If a man and woman are equally qualified...?

Question

... the woman should automatically get the job.

This is the view of the most powerful feminist in the UK government (Harriet Harman QC, Minister for Women and Equality) and she wants employers in the UK to adopt her view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Harman#Changes_to_equalities_law

What is your view on this? Is this equal rights, or another example of the government advocating special rights for women?

Answer 1

If there was no difference in their qualifications, abilities etc, then I personally would give the job to the one I liked the best, whether that was the man or the woman.

Answer 2

Just more sexist 3rd wave feminism

Answer 3

I think whoever applied first should get the job if their equally qualified.

Answer 4

Well, if you have two applicants, who are both equally qualified, you should pick the one who you think will fit in most to the work setting.  I think that HH is a bit sexist.  You should always pick a candidate based on qualifications, and then personality- i.e. how well they will fit into the current environment, and how well you think they will interact with the existing employees- not on gender!

Answer 5

If a man and woman are equally qualified then the gender should be exempt and other influences taken into account - eg. locality, availability for overtime, etc.

Answer 6

As I said from earlier fast track of special interests.

Answer 7

Ok, you know Wiki isn't a scholarly source don't you?

All else being equal in a field where women are underrepresented - the woman gets first choice.  Why is that so threatening to you?

edit: yep, just as I suspected:

"As part of a proposed Equality Bill, Harman announced a consultation on changing the existing discrimination laws, which included options for selected underrepresented groups to be given a level of priority in regards to jobs and promotions."

I got it absolutely right, almost word for word.

Now get over it and quit whining.

Answer 8

Research all over the world indicates that affirmative action beniffitng women counters only a small percentage of men "automatically getting the job" over equally qualified women, which has always been tolerated.  Men should hold off on getting their little knickers in such hyper-sensitive knots and save it for when affirmative action benefitting women starts increasing like crazy worldwide.  It's already planned, so take deep breaths.  It won't hurt society NEARLY as much as the bigotry that's been tolerated about hiring men over equally qualified women.

Answer 9

Initiatives like that may have helped in the 60's, but not anymore. She's stuck in the past.

Answer 10

The trouble with dingdongs like Harman is that

(a) their privileged lifestyles are financed by the hard-pressed British taxpayer

(b) they belong to the feminist herd-mind which is blatantly s*x-based and s*x-biased. Like racism is race-based and race-biased.

Harman is a creature of the infamous Blair/Brown continuum. She and other inferior politicians could never have got into power were it not for the phenomenal backlash against the hugely unpopular Thatcher government of a few years ago. Literally hundreds of Blair/Brown candidates who in normal times could never have stood a chance found themselves unexpectedly swept into power.

Harman was one of those.

Answer 11

I thought we did have equal rights?????  Some jobs men can do and women can't like lifting heavy things. Men have a stronger body and that is a fact.

I don't think women or men should have special treatment we should be equal.

Answer 12

That's insane.

If both applicants are equally qualified, it should go to the person who you think you could trust more.

Who would want to think that their employees are stealing things behind their backs, or violating ethics codes?