more info re under 11s football incident

In article ,
"Steve Thackery" wrote:

Sara wrote:

Of course women regard men the same way. One difference is that we
don't think it's necessarily OK to display that, especially in the
workplace.

Difference? What difference? I don't think it's OK, either. More and
more men are coming around to agreeing with us.

Sure - but I don't think that excuses a patronising attitude towards
women in a professional environment.

Me neither, and nothing I have said even hints that I think it does.
We both agree that women have had to put up with a patronising attitude
in the workplace for decades, and that it needs to stop.

But so what? Does that make me a lesser person?

No, and again - nothing I've said would suggest that. Have you
actually read my previous posts?

Sorry if it wasn't clear, even though I was replying to you I was making
general comments. None of them were meant as an attack on you.

As
long as all people of either sex in whichever jobs are treated
equally, then it's not a problem for me. The problem occurs when you
have men and women working alongside and one sex is treated less
favourably than the other.

Absolutely spot on.

I have a very technical job and avoid customer facing roles like the
plague. So what?

So nothing, obviously. Somebody, somewhere, though, will see that
statistical imbalance across the workforce and assume it's a "problem"
due to women being "discriminated" against. Whereas in reality it
*might* simply reflect the average preferences of the women in the
workforce. That was my point: sometimes statistical imbalances reflect
what people *prefer* and thus aren't automatically a symptom of
something that needs fixing.

I feel sure you understood that, really.

And you've completely avoided the original point that started this
thread off, which was not trying to force a lack of difference
between men and womwn, but to treat them equally in a professional
environment, whcih includes not using patronising, belittling terms
for one sex that you wouldn't use for the other.

No I haven't!! I've spoken at length about it in my previous posts!
Some of which, you may recall, led to me being sworn at and treated
with scorn or contempt by the older males amongst us. Again, I suspect
you haven't read my earlier posts.

When it all got a bit silly I just started skimming, so all of them, no
I probably haven't and if I've misrepresented you, then my apologies.

No, my purpose in my latest post was to explore other aspects of the
matter, which is a big subject.

Huge :-)

--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.

In article ,
"Steve Thackery" wrote:

Martin wrote:

You really are obsessed about this. Have you considered help? :-)

Not obsessed at all, but I was lucky enough to experience a substantial
enlightenment during my life. I started out as a young man believing I
was a staunch supporter of feminism (back in the late 70s and early
80s). As it happens I was active in the Green Party (called the
Ecology Party back then) and it attracted all sorts of passionate young
people, including feminists, animal rights supporters, anarchists, and
plenty of other (sometimes far-out) interest groups.

One day, when I was referring to myself as a "passionate feminist" a
woman interjected with utter scorn and contempt and said "Huh, you
don't even know what feminism is!" Luckily for me I bit back the reply
that came into my head, which was something along the lines of "If you
weren't Xxx's girlfriend I'd be sorely tempted to slap you for that."
(God, can you imagine?)

Anyway, after a couple of days of stamping around grumpily in a mood of
righteous indignation I began to consider what she had said. With
immense difficulty I approached her and asked her what she meant, and
how I could find out more about feminism. In the end I read loads of
books and engaged with all sorts of people with feminist leanings and
eventually the light dawned. She was right - I didn't know what
feminism was, and it led to one of the most important formative
episodes in my life.

I'm not sure I know what it is, either. As has already been covered, I
do get riled by different treatment between men and women in the
workplace, but far less so than in a social context. Maybe it's the
difference between 'official' sexism which you can't do anything about,
and dealing with friends and family, which you can. Does that make me a
feminist? I'm not sure it does. I suppose, like most people, I get
bothered about things that affect me but haven't got the energy or
inclination to fully espouse a 'cause'.

I remained involved in a non-proactive (sorry, clumsy word) way and
made more progress in both learning about it and incorporating it into
a larger culture-change thing I was involved with in my employer,
called "Culture 2000".

There are still some aspects of feminism that really bother me. One is
the readiness of *some* women to blame "prejudice" and "society"
reflexively whenever they see something they perceive as unfair
(mentioned previously). The other aspect that makes me really
uncomfortable is systematic positive discrimination, as vigorously
promoted by Harriet Harman amongst others. I do understand the
arguments for positive discrimination, but it still makes me
uncomfortable.

Yes, I agree with that. Apart from anything else, I'd hate to think I
got my job for any reason other than I was the best person for it.

So, it's not an obsession but it *is* an area of interest for me.

--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.

On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:43:20 +0200, Martin wrote:

I do understand the
arguments for positive discrimination, but it still makes me
uncomfortable.

Yes, I agree with that. Apart from anything else, I'd hate to think I
got my job for any reason other than I was the best person for it.

I hate to think of all the women who didn't get a job because of
discrimination. That makes me far more uncomfortable.

