Appointment to State Board - Females only need apply

FrStone

The broadcasting authority of Ireland is looking for a non executive member on their Board, however in line with legislation the member must be a female.

Is this not feminism gone too far?

While I understand the idea that non-executive directors should be diverse and from a variety of different backgrounds, I believe the best person should get the job. (When I say diverse, I mean from a variety of different professional experience).

http://stateboards.ie/stateboards/campaignAdvert/44935.htm

alchemist33

FrStone wrote: »

The broadcasting authority of Ireland is looking for a non executive member on their Board, however in line with legislation the member must be a female.

Is this not feminism gone too far?

While I understand the idea that non-executive directors should be diverse and from a variety of different backgrounds, I believe the best person should get the job. (When I say diverse, I mean from a variety of different professional experience).

http://stateboards.ie/stateboards/campaignAdvert/44935.htm

It may be legislation but to borrow a phrase, the legislation is an ass.

Dymo

It's really just a state of things to come, we will probably go down the affirmative action route that the US has and put jobs forward where jobs favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination; positive discrimination will have to be put to the first of the queue for positions.

maudgonner

Did you check the section of the act that applies?

(3) Not less than 4 of the members of the Authority shall be men and not less than 4 of them shall be women.

So it's not biased towards women. It just happens to be the case this time that there are only three women on the board.

If the reverse was true then they would specify that only men are eligible to be considered.

Tin Foil Hat

Dymo wrote: »

It's really just a state of things to come, we will probably go down the affirmative action route that the US has and put jobs forward where jobs favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination; positive discrimination will have to be put to the first of the queue for positions.

There's no such thing a positive discrimination. Just positive spin on discrimination.

Fr_Dougal

maudgonner wrote: »

Did you check the section of the act that applies?



So it's not biased towards women. It just happens to be the case this time that there are only three women on the board.

If the reverse was true then they would specify that only men are eligible to be considered.

Why can't they just pick people on merit? It's discrimination.

Pat Mustard

FrStone wrote: »

Is this not feminism gone too far?

It's grand once there's a quota for tall people, short people, people over fifty, people under fifty, yadda yadda yadda.

In a word: ridiculous.

the_syco

FrStone wrote: »

http://stateboards.ie/stateboards/campaignAdvert/44935.htm

The successful candidate must be female

Sure, it's only sexist if we say "males only"... :pac:

Richard Hillman

Mary Mitchell O'Connor.

That is all you need to know about sex quota's

Vic_08

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Mary Mitchell O'Connor.

That is all you need to know about sex quota's

I've heard that rumour too. :eek:

Arsemageddon

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Mary Mitchell O'Connor.

That is all you need to know about sex quota's

I think that moron being made a minister had more to do with her loyalty to Enda Kenny than her gender, same goes for Heather Humphries. There are far more capable lady blueshirts than those two.

lazybones32

If it benefits women: it's equality.
If it benefits men: it's sexist.

Grayson

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I think that moron being made a minister had more to do with her loyalty to Enda Kenny than her gender, same goes for Heather Humphries. There are far more capable lady blueshirts than those two.

That's the thing. If an idiot woman gets a job it's feminism. If an idiot man gets the job it's just cronyism.
Cronyism is an equal opportunity employer.

biko

Ermagerd the femis are coming!

nice_guy80

They took our jobs....

keeponhurling

maudgonner wrote: »

Did you check the section of the act

If the reverse was true then they would specify that only men are eligible to be considered.

You do have a point, I'm curious though in practice would they really discriminate against suitably qualified women, in order to give a man the job

The_Valeyard

What's wrong with people getting jobs based on their ability not which genitals they have.

Vic_08

keeponhurling wrote: »

You do have a point, I'm curious though in practice would they really discriminate against suitably qualified women, in order to give a man the job

If the rule is 4 men + 4 women and a man left a post then yes, it would have to be filled by another man.

Not that that sort of simple logic should stop all the Feminazi bashing, men under attack!!..etc.

maudgonner

keeponhurling wrote: »

You do have a point, I'm curious though in practice would they really discriminate against suitably qualified women, in order to give a man the job

Yes, they wouldn't have a choice unless the legislation was changed. It's part of the Broadcasting Act.

Venom

maudgonner wrote: »

Did you check the section of the act that applies?



So it's not biased towards women. It just happens to be the case this time that there are only three women on the board.

If the reverse was true then they would specify that only men are eligible to be considered.

Vic_08 wrote: »

If the rule is 4 men + 4 women and a man left a post then yes, it would have to be filled by another man.

Not that that sort of simple logic should stop all the Feminazi bashing, men under attack!!..etc.

All well and good until the first time a male only position is advertised and then the sihte will really hit the fan!

maudgonner

Venom wrote: »

All well and good until the first time a male only position is advertised and then the sihte will really hit the fan!

