaching as a career to young men for example.
I suspect your BBC example in part may be down to the BBC being rather London biased, and the London demographic is very different to the country as a whole.
Who is standing for the job is an interesting point. One of the things that can be done to increase fairness is to increase applications for any given job. Once applications are reflective of the community the job is in then you can select the best candidate without worrying. Some companies have noticed that a certain group are not seeing the advertising for jobs so are ensuring that they advertise in different places to attract more applications from certain groups.
Attempts were made at one point to advertise primary teaching as a career to young men for example.
I suspect your BBC example in part may be down to the BBC being rather London biased, and the London demographic is very different to the country as a whole.
Post edited at 07:46
5
1
2
In reply to marsbar:
I know someone who applied for the fire service in the midlands, he (white male) got down to the last few and interviews, but didn't get the job. A few weeks later the local press had a photo of the new recruits. 12 of them. 5 women, 5 Asian men, 2 white guys. I suspect this isn't a direct reflection of the population of the whole of the service's area.
Quota filling, or equality chasing is rife and has been for at least a decade. Some diversity group suggests that 10% of a company should be ethnically diverse, Company A looks at itself and sees it only has 2%, so next set of recruits regardless of merit will be sought to push up that percentage.
In some cases it is good, more men in schools is a good thing for example, but they should still be sought on merit. One of our little ones has a male teacher, a former refugee from the Balkans (so he ticks lots of equality boxes), I think men interact differently to women, so it broadens their learning a little, plus he runs a tight ship & doesn't suffer fools gladly, standing up against senior staff when things need sorting out rather than let problems run on.
> . Some companies have noticed that a certain group are not seeing the advertising for jobs so are ensuring that they advertise in different places to attract more applications from certain groups.
I know someone who applied for the fire service in the midlands, he (white male) got down to the last few and interviews, but didn't get the job. A few weeks later the local press had a photo of the new recruits. 12 of them. 5 women, 5 Asian men, 2 white guys. I suspect this isn't a direct reflection of the population of the whole of the service's area.
Quota filling, or equality chasing is rife and has been for at least a decade. Some diversity group suggests that 10% of a company should be ethnically diverse, Company A looks at itself and sees it only has 2%, so next set of recruits regardless of merit will be sought to push up that percentage.
In some cases it is good, more men in schools is a good thing for example, but they should still be sought on merit. One of our little ones has a male teacher, a former refugee from the Balkans (so he ticks lots of equality boxes), I think men interact differently to women, so it broadens their learning a little, plus he runs a tight ship & doesn't suffer fools gladly, standing up against senior staff when things need sorting out rather than let problems run on.
5
In reply to marsbar:
Wow, some of those figures are shocking! I would say primany school male / female teacher ratios haven't changed much since I was at school (nearly half a century ago), but at my secondary school I would say that 75% of the teachers were male, so that's a massive decrease. Perhaps that is one of the reasons boys seem to be being left behind nowadays? A lack of role male models to inspire them? However, I still wouldn't advocate positive discrimination of any kind.
Education is just as important as politics. It is a commonly held view that women are generally not as interested in politics as men, though thankfully this appears to be changing. I truly believe this needs to be addressed, as I believe the issue of men in education also does. But not at the cost of quality and a "you'll do" policy. The brightest and best of both genders and multi-racial groups need to be encouraged to contribute to the most important areas of our society.
Wow, some of those figures are shocking! I would say primany school male / female teacher ratios haven't changed much since I was at school (nearly half a century ago), but at my secondary school I would say that 75% of the teachers were male, so that's a massive decrease. Perhaps that is one of the reasons boys seem to be being left behind nowadays? A lack of role male models to inspire them? However, I still wouldn't advocate positive discrimination of any kind.
Education is just as important as politics. It is a commonly held view that women are generally not as interested in politics as men, though thankfully this appears to be changing. I truly believe this needs to be addressed, as I believe the issue of men in education also does. But not at the cost of quality and a "you'll do" policy. The brightest and best of both genders and multi-racial groups need to be encouraged to contribute to the most important areas of our society.
2
In reply to marsbar:
Yes, a very good point I hadn' t considered, being a bumpkin.
> I suspect your BBC example in part may be down to the BBC being rather London biased, and the London demographic is very different to the country as a whole.
Yes, a very good point I hadn' t considered, being a bumpkin.
Post edited at 08:35
2
In reply to marsbar:
The laughable thing being, of course, is that the BBC's "ethnic minority" reporters represent nothing more than good, solid, middle class, London metro, English people, with darker skins.
It's like claiming Hugh Edwards, (who I was at school with, ) represents the average ethnic Welshman.
> I suspect your BBC example in part may be down to the BBC being rather London biased, and the London demographic is very different to the country as a whole.
The laughable thing being, of course, is that the BBC's "ethnic minority" reporters represent nothing more than good, solid, middle class, London metro, English people, with darker skins.
It's like claiming Hugh Edwards, (who I was at school with, ) represents the average ethnic Welshman.
3
2
In reply to summo:
7 men and only 5 women. No that's not quite representative. There would be 6 of each if it was a quota. More than 6 women if they were trying to make up for earlier under recruitment.
5 Asians and 7 White (I assume you would have mentioned an Asian woman). Sounds about right for quite a few midlands towns.
I'd understand your mates point if there were no white males, but to be honest it sounds like sour grapes if there were 2 white men appointed, he just didn't make the cut. If he can accept that the 2 white men were better than him, but not the women or the Asian men then maybe it's him?
7 men and only 5 women. No that's not quite representative. There would be 6 of each if it was a quota. More than 6 women if they were trying to make up for earlier under recruitment.
5 Asians and 7 White (I assume you would have mentioned an Asian woman). Sounds about right for quite a few midlands towns.
I'd understand your mates point if there were no white males, but to be honest it sounds like sour grapes if there were 2 white men appointed, he just didn't make the cut. If he can accept that the 2 white men were better than him, but not the women or the Asian men then maybe it's him?
10
2
2
1
In reply to Hugh J:
" There are many women and even Black and Hispanic Americans supporting him too, that's how desperate they are for a change of direction."
Trump recently polled at 7% among black Americans, I'm not sure that counts as many.
" There are many women and even Black and Hispanic Americans supporting him too, that's how desperate they are for a change of direction."
