Reminds me of this.....
I'll throw this into the room and retreat to a safe distance. Discuss.
BBC News - Viewpoint: More women needed in technology
I will never say no to more females, especially mid 20's smoking hot females.........
Unfortunately though, out of all the FTSE 100 companies, only two have female CEO's. That is quite obviously gender discrimination.It's time to change things. Any chief executive with half an ounce of sense should be putting their blood, sweat and tears into ensuring that the make-up of their company mirrors the make-up of their market.
Whether or not their is discrimination is not my place to say, but surely the best person for the job is simply that; the best person for the job. I for one am sick of ticking boxes, it shouldn't matter what box you fall in to so long as you're good at what you do!
I always remember picking up a job bulletin for Sandwell Council that started with a standard "we are an equal opportunities employer" and ended with a footnote (these exact words): "we are particularly looking for a black, disabled female as we feel we are under represented in this area". Beggars belief.
EDIT: I think I ought to step away from this thread now, I get involved in far too many controversial debates around here...
Last edited by LosOjos; 15th October 2012 at 01:40 PM.
As a female IT person from the days of yore when punch cards ruled and nobody had thought of Windows, I agree that there are few of us in the profession. I was one of only 3 women in a Technical Support and Operations department of around 80 staff.
In my younger days, the only way to work in IT included night shift and on-call... with no remote support; driving into Chatham at 2am was never a favourite. I took a couple of years out when tiny children and the hours proved totally incompatible. I was the first Systems Programmer ever to require maternity leave at this place... it is fair to say that management and colleagues alike struggled with the concept.
These days, it is easier to be a technician and have a family life... remoting in to fix problems is fantastic! And these days employers do treat women better. By treating women better, I mean they treat their employees equally. I don't expect to be treated any differently to my male colleagues... and I certainly wouldn't expect to be 'positively discriminated' for.
It is encouraging to see so many women on here... and more of my generation than I initially expected as well.
Though it was further. It pretty much ended with "If you aren't black, don't bother applying."
Last edited by X-13; 15th October 2012 at 01:53 PM.
To some extent, sure. But if the demographics of a large body of employees (say the police) is significantly different from the social demographic doesn't that spell trouble? And if you don't take positive action to address that, why would you expect it to sort itself out?but surely the best person for the job is simply that; the best person for the job. I for one am sick of ticking boxes, it shouldn't matter what box you fall in to so long as you're good at what you do!
Some types of work men prefer and other women prefer, so some work places by default don't represent the social demographic. In general terms, more males prefer to do jobs such as the police, army and fire service for example. Whereas females may prefer other roles, teaching (especially primary schools), nursing. That is just how people are and we shouldn't try to force change everything to represent the social demographic, unless you would like the government to allocate you a job like in Futurama.
Now there may be issues with discrimination but I don't think positively discriminating is going to fix it either, if two people are identically qualified and experience, and then a male is chosen because he is male, then that is an issue. If the male candidate is actually better but because they would like more females in the workplace, so they chose the female, what problem does it solve?
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that women would like to be doing those jobs and that they are represented better at the lower levels but that as you rise up the ladder, the proportion drops. How do you explain that? That the ones that do want to be police prefer being lower down the ranks? Is that like the FTSE 100 companies, women just don't have much ambition?In general terms, more males prefer to do jobs such as the police, army and fire service for example. Whereas females may prefer other roles, teaching (especially primary schools), nursing. That is just how people are and we shouldn't try to force change everything to represent the social demographic,
It helps change the culture of an organisation where it has been demonstrated that no other method works.Now there may be issues with discrimination but I don't think positively discriminating is going to fix it either, if two people are identically qualified and experience, and then a male is chosen because he is male, then that is an issue. If the male candidate is actually better but because they would like more females in the workplace, so they chose the female, what problem does it solve?
Ah, just checked and yes, it was you (@pcstru) who kept on with the goading in the last controversial thread I got involved in. I'll step away now as I sense a repeat. Have fun!
All it proves is that 2% of FTSE 100 companies are run by women... Did women apply for all the posts when they came up last?
What are the proportions of women in the lower ranks of those companies? Is it 50/50 in the finance dept? 50/50 in the marketing division?
Positive discrimination is a con - it isn't positive is it? Its negative against those who are ignored because they don't tick some demographic box. All discrimination is bad in my view.
The best person for the job should get the job, whether they are a white male, a black female, disabled transsexual or a green slug from Pluto!
I gave examples of where there is more male/ female ratios, either more male or more female. I don't have access to the figures of the male/ female ratio at every level of every organisation. There may be more females in boardrooms in FTSE 350 companies, I don't know.
Clearly your view is that we have to positively discriminate and you won't accept that some people may disagree with it, and think that positive discrimination might not be a good thing. I have to agree with LosOjos here, I think I'll step away from discussing this with you, it seems it would be as productive as a does God exist or not argument between an atheist and a Christian.
Maybe the political system should be targeted first though, because we have had 1 female prime minister EVER, so I would have to see our percentages for that job role. Once politics has changed, then politicians can start forcing others to follow suit if that is what has to happen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)