TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

New rules mean top jobs in Irish civil service must go to women - employment gender discrimination to be legalised

bmoregood

January 15, 2017
125 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-balance-civil-service-3188442-Jan2017/?utm_source=facebook_short
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title New rules mean top jobs in Irish civil service must go to women - employment gender discrimination to be legalised
Author

bmoregood

Upvotes 125
Comments 64
Date January 15, 2017 11:58 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5o7e28/new_rules_mean_top_jobs_in_irish_civil_service/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/new-rules-mean-top-jobs-in-irish-civil-service.933954
https://theredarchive.com/post/933954

Comments

[–]Lupinfujiko 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Man, we are so fucked.

[–]Infectedbumhole 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree. Hiring people not because of their skills, experience, education or ability to fill the role of the job but because of their gender alone should scare the shit out of any rational human being.

[–]BackFromTheBan 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

any rational human being

There are less and less of them every day.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Especially in top positions it is scary. The history of my own country (Germany) shows how there can be horrific consequences of incompetent politicians.

[–]Infectedbumhole 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good point. Also, they practically have immunity from criticism due to being a female. Anyone who opposes them is labelled as sexist.

[–]fengpi 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Well, just identify as a woman. Sex is fluid, is it not?

Hell, I transitioned between 5 different sexes before breakfast today! Only a bigot would suggest that I'm crazy and/or full of crap.

[–]Imnotmrabut 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am considering becoming a full time Hermaphrodite - we are so underrepresented in all areas of life, it will just propel me to the Apex of everyone's fallacies, giving me such an edge.

Why be a down trodden, male, queer, cripple when you can have the Apex ... and if the ignorant, bigoted, white cis gender, cripple hating, queer oppressing scum bastards don't give it too you, the courts will allow you to sue!

I'm so much happier since I made the state my Sugar Daddy. P¬))

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I bet you would still be an evil male unless you follow the narrative 100%. Like gay people who are not feminists are demonised, you'd likely have trans-privilege or some other bullshit.

[–]fengpi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gay men are in the process of being kicked-out of the club. Just wait a year.

[–]Dudegoinghisownway 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You jest but this is where things are going.

[–]DexStewart -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That's not how transition works. Also you're referring to gender.

[–]fengpi 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You just triggered me.

Now I'm going to transition into 8 more sexes in self-defense!

[+]DexStewart -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Also not how triggering works. Keep building them straw-men dude!

[–]Imnotmrabut 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your denial of Triggering and how it works has just given me PTSD. May I have your address by PM so my attorney can send you the relevant court papers and freeze your assets prior to court action?

[–]fengpi 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Only a bigot would suggest that I'm crazy and/or full of crap.

Checkmate!

[–]thejam15 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Woosh?

[–]fengpi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Woosh and sonic-boom!

[–]mwobuddy 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

At this time I fully approve of sex-baiting, e.g. all men who are aware of this should dress in feminist clothes, highly publicize this, and falsely claim how much they like it and approve of it.

We're at the historical point where males are bobbing just above the surface, they won't necessarily make a stink until they get their heads shoved completely under the water and realize they need to struggle.

[–]perplexedm 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

How about standing straight as a man with back bone and say hypocrisy and bigotry is not the right thing to do ?

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That never works. Besides, social standing is important. Better to play the cat's paw.

[–]perplexedm 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So, men only can get social standing if they wear female dress and create a drama ?

Such dramas are for women to act.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

oh ho! Gender/age shaming to coerce someone to do it the way you think!

standing straight as a man

[–]perplexedm 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

To an extend, shaming is beneficial to society. It will help people to be self aware.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

True, we really shouldn't have stopped shaming those dirty fudge packers for their immoral lifestyle, nor stopped shaming women for getting pregnant outside marriage. Shaming is beneficial to society, after all. And don't even get me started on the niggers trying to date white women.

[–]perplexedm 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

dirty fudge packers for their immoral lifestyle

dirty fudge packers are dirty and immoral lifestyle is immoral

nor stopped shaming women for getting pregnant outside marriage.

Not a healthy habit at all, a bit of shaming would've helped a lot obviously.

Shaming is beneficial to society, after all.

Yep.

And don't even get me started on the niggers trying to date white women.

Well, if white men were so worthless, what goes ?

[+]JebberJabber -11 points-10 points-9 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

They have only 20% women and are trying to increase it toward 50%. That isn't exactly a male apocalypse.