Trump recently polled at 7% among black Americans, I'm not sure that counts as many.
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
7% of 42 million sounds like a whole lot more than he should be getting.
7% of 42 million sounds like a whole lot more than he should be getting.
2
In reply to Hugh J:
Bear in mind that 7% of UKIP voters voted to remain in the EU. In polling terms 7% is more or less zero.
> 7% of 42 million sounds like a whole lot more than he should be getting.
Bear in mind that 7% of UKIP voters voted to remain in the EU. In polling terms 7% is more or less zero.
In reply to marsbar:
The local grammar school. One of us did well there, the other failed everything and left without an "O" level to his name.
The local grammar school. One of us did well there, the other failed everything and left without an "O" level to his name.
Post edited at 09:02
In reply to marsbar:
I think a fairer analysis would be the percentages of the different demographics who were turned down for the job. Perhaps only 17% of the applicants were white males? Then you'd have a point. But at the risk of controversy, I know which of the 12 successful applicants I'd want to carry a fat knacker like me out of a burning house if I were unconcious!
> 7 men and only 5 women. No that's not quite representative. There would be 6 of each if it was a quota. More than 6 women if they were trying to make up for earlier under recruitment.
> 5 Asians and 7 White (I assume you would have mentioned an Asian woman). Sounds about right for quite a few midlands towns.
I think a fairer analysis would be the percentages of the different demographics who were turned down for the job. Perhaps only 17% of the applicants were white males? Then you'd have a point. But at the risk of controversy, I know which of the 12 successful applicants I'd want to carry a fat knacker like me out of a burning house if I were unconcious!
1
In reply to Bob Hughes:
It's twice as much as the percentage that actually decided the bloody thing!
> Bear in mind that 7% of UKIP voters voted to remain in the EU. In polling terms 7% is more or less zero.
It's twice as much as the percentage that actually decided the bloody thing!
Post edited at 09:09
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Worrying about the loss of good male candidates through positive discimination ignores the loss of good female candidates through negative discrimination (proven far more common in the workplace). All women shortlists are in fact very rare and legally dubious in most circumstances. What is increasingly common however are employment goals and strategies to encourage more applications from women and minorities, and a change in the law that allows employers to select a candidate on the basis of ethnicity or gender over another, when they have the same qualifications.
Worrying about the loss of good male candidates through positive discimination ignores the loss of good female candidates through negative discrimination (proven far more common in the workplace). All women shortlists are in fact very rare and legally dubious in most circumstances. What is increasingly common however are employment goals and strategies to encourage more applications from women and minorities, and a change in the law that allows employers to select a candidate on the basis of ethnicity or gender over another, when they have the same qualifications.
Post edited at 09:56
7
In reply to Hugh J:
I have three objections to this.
1. I don't think the western world is going to hell in a handcart. There are problems, for sure, but are they any greater than in previous times? Runaway inflation and the 3 day week in the 70s, imminent nuclear war in the 60s, widespread rioting and unrest in the 80s....
2. None of the major problems we face today - or have faced recently - can be parked at the door of positive discrimination. Iraq and the ensuing disaster: George W. Bush (white, male, son of a former president) and Tony Blair (white, male, public school educated); bringing the global financial system to its knees? None of the main characters were anything other than white males (with the exception of stan o'neil and vikram pandit); which under qualified woman or black man (or woman) can we blame the sovereign debt crisis on? Has ISIS established a caliphate in large parts of syria and iraq because Bashar al wotsisname was promoting too many women?
3. Your analysis of positive discrimination assumes that the standard - "undiscriminating" - selection process is free from bias when it is well known that biases - conscious or unconscious - exist. People (not overtly sexist people) find it hard to imagine a woman as a politician so when they see two equally qualified candidates they find it easier to imagine the man in the role of politician and therefore vote for him.
I fully agree with this point. We really need to find a way to talk about these topics without getting into calling people racist, sexist, homophobic etc. This cuts both ways, the right are often quick to cry "Political Correctness" when an accusation of homophobia has been quite justified.
> Positive discrimination, IMO, works both ways and neither is good. On one side it is, "no you can't have the job because you're not XYZ" and on the other it is, "you can have the job because you're XYZ but not because you necessarily deserve it", that's not going to make anyone feel any self worth, though neither will actually be verbalised. Let's just have the best people, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation to do the job. In the words of Bill Hicks, "I don't care if they have three titties and a trunk."
> I have a theory (or rather fear) that the western world is going to hell in a handcart because of this kind of leftist-liberalism and because the yearning to be seen as politically correct outweighs any notion of a meritocracy.
I have three objections to this.
1. I don't think the western world is going to hell in a handcart. There are problems, for sure, but are they any greater than in previous times? Runaway inflation and the 3 day week in the 70s, imminent nuclear war in the 60s, widespread rioting and unrest in the 80s....
2. None of the major problems we face today - or have faced recently - can be parked at the door of positive discrimination. Iraq and the ensuing disaster: George W. Bush (white, male, son of a former president) and Tony Blair (white, male, public school educated); bringing the global financial system to its knees? None of the main characters were anything other than white males (with the exception of stan o'neil and vikram pandit); which under qualified woman or black man (or woman) can we blame the sovereign debt crisis on? Has ISIS established a caliphate in large parts of syria and iraq because Bashar al wotsisname was promoting too many women?
3. Your analysis of positive discrimination assumes that the standard - "undiscriminating" - selection process is free from bias when it is well known that biases - conscious or unconscious - exist. People (not overtly sexist people) find it hard to imagine a woman as a politician so when they see two equally qualified candidates they find it easier to imagine the man in the role of politician and therefore vote for him.
> even slandered as "swivel-eyed" racists / sexists / homophobes should they dare raise any objection because they are feeling hard done by.
I fully agree with this point. We really need to find a way to talk about these topics without getting into calling people racist, sexist, homophobic etc. This cuts both ways, the right are often quick to cry "Political Correctness" when an accusation of homophobia has been quite justified.
12
In reply to Hugh J
The commonly view here is important - the fact that women aren't perceived as interested means people won't vote for them, even if they aren't equally capable. Equally the case for positive discrimination is supported still by work that shows that police , including afroamerican police, will still discriminate in blind testing. Positive discrimination is needed as even though racism, sexism is no longer acceptable, its effects linger on.
