Should our next manager be BAME/LGBT?

[Bing Cosby]

2 hours ago, Ronseal said:

What is BAME?

 

It's for dry or chapped lips.

[cross owl]

35 minutes ago, dr. benway said:

(Waning: this is going to be a dr. benway-special, too intellectual for my own good post )

 

The issue of "positive discrimination" is something that I see a lot and I wanted to just share a couple of thoughts on it:

 

Firstly, it's true that any "end game" of equality should be that people are selected for positions without reference to or consideration of any attributes not directly related to their ability to perform a job: gender, race, sexuality etc, and so I have some sympathy with the thinking behind not specifically employing based on "filling a quota" or some such. 

 

However, one thing to consider is that under-represented groups are often under-represented because of explicit or hidden biases against them that form a "glass ceiling" to obtaining jobs (or in some cases even acceptance), and therefore a (temporary) over-representation is the only path to the "true" equality that many support. That is to say that to argue against "positive discrimination" is in fact to express a desire to maintain the status quo, which is one of under-representation of those groups.

 

Especially in a community such as football where finding a job as a manager often requires having demonstrated skill* either as e.g. a lower-league manager or as a successful player, it would be much harder as, say, a woman to even get a first step on the ladder, and it's for this reason that "positive discrimination" exists: in order to "seed" the opportunities to those that otherwise would not have them, and therefore to work towards the goal of true equality.

 

As I said, I sympathise with the idea of not needing to specifically search for a female/LGTBQ to fill a position, but I don't take offence at it happening because I see it as a necessary stepping stone on the way.

 

(I keep putting "positive discrimination" in inverted commas because I don't think what most people think of it as is what it actual is—true positive discrimination would be to discriminate against a currently-non-marginalised group in an environment where there are not in fact non-marginalised: i.e. as a simplified example positive discrimination against male candidates—or female ones!—would only be able to be effected when there is a true 50-50 split of men and women in the field).

 

* feel free to insert your own jokes here
 

 

 

  What if some people are under represented simply because they wish to be under represented.  If a certain people don't wish to do a certain type of job then excluding the majority won't help . I worked for one small company , every time he did recruitment he posted it in all areas he could.  No one non white ever even applied , so there they were under represented .  What do you suggest in the simple reason that some quarters simply don't wish to do certain jobs . How would you get a true fifty fifty make female split . A majority of women would rather spend more time with their children than work full time on the bins . 

[N0rtherner]

1 hour ago, HirstWhoScoredIt said:

Blacks, Asians, martians and extra-terrestrials.

 

Why are Martians treated differently than Extra-terrestrials? xD

 

On the other hand, was considering we were going specifically sociopolitical with BAME requiring the next manager is British and Middle England class...

Edited October 18, 2017 by N0rtherner

[owl4life]

2 hours ago, Ronseal said:

What is BAME?

Bravo Alpha Mike Echo

[dr. benway]

1 minute ago, cross owl said:

What if some people are under represented simply because they wish to be under represented.  If a certain people don't wish to do a certain type of job then excluding the majority won't help . I worked for one small company , every time he did recruitment he posted it in all areas he could.  No one non white ever even applied , so there they were under represented .  What do you suggest in the simple reason that some quarters simply don't wish to do certain jobs . How would you get a true fifty fifty make female split . A majority of women would rather spend more time with their children than work full time on the bins . 

 

That's a really interesting question! I suppose I'd answer it by asking some different questions:

 

How can we know, in general, that people don't want to do certain jobs? I understand that some individuals wouldn't want to and that we can find this out by simply asking them, but how can we be sure there aren't people who do want to but won't speak up about it because they perceive that they wouldn't be welcome? That is, how can we prove the absence of something, or prove a negative?

 

I'm far from an expert in this field but am lucky enough to work with some fantastically intelligent people who are trying to tackle this exact problem of trying to attract (in their case) more women into a typically male-dominated field, and finding that not only are they being discriminated against when applying for a job, many of them are simply not applying outright for various reasons—a very common one being that whilst they'd love to do the job, they are afraid of being unwelcome in the environment.

 

This is one of the reasons for which I am somewhat supportive of initiatives to forcibly increase participation—the so-called "positive discrimination"—in order to "open the gates" to everyone by showing that a career isn't just "for someone else".

 

Does that make sense?

[OWLS about that?]

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Some fair points there but like I say Megson was never hounded or abused like Carlos is - yet Carlos is arguably delivering better results than Megson ever did.

