Did you know that the government minister in charge of s*x discrimination...?

Question

... was convicted of breaching the s*x Discrimination Act?

"Career sexism that stops women "achieving their full potential" is something that the former trade and industry secretary Patricia Hewitt fought hard against. But it seems that her fight against sexism also includes discriminating positively towards women. Yesterday, it emerged she was found guilty of overlooking a strong male candidate for a job in favour of a weaker female applicant... Mrs Hewitt and the DTI were found to have breached the s*x Discrimination Act".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/female-champion-hewitt-discriminated-against-man-510584.html

Of course the new Equality Minister is fighting for this behaviour to be made compulsory, but:

Do you think that laws should be changed so that the best candidate is always a woman?

Answer 1

The laws shouldn't favour positive discrimination because that's an oxymoron. Discrimination is never positive. Laws should favour equality and should be implemented thus. Laws which are something in letter and quite something else in action aren't laws for equality but freedoms to encourage exploitation. VAWA is a perfect example.

Interesting how people are all for laws to make Patricia look good for discriminating against men. If a man selected a man ahead of a woman (no matter how deserving he was), there'd be laws encouraging 'positive' discrimination all over the place. It's a lose-lose situation. No matter what the situation, men lose either way.

It isn't career sexism but women themselves that stop women from achieving their full potential. They do end up taking low-paying jobs that require one to work less. Ideal for most working women, who have to balance family and work.

Answer 2

I certainly didn't know, but I'm not surprised.

Answer 3

This is where equity and equality collide.

Clearly this minister is in office to ensure equality for the sake of being equal. Here's an illustration why the two are often in conflict:

Person A could be more productive than person B in the same job but get paid the same. That would be equal by definition but inequitable (unfair) because he clearly deserves more money for more work.

Similarly person A could be more productive than person B in the same job and be paid more. This would be equitable (fair) but unequal by definition since he in getting paid more they clearly cannot be being given equal outcomes even though the outcome is fair.

I reckon equality for the sake of being equal is where the true discrimination is. Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes or in this case better one for a weaker candidate. If that person was better he deserved the job full stop. Anyone who says otherwise is against equity and fair treatment of men and women

Answer 4

This has nothing to do with what you posted, but it is too outrageous to ignore. Check this out:

In Hermesmann, a 12-year old boy had a sexual relationship with his babysitter. The state said the tweenaged dad was liable for child support even though all agreed the baby resulted from statutory rape. Reviewing cases from Wisconsin and Colorado that imposed child support obligations on underage fathers, the court noted: "We conclude that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity." This is a broader conclusion than that reached by the other courts, which had focused on the minor's actual consent – they said it's one thing to hold the perpetrator liable for statutory rape based on the legal irrelevance of consent and quite another to excuse the victim from obligations based on actual consent. Hermesmann suggests even a forcible rape of a boy could result in a child support award.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_...

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mspe...

Answer 5

Sort of like animal farm, you become the things you hate.

Answer 6

No.  But, you give one example of discrimination for women in contrast to the thousands of discrimination cases charged that are for discrimination against women.

Answer 7

No but I know it now thanks!