Re Trump and polling, 32% of women, will vote largely as an anti democrat vote. The 7% number is at the high end of numbers I've seen. Mitt Romney polled at zero in some communities and I'd expect Trump to enlarge that.
> Education is just as important as politics. It is a commonly held view that women are generally not as interested in politics as men, though thankfully this appears to be changing. I truly believe this needs to be addressed, as I believe the issue of men in education also does. But not at the cost of quality and a "you'll do" policy. The brightest and best of both genders and multi-racial groups need to be encouraged to contribute to the most important areas of our society.
The commonly view here is important - the fact that women aren't perceived as interested means people won't vote for them, even if they aren't equally capable. Equally the case for positive discrimination is supported still by work that shows that police , including afroamerican police, will still discriminate in blind testing. Positive discrimination is needed as even though racism, sexism is no longer acceptable, its effects linger on.
Re Trump and polling, 32% of women, will vote largely as an anti democrat vote. The 7% number is at the high end of numbers I've seen. Mitt Romney polled at zero in some communities and I'd expect Trump to enlarge that.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Some good points Bob, thanks for the contribution.
1. The "hell in the hand cart" is a reference to the hatred that I certainly feel is a dominant aspect within our society at present and has facilitated the rise of Trump to a position where he could be leader of the "free world". I also believe it played a large part in the decision we took on 23rd June. I may be wrong, but I believe a lot of this hatred is down to a negative reaction against rampant liberalism where perceived fairness has replaced actual fairness.
2. Can't argue with that, but could suggest the seeds were sown by Thatcher.
3. Hence my "What we need to change is the attitudes of people who think that only a white, heterosexual man can do the job."
Also can't argue with your last point.
But hey, that's why I come on here, to find out the opinions of others, which helps me draw my own conclusions.
Some good points Bob, thanks for the contribution.
1. The "hell in the hand cart" is a reference to the hatred that I certainly feel is a dominant aspect within our society at present and has facilitated the rise of Trump to a position where he could be leader of the "free world". I also believe it played a large part in the decision we took on 23rd June. I may be wrong, but I believe a lot of this hatred is down to a negative reaction against rampant liberalism where perceived fairness has replaced actual fairness.
2. Can't argue with that, but could suggest the seeds were sown by Thatcher.
3. Hence my "What we need to change is the attitudes of people who think that only a white, heterosexual man can do the job."
Also can't argue with your last point.
But hey, that's why I come on here, to find out the opinions of others, which helps me draw my own conclusions.
In reply to Hugh J:
Diversity at the BBC is something they take very seriously. They have a whole section of their website dedicated to it, with lengthy policy documents available for all to view: http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity
They have targets for BME, disability and gender. Scroll down here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/workforce
I haven't delved deeply enough into the documents to see where they stand on positive discrimination, or indeed if they think they can achieve their target numbers without it, but I'm not sure how you can set a target without that then being a factor in recruitment decisions.
Diversity at the BBC is something they take very seriously. They have a whole section of their website dedicated to it, with lengthy policy documents available for all to view: http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity
They have targets for BME, disability and gender. Scroll down here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/workforce
I haven't delved deeply enough into the documents to see where they stand on positive discrimination, or indeed if they think they can achieve their target numbers without it, but I'm not sure how you can set a target without that then being a factor in recruitment decisions.
Post edited at 10:25
In reply to wbo:
I refer you to my previous post - point 3.
But which is the greater good. Positive discrimation that aids equality at the expense of quality or a meritocracy that aids society? Do we sacrifice an better qualified candidte from an over-represent group for the sake of someone from a lesser-represented group?
As for your last point, Obama also polled 0% in some constituencies and 32% of women is 32% more than he should be getting regardless of political allegences. Which doesn't mean they should vote for Clinton either.
I refer you to my previous post - point 3.
But which is the greater good. Positive discrimation that aids equality at the expense of quality or a meritocracy that aids society? Do we sacrifice an better qualified candidte from an over-represent group for the sake of someone from a lesser-represented group?
As for your last point, Obama also polled 0% in some constituencies and 32% of women is 32% more than he should be getting regardless of political allegences. Which doesn't mean they should vote for Clinton either.
Post edited at 10:32
In reply to Hugh J:
Also, my daughter is of an age now where we're watching a little CBeebies. On many of the programmes I've seen so far the presenters and child audiences have been extremely diverse. Every skin colour seems to be represented, along with people in wheelchairs, one lady missing part of her arm, kids with Down's syndrome etc etc. I can't help but think it's a good thing and an opportunity for useful conversations when she gets old enough to understand things: 'daddy, why is that lady missing an arm/why does that child look strange/why is that man in a funny chair on wheels? etc etc'. Not least because I'd rather first have those conversations in our front room than sat behind the disabled chap on the bus.
Also, my daughter is of an age now where we're watching a little CBeebies. On many of the programmes I've seen so far the presenters and child audiences have been extremely diverse. Every skin colour seems to be represented, along with people in wheelchairs, one lady missing part of her arm, kids with Down's syndrome etc etc. I can't help but think it's a good thing and an opportunity for useful conversations when she gets old enough to understand things: 'daddy, why is that lady missing an arm/why does that child look strange/why is that man in a funny chair on wheels? etc etc'. Not least because I'd rather first have those conversations in our front room than sat behind the disabled chap on the bus.
Post edited at 10:39
8
In reply to marsbar:
he just thought the odds were against him, as those they selected weren't equally represented in the recruitment phase. During the early stages like the written test, they were over a 100 plus in a room, so he got a feeling that they were chasing certain recruits. Whilst the ratios might appear to match society, he didn't think it matched those who applied with him. Of course he is bitter, he wanted the job, worked hard and trained etc.. to try and get it, to see others take the job because they 'appeared' to be quote filling was quite annoying for him. He has no grudge against those who were given the jobs, they applied like him, more the organisation that chose them.
