Harriet Harman [regarding Phil Woolas]:
"It is not part of Labour politics to try to win
elections by saying things that are not true."
'Nuff said, really
Showing posts with label Harperson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harperson. Show all posts
05 November 2010
05 November 2009
Massage, Ms Harman?
Harriet Harman's office has been told to stop using that ridiculous 22.9% pay gap figure
But what I wanted tp pick up on was this:
Now the logic of including this escapes me - it's clearly designed to simply maximise the gap - is it fair to compare part-time jobs with full-time ones? Considering men earn even less part-time surely it reflects the gap between full and part-time, not gender?
But I thought I'd work out the alternative
Full-time men vs part-time women = 39.9% gap
Full-time women vs part-time men = 33.5% gap [in favour of women]
Surely Harriet should be using both?
Unless she just has an agenda...
But what I wanted tp pick up on was this:
The Government's equality watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the ONS report was 'important' but insisted it should also have compared the pay of full-time men with part-time women - which gives a 39.9 per cent pay gap in men's favour.
Now the logic of including this escapes me - it's clearly designed to simply maximise the gap - is it fair to compare part-time jobs with full-time ones? Considering men earn even less part-time surely it reflects the gap between full and part-time, not gender?
But I thought I'd work out the alternative
Full-time men vs part-time women = 39.9% gap
Full-time women vs part-time men = 33.5% gap [in favour of women]
Surely Harriet should be using both?
Unless she just has an agenda...
02 November 2009
Riot, please, just riot!
I can't take this any more, I was going to write about the Youth Parliament last week, but I've seen Hattie's latest comments and entered a world of despair
I wasn't aware that had changed...
Really? Have these people never rented before? You can rent whole houses you know
Gold star for Gordon, that's the original reason for introducing MP salaries over a century ago - I'd love to know how 65k plus fiddled expenses is anywhere near what 'ordinary people' support their families with
What exactly would the preserve of the wealthy be? You can still own a house, funded by your big salary, then rent a second house for work on expenses (I really don't get their issue with renting - they do realise they won't have to pay for it, right?), claim travel expenses that few commuters would get, and an office for work - what's the problem? What is so disabling in that scenario - I'd do it, and so would a lot of ordinary people I know - do I need to break out the graph that shows where ordinary people are and where MPs are (top 9%), and the list of Labour MPs who are millionaires or professional politicians?
These people really are just living in a bubble
...pop it
But Miss Harman yesterday suggested that the report could be shelved if it goes too far.
She said a final decision would rest with the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), whose members will be vetted by MPs before being appointed.
Miss Harman said Ipsa will have to be sure that MPs ‘can both be in their constituency as well as in Westminster’.
She added: ‘No one wants to get back to a situation where MPs were sent to Westminster and then they said to their constituents “see you again in five years”.
I wasn't aware that had changed...
MPs are furious at the prospect of having to sell their second homes and move into rented accommodation. Some warn it will make it impossible for all but the wealthiest MPs to have their families with them in London.
Really? Have these people never rented before? You can rent whole houses you know
The Prime Minister is expected to tell him that the new expenses system must not be so harsh that politics ‘becomes the preserve of the independently wealthy and that ordinary people with families must always be able to become MPs’.
Gold star for Gordon, that's the original reason for introducing MP salaries over a century ago - I'd love to know how 65k plus fiddled expenses is anywhere near what 'ordinary people' support their families with
What exactly would the preserve of the wealthy be? You can still own a house, funded by your big salary, then rent a second house for work on expenses (I really don't get their issue with renting - they do realise they won't have to pay for it, right?), claim travel expenses that few commuters would get, and an office for work - what's the problem? What is so disabling in that scenario - I'd do it, and so would a lot of ordinary people I know - do I need to break out the graph that shows where ordinary people are and where MPs are (top 9%), and the list of Labour MPs who are millionaires or professional politicians?
These people really are just living in a bubble
...pop it
25 September 2009
I thought discrimination was still illegal?
