Workplace sexism: TUC appoints a woman as General Secretary

[ahinton]

Have you ever been an employer, ahinton?

No - and, to save you the trouble of asking, I've never been a woman either.

Be fair ahinton - I've pointed out the unreadability of your posts at least twice!

You may well have done, but that doesn't make them unreadable; which bit didn't you get this time around? It looked simple enough to me!

[amateur51]

No - and, to save you the trouble of asking, I've never been a woman either.


You may well have done, but that doesn't make them unreadable; which bit didn't you get this time around? It looked simple enough to me!

Well I don't appear to be the only one whom you're accusing of misreading your posts this afternoon so perhaps you need to revisit them yourself

If you've never been an employee nor an employer, what are your credentials in this conversation?

[JohnSkelton]

Because I reckoned Ms Brooks was being 'selectively sexist' in today's 'selectively sexist world' ...

You were talking about "a grumpy old man" having no chance of being appointed editor of the NOTW / The Sun - unlike Brooks, who was. (As I pointed out, though you and one or two others couldn't see the point of pointing it out, most national newspaper editors in this country are late middle-aged men. Over 90% of editors are). Your explanation for the gom not standing a chance was that today's world is "selectively ageist and sexist." Again, the issue of her getting those editorships was one you introduced. Brooks was specifically referring to coverage of her appearance at Leveson. If you'd wanted to question that why did you instead talk about her getting two tabloid editorships?

You don't think that some women are appointed to certain jobs because of what you'd call reverse sexism or Political Correctness, then? That wasn't implied in your remarks about the gom in the selectively sexist world who wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell?

you now appear to be coming around to the view, however tentatively, that 'sexism' can indeed be 'selective' ?

No I'm not. (And I don't know why you keep putting '' around sexism. Presumably because you think that sexism is something dreamt up by feminists. Who are intrinsically sexist because feminism is an intrinsically sexist word? So in fact the only people who are sexists are women?)

[scottycelt]

It's not necessarily a silly question but it certainly covers two separate issues. Having the best possible and most convincingly effective General Secretary of the TUC will obviously be the best news for the TUC (and hopefully for others who have relations with it) irrespective of its head honcho's gender, but the extent of TUC's power is not down to its General Secretary but down to a host of other factors including but by no means limited to the attitude towards trande unionism shown by the government of the day and the willingness and ability for employees to be or become unionised.

Yes, it doesn't matter a scrap whether it's a man or woman, it should merely be a matter of the best person for the job, imho!

I'm truly appalled at some of the old-fashioned 'sexist' attitudes displayed by some here ... not you, I hasten to add, ahinton.

[amateur51]

You were talking about "a grumpy old man" having no chance of being appointed editor of the NOTW / The Sun - unlike Brooks, who was. (As I pointed out, though you and one or two others couldn't see the point of pointing it out, most national newspaper editors in this country are late middle-aged men. Over 90% of editors are). Your explanation for the gom not standing a chance was that today's world is "selectively ageist and sexist." Again, the issue of her getting those editorships was one you introduced. Brooks was specifically referring to coverage of her appearance at Leveson. If you'd wanted to question that why did you instead talk about her getting two tabloid editorships?

You don't think that some women are appointed to certain jobs because of what you'd call reverse sexism or Political Correctness, then? That wasn't implied in your remarks about the gom in the selectively sexist world who wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell?



No I'm not. (And I don't know why you keep putting '' around sexism. Presumably because you think that sexism is something dreamt up by feminists. Who are intrinsically sexist because feminism is an intrinsically sexist word? So in fact the only people who are sexists are women?)

[amateur51]

Yes, it doesn't matter a scrap whether it's a man or woman, it should merely be a matter of the best person for the job, imho!

I'm truly appalled at some of the old-fashioned 'sexist' attitudes displayed by some here ... not you, I hasten to add, ahinton.

And doesn't experience of women's experiences in the workplace count as part of the Job Description, scotty?