> I'd understand your mates point if there were no white males, but to be honest it sounds like sour grapes if there were 2 white men appointed, he just didn't make the cut. If he can accept that the 2 white men were better than him, but not the women or the Asian men then maybe it's him?
he just thought the odds were against him, as those they selected weren't equally represented in the recruitment phase. During the early stages like the written test, they were over a 100 plus in a room, so he got a feeling that they were chasing certain recruits. Whilst the ratios might appear to match society, he didn't think it matched those who applied with him. Of course he is bitter, he wanted the job, worked hard and trained etc.. to try and get it, to see others take the job because they 'appeared' to be quote filling was quite annoying for him. He has no grudge against those who were given the jobs, they applied like him, more the organisation that chose them.
In reply to Hugh J:
Sacrificing a better candidate for the sake of someone of a lesser represented group is not something that generally happens (with the exception of the labour party's all female shortlists). Where postive discrimination is typically employed is when you have two candidates with the same qualifications for the job, but you pick the candidate from the minority group. No loss of quality, just greater equality.
Sacrificing a better candidate for the sake of someone of a lesser represented group is not something that generally happens (with the exception of the labour party's all female shortlists). Where postive discrimination is typically employed is when you have two candidates with the same qualifications for the job, but you pick the candidate from the minority group. No loss of quality, just greater equality.
3
2
In reply to Hugh J:
On the wider question: no, best person for the job please. However, organisations could do more to encourage applications from a diverse range of people. That should be no guarantee of employment, but reaching out to excluded groups by, for example the BBC, to at least apply is to be commended. You don't know who you could be missing out on.
On the wider question: no, best person for the job please. However, organisations could do more to encourage applications from a diverse range of people. That should be no guarantee of employment, but reaching out to excluded groups by, for example the BBC, to at least apply is to be commended. You don't know who you could be missing out on.
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
Great points Chris. But then surely the presenters on CBeebies are more than "qualified" to merit those roles you have described, if that is the aim of their policy.
Some great discussion on here, such a refreshing change from the post-bollox slagging off competitions.
Unfortunately I've got to go to bed, been up all night working and it's way past my bedtime, but look forward to seeing how the debate has developed.
Great points Chris. But then surely the presenters on CBeebies are more than "qualified" to merit those roles you have described, if that is the aim of their policy.
Some great discussion on here, such a refreshing change from the post-bollox slagging off competitions.
Unfortunately I've got to go to bed, been up all night working and it's way past my bedtime, but look forward to seeing how the debate has developed.
Post edited at 10:45
3
In reply to marsbar:
Most journalists start off in the regions and then get hoovered up , if good enough. It's unlikely that a BBC bias is based on London's demographics.
> I suspect your BBC example in part may be down to the BBC being rather London biased, and the London demographic is very different to the country as a whole.
Most journalists start off in the regions and then get hoovered up , if good enough. It's unlikely that a BBC bias is based on London's demographics.
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
Yes, I realised after I used the word that it wasn't quite on the button. I liked it for rhetorical reasons. That said, arguably in these situations minority candidates are more likely to have faced more obstacles in their career, so this is redressing the balance= "equality". However, I think you are right. Diversity is a better word in this case.
I get frustrated when people talk about losing brilliant white male candidates under positive discrimination. How can it be a meritocracy when so many brilliant minority candidates are lost?
Yes, I realised after I used the word that it wasn't quite on the button. I liked it for rhetorical reasons. That said, arguably in these situations minority candidates are more likely to have faced more obstacles in their career, so this is redressing the balance= "equality". However, I think you are right. Diversity is a better word in this case.
I get frustrated when people talk about losing brilliant white male candidates under positive discrimination. How can it be a meritocracy when so many brilliant minority candidates are lost?
In reply to Hugh J:
I think you mean only candidate for that job?
Yes, got a safe seat on the back of a deselected left winger who said he wanted to continue, probable age discrimination there.
> To conclude:
> Theresa May (woman) got the job because she was the best (standing) candidate for the job.
I think you mean only candidate for that job?
> Diane Abbott . . . . I really don't need to go there, do I?
Yes, got a safe seat on the back of a deselected left winger who said he wanted to continue, probable age discrimination there.
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Sorry Hugh, not sure which post you're referring to. Across a couple of posts I've mentioned different groups. 'On air' employees, and others. The 'on air talent' makes up a tiny fraction of total BBC employees, and their targets apply across all their different sectors.
In terms of the children's TV presenters, yes, they're most qualified to fulfil the roles, where the role requires a 'one of each' sort of approach. As I said, I actually think that's a special case and a good thing. Disabled and BME people have traditionally been underrepresented on TV and I don't think it's a bad thing if (particularly in children's programming) they're slightly overrepresented now. 'Normalising' their presence in the public space for children who might not otherwise interact with or be aware of the diversity of folks in this country, is a good thing in my opinion.
However, that goes against my more general opinion that 'diversity' isn't and shouldn't be an end in itself: that it isn't and shouldn't be seen as a 'good thing' in itself. By this I mean, the fact that rural Suffolk (where I used to live) has very few BME people around, doesn't mean that we need to encourage more to live there because 'diversity is good'. In the same way that Nairobi doesn't 'need' more Mongolians living there, due to their under-representation in Kenya. Does that make sense? There seems to be an almost axiomatic belief in the modern age that diversity is an end in itself, and is axiomatically 'a good thing' which makes no sense to me.
Sorry Hugh, not sure which post you're referring to. Across a couple of posts I've mentioned different groups. 'On air' employees, and others. The 'on air talent' makes up a tiny fraction of total BBC employees, and their targets apply across all their different sectors.
In terms of the children's TV presenters, yes, they're most qualified to fulfil the roles, where the role requires a 'one of each' sort of approach. As I said, I actually think that's a special case and a good thing. Disabled and BME people have traditionally been underrepresented on TV and I don't think it's a bad thing if (particularly in children's programming) they're slightly overrepresented now. 'Normalising' their presence in the public space for children who might not otherwise interact with or be aware of the diversity of folks in this country, is a good thing in my opinion.
However, that goes against my more general opinion that 'diversity' isn't and shouldn't be an end in itself: that it isn't and shouldn't be seen as a 'good thing' in itself. By this I mean, the fact that rural Suffolk (where I used to live) has very few BME people around, doesn't mean that we need to encourage more to live there because 'diversity is good'. In the same way that Nairobi doesn't 'need' more Mongolians living there, due to their under-representation in Kenya. Does that make sense? There seems to be an almost axiomatic belief in the modern age that diversity is an end in itself, and is axiomatically 'a good thing' which makes no sense to me.
