JLR bans boys in favour of girls and “non-binaries”

[WackyWeaver]

Maybe the girls deserve a shot at making JLR produce more reliable cars as clearly the boys can’t

[travisc]

PeteinSQ said:

I do pretty much agree with you, but the messaging around this is pretty poor I think. I'd be very sorry for my sons if in future they get messages like this back from school. The message would come across to them that to move girls forwards they have to lessen the life choices of boys - which I don't think is the aim at all but that's how it could get interpreted.

Agreed

[amusingduck]

PeteinSQ said:

I do pretty much agree with you, but the messaging around this is pretty poor I think. I'd be very sorry for my sons if in future they get messages like this back from school. The message would come across to them that to move girls forwards they have to lessen the life choices of boys - which I don't think is the aim at all but that's how it could get interpreted.

It seems like a fairly cynical PR exercise. They could silently favour girl applicants behind the scenes, avoiding the perception of excluding the boys, but there's no clapping emojis on twitter with that route

[deckster]

PeteinSQ said:

I do pretty much agree with you, but the messaging around this is pretty poor I think. I'd be very sorry for my sons if in future they get messages like this back from school. The message would come across to them that to move girls forwards they have to lessen the life choices of boys - which I don't think is the aim at all but that's how it could get interpreted.

To an extent, but the only reason this even raised a single eyebrow is that it went out first time round without an explicit "BTW this is only for girls".

Furthermore, the only reason it made the Mail is that they said girls "and non-binaries". Which is click-bait gold-dust to these people.

[travisc]

travisc said:

Agreed

It’s not the “your welcome” bit but the
“Others need not apply”

[Randy Winkman]

Blue62 said:

deckster said:

They don't need to make special overtures to the boys. Society has already conditioned them that they are suited to a job with cars. JLR has male engineers coming out of their ears.

This is specifically and overtly targetted at bringing girls into engineering. And that's, unconditionally, a good thing.

Well said. It’s another of those endless DM stories that seems to arouse a special sort of indignation in their readership. Why people can’t see through this and why they continue to read the rag is beyond me.

The story in the hard-copy Daily Mail today about the Ant Middleton sacking completely misses out the fact that he included the EDL in his rant. It tells readers he got sacked only for calling BLM "scum". A deliberate misrepresentation of the truth to get readers angry.

[Leon R]

Making an active effort to get more of a specific group interested in a certain field is fine.

Making an active effort make a specific group less interested or excluding said group all together is not fine

[mcdjl]

My careers teacher at school managed to organise helicopter rides in an Army lynx and a visit to Portsmouth And HMS Invincible for pupils interested in joining the forces. I developed a rapid interest in signing up which shortly after vanished again.
If any boy that wants to do the work experience isn't inventive enough to be non-binary for the duration, then they aren't inventive enough to be an engineer. Besides everyone realises in later life that its the gay guys that get to be best friends with the best looking women (i learnt that from films) so win win really!

[Quisling]

paintman said:

Makes total sense.
If you employ people with small hands you can cram even more stuff into the engine bay...........

Do you still have to take the body off the chassis to change the timing belt?

[menousername]

PeteinSQ said:

The message would come across to them that to move girls forwards they have to lessen the life choices of boys - which I don't think is the aim at all but that's how it could get interpreted.

Maybe not the aim but likely the outcome.

Have seen it in my own industry. New projects or new grad intakes not signed off until 50/50 split. However, the true split of undergrads (the pool) is more like 80/20 so it had to go through several rounds to scrape a 50/50 split.

Inevitably there will be some that like the job and some that thought it was the right thing to do but find themselves in an industry they do not enjoy. The cost will be those cast aside that in order to make the split that would have both enjoyed the job and been very good at it.

Perhaps the answer is to make it a gender neutral as possible, not refer to sex, race or preferences at all, and have a more natural reflection of the splits. The solution is also the problem here.

[deckster]

amusingduck said:

PeteinSQ said:

I do pretty much agree with you, but the messaging around this is pretty poor I think. I'd be very sorry for my sons if in future they get messages like this back from school. The message would come across to them that to move girls forwards they have to lessen the life choices of boys - which I don't think is the aim at all but that's how it could get interpreted.

It seems like a fairly cynical PR exercise. They could silently favour girl applicants behind the scenes, avoiding the perception of excluding the boys, but there's no clapping emojis on twitter with that route

It's even there in the article, if you bothered to read it. JLR run several work experience activities and this is the only one that's targetted specifically at girls. Even with this dedicated track, I strongly suspect that the overall split over all their work experience programmes will still be very strongly dominated by boys.

