nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Fight discrimination with discrimination

dsmythy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm

Across the water they are planning to allow companies to discriminate in favour of women and ethnic minority groups in an effort to end discrimination against them. That's what it seems to be to me anyway.

So if a company has a female and male candidate of similar ability it would be legal to choose the woman over the man because you want a another woman on your staff. The man would have no protection for this.

Same goes with a choice between a white candidate and a black one for example. Personally this seems to defeat the purpose of what anti-discrimination should be all about.

Would you like to see similar laws here?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dord

But isn't that discrimation against white people and men?

monkeyfudge

Note to self: I hate whites!

biko

The point is to promote minorities to such positions where they will reflect the the society they are in.
Today all board members of X company are male. Why?
Not because they are best at what they do but because they know each other from school, go to same gentlemen's clubs and socialise together.
I think Norway is very progressive in this field. Half the government is male.

togster

It's only right. It's positive discrimination tbh. Like biko said it's a system of elevating minorities to poitions to facilate an equal footing.

Recently talked to a friend who is in advertising in London. It's a very male dominated field, and their are no females in senior management in her company and others in that district.

Wimmenz deserve a chance.

Sherifu

Hate everyone the same.

oriain

I'm all for equality in all it's forms and for representing the demographics of your society but this is not equality, this is superiority. This law in the UK is taking rights away from heterosexual, caucasian males and making them an unprotected target for discrimination.

I don't think that anybody in their right mind can endorse "equality" at the expense of a person rights.

biko

I'll give an example of this: My friend left school with low grades but managed get into nursing school just because he was male. As they said "we need more male nurse because of the heavy lifting involved". No-one lifted an eyebrow.

monkeyfudge

They probably needed lots jam jars opened for them as well.

mikemac

biko wrote: »

I'll give an example of this: My friend left school with low grades but managed get into nursing school just because he was male. As they said "we need more male nurse because of the heavy lifting involved". No-one lifted an eyebrow.

Same in teaching.
It can extremely difficult for women to get a primary school teaching post but primary schools are crying out for male teachers to employ. It gives a balance and it helps in other factors like they might be more willing in training sports and PE.

If you’re a lad with a teaching degree, you have an advantage over a girl with same qualification

I.S.T.

biko wrote: »

The point is to promote minorities to such positions where they will reflect the the society they are in.
Today all board members of X company are male. Why?
Not because they are best at what they do but because they know each other from school, go to same gentlemen's clubs and socialise together.
I think Norway is very progressive in this field. Half the government is male.

So how is this new law going to make the members of the old boys club recruit women and non-whites? They will still have the same attitude, it will not make any difference

javaboy

What a pile of bs. The jobs should just be given out on merit and if equality is meant to be then it will happen gradually. Artificially adjusting the number of wimmins/minorities in jobs in this way is just discrimination against white males plain and simple. A few successful lawsuits on grounds of discrimination from white males will soon put a stop to this crap.

Dragan

So called "postitive discrimination" is hardly a new thing in fairness.

Zzippy

togster wrote: »

It's only right. It's positive discrimination tbh. Like biko said it's a system of elevating minorities to poitions to facilate an equal footing.

Recently talked to a friend who is in advertising in London. It's a very male dominated field, and their are no females in senior management in her company and others in that district.

Wimmenz deserve a chance.

Women aren't a minority though

I.S.T.

Zzippy wrote: »

Women aren't a minority though

I've never seen a binwoman. I wonder if this will result in more of them

Earthhorse

From reading the article I can't really see what this allows for that isn't allowed for already.

You can only choose a woman over a man, or vice versa, if they are of equal ability. What's to stop you from doing that now?

gogglebok

I think private companies should be able to discriminate against anyone they want to. If they get government support, however, I don't see why their attitudes shouldn't be weighted a little in favour of those whom society most often treats unfairly. It seems only fair.

Heterosexuals and males have received positive discrimination for years in Ireland, for example. The state should acknowledge that and throw a little rope to gay people and women.

Dragan

gogglebok wrote: »

Heterosexuals and males have received positive discrimination for years in Ireland, for example. The state should acknowledge that and throw a little rope to gay people and women.

Hardly makes sense to discriminate against people going through the system now because of the people who went through it before.

javaboy

gogglebok wrote: »

I think private companies should be able to discriminate against anyone they want to. If they get government support, however, I don't see why their attitudes shouldn't be weighted a little in favour of those whom society most often treats unfairly. It seems only fair.

Heterosexuals and males have received positive discrimination for years in Ireland, for example. The state should acknowledge that and throw a little rope to gay people and women.

Why should they? I'm a white straight male and I haven't benefitted from positive discrimination so why should I be discriminated against?

gogglebok

javaboy wrote: »

Why should they? I'm a white straight male and I haven't benefitted from positive discrimination so why should I be discriminated against?