We all know about the allegations of ageism at the BBC, what with Arlene-gate (yeah, I made that up...), Moira Stuart and however many other older women have complained
And broadly I agree - it's notable that there is an absence of older women (over 50), particularly compared to the old geezers still hanging around the Beeb (as I found out in a ridiculously lengthy post before)
But this has always been an allegation - the women either retired or were dropped, like any other worker - there was no 'you're too old, bye!!' - it's a perception that it's deliberate, there's no actual proof
Of course, the BBC has to be receptive to public opinion, and clearly it's justified, especially in current affairs programmes (dramas and soaps are full of old women) - but is not deliberately looking for newsreaders based on age and sex against the law?
Under the Equalities bill it wouldn't be, but right now to select based on any kind of physical discrimination is illegal - I know that the media deliberately pick people for certain 'qualities' - but is this not blatant enough to actually be a breach of discrimination law? Seems to me the BBC are leaving themselves open to prosecution, if they, for example, ignore young people or men - they could be cutting off their nose to spite their face here
Not that anyone would normally care - except that this is the BBC and I would bet the Mail will jump on it - they love a good bit of hypocrisy, I'd put money on it and I'll be looking out for it
I do of course, have to ask - does this mean the Mail now support Hattie's 'equality' bill?
And broadly I agree - it's notable that there is an absence of older women (over 50), particularly compared to the old geezers still hanging around the Beeb (as I found out in a ridiculously lengthy post before)
But this has always been an allegation - the women either retired or were dropped, like any other worker - there was no 'you're too old, bye!!' - it's a perception that it's deliberate, there's no actual proof
Of course, the BBC has to be receptive to public opinion, and clearly it's justified, especially in current affairs programmes (dramas and soaps are full of old women) - but is not deliberately looking for newsreaders based on age and sex against the law?
Under the Equalities bill it wouldn't be, but right now to select based on any kind of physical discrimination is illegal - I know that the media deliberately pick people for certain 'qualities' - but is this not blatant enough to actually be a breach of discrimination law? Seems to me the BBC are leaving themselves open to prosecution, if they, for example, ignore young people or men - they could be cutting off their nose to spite their face here
Not that anyone would normally care - except that this is the BBC and I would bet the Mail will jump on it - they love a good bit of hypocrisy, I'd put money on it and I'll be looking out for it
I do of course, have to ask - does this mean the Mail now support Hattie's 'equality' bill?
11 August 2009
Is feminism an anachronism?
I've been reading across the feminist debate the past day or two, why? Mainly because the other (political) news is boring, and I came across this debate in the Times
Now I'm sorry but I cannot address the issues of sexualisation and the influence of the rise of 'normalised porn' (lads' mags, lap dancing clubs, the internet etc) - it simply doesn't work on my level
As far as I'm concerned I'm a liberal and believe in freedom of opportunity and a broadly free market, I don't like people who want to stop consenting adults doing what they like, and nor am I interested in how society affects the behaviour of girls and if it's bad - it's of little interest to me
What does interest me is politics, if I believe in freedom I cannot believe in discrimination and gender balancing - so as long as women have an equal opportunity to succeed that's fine by me, the outcome only interests me if there clearly is an impediment based on sex, which I struggle to see
On this point Janice Turner points out, briefly:
That for me, is it - that's the goal, and in my view, today, girls are no more discriminated against than boys - if anything the system is weighted towards them - I have yet to find a young woman who feels held back by their gender
It seems pretty clear that most of the issues regarding opportunity come out of those educated prior to the 80s - I know and appreciate that my mother was discriminated against and it prevented her getting very far, but she was educated in the 60s and 70s - there's very little we can do about that now, she still has over a decade left til retirement and so remains a discriminated part of the workforce
And yet still people like Harman push on with these plans and their (dodgy) stats - their plans will only 'benefit' future generations, not those people still in the workforce who did have it worse
Why can't people like her appreciate that? You won't change working habits in the over-50s, those who were denied an education in sciences and told to be secretaries - you should surely be looking at the under 30s and 40s - how are they doing? As Janice points out, it's clear to all that young women are doing pretty well, given an advantage in education, given preferential treatment in the best graduate jobs
But still they persist with their agenda - trying to balance a gender gap that still exists in the cold war, there is no study of age groups used in their publications - which show that younger single women are virtually the same as the males (if anyone would like to wade in with stats, feel free) - and yet they address the gender gap so evident in the older workers by focusing on education and university leavers...