1
In reply to Snoweider:
This is the problem with viewing it through a prism of "Equality", which is some sort of cosmic balancing act to right evils in one part of the empire by taking action in other parts.
If there is discrimination in one direction, it isn't solved by counter-discrimination elsewhere, that, in justice terms, is a form of collective punishment.
> Yes, I realised after I used the word that it wasn't quite on the button. I liked it for rhetorical reasons. That said, arguably in these situations minority candidates are more likely to have faced more obstacles in their career, so this is redressing the balance= "equality". However, I think you are right. Diversity is a better word in this case.
> I get frustrated when people talk about losing brilliant white male candidates under positive discrimination. How can it be a meritocracy when so many brilliant minority candidates are lost?
This is the problem with viewing it through a prism of "Equality", which is some sort of cosmic balancing act to right evils in one part of the empire by taking action in other parts.
If there is discrimination in one direction, it isn't solved by counter-discrimination elsewhere, that, in justice terms, is a form of collective punishment.
3
In reply to Snoweider:
I think it's really tricky. I think at the root, encouraging a wide spectrum of people to apply for a role is important and the only fair way to recruit, if that's even possible. Certainly by removing obstacles to applications, by advertising widely etc. I'm conscious that in practical terms I don't know exactly what one can do in that situation. If you want someone new for accounts, you advertise in 'Accountants Weekly' not 'Disabled & BME Accountants Weekly.' Well, actually, if there was a 'Disabled & BME Accountants Weekly' then you should perhaps advertise there too....
When it comes to interviewing you need to be scrupulous about 'checking your biases'. Which is harder than it sounds. We're humans and have developed over millennia to make quick judgements and harbour prejudices. An interesting example is the famous orchestral audition story. An American (I think...?) orchestra was mostly made up of men. So, they got people to audition behind a screen ('blind' auditions) which slightly, but not much, increased the numbers of women. Then they asked auditionees to remove shoes so they couldn't hear if they were wearing heels (women) and numbers evened out much more quickly. It's hard to get past those biases!!!
> I get frustrated when people talk about losing brilliant white male candidates under positive discrimination. How can it be a meritocracy when so many brilliant minority candidates are lost?
I think it's really tricky. I think at the root, encouraging a wide spectrum of people to apply for a role is important and the only fair way to recruit, if that's even possible. Certainly by removing obstacles to applications, by advertising widely etc. I'm conscious that in practical terms I don't know exactly what one can do in that situation. If you want someone new for accounts, you advertise in 'Accountants Weekly' not 'Disabled & BME Accountants Weekly.' Well, actually, if there was a 'Disabled & BME Accountants Weekly' then you should perhaps advertise there too....
When it comes to interviewing you need to be scrupulous about 'checking your biases'. Which is harder than it sounds. We're humans and have developed over millennia to make quick judgements and harbour prejudices. An interesting example is the famous orchestral audition story. An American (I think...?) orchestra was mostly made up of men. So, they got people to audition behind a screen ('blind' auditions) which slightly, but not much, increased the numbers of women. Then they asked auditionees to remove shoes so they couldn't hear if they were wearing heels (women) and numbers evened out much more quickly. It's hard to get past those biases!!!
Post edited at 11:17
1
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
Ok, so your arguments about diversity are compelling when you talk about mongolians in Nairobi, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here. What if you are a mongolican in Nairobi, and you want a job? You are very well qualified, but because there are no other mongolians in your chosen career, potential employers subconsciously overlook you. Is this a meritocracy?
Also, when it comes to gender based positive discrimination, please don't overlook that women make up over half of the UK population, even in Suffolk.
This brings me back to that word, equality!
Ok, so your arguments about diversity are compelling when you talk about mongolians in Nairobi, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here. What if you are a mongolican in Nairobi, and you want a job? You are very well qualified, but because there are no other mongolians in your chosen career, potential employers subconsciously overlook you. Is this a meritocracy?
Also, when it comes to gender based positive discrimination, please don't overlook that women make up over half of the UK population, even in Suffolk.
This brings me back to that word, equality!
1
1
1
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
Ah we crossed posts! We are pretty much on the same page here I think. Having experienced discrimination both positive and negative in my career I have a personal perspective on it I guess.
Ah we crossed posts! We are pretty much on the same page here I think. Having experienced discrimination both positive and negative in my career I have a personal perspective on it I guess.
In reply to Hugh J:
Yes, I read your post. My point would be that a meritocracy is obviously the target, but , to truly work, relies on their being a level playing field which for various reasons (disadvantaged upbringing, societal racism, sexism and so on) there isn't. Middle aged white blokes like employing middle aged white blokes.
This is a difficult election as both candidates are unpopular, but they are the candidates on offer. Romney is a good example as he really did get zero votes in a number of districts. This was used as evidence of rigging, but when the republicans sent investigators house to house they could not find any Romney supporters. I've seen numbers for Trump polling <5% of Afro Americans , but 7 is also appallingly low. Who do you look at for news? Apart from the Guardian coverage in the uk newspapers is very poor, and usually out of date, and the guardian has an obvious bias although a lot of information
> I refer you to my previous post - point 3.
> But which is the greater good. Positive discrimation that aids equality at the expense of quality or a meritocracy that aids society? Do we sacrifice an better qualified candidte from an over-represent group for the sake of someone from a lesser-represented group?
> As for your last point, Obama also polled 0% in some constituencies and 32% of women is 32% more than he should be getting regardless of political allegences. Which doesn't mean they should vote for Clinton either.
Yes, I read your post. My point would be that a meritocracy is obviously the target, but , to truly work, relies on their being a level playing field which for various reasons (disadvantaged upbringing, societal racism, sexism and so on) there isn't. Middle aged white blokes like employing middle aged white blokes.