[–]mwobuddy 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So if you have equally qualified candidates, and you give the job to one person just because of what's between their legs, how exactly is that different from the kind of claimed discrimination women claimed to have faced in the claimed 40's to 80's, where they claimed men got the job over them for having a claimed penis?

Does being discriminatorily sexist in the opposite direction make up for past injustices and thus equalize the world?

[–]bakedpotato486 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At this point, the hypothetical candidates aren't even equally qualified. There are more qualified males, but they don't count, because dick.

Does being discriminatorily sexist in the opposite direction make up for past injustices and thus equalize the world?

Do those on the receiving end of this discrimination deserve being treated this way?

[–]perplexedm 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But, we need apocalypse to see stupidity of these actions.

Then we will get used to it.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course. The men who are equally or better qualified that make up that 30% that will be denied opportunities based on their sex have no reason to complain, right?

[–]Mens-Advocate 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They have only 20% women and are trying to increase it toward 50%. That isn't exactly a male apocalypse.

Nonsense. Repeated over and over in every possible area of endeavour in the West - while still jailing males for not supporting families they may not have wanted - "positive discrimination" is a massive beatdown of the human rights of the male half of the race.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I take it you will be making your voice heard against the attack on access to abortion and subsidised contraception then.

How is having 80% of top civil service jobs in Ireland, and 56% of the next tier, "just bobbing above the surface"?

This rule does not apply to the whole world. It applies to a very small number of people in a tightly defined area. It does not apply to men jailed for failing to support their children.

[–]xNOM 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has said that the “best person for the job” approach will remain but that women will be prioritised in some situations.

So Orwellian.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That kinda makes the "best person for the job" part redundant.

[–]fengpi 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

See woman = person. You just need to decode the Feminist Newspeak.

[–]thrway_1000 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://archive.is/d68mh

[–]mikesteane 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, Irish women have earned it by all their hard work as navvies. /s

[–]MelkorHimself 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And what if this turns out like the Scottish university scenario where the chemistry program one year was canceled due to "lack of interest" (thanks to forced gender parity)? This is a recipe for disaster.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or Title IX, which has led to fine sports teams being closed because women are not equally interested in athletics compared to men.

[–]Imnotmrabut 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

So they use an APEX Fallacy to justify another APEX Fallacy?

Two Fallacies do not make a right or a happy work place!

[–]MagicTampon 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ladies' firster damseling female chauvinist sows -- straight to the front of the line!

[–]LoneWolfRoofRider 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm Irish and completely against it, where do I go to complain?

[–]Pathfinder24 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

America.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is how societies fall.

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing in the department statement says that such jobs must go to women. Read beyond the headline next time.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

patriarchy did it reeeeeeeeeeee

[–]JebberJabber -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

As is common on this sub the heading is an outright lie and nobody either notices or points it out. It is not an excuse that the headline is partly copied from the article.

"In these cases, where candidates who compete for Top Level Appointments Committee positions are of equal merit, then priority would be given to the female candidate where they are under-represented on the management board of the department or office in question".

That is not "must go to women". The policy only applies if two candidates can be shown on paper to be of equal merit, and for that to be capable of withstanding a legal challenge. HR departments are terrified of being sued, and protecting the organisation from Big Bad Sue is a large part of their job.

Quiet tipping of the scales will always be possible to some extent but this policy has a natural limit, it only applies where women are under-represented.

women make up just 20% of those in top-tier management in the civil service. This is despite making up about 44% of those at assistant principal level.

So the apocalypse is not quite upon us yet. It isn't like they are digging mass graves and marching all the male staff into them.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

As is common on this sub the heading is an outright lie and nobody either notices or points it out. It is not an excuse that the headline is partly copied from the article.

prove most articles from the sub have a lie for a heading. Else it's just a way to discredit before you start.

That is not "must go to women". The policy only applies if two candidates can be shown on paper to be of equal merit, and for that to be capable of withstanding a legal challenge. HR departments are terrified of being sued, and protecting the organisation from Big Bad Sue is a large part of their job.

So every time we see equally/partially equal candidates EVERY time, it must go to the woman. How is this fair?

Also, how are we to know the people running this system aren't biased themselves, and will put a woman in even if she isn't of exactly equal merit.

Seems like female privileges to me..

Quiet tipping of the scales will always be possible to some extent but this policy has a natural limit, it only applies where women are under-represented.

for now. Its just like the BBC though, sooner or later this will lead to firing a man because he is a man.

So the apocalypse is not quite upon us yet. It isn't like they are digging mass graves and marching all the male staff into them.

why is this policy only for upper management in good companies once again.