It boggles the mind - it just seems to me that it's common sense to say, 'look at the women coming out of education today' and note that there's obviously going to be a 40-year lag on this issue
And that is also why feminism is pretty much dead - women know that their daughters are facing no real hurdles, all the barriers have gone, they did win, and now people like Janice Turner want to focus on abstract issues about sexualisation and morality - the common person has never really taken to academic debate and it's unlikely the average woman will concern herself with such theories, that's for the chattering classes, for people with too much time on their hands (like me!)
Feminism will continue to exist in academic circles, as pretty much every line of thought does - but it is no longer necessary for the masses, because it has no tangible aims, and that is why Hattie looks absolutely raving, because most women know she's at least 20 years late
Now I'm sorry but I cannot address the issues of sexualisation and the influence of the rise of 'normalised porn' (lads' mags, lap dancing clubs, the internet etc) - it simply doesn't work on my level
As far as I'm concerned I'm a liberal and believe in freedom of opportunity and a broadly free market, I don't like people who want to stop consenting adults doing what they like, and nor am I interested in how society affects the behaviour of girls and if it's bad - it's of little interest to me
What does interest me is politics, if I believe in freedom I cannot believe in discrimination and gender balancing - so as long as women have an equal opportunity to succeed that's fine by me, the outcome only interests me if there clearly is an impediment based on sex, which I struggle to see
On this point Janice Turner points out, briefly:
These are truly boomtime girls, part of that first generation to beat boys at A level, outnumber them at university and often out-earn them in the workplace. A decade of national prosperity won them that feminist ideal: economic equality.
That for me, is it - that's the goal, and in my view, today, girls are no more discriminated against than boys - if anything the system is weighted towards them - I have yet to find a young woman who feels held back by their gender
It seems pretty clear that most of the issues regarding opportunity come out of those educated prior to the 80s - I know and appreciate that my mother was discriminated against and it prevented her getting very far, but she was educated in the 60s and 70s - there's very little we can do about that now, she still has over a decade left til retirement and so remains a discriminated part of the workforce
And yet still people like Harman push on with these plans and their (dodgy) stats - their plans will only 'benefit' future generations, not those people still in the workforce who did have it worse
Why can't people like her appreciate that? You won't change working habits in the over-50s, those who were denied an education in sciences and told to be secretaries - you should surely be looking at the under 30s and 40s - how are they doing? As Janice points out, it's clear to all that young women are doing pretty well, given an advantage in education, given preferential treatment in the best graduate jobs
But still they persist with their agenda - trying to balance a gender gap that still exists in the cold war, there is no study of age groups used in their publications - which show that younger single women are virtually the same as the males (if anyone would like to wade in with stats, feel free) - and yet they address the gender gap so evident in the older workers by focusing on education and university leavers...
It boggles the mind - it just seems to me that it's common sense to say, 'look at the women coming out of education today' and note that there's obviously going to be a 40-year lag on this issue
And that is also why feminism is pretty much dead - women know that their daughters are facing no real hurdles, all the barriers have gone, they did win, and now people like Janice Turner want to focus on abstract issues about sexualisation and morality - the common person has never really taken to academic debate and it's unlikely the average woman will concern herself with such theories, that's for the chattering classes, for people with too much time on their hands (like me!)