This is a difficult election as both candidates are unpopular, but they are the candidates on offer. Romney is a good example as he really did get zero votes in a number of districts. This was used as evidence of rigging, but when the republicans sent investigators house to house they could not find any Romney supporters. I've seen numbers for Trump polling <5% of Afro Americans , but 7 is also appallingly low. Who do you look at for news? Apart from the Guardian coverage in the uk newspapers is very poor, and usually out of date, and the guardian has an obvious bias although a lot of information
In reply to Snoweider:
No it's not, and they should check their biases and consider your application on your merits, not your ethnicity. However, I was making a more general point about diversity as an end in itself, (the idea that everyone should be represented in all places) so we don't really have to go down this road with this example. I used that example to demonstrate the absurdity of that position. Or rather, to highlight people's biases (again!) that Suffolk is seen by some as a backwards homogeneous, boring place, lacking the thrilling diversity of other more metropolitan areas, but we wouldn't instinctively hold Kenyans to the same standard. I may not be explaining this very well....
A whole other topic!! Happy to go down that rabbit hole!
> Ok, so your arguments about diversity are compelling when you talk about mongolians in Nairobi, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here. What if you are a mongolican in Nairobi, and you want a job? You are very well qualified, but because there are no other mongolians in your chosen career, potential employers subconsciously overlook you. Is this a meritocracy?
No it's not, and they should check their biases and consider your application on your merits, not your ethnicity. However, I was making a more general point about diversity as an end in itself, (the idea that everyone should be represented in all places) so we don't really have to go down this road with this example. I used that example to demonstrate the absurdity of that position. Or rather, to highlight people's biases (again!) that Suffolk is seen by some as a backwards homogeneous, boring place, lacking the thrilling diversity of other more metropolitan areas, but we wouldn't instinctively hold Kenyans to the same standard. I may not be explaining this very well....
> Also, when it comes to gender based positive discrimination, please don't overlook that women make up over half of the UK population, even in Suffolk.
A whole other topic!! Happy to go down that rabbit hole!
> This brings me back to that word, equality!
1
1
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
My daughter (3) seems not to really notice or question skin colour* but might with obvious disability. Watching the wheelchair tennis at Wimbledon (on the telly) was the first time it came up and is now the benchmark she refers to (is that boy like the tennis players in the chairs etc). She hasn't noticed that one of the presenters only has half an arm.
*She has a pretty ethnically diverse nursery and we live in Manchester which is pretty multicultural.
> Also, my daughter is of an age now where we're watching a little CBeebies. On many of the programmes I've seen so far the presenters and child audiences have been extremely diverse. Every skin colour seems to be represented, along with people in wheelchairs, one lady missing part of her arm, kids with Down's syndrome etc etc. I can't help but think it's a good thing and an opportunity for useful conversations when she gets old enough to understand things: 'daddy, why is that lady missing an arm/why does that child look strange/why is that man in a funny chair on wheels? etc etc'. Not least because I'd rather first have those conversations in our front room than sat behind the disabled chap on the bus.
My daughter (3) seems not to really notice or question skin colour* but might with obvious disability. Watching the wheelchair tennis at Wimbledon (on the telly) was the first time it came up and is now the benchmark she refers to (is that boy like the tennis players in the chairs etc). She hasn't noticed that one of the presenters only has half an arm.
*She has a pretty ethnically diverse nursery and we live in Manchester which is pretty multicultural.
In reply to galpinos:
My girl is 1 3/4, so still pretty young really, but taking in a lot more than we realise, no doubt. I guess that's the point though: she won't look at the TV and think 'oh look, disabled people, Asians, and Muslims.' I have no idea know what she *is* thinking to be honest, but she seems to enjoy it. Of the things she does enjoy watching I'm pleased to report talking pigs, dogs, rabbits, squirrels, Pontipines and Tombliboos are all represented
My girl is 1 3/4, so still pretty young really, but taking in a lot more than we realise, no doubt. I guess that's the point though: she won't look at the TV and think 'oh look, disabled people, Asians, and Muslims.' I have no idea know what she *is* thinking to be honest, but she seems to enjoy it. Of the things she does enjoy watching I'm pleased to report talking pigs, dogs, rabbits, squirrels, Pontipines and Tombliboos are all represented
2
In reply to Hugh J:
Yes, you do, because otherwise you're simply blowing a dog whistle.
You'd could say that Boris Johnson is proof that white, heterosexual men are unfit for government, but of course because there are so many of them that you have a wider sample to go on. But surely there is no way that someone that dishonest, that hopeless, that unsuited for a top job would have got anywhere if he hadn't been an white man (and an old-Etonian etc etc).
Hard to justify any discrimination, but hard to justify the current inbalances that have arisen from centuries of discrimination that have benefited white men. Don't see any evidence that positive discrimination has gone over the top.
> Diane Abbott . . . . I really don't need to go there, do I?
Yes, you do, because otherwise you're simply blowing a dog whistle.
> What we need to change is the attitudes of people who think that only a white, heterosexual man can do the job.
You'd could say that Boris Johnson is proof that white, heterosexual men are unfit for government, but of course because there are so many of them that you have a wider sample to go on. But surely there is no way that someone that dishonest, that hopeless, that unsuited for a top job would have got anywhere if he hadn't been an white man (and an old-Etonian etc etc).
> So, is positive discrimination a good or a bad think? Has it gone over the top or not?
Hard to justify any discrimination, but hard to justify the current inbalances that have arisen from centuries of discrimination that have benefited white men. Don't see any evidence that positive discrimination has gone over the top.
3
1
In reply to galpinos:
Sadly the presenter with the short arm was a victim of a nasty hate campaign when she started at the BBC. Some half wits said their children might be scared, or forced to discuss things they weren't ready for. Kids aren't scared by stuff like that, and if they ask questions then they are ready to talk about it.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12504309.Disabled_TV_presenter_Cerrie_Bu...
Sadly the presenter with the short arm was a victim of a nasty hate campaign when she started at the BBC. Some half wits said their children might be scared, or forced to discuss things they weren't ready for. Kids aren't scared by stuff like that, and if they ask questions then they are ready to talk about it.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12504309.Disabled_TV_presenter_Cerrie_Bu...
Post edited at 12:32
1
In reply to marsbar:
Wow. Have you actually read that article? Mostly discusses her appearance, (her breasts get mentioned a few times), glamour shoots, juggling motherhood and a career, and whether she finds it hard to get a partner. Its like a checklist of sexist interview topics. Its like Helen Mirren and Parky all over again: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/watch-helen-mirren-handle-herself-like-...
