Jess Phillips. Eh?

[james-witton]

Apparently she’s quoted as saying that if any male contender for the Labour leadership believes in gender equality they should withdraw. The Telegraph.

Is it just me?

Edited by james-witton on Sunday 19th January 14:27

[cuprabob]

It's unusual for a woman to rely on the "pull out" method these days

[Eric Mc]

james-witton said:

Apparently she’s quoted as saying that if any male contender for the Labour leadership beloved in gender equality they should withdraw. The Telegraph.

Is it just me?

I though Corbyn was the only one who qualified as a "beloved Labour leader".

[Brave Fart]

Heard her earlier this morning on 5 Live and I missed the bit about the candidates. Her comment in the Telegraph however is disappointing. She implies that gender is more important than ability, exactly the kind of identity politics I dislike. Will they never learn?

[Baby Shark doo doo doo doo]

It’s a bit like the people whinging about Stephen King’s comments on some awards. He stated he believes in quality rather than diversity which apparently means he’s encouraging hate crimes or some other bks.

Some people are sadly incapable of seeing beyond genitalia and skin colour.

[hutchst]

This is the party that brought you the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 to excuse themselves from following the same human rights that apply to everybody else in the civilised world. You wonder why they can't see anti-semitism when it slaps them in the face? They have lost touch with reality.

[james-witton]

Brave Fart said:

Heard her earlier this morning on 5 Live and I missed the bit about the candidates. Her comment in the Telegraph however is disappointing. She implies that gender is more important than ability, exactly the kind of identity politics I dislike. Will they never learn?

Exactly my point. She argues vehemently against gender bias. And then says someone should be appointed (or not) based on their gender.

I don’t get it.

Edited by james-witton on Sunday 19th January 14:33

[anonymous-user]

To understand how unpleasant this woman can be I suggest you look back at her conduct during her original election campaign
Her conduct against John Hemming was pretty grim
She is not at all a nice person and uses what she can when she can to further herself

[oilydan]

cuprabob said:

It's unusual for a woman to rely on the "pull out" method these days

Can't leave this unrecognised...

[vikingaero]

Maybe Liebour will apply the same principles to the NHS?

"Hello, Ms Phillips. About your heart operation tomorrow... As requested we've replaced the male consultant with 30 years experience with a female surgeon. She's fresh out of med school and really looking forward to performing a triple by-pass as she's never done one before."

[anonymous-user]

vikingaero said:

Maybe Liebour will apply the same principles to the NHS?

"Hello, Ms Phillips. About your heart operation tomorrow... As requested we've replaced the male consultant with 30 years experience with a female surgeon. She's fresh out of med school and really looking forward to performing a triple by-pass as she's never done one before."

Phillips has a heart? Well I never.

[A Winner Is You]

vikingaero said:

Maybe Liebour will apply the same principles to the NHS?

"Hello, Ms Phillips. About your heart operation tomorrow... As requested we've replaced the male consultant with 30 years experience with a female surgeon. She's fresh out of med school and really looking forward to performing a triple by-pass as she's never done one before."

"And even better, we're saving money by paying them less to do the same job!"

[james-witton]

I guess I’m what you call a centrist (moderate) conservative. I believe in the free market but I also believe there is a role for the state to provide for those who are (genuinely) unable to provide for themselves. I am also of the opinion that if the state knew how to fund utility services properly there is a possible case for a bit less private ownership. But I guess that will never happen.

I also believe that which ever party is in power there should be a credible opposition to provide an alternative position and the checks and balances needed.

But individuals like Corbyn, Phillips, Long-Bailey will never provide this ( I know they don’t say the same thing). They are so obsessed with an agenda that belongs in the sixth form common room. Such rhetoric not only demeans the proud traditions of the socialist movement it must make the many labour voters sick. They must realise that these idiots are condemning them to many years out of government.

[Dixy]

A Winner Is You said:

"And even better, we're saving money by paying them less to do the same job!"

Are you suggesting that a female surgeon is paid less than a male one?

[CrayonPark]

While it’s entirely intuitive to assume quality over diversity is the logical preferred method of selection, there is a problem with that assumption. In a largely white patriarchal society, quality over diversity means nothing ever changes. It’s essentially an argument to maintain the status quo. Without artificially promoting people of colour and females etc. the institutions remain the same. This has a trickle down effect and reinforces disenfranchisement and bias.