Feminism will continue to exist in academic circles, as pretty much every line of thought does - but it is no longer necessary for the masses, because it has no tangible aims, and that is why Hattie looks absolutely raving, because most women know she's at least 20 years late
10 August 2009
Equality and 'equality' are not the same thing
Hear the news that Mandy wants to give poorer students a two-grade advantage? - in essence those from bad schools or under performing areas will be given an advantage over their privately educated (or even grammar school educated...) peers
A scheme used by some universities (like Leeds) is based on achieving a higher than average score - i.e. therefore you are the pick of your school and could do better in a top school
It's a reasonable idea - but it has flaws, for starters just because you are a good performer at a bad school does not mean you match up to AAA students at private schools (or especially grammar schools), nor is it a solid fact that a bad school or being 'poor' will affect your achievement - I'm clever, poor, went to a private school (on the AP scheme I might add, which already puts me in the top 10% of applicants) and was lazy, so I got Bs - I could've got As, but when you only revise for the subject you might get a C in it kind of limits your potential - my point is that I had potential beyond what I got, why not give lazy, intelligent people a leg up? Start doing it by intelligence tests, because that's basically what they're doing, just for poor people
In effect they are undermining their own standardised testing system - flawed as it is, but saying, 'oh it's because you're deprived' (based on very broad statistics) and then lowering expectations, it's just asking for trouble - maybe they were just lazy, like me? Now they have an advantage - and of course, now what you will get is people abusing the postcode lottery to go to bad schools
I'll stop short of expecting degree standards to sink any further because of this - at least in important areas like medicine - they will get wheedled out at some stage if they can't handle it, but it's certainly opening the door for this sort of thing
I can understand the logic - there is an issue to address, a better background does quite clearly provide an advantage against those with talent who are poorer - but this social engineering is just an acceptance of the status quo
It is a misguided attempt to make the stats look 'right' - a good healthy number of working class people in the best degrees and jobs - only that doesn't address the real social issues at the root of this: the bad schools, it's just accepting them and lowering the standards for all concerned
It will make the equality nuts in government very happy, but they are just dressing up the situation - hiding behind their feel-good figures while the education system rots - this should only be a short term measure to help those who are suffering now - the long term aim should be to provide good education to all, not tolerate poor education, that will help no-one in the long run
(nicely balanced article from the Beeb if you ask me...will it show up in certain people's comprehensive review of BBC bias? We shall see)
---------
Meanwhile, Mark Easton has again gone for the jugular with Hattie's mad ravings
He points out the alarming misuse of statistics, as witnessed by the ONS - this has nothing to do with my views, or Easton's, on equality, but the way in which the government manipulate figures to promote an agenda and basically lie to us - think what you want about the feminist argument, but the figures being used by the government are outright lies and it's criminal - frankly I would still care if it was the other way round, or about harmless things like soil types or some other drudgery
You know, I can understand a government trying to bury bad news with fudged statistics - governments can't admit wrong - they should, because we'd benefit, but that's the sad reality of it - this however, is just lying to make a situation look worse and get away with your own crazy ideas
---
Oh and Janet Street Porter has gone feminist
Attacks on women are always personal...attacks on the fat, lazy, idiotic, northern-loudmouth who is Prescott are completely valid politically, however
p.s. Minette Marrin at the Times says it better than I ever could
A scheme used by some universities (like Leeds) is based on achieving a higher than average score - i.e. therefore you are the pick of your school and could do better in a top school
It's a reasonable idea - but it has flaws, for starters just because you are a good performer at a bad school does not mean you match up to AAA students at private schools (or especially grammar schools), nor is it a solid fact that a bad school or being 'poor' will affect your achievement - I'm clever, poor, went to a private school (on the AP scheme I might add, which already puts me in the top 10% of applicants) and was lazy, so I got Bs - I could've got As, but when you only revise for the subject you might get a C in it kind of limits your potential - my point is that I had potential beyond what I got, why not give lazy, intelligent people a leg up? Start doing it by intelligence tests, because that's basically what they're doing, just for poor people
In effect they are undermining their own standardised testing system - flawed as it is, but saying, 'oh it's because you're deprived' (based on very broad statistics) and then lowering expectations, it's just asking for trouble - maybe they were just lazy, like me? Now they have an advantage - and of course, now what you will get is people abusing the postcode lottery to go to bad schools
I'll stop short of expecting degree standards to sink any further because of this - at least in important areas like medicine - they will get wheedled out at some stage if they can't handle it, but it's certainly opening the door for this sort of thing
I can understand the logic - there is an issue to address, a better background does quite clearly provide an advantage against those with talent who are poorer - but this social engineering is just an acceptance of the status quo