Wow. Have you actually read that article? Mostly discusses her appearance, (her breasts get mentioned a few times), glamour shoots, juggling motherhood and a career, and whether she finds it hard to get a partner. Its like a checklist of sexist interview topics. Its like Helen Mirren and Parky all over again: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/watch-helen-mirren-handle-herself-like-...
2
In reply to Hugh J:
I agree with you about the rage, but I honestly don't know where it comes from. It feels hard to believe (maybe i am displaying my own bias here) that it is really the fault of positive discrimination. Positive discrimination just doesn't seem to be all that prevalent. Just seven of the CEOs of the FTSE 100 are women and a quick scan suggests (unreliably) that there are 2 ethnic minorities represented. (I'm not counting Portuguese as an ethnic minority; nor the Chilean boss of a Chilean company that happens to be listed in London). 29% of MPs are female.
In the case of politics - and arguably the media and police too - i think there is a good case to be made for quotas. Politicians are there to represent the public and it is doubtful that they can do that properly unless the reflect the community they are representing. The best white male politician in the world will still struggle to empathise with women and ethnic minorities.
Are you suggesting that Thatcher got to be PM by dint of positive discrimination? I don't believe that.
Yes but that's only part of the answer. A lot of bias is unconscious. You may ask people if they are sexist and they will genuinely say no. in the exampple i gave previously, it isn't that people consciously believe that men make better presidents (or CEOs or marketing managers or whatever), it is that when people imagine a CEO they think of a tall, white man with grey hair. Therefore when judging the qualities of two candidates - a tall white man with gray hair and a short white woman with blond hair - people find it easier to imagine the former in the role.
To overcome this you need more than just education, you need to see people in the role.
> Some good points Bob, thanks for the contribution.
> 1. The "hell in the hand cart" is a reference to the hatred that I certainly feel is a dominant aspect within our society at present and has facilitated the rise of Trump to a position where he could be leader of the "free world". I also believe it played a large part in the decision we took on 23rd June. I may be wrong, but I believe a lot of this hatred is down to a negative reaction against rampant liberalism where perceived fairness has replaced actual fairness.
I agree with you about the rage, but I honestly don't know where it comes from. It feels hard to believe (maybe i am displaying my own bias here) that it is really the fault of positive discrimination. Positive discrimination just doesn't seem to be all that prevalent. Just seven of the CEOs of the FTSE 100 are women and a quick scan suggests (unreliably) that there are 2 ethnic minorities represented. (I'm not counting Portuguese as an ethnic minority; nor the Chilean boss of a Chilean company that happens to be listed in London). 29% of MPs are female.
In the case of politics - and arguably the media and police too - i think there is a good case to be made for quotas. Politicians are there to represent the public and it is doubtful that they can do that properly unless the reflect the community they are representing. The best white male politician in the world will still struggle to empathise with women and ethnic minorities.
> 2. Can't argue with that, but could suggest the seeds were sown by Thatcher.
Are you suggesting that Thatcher got to be PM by dint of positive discrimination? I don't believe that.
> 3. Hence my "What we need to change is the attitudes of people who think that only a white, heterosexual man can do the job."
Yes but that's only part of the answer. A lot of bias is unconscious. You may ask people if they are sexist and they will genuinely say no. in the exampple i gave previously, it isn't that people consciously believe that men make better presidents (or CEOs or marketing managers or whatever), it is that when people imagine a CEO they think of a tall, white man with grey hair. Therefore when judging the qualities of two candidates - a tall white man with gray hair and a short white woman with blond hair - people find it easier to imagine the former in the role.
To overcome this you need more than just education, you need to see people in the role.
1
In reply to Snoweider:
So normal I didn't even notice to be honest. I was reading the bits about her determination.
So normal I didn't even notice to be honest. I was reading the bits about her determination.
1
In reply to marsbar:
Would have loved the interviewer to have ditched the glamour modelling question for something more aspirational about her career... other presenters she admires, enjoyable moments at work... maybe comment more on her presenting style than her makeup. As you say, so normal you didn't notice. Only sounds wierd if you imagine its a male presenter. Clarks sandals? Makeup free? Svelte figure? Leering businessmen?
Would have loved the interviewer to have ditched the glamour modelling question for something more aspirational about her career... other presenters she admires, enjoyable moments at work... maybe comment more on her presenting style than her makeup. As you say, so normal you didn't notice. Only sounds wierd if you imagine its a male presenter. Clarks sandals? Makeup free? Svelte figure? Leering businessmen?
1
1
In reply to marsbar:
It can feel like that sometimes but I believe things are getting better... I work in media (ish) when I'm not working in the hills. The outdoor industry is getting less and less sexist, in the UK at least, and social media means that its easy to comment (eg the recent hoohaa around the GQ climbing feature and OR's hliarious response) . I do make a point these days of pointing it out when I see it though.
It can feel like that sometimes but I believe things are getting better... I work in media (ish) when I'm not working in the hills. The outdoor industry is getting less and less sexist, in the UK at least, and social media means that its easy to comment (eg the recent hoohaa around the GQ climbing feature and OR's hliarious response) . I do make a point these days of pointing it out when I see it though.
Post edited at 13:46
2
In reply to marsbar:
One of the weirdest things about this is this kind of writing seems to appeal to women predominantly.... You don't find this kind of discussion of appearance in writing aimed at men (although you do get the "Super hot in her bikini" comments) it's a lot more upfront - here's a pretty woman for you to look at, rather than the kind of insipid nagging commentary that is often seen in "Women's Fashion news" that seems to get at the soft underbelly in a more worrying way, and is often blamed for body image, bullying and self loathing issues propagated by reporting as you describe above.
Presumably this is to do with this strange compulsion of comparing female celebrities to the "normal woman"
The Mail is delivered at work. Today on page 2 is a story about Brexit and the home countries sitting down to start discussions and negotiations, however the overall thrust of the article is about who out of Theresa and Nicola were wearing the best shoes and what this "said" about them (and how evil Nicola is for trying to follow her constituent's wishes and keep Scotland in)
I fully expect an article next week about how abhorrent it is that people are discussing the PM's shoes rather than her policies.
> It's terrible isn't it. I feel like we have gone backwards not forwards.
