Men make Better Conductors

[ahinton]

You've either missed the point completely about positive discrimination (being a workable possibility, but not without its downside, and hence a perfectly reasonable approach that many organisations take - saying nothing of the fact that it is a central part of current UK employment legislation) or, you are too stubborn to retract your over-enthusiastic comment.

Neither, actually. The problem about trying to dispense with the issue itself and the knee-jerk responses to perceived or actual positive discrimination as part of that dispensing process is that of seeking to dislodge long-established "traditions"; all that I am doing here is illustrating the extent not just of the problem itself but also of its sustainable resolution.

Positive discrimination (if that's what Ms Kelly is thinking of - we don't know) could bring about the desired long term effect, at the cost of an element of short-term dissatisfaction. Maybe Ms Kelly is being more strategic than tactical, and there is nothing odious about any of it.

It could in theory, I suppose but, it seems to me, the inherent dangers that it might have precisely the opposite effect cannot realistically be ignored.

[Flosshilde]

Positive discrimination is invidious,

So is the other sort; but where it has been long the practice, & is still happening, positive discrimination is neccessary to re-dress the balance. Where two people are more-or-less equally suitable & one is a woman (or from any other group that has experienced negative discrimination) then she should be selected.

Surely it's about having non-discriminatory selection processes and a mature approach to talent-management?

Yes, but unfortunately many of those involved in the selection process do not have a mature approach to 'talent-management' (whatever that is).

[Beef Oven!]

Neither, actually. The problem about trying to dispense with the issue itself and the knee-jerk responses to perceived or actual positive discrimination as part of that dispensing process is that of seeking to dislodge long-established "traditions"; all that I am doing here is illustrating the extent not just of the problem itself but also of its sustainable resolution.


It could in theory, I suppose but, it seems to me, the inherent dangers that it might have precisely the opposite effect cannot realistically be ignored.

There's nothing knee-jerk about Ms Kelly's response. And there is little point in you just repeating what I've already said about the dangers of positive discrimination, although your idea about it having 'the opposite effect' is as new as it is unlikely.

In short, there is nothing odious about positive discrimination, but neither of us are in favour of it, albeit for different reason.

[amateur51]

What is truly odious is that positive discrimination was ever necessary. But it was/is because when it applied only to men (the Temirkanov observation) it took decades to get to the point of redress.

[Beef Oven!]

Where two people are more-or-less equally suitable & one is a woman (or from any other group that has experienced negative discrimination) then she should be selected.

We know that. The discussion is about whether it (positive discrimination) is indeed the best solution.

[ahinton]

What is truly odious is that positive discrimination was ever necessary. But it was/is because when it applied only to men (the Temirkanov observation) it took decades to get to the point of redress.

Précisement, mon ami!

[Beef Oven!]

Précisement, mon ami!

Contradicting yourself, so that you don't have to let go of 'odious'!

[jean]

We know that. The discussion is about whether it (positive discrimination) is indeed the best solution.

Have you got a better one?

[Richard Barrett]

Have you got a better one?

Exactly. Men arguing about what's wrong with positive gender discrimination is an unedifying sight.

[Flosshilde]

We know that. The discussion is about whether it (positive discrimination) is indeed the best solution.

If we want the current position to be rectified in the shortest possible time, yes. Otherwise we have to wait for the glacial progress of evolution in the organisations, & people, that control slecetion and appointment, and in the environment that might encourage women (& others) to apply for posts where they are currently discriminated against. I think I'd almost certainly be dead by the time that happened, & so possibly might young women just now starting on their careers.

[ahinton]

Contradicting yourself, so that you don't have to let go of 'odious'!

Except that I've failed to contradict myself! Am51 wrote that "what is truly odious is that positive discrimination was ever necessary". Is that wrong, do you think? If so, why, in your view? To me, it serves as an indictment of the extent to which the entire culture of male-dominated instrumentalists, conductors and composers (though not singers) has been taken for granted.

[Beef Oven!]

Have you got a better one?

In post #101

[Beef Oven!]

If we want the current position to be rectified in the shortest possible time, yes. Otherwise we have to wait for the glacial progress of evolution in the organisations, & people, that control slecetion and appointment, and in the environment that might encourage women (& others) to apply for posts where they are currently discriminated against. I think I'd almost certainly be dead by the time that happened, & so possibly might young women just now starting on their careers.

No straw-man arguments, please.

[Flosshilde]

Can you explain what you mean?

[Beef Oven!]

Except that I've failed to contradict myself! Am51 wrote that "what is truly odious is that positive discrimination was ever necessary".

Have you no shame? You've cut out the next bit that says that "But it [positive discrimination] was/is [necessary] because when it applied only to men (the Temirkanov observation) it took decades to get to the point of redress.."

This means that positive discrimination is necessary, the very thing you believe is odious. If you then reply 'precisely', you have contradicted yourself. Maybe you didn't mean 'precisely' and by trying to be a clever-clogs, using French, you have merely inadvertantly contradicted yourself.