It is a misguided attempt to make the stats look 'right' - a good healthy number of working class people in the best degrees and jobs - only that doesn't address the real social issues at the root of this: the bad schools, it's just accepting them and lowering the standards for all concerned
It will make the equality nuts in government very happy, but they are just dressing up the situation - hiding behind their feel-good figures while the education system rots - this should only be a short term measure to help those who are suffering now - the long term aim should be to provide good education to all, not tolerate poor education, that will help no-one in the long run
(nicely balanced article from the Beeb if you ask me...will it show up in certain people's comprehensive review of BBC bias? We shall see)
---------
Meanwhile, Mark Easton has again gone for the jugular with Hattie's mad ravings
He points out the alarming misuse of statistics, as witnessed by the ONS - this has nothing to do with my views, or Easton's, on equality, but the way in which the government manipulate figures to promote an agenda and basically lie to us - think what you want about the feminist argument, but the figures being used by the government are outright lies and it's criminal - frankly I would still care if it was the other way round, or about harmless things like soil types or some other drudgery
You know, I can understand a government trying to bury bad news with fudged statistics - governments can't admit wrong - they should, because we'd benefit, but that's the sad reality of it - this however, is just lying to make a situation look worse and get away with your own crazy ideas
---
Oh and Janet Street Porter has gone feminist
Attacks on women are always personal...attacks on the fat, lazy, idiotic, northern-loudmouth who is Prescott are completely valid politically, however
p.s. Minette Marrin at the Times says it better than I ever could
07 August 2009
At least she likes one man
The Union-leading husband of the rabid feminist we call Hattie is apparently to be gifted a safe seat
He will be given the seat for apparently supporting Gordon (although this is the Mail we're talking about here)
Like her or not, this ain't right - people shouldn't be being placed in Parliament because of who they know, that's not democracy
Well, in actuality the whole concept of a 'safe seat' is thoroughly repulsive to democracy, and I'm certainly not naive, I know it's how almost all of them got there - but as this is the 'equalities minister' we're talking about it seems fair for me to be a little idealistic
When even the resident feminist is getting jobs for the boys you really do have to wonder if our Parliament will ever regain some authority
Furthermore, he's getting this for supporting one of the worst Prime Ministers in history, who will soon be defeated and drag down scores of real MPs - this isn't even in the interest of the party, let alone the country (I have long since abandoned that ideal)
Politics at its worst
He will be given the seat for apparently supporting Gordon (although this is the Mail we're talking about here)
Like her or not, this ain't right - people shouldn't be being placed in Parliament because of who they know, that's not democracy
Well, in actuality the whole concept of a 'safe seat' is thoroughly repulsive to democracy, and I'm certainly not naive, I know it's how almost all of them got there - but as this is the 'equalities minister' we're talking about it seems fair for me to be a little idealistic
When even the resident feminist is getting jobs for the boys you really do have to wonder if our Parliament will ever regain some authority
Furthermore, he's getting this for supporting one of the worst Prime Ministers in history, who will soon be defeated and drag down scores of real MPs - this isn't even in the interest of the party, let alone the country (I have long since abandoned that ideal)
Politics at its worst
05 August 2009
Harman is the worst kind of bigot
That being 'one with power'
I promised myself I wouldn't go too mad on this, she's 'in charge' for two weeks and is doing whatever she wants, we all knew this would happen, and plenty of others out there are whinging about it, I don't need to lose sleep over it
But dear god, she's mad!!
Railroading changes to rape law, sticking wife-beating issues into the national curriculum, making hypocritical remarks about men-only leadership
All in the face of the mostly moderate British public, this is a woman with a massive agenda, blinded by her own warped ideas on the world - but it's nothing new, I just wished to express my exasperation
The good news is she'll never be electable and will be gone within the year, but Alice Thomson puts a different spin on it - at least she's sparking debate, even if we do all hate her
I'm not sure what to think - yes, it's been awful having such a pathetic excuse for a government and it's far more fun to get angry at Harman's 'conviction' politics, it's nice to hear some actual views for once, no matter how insane
Only, my concern is that she actually has power - fine, start debate - but this is not just starting debate, this is starting debate by controlling government with your agenda when you have no democratic right to do so - right-wing fascists start debate, would you like to put one in charge of government so we all take notice?
No, I thought not - it's dangerous, and while it may be more entertaining, there is a real crime here - our government are so bad that we actually have people supporting having this looney in charge just for the fun of it
*And in that link, the Mail win this week's Gruniad award:
**I would also like to lend weight to the theory that this is part of Brown's plot - we'll all be begging for him back by the end of next week
I promised myself I wouldn't go too mad on this, she's 'in charge' for two weeks and is doing whatever she wants, we all knew this would happen, and plenty of others out there are whinging about it, I don't need to lose sleep over it
But dear god, she's mad!!