You're allowed to marry someone you are sexually attracted to. Many people aren't.

I don't know of any current laws that discriminate directly against women. Maybe someone will point out a couple. There used to be quite a bundle, and many of the people they affected are still alive.

Up until 1973 males benefited from not being forced to leave the civil service if they got married, for example. That was discriminatory. A little payback wouldn't hurt, would it? Particularly when you factor in the probability that a history of state discrimination has trickled into the wider society and made things in general harder for gay people and women than for straight people and men.

Seonad

monkeyfudge wrote: »

They probably needed lots jam jars opened for them as well.

Nah just stick a knife in the side of the lid-it breaks the seal:D

I was looking in the Irish Independent today and they had a supplement of powerful Irish women, looking through it though, it is very clear indeed that very few women (if, indeed, any) exist on the boards of the top companies in this country-the most I saw was 2.

In terms of the apparent 40% pay difference between men and women, I don't really understand how this works? Surely there's a position which pays a specific wage, then both men and women apply and then whoever gets it, gets the wage? How is it that men are paid more for the same job if the salary is fixed for the position?

javaboy

gogglebok wrote: »

You're allowed to marry someone you are sexually attracted to. Many people aren't.

I don't know of any current laws that discriminate directly against women. Maybe someone will point out a couple. There used to be quite a bundle, and many of the people they affected are still alive.

Up until 1973 males benefited from not being forced to leave the civil service if they got married, for example. That was discriminatory. A little payback wouldn't hurt, would it? Particularly when you factor in the probability that a history of state discrimination has trickled into the wider society and made things in general harder for gay people and women than for straight people and men.

Well I was born in 1985 so explain to me why I should be discriminated against because of my sexuality, gender or skin colour? That's racism in my book.

Gone West

This affirmative action crap has been tried in the USA and Its been shown to cause more problems than is cures. In addition, its been shown that this so called "positive discrimination" does not work in the long term.

Climate Expert

If you are anti-racist/sexist and you promote these policies then you are beyond contempt.

As an able-bodied, white, male, hetrosexual, over 25 I'm fairly sick of being **** on from every other minority. I've never seen an initiative or grants to get men into teaching or nursing. I've seen plenty in the scientific field. I've seen plenty of initiatives for racial minorities but never any for me.
And for these reasons I reserve the right to be racist or sexist or use any kind of prejudice I like.
Equality of prejudice for all is the only fair way.

gogglebok

javaboy wrote: »

Well I was born in 1985 so explain to me why I should be discriminated against because of my sexuality, gender or skin colour? That's racism in my book.

I'm not proposing a law that would discriminate specifically against you. I'm saying:

1. Heterosexuals and males have received the benefit of state discrimination. I've given a couple of examples of this.

2. It seems fair that the pendulum should swing the other way a little. If we notice ourselves treating one group of people unfairly, is it really wrong to make up for it by over-correcting a little in the other direction?

gogglebok

Climate Expert wrote: »

I've never seen an initiative or grants to get men into teaching or nursing.

Do you think they would be a good idea?

Climate Expert wrote: »

And for these reasons I reserve the right to be racist or sexist or use any kind of prejudice I like.

So when you feel have been subjected to discrimination, you reserve the right to over-correct by disciminating in the opposite objection. Isn't that precisely what you're objecting to?

Climate Expert

is it really wrong to make up for by over-correct a little in the other direction?

Yes, you are advocating discrimination. I've never benefitted from discrimanation so why should I be discrimanated against.

Would you advocate enforced slavery of white americans to compensate for events that happened 300 years ago?

Pompey Magnus

I'm a young, white, heterosexual Irish male with no physical or mental disabilities and with a fixed abode. I think positive discrimination is a bad idea.

Climate Expert

gogglebok wrote: »

Do you think they would be a good idea?

So when you feel have been subjected to discrimination, you reserve the right to over-correct by disciminating in the opposite objection. Isn't that precisely what you're objecting to?

No, people should make their own chocies about what jobs they like. When I was in school there were 20 people studying physics. No girls decided to study the subject. That was their own personal choice.

I'm racist and sexist anyway, I don't believe in equality, just equality of discrimanation.

javaboy

gogglebok wrote: »

I'm not proposing a law that would discriminate specifically against you. I'm saying:

1. Heterosexuals and males have received the benefit of state discrimination. I've given a couple of examples of this.

2. It seems fair that the pendulum should swing the other way a little. If we notice ourselves treating one group of people unfairly, is it really wrong to make up for it by over-correcting a little in the other direction?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Wouldn't it be a better idea to just do it right from now on rather than trying to balance things out?

Mena

It's called Affirmative Action. It's done wonders for South Africa /sarcasm