When are we getting a trash collector quota, or a sewage worker quota, or any female quota for things other than the top rungs of a good, white collar company?

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

As is common on this sub.... 

Prove most articles from the sub have a lie for a heading.

Common does not mean most. I often see headings which misrepresent the article. It could be just a few percent, it depends how picky you are.

So every time we see equally/partially equal candidates, EVERY time, it must go to the woman.

Not every time. If gender balance is ever achieved the policy will stop applying. If there is a shortage of qualified women applicants then gender balance will never be achieved.

Only 20% of top roles are held by women when the next layer down is quite equal, so it does not look like there is a pro-woman bias. "Equally qualified" can be pushed a bit but the 20% situation and the fact this rule has been introduced at all suggests any existing bias is in favour of men.

The BBC is said to have fired a man so a woman could take the job

Men have 80% of the jobs. If the number of women were doubled, and it is not at all certain that can be achieved, men would still have 60% of the jobs.
How much bias in favour of men do you need to feel safe? Should the proportion of women be reduced from 20% to 10% to provide men with a bigger buffer against future anti-male policies?

When are we getting a trash collector quota?

It isn't a quota, it is a subtle measure which is unlikely to make a big difference. There are known reasons why women don't tend to go for top jobs as often.

The effort being made to correct the huge gender imbalance in positions of power is unrelated to the balance in jobs which do not have influence over the whole society.

But since you raise it, drainage work and trash collecting previously were so physically demanding that very few women could do it. Now trash is automated with wheelie bins there are plenty of women driving the trucks where I live. Drainage is still very physical at times.
The standard riposte to this argument is the huge army of rest home workers and cleaners. Those are really shitty jobs and the workers are treated very poorly.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it isn't bias in favor of men though.

It's just making more quotas for women. If you are applying to that position it is better to be a woman than a man. This isn't equality, it's attempted equity.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Quiet tipping of the scales will always be possible to some extent but this policy has a natural limit, it only applies where women are under-represented.

Except what constitutes underrepresented can be changed, as it matters to what they are underrepresented.

Underrepresented as a portion of the general population? Graduates with a given degree? The list goes on and changing that one little definition is rather easy.

Nonetheless, the point stands that men of equal merit will be denied opportunities based on sex.

Which would be you know, sexist.

[–]Mens-Advocate 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

/u/JebberJabber is a feminist.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

so?

Feminists can be correct on things, I judge based on the merit of the argument.

In this case /u/JebberJabber is very wrong but I digress.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good for them. Why is that relevant here, though?

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They are going for 50%, quite a bit less than women's share of the population at the age of people in top jobs. If the target were changed, then would be time to consider protesting it.

The history of attempts to even the gender balance in top jobs shows it is a slow and difficult process. Remember this is something that has been happening since the 70s and after all that the result has been that only 20% of the top civil service jobs there went to women, so we are not exactly on the brink of overbalancing into gynocratic excess.

men of equal merit will be denied opportunities based on sex. Which would be you know, sexist.

If you have had no complaint about the fact women have traditionally needed to be a lot better than men to get the same job then you are not in a position to cry sexism when an attempt at a gentle correction in the balance is made.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are going for 50%, quite a bit less than women's share of the population at the age of people in top jobs. If the target were changed, then would be time to consider protesting it.

But a bit more than their share of people who are qualified for those jobs.

General population doesn't tell you who is willing and able to pursue something.

The history of attempts to even the gender balance in top jobs shows it is a slow and difficult process.

Probably because those attempts require ignoring the agency of people, and assuming what their aspirations are.

If you have had no complaint about the fact women have traditionally needed to be a lot better than men to get the same job then you are not in a position to cry sexism when an attempt at a gentle correction in the balance is made.

I have no problem with not taking seriously undemonstrated claims.

[–]Tedesche 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I noticed that too, and was going to comment, but you beat me to it.

However, my comment was going to be more along the lines of "this title is misleading, you should change it." Instead, you chose it as an opportunity to criticize the entire sub and make a hyperbolic joke about people catastrophizing this.

Look, the law is still sexist. It's essentially affirmative action for women—not only has affirmative action not worked in other places it has been implemented, it has actually harmed the population it was intended to help, by labeling the with the stigma that they didn't truly earn their spot. Affirmative action does not work; quotas do not work. They actually hurt.