I doubt that highly, since the only way that would happen is if there was a majority of women on the board. I think any objections would be quickly, and rightly, rubbished given the way the legislation is written.

Venom

maudgonner wrote: »

I doubt that highly, since the only way that would happen is if there was a majority of women on the board. I think any objections would be quickly, and rightly, rubbished given the way the legislation is written.

I can easily see legal challenges and a media blitz in such a case.

Goya

maudgonner wrote: »

Did you check the section of the act that applies?



So it's not biased towards women. It just happens to be the case this time that there are only three women on the board.

If the reverse was true then they would specify that only men are eligible to be considered.

Much ignoring of this I see.

SimonTemplar

The intention of such a mandatory male/female ratio may be fair, but I just think it is going too far. All the positions should be filled based on merit and suitability, be it 100% female, 100% male, or some split in between.

It doesn't make any sense for a person of one gender to be awarded a position when there could be a more qualified and suitable person of the other gender who would have applied had the gender criteria not existed.

_Jamie_

Now there's a thread title for SJW warrior-seeking missiles to furiously tug at themselves over...

KERSPLAT!

Flimpson wrote: »

Much ignoring of this I see.

Not ignoring, calling out its stupidity. As was said already, it should be based on merit not gender.

P. Breathnach

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

... it should be based on merit not gender.

I look back with fondness on the days before feminism and its bastard child gender quotas came on the scene, and the only criterion for advancement was merit.

In those days, we saw what women were worth.

Widdershins

Flimpson wrote: »

Much ignoring of this I see.

I don't know. The fact that there's a quota in the first place is the problem for me.

BattleCorp

Vic_08 wrote: »

If the rule is 4 men + 4 women and a man left a post then yes, it would have to be filled by another man.

Not that that sort of simple logic should stop all the Feminazi bashing, men under attack!!..etc.

It is a stupid piece of legislation. And no matter how it's dressed up, it's flat out discrimination based on what's hanging or not hanging between people's legs.

screamer

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I look back with fondness on the days before feminism and its bastard child gender quotas came on the scene, and the only criterion for advancement was merit.

In those days, we saw what women were worth.

Yeh you just keep telling yourself that......

Peregrinus

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Why can't they just pick people on merit? It's discrimination.

Any selection process involves discrimination.

The reason they don't, in this instance, "pick people on merit" is because the aim of the process isn't to identify the best individual; it's to produce the best board. You're not filling an isolated, autonomous position here; a board acts as a collective body, and one of the reasons we have a collective board to run a public agency rather than an individual commissioner, say, is precisely because a board can be more diverse than any individual can.

When you're picking, say, a soccer team you don't just pick the eleven best soccer players. You're picking a team, and therefore you need goalkeepers, defenders, etc. Similarly when you're making appointments to a board, you don't ignore the fact that the whole reason that you have a board is that you want a diversity of members.

screamer

BattleCorp wrote: »

It is a stupid piece of legislation. And no matter how it's dressed up, it's flat out discrimination based on what's hanging or not hanging between people's legs.

Ah well for years many a male was promoted and not for what was sitting between his ears........

Female whats

Annasopra

screamer wrote: »

Ah well for years many a male was promoted and not for what was sitting between his ears........

I know. It's hardly like loads of women got top jobs in the past under pure meritocracy.

BattleCorp

screamer wrote: »

Ah well for years many a male was promoted and not for what was sitting between his ears........

Agreed........... but as the old saying goes "two wrongs don't make a right".

D9Male

Peregrinus wrote: »

Any selection process involves discrimination.

The reason they don't, in this instance, "pick people on merit" is because the aim of the process isn't to identify the best individual; it's to produce the best board. You're not filling an isolated, autonomous position here; a board acts as a collective body, and one of the reasons we have a collective board to run a public agency rather than an individual commissioner, say, is precisely because a board can be more diverse than any individual can.

When you're picking, say, a soccer team you don't just pick the eleven best soccer players. You're picking a team, and therefore you need goalkeepers, defenders, etc. Similarly when you're making appointments to a board, you don't ignore the fact that the whole reason that you have a board is that you want a diversity of members.

Numerous studies have shown that people work better when they have a diversity of backgrounds, genders and experience.

The legislation is in place to help this happen for this board.

biko

The_Valeyard wrote: »

What's wrong with people getting jobs based on their ability not which genitals they have.

As long as people have preconceived notions of genders in jobs this practice will have to continue.

LLMMLL

I think all this "pick on merit" stuff for state boards and which candidate political parties run is really laughable.

For those kind of "jobs" there's probably multiple candidates who can all do the job perfectly fine. The best woman will probably be incredibly similar to the best man.

We're not going to lose some incredibly talented man, and get some incredibly inept woman.

Maximus Alexander

It's weird that before quotas, we only ever picked men. I assume men are just better on merit, right? That must be it.