But then if you genuinely think that JLR (and every other large company on the planet) are doing this for twitter-likes then there won't be any convincing you.

[Randy Winkman]

When I was at my end of junior school holiday in Norfolk in 1976 (aged 10) we had an opportunity to visit a US air base. But they could only accomodate half of the children. So the rule was that the boys could go, but girls could go if individual boys opted out and offered up their place. I was the one boy out of about 60 who gave up his place to a girl who was really keen on aircraft. How times have changed? Sometimes things go a bit wrong but I think that they have mostly changed for the better in this sort of respect.

Edited by Randy Winkman on Wednesday 3rd March 13:08

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

I once took a non-binary test. I got 0.

Well, I got it..... but that is weapons-grade nerdy.

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

Also, can't have a discussion about Land Rovers without this:

[Andeh1]

DeejRC said:

I agree entirely. The more and more engineery types of any gender learn and realise that JLR rates are wk, then sooner or later they may actually wake up and realise they have to offer decent pay rates.

Until then JLR will continue employing cheap monkeys and making tat.

I spent years there, got a very resoectsbke industry average (though I left for more) ...but the £70k management car, all but fuel included, replaced every 6 months with a new one, for the price of a budget focus was a very nice perk.

Below that you got generous overtime, shift pay & weekend multiplier.

You just didn't negotiate properly.

[donteatpeople]

deckster said:

They don't need to make special overtures to the boys. Society has already conditioned them that they are suited to a job with cars. JLR has male engineers coming out of their ears.

This is specifically and overtly targetted at bringing girls into engineering. And that's, unconditionally, a good thing.

The aim is good, increasing the talent pool is unconditionally a good thing. I'm not convinced that this method is unconditionally a good one.

Partly because I don't know how effective it will be, it's a self selecting group so logically the girls applying will be those that already have an interest in engineering. That's not necessarily going to increase the talent pool any further than if it was open to all.

Mostly because I'm uncomfortable with discrimination in general, even if it is well intentioned discrimination.

I think it would be better to address the root cause of the issue and work towards reducing the social conditioning of different genders. It's a harder task but it'll lead to a fix rather than a bodge.

[Gareth79]

The messaging is pretty bad, both from the schools and in the online ads. It should explain WHY the course is only open to female/NB attendees, and that there are alternatives available. Along the lines of "This course is specifically aimed at introducing girls to working in engineering and therefore boys will need to apply to the general course".

donteatpeople said:

The aim is good, increasing the talent pool is unconditionally a good thing. I'm not convinced that this method is unconditionally a good one.

Partly because I don't know how effective it will be, it's a self selecting group so logically the girls applying will be those that already have an interest in engineering. That's not necessarily going to increase the talent pool any further than if it was open to all.

Many boys have an interest, and will pursue it regardless if they went on a work experience course. Some girls are interested but need that extra push and encouragement that engineering companies are welcoming workplaces to women, and a course specifically aimed at them will help a lot.

donteatpeople said:

I think it would be better to address the root cause of the issue and work towards reducing the social conditioning of different genders. It's a harder task but it'll lead to a fix rather than a bodge.

Hopefully the schools are doing some of that, but the plain "this is only open to girls" messages in the article suggest they aren't doing a good job of communicating why these sorts of things exist.

[Walter Sobchak]

Wouldn’t 10-13 year olds of any gender that have an interest in automotive engineering be better served applying for work experience at a manufacturer where the grown ups have worked out how to build their products properly?.

[CustardOnChips]

Andeh1 said:

the £70k management car, all replaced every 6 months with a new one.

Is that because they were fooked after 6 month, or did they do 6 month rotation in the workshop?

[pquinn]

CubanPete said:

I work for an Engineering company, we support a lot of STEM activities, many of which are focused on increasing girls interest in engineering.

It isn't about discrimination, it is about increasing the talent pool, If you increase the talent pool, you get better talent.

The only problem is the implementation is often left in the hands of people in HR or those who are 'interested' so it gets a bit messy at times.

Like (for example) trying to get more women into senior roles, which in practice has meant that one particular senior engineering management job has gone to women five times in a row (slightly unlikely statistically) but broader take up just hasn't happened. Feels odd considering the level of churn should mean female staff in a broad range of roles but reality seems to have targeted something that would get a profile without a general move to increase diversity in hiring.

Or it could be there aren't enough candidates who want to move from being engineers or whatever to being managers & putting up with the boring crap. Which might also explain why five people have gone though the same job in maybe five years.

You'll also never hear louder objections against 'positive' policies than from the people they're meant to target - lots of people hate the idea that they need to be boosted or treated as special to get a career, like they can't do it themselves.