I agree, so why do they put up with it? Exactly 50 years ago in 1968 the Ford women machinists went of strike at Dagenham and Halewood, protesting at Ford refusing to grade them as Skilled. Of course they were skilled, they stuck to their guns and won the equal treatment which meant equal pay as well of course, and I was delighted by their victory.
But I'm not delighted by all the women who put up with much lower pay and do nothing about it, just meekly accepting. It's not a matter of them having to do more, when men faced the same poor treatment long ago they set up unions and fought for better treatment. So I'm only asking that women do the same and not be mollycoddled with special rules that men have never enjoyed in their fight for justice.
This is a false argument, of course the advertisers follow the status quo which as we both agree, is discrimination. They are aiming to please and it's not their duty to modify society, as desirable as that might be.
Instead watch the TV news and see their how well women are treated. Time and time again an expert called upon to comment is a top woman, even though they are usually a minority in that field. The same happens when interviewing groups of people when predominantly it's women who are asked their views.
The same often happens with documentaries where women are sought out for that purpose, just look at all the women experts who've been presenting the BBC4 and some BBC2 documentaries in science and archaeology for some while now.
Far from woman being always being discriminated against, all too often it's men who are these days. Those I've just been mentioning prove it, women, often minorities, selected automatically over men just because its the PC thing to do now.
.
Agree with much of this.
But
Advertisers unfortunately do not follow, they influence. That's the whole point. But that is another fault of our capitalist society. Advertising for various reasons should be controlled far more. Example quoted is just one of many reasons. And I, m not sure in this case its done on purpose, its simply done as being how situation is perceived as the norm...
Also, I, m not advocating discrimination against men or even positive discrimination for females. It should not be an issue.
The EU should however lead by example. It seems grossly hypocritical to set targets for industry and commerce and then make no real progress in achieving those same targets for themselves.
For many years I, ve been an advocate of anonymous applications. Applicants put neither there name, sex, orientation, religion or race on application forms. Merely there relevant experience and reasoning of why they are the person organisation is looking for, (and of course any reqd qualifications)
Its not difficult to organise. (passport /driving license numbers) can suffice for ID when selected.
Towards end of my career I was involved in staff recruitment, selection and assessment. I was shocked at criteria some used when sifting applicants. (Males were nearly always selected over females with explanation women will be having time off to have kids. I saw one applicant dismissed on strength of his second name and another selected because of his first. This was at a fairly high level in education..
Governments and EU should be a leading light in true meritocracy. They are not, especially so in EU.
Perhaps if our government, EU, the Labour Party were true believers in meritocracy we would not be in the mess we are now. Are Cameron, May and Corbyn truly the best to be doing what they are. I don't think so.
Did Diane Abbott get where she is on merit? I can't see it myself. And that is nothing to do with her being female or black. Appointing because you are from a particular group is as bad as the reverse.
All I, m arguing for is true meritocracy and a level playing field for all. It is possible, in fact its essential for best results.
The FA are going through same problems. Examine the percentage of black players on the field and then in coaching rolls and then in board room.
Look in Junior schools. Percentage of female teachers is perhaps 80%. Then look at heads of junior schools. Predominantly males. It's wrong flecc.
Some don't even recognise the problem let alone try and solve it.