Railroading changes to rape law, sticking wife-beating issues into the national curriculum, making hypocritical remarks about men-only leadership
All in the face of the mostly moderate British public, this is a woman with a massive agenda, blinded by her own warped ideas on the world - but it's nothing new, I just wished to express my exasperation
The good news is she'll never be electable and will be gone within the year, but Alice Thomson puts a different spin on it - at least she's sparking debate, even if we do all hate her
I'm not sure what to think - yes, it's been awful having such a pathetic excuse for a government and it's far more fun to get angry at Harman's 'conviction' politics, it's nice to hear some actual views for once, no matter how insane
Only, my concern is that she actually has power - fine, start debate - but this is not just starting debate, this is starting debate by controlling government with your agenda when you have no democratic right to do so - right-wing fascists start debate, would you like to put one in charge of government so we all take notice?
No, I thought not - it's dangerous, and while it may be more entertaining, there is a real crime here - our government are so bad that we actually have people supporting having this looney in charge just for the fun of it
*And in that link, the Mail win this week's Gruniad award:
The Government claims that violanguagelence against women is costing Britain an astonishing £40billion.
**I would also like to lend weight to the theory that this is part of Brown's plot - we'll all be begging for him back by the end of next week
19 July 2009
My First Century
Woo, I've written 100 rants about various topics
I could use this as a reflection, but I'd rather ignore this special occasion to point out how arbitrary it all is to mark randomly assigned numbers and dates
So anyway, with all this nonsense over apparent ageism, Sarah Sands has written an excellent piece - pointing out that we all must go at some point and that Baby Boomers are the most evil of generations
It's true, they are the ones with the sense of self-entitlement, we young are a cynical and resentful mobile workforce
So what if Arlene Philips was sacked? Apparently if you sack a 66-year old it's always for the wrong reasons and the equalities minister has to stick her oar in
We are talking about a show already presented by a 103-year old here, but then it's sexism because it's a woman thing - men don't need to be pretty or young
So the logical conclusion is to never sack anyone over the age of 40...and certainly not over the mandatory retirement age - which I might add the employer has the ultimate right to enforce (although not for much longer)
As the Beeb rightfully point out - the remaining judges are 65, 53 (Bruno is 53??) and 44 - if anything that show could do with some equality below the middle-age mark, but equality doesn't work like that does it?
I could use this as a reflection, but I'd rather ignore this special occasion to point out how arbitrary it all is to mark randomly assigned numbers and dates
So anyway, with all this nonsense over apparent ageism, Sarah Sands has written an excellent piece - pointing out that we all must go at some point and that Baby Boomers are the most evil of generations
It's true, they are the ones with the sense of self-entitlement, we young are a cynical and resentful mobile workforce
So what if Arlene Philips was sacked? Apparently if you sack a 66-year old it's always for the wrong reasons and the equalities minister has to stick her oar in
We are talking about a show already presented by a 103-year old here, but then it's sexism because it's a woman thing - men don't need to be pretty or young
So the logical conclusion is to never sack anyone over the age of 40...and certainly not over the mandatory retirement age - which I might add the employer has the ultimate right to enforce (although not for much longer)
As the Beeb rightfully point out - the remaining judges are 65, 53 (Bruno is 53??) and 44 - if anything that show could do with some equality below the middle-age mark, but equality doesn't work like that does it?
28 April 2009
Equality's back, baby
Don't you just love Harriet's pic on the BBC? Really flattering, not surprising from a pro-Labour broadcaster, eh?
But anyway, the Equalities bill is back - I have no idea when the actual vote is, nobody seems to mention that - the ideas just keep popping up when somebody feels it's a 'fresh' news story
It seems a little feebler this time round, targeting certain health services at deprived areas as part of a 'social economic duty' sounds like pure waffle to me
While the most well-known positive discrimination plans have been watered down slightly, in the Mail she says:
'If you have got two equally qualified candidates, you might actually want to have the woman because she is a woman.
'Now at the moment, if you choose her because she is a woman, you could face a sex discrimination case.