So, celebrate this all you like. When it fails to equalize the numbers of women in top government positions, feminists will simply claim that the patriarchy is just that pervasive and powerful, and likely demand even more outright discrimination, because they can't accept that there are just fewer women interested in this area of work than men. Same with men and nursing. Is it gender norms? Yes, but you can't legislate them away. Feminists are trying to force equality of outcome on the theory that equality of interest/opportunity will follow, but that's not how it works. All this will do is fan the flames of the gender war. It is a divisive piece of legislation that will harm more than it helps.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I acknowledge the problems of affirmative action but I don't agree it has always been a failure. We now have a society with much more even participation from various groups who were previously excluded, and I'm happy with that. Some of the complaints along the way were because of heavy-handed programs.

Much of the complaining is inevitable. When a group that is 99% dominant is reduced to 95% dominant it is natural that many of them will feel their whole way of life is at threat. Reduce that to 85% dominant and some will be considering armed rebellion or suicide as they can not get used to what seems to them to be an existential threat to their culture.

I'm not celebrating this rule because I don't know the situation there. Possibly 20% women is a natural ratio for top jobs there, though the even balance at the next tier suggests it might not be.

[–]Tedesche 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We now have a society with much more even participation from various groups who were previously excluded, and I'm happy with that.

You're chalking that up to affirmative action, when there's no evidence it was due to any such legislation and far more likely due cultural change. Society had been gradually becoming more diverse and egalitarian long before affirmative action was even a concept, and that trend has continued at largely the same, gradual rate since said laws were put into effect. The research on their effectiveness is mixed at best, and better termed "inconclusive."

Much of the complaining is inevitable. When a group that is 99% dominant is reduced to 95% dominant it is natural that many of them will feel their whole way of life is at threat. Reduce that to 85% dominant and some will be considering armed rebellion or suicide as they can not get used to what seems to them to be an existential threat to their culture.

This is the standard excuse activists give whenever dominant groups complain—"loss of privilege feels a lot like persecution." And it's true, and entirely possible that that's what is motivating most of the complaints about initiatives to help disadvantaged groups. But no alternatives are ever really considered by those folks either, which is to say they pretty much just assume that the people complaining don't really have any valid point or perspective, and can be safely ignored. That kind of attitude is what has given rise to notions that you "can't be racist against whites" or "sexist against men." In other words, it is it's own brand of prejudice; and unsurprisingly, those espousing it are blind to it. Anyway, you can believe what you like, but in this conversation, if you're asserting that my complaints about affirmative action are due to my loss of privilege, I will simply deny the truth of that, point to my earlier criticisms of it, and insist that you respond to them if you have an real argument to make, rather than rely on guesswork about my background and motivations.

So, back to my original point: there is no evidence affirmative action works, and there is evidence it hurts race/gender relations. You do not achieve equality by treating people unequally. A better strategy is to identify the cause of the disparity and trying to remedy that. Affirmative action presumes the problem is discrimination, and is a brute-force attempt to balance the outcome, in the hopes that it will have an erosive effect on the process producing said outcome. But it doesn't work.

[–]xNOM 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As is common on this sub the heading is an outright lie and nobody either notices or points it out. It is not an excuse that the headline is partly copied from the article.

How is it a lie? If it said ALL of the top jobs must go to women, then that would be a blatant misrepresentation. The thread title implies no such thing. This is just your bias. Even more accurate would have been "more top jobs."

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"more top jobs" would be fine.

I don't see how this rule will make more than a small difference. With most top jobs there are very few real contenders and it would be unusual for them to be equally attractive.
If there is already a bias for or against women this rule will not change that.

[–]Mens-Advocate 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As is common on this sub the heading is an outright lie

Is your accusation itself an outright lie? While I've not done a rigourous survey, most headings here are reasonable interpretations of articles. So, can you prove your defamatory accusation against the entire board (and, implicitly, against the moderators as well)?

I note one or two occasional examples do not prove "commonplace".

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No candidates are exactly equal. In practice I imagine there will be some excuse -- just make the admission criteria more "holistic" and you can always find a reason not to hire someone. That's what happens in the Ivy League with East Asians right now, who are discriminated against by administrations and while no official race quota exists for them, statistics are obvious.

[–]JebberJabber 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes of course. It is not possible to make the system completely objective, and it would not be desirable anyway.

This rule does not change that. Departments in the Civil Service will continue to be biased for or against women just as much as they were before. All it does is remove a tiny bit of wiggle room when a job is advertised in a dept. which has a shortage of women.

We already know how this is likely to work out, because governments and organisations have been trying to think of ways to get women more equally represented in top jobs for forty years. All sorts of stuff has been tried. My guess is there will be a very modest increase in women appointed, maybe the 20% of women in top jobs will go up by 20%, so 24% of top jobs will be given to women.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter