Reply to: Only man on short list appointed to male dominated monetary committee

[vetran]

Sounds fair, but do we then try to get women from a poor background to be on the monetary board. If austerity does affect poor women more than white men then perhaps that's what we need. Or does austerity affect poor women, that care for an elderly relative more than just average poor women.

So we now need a qualified candidate that's a women from a poor background and is or has cared for an elderly relative. But what if women with kids caring for an elderly relative are hit more by austerity. So we need a women with this kind of background because it's not merit that counts but a reflection of the demographics affected by austerity. But say we have a white male that has kids, poor and cares for an elderly relative. Are they more token friendly than just a poor white women or what about a middle class ethnic minority women.

Tokenism is a right pain, basically the group with the loudest voice win.

You forgot they need to self identify as a Wombat, be half way through a species, celibate poly-amorous, and have diverse ethnic roots.

[vetran]

Looking at the numbers on the BBC article:



I'd have to say the former unfortunately. Looks like discrimination to me. Just a matter of time before we start seeing token people in top jobs

we already have Jim the Plumber, Diane Polymath & Mrs Strongly Unstable.

There are a few others that got through who could find their elbow.

[woohoo]

Recruitment 'on merit' tends to lead to incapable people at the top as well, so may as well give tokenism a whirl.

Sounds fair, but do we then try to get women from a poor background to be on the monetary board. If austerity does affect poor women more than white men then perhaps that's what we need. Or does austerity affect poor women, that care for an elderly relative more than just average poor women.

So we now need a qualified candidate that's a women from a poor background and is or has cared for an elderly relative. But what if women with kids caring for an elderly relative are hit more by austerity. So we need a women with this kind of background because it's not merit that counts but a reflection of the demographics affected by austerity. But say we have a white male that has kids, poor and cares for an elderly relative. Are they more token friendly than just a poor white women or what about a middle class ethnic minority women.

Tokenism is a right pain, basically the group with the loudest voice win.

[Old Greg]

A statement of "we recruit on merit" - is there more than one meaning to it?

Does it mean, "we've tried tokenism but ended up with incapable, inexperienced people, as expected, but had to go through it to appease the frothing masses of social justice warriors"?
Or does it mean, "we genuinely don't care what you are, or what you identify as - prove you're the best human for the job and it's yours"?

Recruitment 'on merit' tends to lead to incapable people at the top as well, so may as well give tokenism a whirl.

[Jog On]

A statement of "we recruit on merit" - is there more than one meaning to it?

Does it mean, "we've tried tokenism but ended up with incapable, inexperienced people, as expected, but had to go through it to appease the frothing masses of social justice warriors"?
Or does it mean, "we genuinely don't care what you are, or what you identify as - prove you're the best human for the job and it's yours"?

Looking at the numbers on the BBC article:

It had "actively contacted" 44 women and 43 men to apply for the role.

Of those, 19 men and eight women applied and four women and one man were shortlisted.

I'd have to say the former unfortunately. Looks like discrimination to me. Just a matter of time before we start seeing token people in top jobs

[LondonManc]

A statement of "we recruit on merit" - is there more than one meaning to it?

Does it mean, "we've tried tokenism but ended up with incapable, inexperienced people, as expected, but had to go through it to appease the frothing masses of social justice warriors"?
Or does it mean, "we genuinely don't care what you are, or what you identify as - prove you're the best human for the job and it's yours"?

[Jog On]

I'm not in disagreement but do you not think we(as men) should have more backbone? The bollocks to (assuming a majority male selection board) turn round and say "the selected candidate is the best person from the supplied list for the job and we refuse to dilute the quality of our organisation by not selecting the best person just to tick a box on a diversity questionnaire!".

Z - In "Diversity doesn't always enrich, it can dilute!" mode.

I'd extend this to pushing back at PC liberalism in general which does need to happen if we don't want token diversity participation prizes instead of hard work and positive life decisions. This is already happening as we can see with the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson and Candace Owens. They've shown that it is possible to say no to all this and ignore the shaming/labeling.

I think those complaining about under-representation need to educate their own and steer them away from their chosen interests and to those that will lead to higher representation in top jobs etc (if that is what they actually want). It would be a case of telling young girls to focus their attention on the economy instead of fashion - less instagram, more interest rates!

I think trying to change other people and change the world to fit your needs will ultimately fail or have bad consequences (unsuitable 'token' people in important jobs making terrible messes). If you want it change yourself and do the ***ing work, no one's going to do it for you.

Demanding participation prizes for people is actually demeaning and dis empowering because it suggests they can't do it on merit. Also discriminating against 'white males' is still discrimination which is unacceptable.

The reason this irks me is that I've spent my life being very open minded and PC just by default and to now start seeing that my race, gender and demographic are to be discriminated against does wind me up. Also the suggestion that my 'white privilege' is why I am where I am today also annoys me.

If you want success get your head down, STFU and do the work.

[Zigenare]

Not really, eventually through evolution we will all develop both female/male genitalia and yes we can all go and f*** ourselves.

There's nothing better than having sex!
Apart from having sex with another person - probably...

[woohoo]

Ah, the politics of self protection.

Z - In "We're ****ed" mode!

Not really, eventually through evolution we will all develop both female/male genitalia and yes we can all go and f*** ourselves.

[Zigenare]

I think the best person should always be chosen, don't care for quotas. But if you a white male, within the Bank Of England say, and you may lose your job, fantastic pension and bonus because of bad publicity then I guess you would think twice.

Ah, the politics of self protection.

Z - In "We're ****ed" mode!

[woohoo]

I'm not in disagreement but do you not think we(as men) should have more backbone? The bollocks to (assuming a majority male selection board) turn round and say "the selected candidate is the best person from the supplied list for the job and we refuse to dilute the quality of our organisation by not selecting the best person just to tick a box on a diversity questionnaire!".

Z - In "Diversity doesn't always enrich, it can dilute!" mode.

I think the best person should always be chosen, don't care for quotas. But if you a white male, within the Bank Of England say, and you may lose your job, fantastic pension and bonus because of bad publicity then I guess you would think twice.

[Zigenare]

That's the point I'm trying to make. It's no longer a case of picking the right person for the job, especially if its a public organisation or anything that can be affected by negative publicity.

So in this case, if the panel that selected a man for the committee had been mostly men, I imagine by now there would have been a public apology and a reassessment of the selection process.

I'm not in disagreement but do you not think we(as men) should have more backbone? The bollocks to (assuming a majority male selection board) turn round and say "the selected candidate is the best person from the supplied list for the job and we refuse to dilute the quality of our organisation by not selecting the best person just to tick a box on a diversity questionnaire!".

Z - In "Diversity doesn't always enrich, it can dilute!" mode.

[woohoo]

Why? Just choose the right person for the job!
(Be prepared to justify the decision making process though...)

That's the point I'm trying to make. It's no longer a case of picking the right person for the job, especially if its a public organisation or anything that can be affected by negative publicity.

So in this case, if the panel that selected a man for the committee had been mostly men, I imagine by now there would have been a public apology and a reassessment of the selection process.

[Zigenare]

Well to be fair, to achieve a certain level of success you have to be extremely dedicated to the exclusion of almost everything else. Most women and men don't have that extreme and probably unhealthy drive.

The problem I have is with the conversation around this...if the panel that had selected this man had also been mostly men then there would have been a huge fuss. I would hate to be in a position of choosing someone.

Why? Just choose the right person for the job!
(Be prepared to justify the decision making process though...)

[woohoo]

Nope, the solution is more simple.

Women, work harder, become more competitive and then you're welcome to join us on the playing field!

Well to be fair, to achieve a certain level of success you have to be extremely dedicated to the exclusion of almost everything else. Most women and men don't have that extreme and probably unhealthy drive.

The problem I have is with the conversation around this...if the panel that had selected this man had also been mostly men then there would have been a huge fuss. I would hate to be in a position of choosing someone.