Labour plans to introduce positive discrimination and quotas to increase the number of females and e - Polidicks

[QUOTE=wraithcat;44604517]The issue with affirmative action is, at least in some profession it creates a larger more negative outlook on members of the marginalised group. You'll start hearing stuff about them only getting the post because of the affirmative action, and in the case of solicitors you might be getting into the second instance more often because of this. It's the reason why that association of female solicitors is against this idea as well. Discrimination, be it positive or negative, will always cause issues on some level. Look at it from the side of the WMO applicant who didn't get it. The realisation, that the level for them has risen significantly, because the amount of available positions has dropped can be pretty brutal as well. So you suddenly get a much a much stronger competition within one group, with a potential reduced competition in the others. This in a rule is a danger in high competition jobs.[/QUOTE] Your post is implying that if a minority were to secure a position by being the best of all candidates, even white men, that people would start talking and spreading rumours anyways; rumours of affirmative action in employment policy even if their were none. The fact that people would be talking about it is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

For a lot of people equality means achieving special benefits and privileges. We don't have equality groups, we have interest groups. [QUOTE=Swebonny;44603862]You're too racist to get it. ~~[/QUOTE] "X" people are too dumb to get jobs on an equal footing.

[QUOTE=The mouse;44603638]How about women get there based on their own merits rather than their own gender?[/QUOTE] i wonder why there are so few women in these positions maybe because overall they feel discouraged from trying to get there by how society works i wonder what about that could be discouraging them from trying to get to those positions maybe because there are so few women in these positions oh well, that sounds like it'll sort itself out

Gotta get that progressive society free of hate somehow.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44604971]For a lot of people equality means achieving special benefits and privileges.[/QUOTE] No, it really doesn't. Holy shit were you the only straight white guy in your school or something? That's the only reason I could see for someone having this consistently awful a view of people trying to get equality.

[quote]Bindman and Monaghan will also examine barriers to joining the judiciary, . Circuit judges are expected to travel and spend a lot of time away from home, a factor that rules out this option for many women. The two QCs will also look atother routes to joining the UK judiciary.[/quote] Anyway, the UK legal system is more classist than sexist.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44604971]For a lot of people equality means achieving special benefits and privileges. We don't have equality groups, we have interest groups.[/QUOTE] I suppose that's true in a way. Pretty much all politics is about pleasing your supporters in order to stay in power. It's why the Republicans support medical research that benefits the elderly and support social policies the old want while the democrats support social programs that benefits the poor and try to get the support of the young.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;44605274]No, it really doesn't. Holy shit were you the only straight white guy in your school or something?[/QUOTE] I'm a person of color in a poorer minority populated district. It would be better to have more social programs and benefits for the poor as a whole. Its better than singling out minorities and having a world where we look at ethnic collectives.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;44604855]idk. Showing that the minorities are actually capable of their job, quota or not, will improve general perception of them and their abilities. Now, we aren't hiring women and non-white people into judicial positions for some reason, that isn't going to change when we point it out because it's constantly being pointed out. The only option left is to enforce change, if people don't want to change for the betterment of society, you fucking well make them. The people who will fulfil these quotas will be properly trained, possibly even some of the best people around, but because of their race and/ or gender, were not hired. There are literally zero downsides to quotas when the balance is so massively skewed like it is in a variety of careers. Yes getting turned down because of the quota is going to suck, but if you were turned down you're probably a white male and will have plenty of other places to try anyway.[/QUOTE] To be honest, in some ways the UK has a unique problem. The problem is that there's a push on hiring people from oxbridge schools which do often have a lot of men. The cliques build during the school itself and continue onwards. This is a problem that falls on women to an extent, but brutally falls on minorities. Sure the population of minorities might be larger than the amount of current people on those schools. So when you have people that hire they are put in front of a unique loss loss situation a) keep hiring as they are hiring, generally people from the places that are renowned as the best. | Run into the issue of being seen as non-progresive b) change their hiring practice and run into the risk of being called out on reducing their standards. This is something that generally happens in highly competitive marketplaces. The UK uni marketplace is super competitive (some are just seen as better) and the UK law marketplace is super competitive as well