One of the weirdest things about this is this kind of writing seems to appeal to women predominantly.... You don't find this kind of discussion of appearance in writing aimed at men (although you do get the "Super hot in her bikini" comments) it's a lot more upfront - here's a pretty woman for you to look at, rather than the kind of insipid nagging commentary that is often seen in "Women's Fashion news" that seems to get at the soft underbelly in a more worrying way, and is often blamed for body image, bullying and self loathing issues propagated by reporting as you describe above.
Presumably this is to do with this strange compulsion of comparing female celebrities to the "normal woman"
The Mail is delivered at work. Today on page 2 is a story about Brexit and the home countries sitting down to start discussions and negotiations, however the overall thrust of the article is about who out of Theresa and Nicola were wearing the best shoes and what this "said" about them (and how evil Nicola is for trying to follow her constituent's wishes and keep Scotland in)
I fully expect an article next week about how abhorrent it is that people are discussing the PM's shoes rather than her policies.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
I'm not sure that its about "appealing to women more", just that its more normal to discuss women's bodies and appearance when talking about their work. Women like to read about women and this is how even successful women are discussed in our society.
I'm not sure that its about "appealing to women more", just that its more normal to discuss women's bodies and appearance when talking about their work. Women like to read about women and this is how even successful women are discussed in our society.
2
In reply to Hugh J:
There has been some really astute and informative contributions on this thread, which have helped me consider some new angles to differing topics. Thanks to all.
The question of ingrained prejudices is an interesting one. If it is true, it is what it is, as wrong and as sad as it maybe, I can't see how that can be changed. Personally, I like to think I am only prejudiced against the stupid, but maybe I am not being honesty with myself here? I once heard a line from a film, loosely based on a "To kill a mockingbird" theme, it was along the lines of, "If you see me walking down the street and think there's a black man instead of just there's a man, then you are being prejudice against me." Perhaps an over-simplification, but true, I don't ever think "there's a white man." However, I would like to think that I judge a person "not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Surely, if prejudices are ingrained, the way forward is to make sure we educate the next generations, as seems to be case with the CBeebies presenter recruitment, so that we iradicate this problem. This seems to be a real justification for positive discrimination. What I am arguing against is a "you'll do" policy, which is surely "judging someone by the colour of their skin" and also debases the quality of our social, business and political representatives. Having said that, perhaps by deliberately diversifying our representatives we automatically improve their collective quality?
Excuse the pun, but things are never just black and white.
There has been some really astute and informative contributions on this thread, which have helped me consider some new angles to differing topics. Thanks to all.
The question of ingrained prejudices is an interesting one. If it is true, it is what it is, as wrong and as sad as it maybe, I can't see how that can be changed. Personally, I like to think I am only prejudiced against the stupid, but maybe I am not being honesty with myself here? I once heard a line from a film, loosely based on a "To kill a mockingbird" theme, it was along the lines of, "If you see me walking down the street and think there's a black man instead of just there's a man, then you are being prejudice against me." Perhaps an over-simplification, but true, I don't ever think "there's a white man." However, I would like to think that I judge a person "not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Surely, if prejudices are ingrained, the way forward is to make sure we educate the next generations, as seems to be case with the CBeebies presenter recruitment, so that we iradicate this problem. This seems to be a real justification for positive discrimination. What I am arguing against is a "you'll do" policy, which is surely "judging someone by the colour of their skin" and also debases the quality of our social, business and political representatives. Having said that, perhaps by deliberately diversifying our representatives we automatically improve their collective quality?
Excuse the pun, but things are never just black and white.
Post edited at 16:21
2
In reply to Snoweider:
Perhaps I miss worded that a bit what I meant was it appears to be trying to appeal to women, even though it is clearly more likely to offend women too... I just find it odd the way "women's magazines" seem to be full of this sort of appearance focused commentary.
Perhaps I miss worded that a bit what I meant was it appears to be trying to appeal to women, even though it is clearly more likely to offend women too... I just find it odd the way "women's magazines" seem to be full of this sort of appearance focused commentary.
Post edited at 17:57
In reply to Big Ger:
Not if you go around Sheffield it doesn't, what I see on the BBC reflects my reality in the people I come across when out and about.
> The laughable thing being, of course, is that the BBC's "ethnic minority" reporters represent nothing more than good, solid, middle class, London metro, English people, with darker skins.
Not if you go around Sheffield it doesn't, what I see on the BBC reflects my reality in the people I come across when out and about.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Yes, it is odd, especially given that most of these magazines are now edited by women. I suppose it could go back to ingrained prejudices theme, even amongst women, that only beautiful women are truly successful. Though I suspect the reality is something a little bit different to that, along the lines of; Look, if you buy these products you can look like she does and then the world will be your oyster! There are plenty of men's magazine doing the same - you don't see Jonny Vegas on the front Men's Health!
As a line (spoken by a woman) in the film Spinal Tap goes, "Money talks and bullshit walks."
I don't know, I'm a middle-aged, tall, greying, white man (though I'm not a CEO).
> I just find it odd the way "women's magazines" seem to be full of this sort of appearance focused commentary.
Yes, it is odd, especially given that most of these magazines are now edited by women. I suppose it could go back to ingrained prejudices theme, even amongst women, that only beautiful women are truly successful. Though I suspect the reality is something a little bit different to that, along the lines of; Look, if you buy these products you can look like she does and then the world will be your oyster! There are plenty of men's magazine doing the same - you don't see Jonny Vegas on the front Men's Health!
As a line (spoken by a woman) in the film Spinal Tap goes, "Money talks and bullshit walks."
I don't know, I'm a middle-aged, tall, greying, white man (though I'm not a CEO).
1
In reply to Hugh J:
On the subject of ingrained prejudices, this coincidentally popped in to my Twitter feed today: https://www.bustle.com/articles/188243-gender-blind-job-applications-result...
In summary, a study of Tech job applicants found that when gender was obvious only 5% of applicants that progressed to interview were female, when gender was disguised, 54% were female.
On the subject of ingrained prejudices, this coincidentally popped in to my Twitter feed today: https://www.bustle.com/articles/188243-gender-blind-job-applications-result...
In summary, a study of Tech job applicants found that when gender was obvious only 5% of applicants that progressed to interview were female, when gender was disguised, 54% were female.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...