Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by Vince_Ulam, May 2, 2018.
I think biology determines that (with a very few ambiguous anatomical exceptions).
This is so. Attempting to remedy past failures by discriminating against present day men is unfair. Dig up the old white entitled males and discriminate against them.
Perhaps I have misunderstood this - I thought the AWS was for the post of Women's Officer - not for being an MP. If this is correct, I don't see the problem with it. I would have thought that women were best placed to do this job.
"...discriminating against present day men is unfair." It really isn't, if present day men will end up in positions of power and authority they don't deserve over a better-qualified, more intelligent female who has been held back by structural injustice and inequity. When a large number of women were brought into Parliament by the use of AWS in 1997, did the quality of Parliament obviously decline? Far from it, it improved. Many of "Blair's Babes" went on to be Cabinet ministers.Many a company would also be advised to give its boardroom a good invigoration by adoption all-women shortlists when vacancies arise.
AWS are not limited to the candidacy of Women's Officer, for which position women are undoubtedly best disposed.
Or over a better qualified, more intelligent male who has been held back by structural injustice and inequity. It's the selection process that needs fixing to make it less discriminatory.
This is what I wasn't sure of - could you let me know the other posts for which there is an AWS?
However, I think it is the post of Women's Officer most of all which has prompted the mass resignation.
Edit: - Have just googled (which I should have done in the first place) and I see that as far back as 1997 some women were put forward as candidates for some seats (Labour).
Angela Rayner, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Sue Hayman, Cat Smith, Valerie Vaz, Chi Onwurah, Angela Smith, Christina Rees, Barbara Keeley, Nia Griffith, Gloria de Piero, Paula Sherriff, Stella Creasy, Rachel Maskell, Jess Phillips, Tulip Siddiq, Holly Lynch, Heidi Alexander, Rupa Huq, Melanie Onn, Luciana Berger, Thangam Debbonnaire, Maria Eagle, Lilian Greenwood, Kerry McCarthy, Rachel Reeves, Shabana Mahmood and Lisa Nandy .
all came from AWSs.
And where do you feel structural injustice and inequity holds men back unjustly in our society compared to women?
Women from private school, Oxbridge, Mommy and Daddy friends with bosses, internships compared to a back street guttersnipe.
Youth, beauty & >ahem< easy charm almost guarantee women an unsolicited offer of an NQT year during their PGCE placements.
Positive discrimination is just discrimination. It is also illegal. Saying we should treat a person unfavourably because of a certain characteristic like sex or race is wrong. All you are doing is shifting the problem not fixing it.
If a certain group is being excluded then you need to see why and address that. Saying your going to employee someone because of X characteristic isn't helping anyone. It should be the most suitable person regardless, so if a certain group is lacking in an area (skills/knowledge etc) then do something to improve that - which may mean tracking back through a lot of causes.
I'm remind of an article in The Economist about Asian-Americans suing Harvard due to that institutions positive discrimination policies...
Basically for an Asian American to gain access to Harvard they had to have a higher point score than white Americans and a far far higher point score than black Americans... they were actively penalised on the grounds of their race because of the racist attitude that ''black people couldn't get into Harvard otherwise''. Racial discrimination was endorsed because of prejudicial thinking.
Positive discrimination for women has two messages. 1. Women cannot compete with men 2. Women cannot achieve on a level playing field.
Both are these are fundamentally wrong and people like MAGA who think it should be ashamed.
You mean stuff that was made up? Like another magic word '''Patriarchy''... ooooh
The fact still remains, though, that women are still under-represented in parliament (32%), the House of Lords (26% - I think there are still some hereditary peers though which may account for this) and in the cabinet (26%). And I presume this is including any AWS there may have been. I am not defending AWSs (except where it is patently obvious a woman is better suited for the job - such as Women's Officer) but by your logic I have to assume that therefore
1. Women cannot compete with men 2. Women cannot achieve on a level playing field.
I can't believe this to be true though and I don't think you do either. Why is it then that it is still the case in 2018 that half the population is under-represented in our government?
Genuine question - not being goady.
Do you believe that women MPs are unable to represent the interests of the men in their constituencies?
Oh dear me.
They are being excluded because of systemic bias and injustice. How do you address it? By positively discriminating towards the groups who suffer adversely. If that means a few black headteachers, or female CEOs, or LGBT construction engineers who are they based on who they are rather than absolute merit, society itself will benefit, and therefore it's a price worth paying. If you always give jobs to the person with the greatest merit, and that person always turns out to be a white, middle-aged, public school and Oxbridge educated male, how will anything ever change?
No. I mean the inbuilt bias experienced by women and "people of colour" whenever they apply for something where people "naturally expect" a pale, male and stale person to be fulfilling that role. If it's "made up", then why do statistics show the massive gender and racial imbalances which exist in society? Genetics?
I believe that, ONCE THE PLAYING FIELD HAS BEEN LEVELLED, of course women and ethnic minorities can compete equally with men. If there's any "being ashamed" knocking about, it should be those who want to perpetuate a system which prevented and prevents their mothers, sisters and daughters competing fairly. We all believe in fair competition, but what lanokia and others are failing to recognise is that how can you have a fair competition when one side are playing downhill with a breeze behind them, and the other playing uphill into the teeth of a force 8 gale?