'So this says to employers, if you want to, and want to be able to diversify your workforce, then actually you can choose, if you have got equally-qualified candidates, you can choose the one from the group that is under-represented.'
Positive discrimination, where a lesser-qualified candidate is awarded a job just because he or she is from a minority, will remain illegal.
That sounds like positive discrimination, but with an 'equally-qualified' clause in to appease meritocrats like me - well it doesn't
This effectively is 'positive' discrimination - although you are not obliged to simply pick the simpleton in the corner because she is the only person with ovaries who entered the interview process, you still get the opportunity to 'balance' your workforce without recourse
Sounds OK doesn't it? Well not really, it's just discrimination coated with a layer of pleasantness - let's create an example:
you currently have a workforce of 10 - nine are men, one of whom needs replacing (let's say he's on paternity leave) - you advertise the position and there are several qualified candidates out of a field of 20, however only one woman applied - she is now virtually guaranteed the job, the equally-qualified men (who should have a massive statistical advantage) are left out on the basis of their sex
Now fortunately this is optional, the law as far as I understand means you can behave this way without breaking employment law, you don't have to - but this law pretty clearly benefits women (although the reverse situation is also allowed, we all know what this is targeting) - as a male you now face an extra potential barrier to employment
Fancy turning up to an interview, performing really well and then being told 'we need to balance our workforce, so kindly f*** off' - obviously this is based on the assumption that the employer is using the law but just because it is optional doesn't make it fair - if anything I would force any employer using this law to publish their intent on the job ad, which would, ironically, be a step further into positive discrimination
Balancing workforces is all well and good but the proponents of this fail to notice the plight of the male job-hunter in this - come up against just one woman and you're scuppered - how depressing is that?
This is the fundamental problem at the root of almost all 'equal outcome' law - they treat the majority (usually white and male) as a 'community' - we are all treated as one homogeneous group - of course I am no nearer to being a millionaire head of a failed bank than the next woman/ethnic minority/homosexual and yet I am penalised for unfortunately sharing the same genitalia as said banker
If there was a massive problem in society - such as back in Weimar Germany where women were forced to take less pay, and men were given precedence, then I could support laws that promote equality (such as the Equal Pay Act) - but there isn't - women aren't kept out of academia or certain professions any more, they can't be sexually harassed and they receive the same wages
There is of course still the 'gender pay gap' - but this always relates to the average pay across the whole of society, it doesn't mean that I get more per hour in McDonald's than the woman next to me (hypothetical, I don't actually work in Maccy D's)
Female part-time workers still earned 40% less per hour than their full-time male counterparts, Ms Harman told Today BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"Do we think she is 40% less intelligent, less committed, less hard-working, less qualified? It's not the case. It's entrenched discrimination. It's allowed to persist because it's all swept under the carpet."
Now, the actual gender pay gap is 23% according to the Beeb - for some reason Harriet chooses to compare the disparity between women who work part-time, and men who work full-time
Why not men who work part-time, or women who work full-time? An odd comparison, principally used to find a higher than average discrepancy - for me the 23% difference would've worked better than a larger, but irrelevant figure
There are more men in IT, there are more women in Retail - guess which pays more? Harriet somehow sees the gap as women systematically being paid 40% less - it has absolutely nothing to do with their choice of employment does it then?
Maybe she is right about unfairness in some areas, but the reasoning she uses to get the message out is always flawed, and it's annoying
The real answer to the issue she brings up is to pay women in lower paying jobs more than the men in those jobs - that's the reality of the situation, Harriet, that or force an equal percentage of women into every single job (including builders and dustbin-men as well as high flying lawyers) because there will always be a discrepancy between where men and women work
Meanwhile it becomes ever easier to get qualifications and get the best jobs if you're a woman or non-white because the minority is favoured in our society (and of course you could simply start drawing dividing lines around anything, maybe blonde haired people are discriminated against?)
I did like how the BBC ended with this graph, tracking the pay gap from the introduction of the Equal Pay Act:
Pretty nice steady drop of 50% since 1970 - seems that the rise of equal opportunities have been fixing the issue just fine without positive discrimination, but such a kick in the balls to the idea at the end of the article is of course still pro-Labour in some pseudo-clandestine way
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