With a substantially bigger budget, which he has spent unwisely.  Most managers would kill for the money he's been given

[fatzooma]

Some very strange bigoted views in this thread. I would put it down to a lack of education and a rigid mindset.

[marshy]

2 hours ago, matthefish2002 said:

If there are the best candidate for the job then of course.

But appointing someone because they are black, gay, transgender might attract more lentil eating lefties through the turnstiles buts its a no from me. 

The farts are bad enough as it is in the ground.

[MAL]

38 minutes ago, dr. benway said:

 

That's a really interesting question! I suppose I'd answer it by asking some different questions:

 

How can we know, in general, that people don't want to do certain jobs? I understand that some individuals wouldn't want to and that we can find this out by simply asking them, but how can we be sure there aren't people who do want to but won't speak up about it because they perceive that they wouldn't be welcome? That is, how can we prove the absence of something, or prove a negative?

 

I'm far from an expert in this field but am lucky enough to work with some fantastically intelligent people who are trying to tackle this exact problem of trying to attract (in their case) more women into a typically male-dominated field, and finding that not only are they being discriminated against when applying for a job, many of them are simply not applying outright for various reasons—a very common one being that whilst they'd love to do the job, they are afraid of being unwelcome in the environment.

 

This is one of the reasons for which I am somewhat supportive of initiatives to forcibly increase participation—the so-called "positive discrimination"—in order to "open the gates" to everyone by showing that a career isn't just "for someone else".

 

Does that make sense?

 

My interpretation of this type of thing.

 

There are places/firms/companies that are actually misrepresenting jobs to get women to apply for them. 

 

Take a job that involves carrying 6' fridge freezers or washers or heavy bed bases with double mattresses,  up what could be 5 flights of stairs and more.

These and many many more jobs that involve very heavy lifting. 

 

A company changes the working title of the job into one that sounds like it is a desk job,  to try and get women into the roles.

 

I know that some women will be able to do this job, but if they wanted to they would apply for the original working titled job. 

 

Changing the working title of the job, just to try and get women into the role by making it sound like a desk job, is not the best way to fill that role. 

 

 

[cross owl]

8 minutes ago, dr. benway said:

 

That's a really interesting question! I suppose I'd answer it by asking some different questions:

 

How can we know, in general, that people don't want to do certain jobs? I understand that some individuals wouldn't want to and that we can find this out by simply asking them, but how can we be sure there aren't people who do want to but won't speak up about it because they perceive that they wouldn't be welcome? That is, how can we prove the absence of something, or prove a negative?

 

I'm far from an expert in this field but am lucky enough to work with some fantastically intelligent people who are trying to tackle this exact problem of trying to attract (in their case) more women into a typically male-dominated field, and finding that not only are they being discriminated against when applying for a job, many of them are simply not applying outright for various reasons—a very common one being that whilst they'd love to do the job, they are afraid of being unwelcome in the environment.

 

This is one of the reasons for which I am somewhat supportive of initiatives to forcibly increase participation—the so-called "positive discrimination"—in order to "open the gates" to everyone by showing that a career isn't just "for someone else".

 

Does that make sense?

 

 

  I do agree on most points . Thing is what I've always thought . This entire planet could be a wonderful place for everyone on it . Problem is humans live on it and generally are selfish creatures like all animals are , so whatever their job , area , country , as long as things are going  well then b@11s to everyone else . You can't change human nature by trying through legislation to make everything totally equal . It will never happen for hundreds of reasons . Humans don't want equal they want better for them .

 

 I worked in care , a job where the majority were women . I couldnt care less that I was the only bloke in my group or the ribbing . I wanted the job and I feel I was good at it . If you don't go for a job because of any reason then you either don't want it enough or don't feel you would make the grade . Not applying because of any reason is a cop out and your personal problem .  I'd love a job as a surgeon but I have neither the talent or intelligence so I don't go for it .  Just because you'd love  a job doesnt mean you'd be any good at it or should be considered for it . I've personally never worked in a place where women were discriminated against , I've worked in care , shops, factories , ambulance and more than half of my supervisors or bosses were women . Not saying it doesn't happen as it does but I just don't think that discrimination on the lines of heritage and gender is as much of a problem as it is made out to be . That's just in my thirty years of working , others  may well have found the opposite is true . 

[royalowlisback]

I won't settle unless we appoint an Iranian, 1-armed, horizontally challenged, ginger-haired, gender neutral, Obese Lesbian.