So-called "positive" discrimination can result in people ending up in
jobs they are not capable of doing, potentially with wasteful or even
dangerous results.

What is usually just called "discrimination" will only result in a
potentially beneficial talent going elsewhere, possibly ending up
being employed by a rival company.

Neither of the above is a desirable situation of course, but in
practical terms the latter seems less undesirable.

We know what would be best in an ideal world. If only there was one.

Rod.

On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:53:17 +0200, Martin wrote:

You assume that all men are competent. Are you living in a fool's
paradise?

Where have I even hinted that I assume any such thing?

Of course not everybody is equally competent, and this is exactly
where discrimination *should* be applied. Discrimination being just
another word for choice, employers should discriminate between job
applicants on the basis of some reasonable judgement of their ability
to do the job, regardless of anything else.

What sometimes gets the name of "positive discrimination" actually
amounts to a distorted choice based on somebody's preconcieved notion
of how many people of a particular category "should" be in the job. It
can result in people being given employment that is beyond their
competence in order to comply with some arbitrary "quota". There is
nothing positive about this at all.

Rod.

Sara wrote:

Yes, I agree with that. Apart from anything else, I'd hate to think I
got my job for any reason other than I was the best person for it.

That's why I told our new MP, who was parachuted in by Labour HQ, that I
didn't regard her as a legitimate democratic representative.

Bill

Roderick Stewart wrote:

So-called "positive" discrimination can result in people ending up in
jobs they are not capable of doing, potentially with wasteful or even
dangerous results.

It also causes a lot of resentment. And the subordinates of the
appointee will always mutter, "She didn't get the job on merit, she got
it because she's a woman." Thus she is undermined.

A relative of mine, a woman, heard a whisper some years ago that a
forthcoming appointment would be handed to a woman, come what may. She
applied, and got the job, despite being totally underqualified. It was
a very good job leading a government outfit (can't be more specific).
She told me frankly that she didn't get the job on merit. Some of the
other candidates, men, were far better qualified. She kept the job until
the coalition abolished the outfit.

Bill

Martin wrote:

So-called "positive" discrimination can result in people ending up in
jobs they are not capable of doing, potentially with wasteful or even
dangerous results.

Especially with men who have been to the right school.
I've encountered many an incompetent male official who obviously got the
job on those grounds. As a contractor they were a great boon, and a real
aid to profitability.

Bill

In message , Martin
writes
On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:43:47 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:53:17 +0200, Martin wrote:

You assume that all men are competent. Are you living in a fool's
paradise?

Where have I even hinted that I assume any such thing?

In the part you snipped.



This is what Rod posted, in full,

"So-called "positive" discrimination can result in people ending up in
jobs they are not capable of doing, potentially with wasteful or even
dangerous results.

What is usually just called "discrimination" will only result in a
potentially beneficial talent going elsewhere, possibly ending up being
employed by a rival company.

Neither of the above is a desirable situation of course, but in
practical terms the latter seems less undesirable.

We know what would be best in an ideal world. If only there was one."

I don't see any suggestion that "all men are competent" as you assert.

--
Ian

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Roderick Stewart wrote:

So-called "positive" discrimination can result in people ending up in
jobs they are not capable of doing, potentially with wasteful or even
dangerous results.

It also causes a lot of resentment. And the subordinates of the
appointee will always mutter, "She didn't get the job on merit, she got
it because she's a woman." Thus she is undermined.

A relative of mine, a woman, heard a whisper some years ago that a
forthcoming appointment would be handed to a woman, come what may. She
applied, and got the job, despite being totally underqualified. It was
a very good job leading a government outfit (can't be more specific).
She told me frankly that she didn't get the job on merit. Some of the
other candidates, men, were far better qualified. She kept the job
until the coalition abolished the outfit.

Bill

Abolished due to incompetence? :¬)
--
Ian

On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:38:35 +0200, Martin wrote:


You assume that all men are competent. Are you living in a fool's
paradise?

Where have I even hinted that I assume any such thing?

In the part you snipped.

In the part of what? Please quote or give details. It would be
ridiculous to assume all men are competent, it's not what I think and
I can't imagine why I would write such a thing. If I've written
something badly in such a way that you've misunderstood I'll be happy
to clarify it, but I can't unless you tell me what it is.

Of course not everybody is equally competent, and this is exactly
where discrimination *should* be applied. Discrimination being just
another word for choice, employers should discriminate between job
applicants on the basis of some reasonable judgement of their ability
to do the job, regardless of anything else.

At the moment it is obvious that most discriminate on sex.

"Obvious" is one of my least favourite words in the English language.
Though it has a valid meaning it's grossly overused. Whenever
something is declared as obvious I take it to mean that the speaker
or writer hasn't got a valid argument in support of it, otherwise
they's be using it.

Rod.