Having said that, if you want to enforce positive discrimination, you will have to expect a drop in standards, over some years, in order for the situation to be remedied to everyone’s satisfaction. And it could be argued that some institutions shouldn’t be used in, what some may feel is, a social experiment.

Positive discrimination is also a very top down solution to the lack of diversity in our institutions. Maybe this is something that should be tackled from the ground up?

[Dr Jekyll]

Dixy said:

A Winner Is You said:

"And even better, we're saving money by paying them less to do the same job!"

Are you suggesting that a female surgeon is paid less than a male one?

The suggestion is that a surgeon straight out of medical school is paid less than one with 30 years experience.

[Dr Jekyll]

CrayonPark said:

While it’s entirely intuitive to assume quality over diversity is the logical preferred method of selection, there is a problem with that assumption. In a largely white patriarchal society, quality over diversity means nothing ever changes. It’s essentially an argument to maintain the status quo. Without artificially promoting people of colour and females etc. the institutions remain the same. This has a trickle down effect and reinforces disenfranchisement and bias.

Having said that, if you want to enforce positive discrimination, you will have to expect a drop in standards, over some years, in order for the situation to be remedied to everyone’s satisfaction. And it could be argued that some institutions shouldn’t be used in, what some may feel is, a social experiment.

Positive discrimination is also a very top down solution to the lack of diversity in our institutions. Maybe this is something that should be tackled from the ground up?

bks

The conservatives have had 2 female leaders without any all women short lists or 'positive discrimination'.

Lewis Hamilton didn't get to be an F1 driver because teams started valuing diversity over quality, but because they valued quality full stop. Or are you suggesting that as a person of colour he must have been 'artificially promoted?'

[james-witton]

CrayonPark said:

While it’s entirely intuitive to assume quality over diversity is the logical preferred method of selection, there is a problem with that assumption. In a largely white patriarchal society, quality over diversity means nothing ever changes. It’s essentially an argument to maintain the status quo. Without artificially promoting people of colour and females etc. the institutions remain the same. This has a trickle down effect and reinforces disenfranchisement and bias.

Having said that, if you want to enforce positive discrimination, you will have to expect a drop in standards, over some years, in order for the situation to be remedied to everyone’s satisfaction. And it could be argued that some institutions shouldn’t be used in, what some may feel is, a social experiment.

Positive discrimination is also a very top down solution to the lack of diversity in our institutions. Maybe this is something that should be tackled from the ground up?

A thoughtful point. I have some small responsibility for promoting a more diverse workforce into the company that I work for. A more diverse representation is the right thing to have. I also accept totally that you may get a short term drop in quality whilst doing so. And this is a worthy price to pay. But not in such a key position as leader of a major political party or as the tongue in cheek post about a surgeon highlighted.

[CrayonPark]

Dr Jekyll said:

CrayonPark said:

While it’s entirely intuitive to assume quality over diversity is the logical preferred method of selection, there is a problem with that assumption. In a largely white patriarchal society, quality over diversity means nothing ever changes. It’s essentially an argument to maintain the status quo. Without artificially promoting people of colour and females etc. the institutions remain the same. This has a trickle down effect and reinforces disenfranchisement and bias.

Having said that, if you want to enforce positive discrimination, you will have to expect a drop in standards, over some years, in order for the situation to be remedied to everyone’s satisfaction. And it could be argued that some institutions shouldn’t be used in, what some may feel is, a social experiment.

Positive discrimination is also a very top down solution to the lack of diversity in our institutions. Maybe this is something that should be tackled from the ground up?

bks

The conservatives have had 2 female leaders without any all women short lists or 'positive discrimination'.

Lewis Hamilton didn't get to be an F1 driver because teams started valuing diversity over quality, but because they valued quality full stop. Or are you suggesting that as a person of colour he must have been 'artificially promoted?'

How many female party leaders have we had as a nation roughly, as a %, would you say? Given they make up 50% of the population, I’d say it’s quite a disparity. And the same could be said for drivers involved in motorsport who are people of colour.

You can cite exceptional examples, but that’s exactly what they are, exceptions.

[JBM78]

CrayonPark said:

.....in a largely white patriarchal society, quality over diversity means nothing ever changes.

Selective quoting, but this sounds like you're implying that white male candidates are higher quality than others?

I assume that this is the opposite of the message that you're trying to convey?