Women are routinely discriminated against in the workplace, in terms of payment, promotion, work-life balance. Is experience of these issues & some ideas on how to tackle them a rather important quality to tease out in the selection process?

[Anna]

Not at all! I think that you've misunderstood it. She might indeed have such a husband but, on the other hand, she might be unmarried, she might not have children to take care of or she might have a husband with an equally high-powered job! That said, if she is in such a position of seniority, she or whoever else takes care of the shopping would surely do it at Waitrose?...

Goodness! Can I appoint you as my Personal Shopper (are you a John Lewis Affiliate?)

[ahinton]

Well I don't appear to be the only one whom you're accusing of misreading your posts this afternoon so perhaps you need to revisit them yourself

I ask again; which bit seemed unclear to you?

If you've never been an employee nor an employer, what are your credentials in this conversation?

As much/many as anyone else who has any experience of employees and employers and perhaps a little more than some (in the present context) who have never been members of a trade union.

[ahinton]

And doesn't experience of women's experiences in the workplace count as part of the Job Description, scotty?

Women are routinely discriminated against in the workplace, in terms of payment, promotion, work-life balance. Is experience of these issues & some ideas on how to tackle them a rather important quality to tease out in the selection process?

Well, of course all of that is correct, the middle part of it sadly and shamefully so but, to me, men in positions of seniority in the workplace can and should either already possess, or be prepared to develop, skills to the same level as women in the issues that you mention, rather than just taking it for granted that women do and should have better understanding of them in the first place and lazily leaving it at that; this is surely all the more the case - and understandably and defensibly so - in an age when, for example, we have and accept the idea of paternity leave?

[amateur51]

I ask again; which bit seemed unclear to you?


As much/many as anyone else who has any experience of employees and employers and perhaps a little more than some (in the present context) who have never been members of a trade union.

I see

[ahinton]

Goodness! Can I appoint you as my Personal Shopper (are you a John Lewis Affiliate?)

Don't you mean "indeed to goodness"?(!) It's really most kind of you to consider offering me this position but I'm not sure how compatible it might be with my work/life imbalance! As far as groceries go, however, I have my own personal shoppers who select and bring to me my online orders from their empolyers, Waitrose - and I do it this way because my nearest store is 25 miles away in another country the name of which currently escapes me...

[ahinton]

I see

Ah, well, at least that's something!

As Stephen Sondheim once wrote, "anyone can whistle", though you seem to be making quite a habit of it!

[amateur51]

Ah, well, at least that's something!

As Stephen Sondheim once wrote, "anyone can whistle", though you seem to be making quite a habit of it!

The whistle was intended as a signal that I can't be arsed to pursue this any further as we don't appear to be on the same wavelength at all on these matters, ahinton

[ahinton]

The whistle was intended as a signal that I can't be arsed to pursue this any further as we don't appear to be on the same wavelength at all on these matters, ahinton

Much as I appreciate the explanation (insofar as it is one), I remain puzzled as to why you keep on doing it, then - and, in any case, I think that we're rather more on the same (or at least a similar) wavelength than you appear to be prepared to give either of us credit for (said he, crassly ending a sentence with a preposition)...

[ahinton]

I don't know why you keep putting '' around sexism. Presumably because you think that sexism is something dreamt up by feminists. Who are intrinsically sexist because feminism is an intrinsically sexist word? So in fact the only people who are sexists are women?)

I don't know why he does it either; whilst I presume it to be for effect, I remain uncertain as to precisely what effect is intended.

Absurd though it is, I fear that there actually are people out there with the kinds of attitude to which you draw attention in your other three sentences here; I have less than no idea how (or if - or even why) they manage to function in the real world, let alone what work/life balances they might have (although one might assume most of them to be overdrawn)...

Anyway, to return to the topic - so, TUC has given a secretarial job to a woman; that's sexist (without the scottified perverted commas), innit? You'd think that TUC of all organisations would know better!

Who's nicked me coat?