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;44605036]i wonder why there are so few women in these positions maybe because overall they feel discouraged from trying to get there by how society works i wonder what about that could be discouraging them from trying to get to those positions maybe because there are so few women in these positions oh well, that sounds like it'll sort itself out[/QUOTE] Ever thought that the majority of women just aren´t interested in becoming judges? I don´t get how you people say that society discourages women all the time. I have never seen an ad telling women they are not able to be a judge or an engineer. It is the opposite. There is a girls day which introduces girls to jobs dominated by males. But if they don´t want to get such a job, why force them? Aren´t judges supposed to be blind of sex and race? Why do you need a higher representation of women there? What does representation in such case even mean? In Norway, the most egalitarian country in the world, there should an equal representation of women and men in any job. But this isn´t the case. It is quite the opposite. The women chose a traditionally female job. There is a documentary about it which explains it much better: [video=youtube;p5LRdW8xw70]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70[/video]

If you're going to claim society doesn't discourage women from these jobs then you're going to need to prove the existence of this mysterious biological phenomenon that makes men want to be arbiters of justice that women lack.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;44607164]If you're going to claim society doesn't discourage women from these jobs then you're going to need to prove the existence of this mysterious biological phenomenon that makes men want to be arbiters of justice that women lack.[/QUOTE] So you don´t actually have proof of any discrimination against women that want to be judges?

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;44607164]If you're going to claim society doesn't discourage women from these jobs then you're going to need to prove the existence of this mysterious biological phenomenon that makes men want to be arbiters of justice that women lack.[/QUOTE] The key is the assumption that in a perfectly egalitarian society with no social pressure that all jobs would have equal representation of men and women. What scientific basis does that assumption have? I also assume you didn't watch the documentary that he posted.

[QUOTE=Impact1986;44607592]So you don´t actually have proof of any discrimination against women that want to be judges?[/QUOTE] That is in no way what he was getting at. The question you really should be asking about these issues is [B]why[/B] do women not want to go in to these jobs? And "because they don't like it lol" isn't the answer, it's a disproportionately huge number of women not getting these jobs or entering these fields, more than personal interest alone would cause. What made them think "no, this isn't a job for me"? Did they have some kind of insight into the field that made them realise it wasn't a good fit for them as a person, or did they not enter the field because they were female?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;44607937]That is in no way what he was getting at. The question you really should be asking about these issues is [B]why[/B] do women not want to go in to these jobs? And "because they don't like it lol" isn't the answer, it's a disproportionately huge number of women not getting these jobs or entering these fields, more than personal interest alone would cause. What made them think "no, this isn't a job for me"? Did they have some kind of insight into the field that made them realise it wasn't a good fit for them as a person, or did they not enter the field because they were female?[/QUOTE] Watch that documentary I posted. It explains it. And if you don´t want to, I would ask you if you want to work in a job which requires capabilities which you are mediocre at, or at a job which requires capabilities that you are proficient at? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_gender_differences[/url] [QUOTE]Cognitive tasks Different regions of the brain are activated in a gender-specific manner; these regions overlap with all four lobes of the brain (frontal lobe, parietal lobe, occipital lobe, and temporal lobe). Men outperform women in tests of spatial ability while women outperform men in tests of verbal ability.Studies have found that men perform mathematical tasks better than women along with visualization of rotated objects in space. Females outperform males in memory recall, verbal fluency, and speed at which manual movements are carried out, such as finger-tapping[/QUOTE] That is why men like jobs which focus on mathematics like the STEM fields. And as verbal fluency is a key point in social interactions, women like to do jobs with focus on interactions with humans. And this isn´t something that society imprints on males and females either. Studies have shown that even 1 day old babies differentiate between toys depending on their brains. This is something that the documentary shows, too. Do you know girls day? It is a day in which girls are introduced to jobs dominated by males. But I haven´t seen anything that says that a girl doesn´t have the stuff to become an engineer if she wants to. It is quite the opposite, at least in my country, if you look into the job advertisements at larger companies, there is a sentence which says that disabled and female applicants are given preference if there are more people applying for that job. If you could give me any examples of negative discrimination I would be very happy.