[dr. benway]

4 minutes ago, MAL said:

Changing the working title of the job, just to try and get women into the role by making it sound like a desk job, is not the best way to fill that role.

 

I don't think we disagree at all—not only is changing a job title not useful for the company, it's actively disrespectful to the people who apply for it, and not just the female ones.

[MAL]

1 minute ago, dr. benway said:

 

I don't think we disagree at all—not only is changing a job title not useful for the company, it's actively disrespectful to the people who apply for it, and not just the female ones.

 

Sorry pal, I wasn't meaning it to sound like I was disagreeing with you. 

I thought it was a good post. 

 

[cross owl]

1 minute ago, royalowlisback said:

I won't settle unless we appoint an Iranian, 1-armed, horizontally challenged, ginger-haired, gender neutral, Obese Lesbian.

 

 

  You disgust me , why can't a transsexual with a limp have the job . People like you living in the 70's are a disgrace 

[swfc4_sufc0]

20 pages and then locked...

[dr. benway]

5 minutes ago, cross owl said:

I do agree on most points . Thing is what I've always thought . This entire planet could be a wonderful place for everyone on it . Problem is humans live on it and generally are selfish creatures like all animals are , so whatever their job , area , country , as long as things are going  well then b@11s to everyone else . You can't change human nature by trying through

legislation to make everything totally equal . It will never happen for hundreds of reasons . Humans don't want equal they want better for them .

 

I won't disagree that as a species we have a tendency to make things difficult! But regarding legislation, haven't we been doing this for centuries, making laws to try and improve the lives of everyone for the better, right back to the Ten Commandments, if not before? I can't say that it always works, but surely it's better than the alternative of no attempt at protecting or helping the less fortunate?

 

5 minutes ago, cross owl said:

I worked in care , a job where the majority were women . I couldnt care less that I was the only bloke in my group or the ribbing . I wanted the job and I feel I was good at it . If you don't go for a job because of any reason then you either don't want it enough or don't feel you would make the grade . Not applying because of any reason is a cop out and your personal problem .  I'd love a job as a surgeon but I have neither the talent or intelligence so I don't go for it .  Just because you'd love  a job doesnt mean you'd be any good at it or should be considered for it .

 

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that someone should be given a job out of love and no qualifications—what I meant in my comment was regarding women who were both perfectly qualified and would love to do the job, but felt they were unable to because they had pre-supposed (often based on bitter experience) that they would be unwelcome.

 

5 minutes ago, cross owl said:

I've personally never worked in a place where women were discriminated against , I've worked in care , shops, factories , ambulance and more than half of my supervisors or bosses were women . Not saying it doesn't happen as it does but I just don't think that discrimination on the lines of heritage and gender is as much of a problem as it is made out to be . That's just in my thirty years of working , others  may well have found the opposite is true . 

 

Exactly, and this is the foundation of that most incendiary of contemporary words, "privilege". I'm presuming you are male? Same as me, and therefore we naturally don't perceive gender discrimination as as big of a problem, because we so often are not on the receiving end of it—this is the privilege that we enjoy. As for not working in a place where women were discriminated against, I hope that's true because it would be a fantastic achievement in a world where abuse and discrimination are rampant. I'm considering something like the current "#metoo" campaign as a reminder of exactly how widespread a problem we're dealing with (and admit that I'm starting to blur the line between discrimination and abuse—but only because if there is a campaign to expose how endemic one is, it doesn't seem too much of a leap to suggest that the other is also as common).

[dr. benway]

9 minutes ago, MAL said:

 

Sorry pal, I wasn't meaning it to sound like I was disagreeing with you. 

I thought it was a good post. 

 

 

Ah, my mistake—all good! And thank you!

[PeteG_1984]

Wouldn't we need a manage to come out before we have the option of employing a LBGT manager? I can't think of any

[jonnyowl]

The next manager should be the best person for the job!

 

I couldn't care less if they are BAME or LGBT or not! It wouldn't bother me if they are!

[shezzas left peg]

Why should we have to give somone the job just because of gender, ethnicity or sexual persuasion over a more experienced candidate? 

If those mentioned above worked their way up and gained league experience and did well, then fair play to them as candidates, but none has any management experience in this league or played here in this league apart from Campbell. They shouldn't get a free ride to a good job just because of what they are. Descrimination runs both ways. 

How would you feel truly if you were say pardew or Megson with bags of experience at this level and above worked your way up,  and the chairman says, sorry we're going to hire one of the above just becouse of your reasons stated??