Workplace sexism: TUC appoints a woman as General Secretary

[amateur51]

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)...

Why I keep on doing what, ahinton?

[scottycelt]

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?)

'We' now seem to have moved away somewhat from the totally false claim that I suggested that Ms Brooks got her job merely 'because she is a woman'. Very wise move, if a bit belated.

However, I'm surprised that you do not appear to be aware of the practice of 'positive discrimination' within organisations and 'women only' short-lists for various posts. If you are asking me whether I am in favour of those then the answer would be 'no'. My answer would still be 'no' if there were 'grumpy old men' short-lists for sad old geezers like me. 'Selective sexism'. 'selective discrimination', you can call it what you like but we all know it exists ... don't we?

I am against all forms of 'sexism', 'ageism' etc as far as jobs are concerned, it should merely be a question of who is considered to be the most capable person for the post. Compared to some others here I might therefore appear to be the very epitome of a pure 'non-sexist'.

Never mind what you continue to think I think, maybe you can now tell us what you think?

As for the " ... as mentioned previously, you mean a ' ? ... do these really offend you that much ... ?

[ahinton]

Why I keep on doing what, ahinton?

Pursuing it further, as you yourself wrote; are you having abit of trouble reading your own posts now?! What you wrote seemed clear enough to me!

Anyway, back tgo the topic again. Giving a woman a job whose description involves "trade", "union" and "congress" in that order must be sexist, innit?

I've found me coat now, by the way...

[MrGongGong]

I am against all forms of 'sexism', 'ageism' etc as far as jobs are concerned,

So I guess the church doesn't count then ?

[scottycelt]

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 ...

Spot a wee tad of illogicality and 'absurdity' there as well, ahinton? ... no wonder you're searching for 'me coat' ... and you call yourself a 'Scotsman' ?

[scottycelt]

So I guess the church doesn't count then ?

In the case of secular employment, no, frankly, as I thought you might have welcomed.

A post in the church is 'a calling' quite different from a job in Marks & Spencer. There are distinct roles for both males and females within the church, based on traditional theology, unlike 'career opportunities' elsewhere. Those who enter do so freely knowing this.

Not that I ever wanted to be Mother Superior, anyway ...

[ahinton]

Spot a wee tad of illogicality and 'absurdity' there as well, ahinton? ... no wonder you're searching for 'me coat' ... and you call yourself a 'Scotsman' ?

No. Perhaps you would care to enlighted me - and others - as to the effect that you intend. I do not "call myself" a Scotsman to the extent that, being one, I don't have to.

[JohnSkelton]

'We' now seem to have moved away somewhat from the totally false claim that I suggested that Ms Brooks got her job merely 'because she is a woman'.

OK: you suggested that Brooks got her job because she's a women. Take out the "merely" bit and that's what you suggested.

A sub-genre of political correctness has sprung up: people with f-all to moan about moaning they are discriminated against - racists who are the victims of anti-racist discrimination; sexists who are the victims of anti-sexist discrimination (your "selective discrimination"). Your "I am against all forms of 'sexism', 'ageism' etc as far as jobs are concerned, it should merely be a question of who is considered to be the most capable person for the post. Compared to some others here I might therefore appear to be the very epitome of a pure 'non-sexist'" is crap, because of course people like you always think that people like you are the most capable person. And if someone unlike you gets a top job somewhere there's some reason other than merit involved. As with your original remarks about Brooks and the NOTW / Sun editorships.

[handsomefortune]

A sub-genre of political correctness has sprung up

make that sub genres imo.

[ahinton]

A post in the church is 'a calling' quite different from a job in Marks & Spencer.

Of course - but that's why I cannot understand why some Churches do not accept or recognise that women can get that "calling" just as well as men but then can't do much about it because it won't let them. When I was a student, I met a lady who had just embarked on a musicology degree, having already obtained her doctorate in divinity. She had "the call" and had even told her careers adviser at school, when asked what she wanted to do, that she wished to be Archbishop of Canterbury. In the end, she gave up on it all; she still felt "the call" but, as she said, if the Church didn't want her regardless of that, she'd had to accept, with great reluctance, that she'd have to pursue something else.

There are distinct roles for both males and females within the church, based on traditional theology, unlike 'career opportunities' elsewhere. Those who enter do so freely knowing this.

I daresay, but I wonder how long, oh Lord, how long it will be before EU legislation makes such discrimination in the workplace illegal - and it is still a workplace, after all, for what those who can pursue their "calling" do is still work; it can't come soon enough, frankly and I would not expect a woman Archbishop or Cardinal Archbishop to be paid less than her male counterpart either...

[ahinton]

OK: you suggested that Brooks got her job because she's a women. Take out the "merely" bit and that's what you suggested.

A sub-genre of political correctness has sprung up: people with f-all to moan about moaning they are discriminated against - racists who are the victims of anti-racist discrimination; sexists who are the victims of anti-sexist discrimination (your "selective discrimination"). Your "I am against all forms of 'sexism', 'ageism' etc as far as jobs are concerned, it should merely be a question of who is considered to be the most capable person for the post. Compared to some others here I might therefore appear to be the very epitome of a pure 'non-sexist'" is crap, because of course people like you always think that people like you are the most capable person. And if someone unlike you gets a top job somewhere there's some reason other than merit involved. As with your original remarks about Brooks and the NOTW / Sun editorships.

I take your point, but I do think that some of that is less than fair, actually.

[scottycelt]

OK: you suggested that Brooks got her job because she's a women. Take out the "merely" bit and that's what you suggested.

A sub-genre of political correctness has sprung up: people with f-all to moan about moaning they are discriminated against - racists who are the victims of anti-racist discrimination; sexists who are the victims of anti-sexist discrimination (your "selective discrimination"). Your "I am against all forms of 'sexism', 'ageism' etc as far as jobs are concerned, it should merely be a question of who is considered to be the most capable person for the post. Compared to some others here I might therefore appear to be the very epitome of a pure 'non-sexist'" is crap, because of course people like you always think that people like you are the most capable person. And if someone unlike you gets a top job somewhere there's some reason other than merit involved. As with your original remarks about Brooks and the NOTW / Sun editorships.

I daresay you can think anything you wish about what I and others think, but when you are ultimately reduced to typing posts like that, and continue to point out what you think I and others think, rather than what is actually posted, and then still don't tell us what you think, well, what is the point of continuing this thoroughly pointless discourse?

[amateur51]

Not that I ever wanted to be Mother Superior, anyway ...

Fat chance on either count, I reckon scotty

[ahinton]

Fat chance on either count, I reckon scotty

Took the words fair out o' me mouth I mean fingertips, ya did!

Can't see any evidence of the morphing of this thread into Elgarian symphonism or taxation yet, though...

[scottycelt]

Fat chance on either count, I reckon scotty