JLR bans boys in favour of girls and “non-binaries”
Discussion
Leon R said:
otolith said:
Biggy Stardust said:
otolith said:
I don't see them banning those in protected categories, so no it's not.The other is a program that males are not allowed to apply for.
Not the same.
GroundEffect said:
My department, designing electrified powertrains, has roughly 70 people. We have 2 women engineers. Both VERY smart and ruthless. We need more.
Why though?Presumably all 70 are very smart. Not sure ruthless is a good character trait but if thats what your company wants I imagine all 70 are smart and ruthless.
In other words you have the hired the right people for the job and the ratios do not matter be it 68/2, 50/50, or 2/68.
What does more of the same add?
Blue62 said:
otolith said:
They're not "banning" in either case, they are both projects aiming to get underrepresented groups involved by means of events specifically targeted at them.
Have you never heard of the concept ‘blue jobs and red jobs?’ It’s an indisputable fact that women and men are physiologically destined to perform different roles and the fact that women are under represented in some industries has nothing at all to do with societal factors. It’s the same with all other groups, though I can’t quite explain what went wrong when we started handing out footballs to black kids. 
BritishBlitz87 said:
Nothing new, this sort of b
ks is very common nowadays because most women don't really want to be engineers, instead they want to do things like lawyering and medicine and other worthless subservient jobs. 
.
I went to a technical college, there were only six women in the engineering course , both years included. There BMW did a special work experience week for the students of our college, but only girls were allowed to apply. As you can imagine, there were literally dozens of young men who were gagging at the bit to go, but instead they had to make way for the girls, 4 of whom didn't even come from our college in the end becuase there wasn't enough interest, and of the other two, one wanted to go into biotechnology and went because it sounded fairly interesting. Only one girl in our college had any interest in actually being an automotive engineer.
The outrage was quite palpable, almost as bad as the time the team who won the Fujitsu industry group recieved laptops worth £1000, while the other side of the year did a project with Cisco where the winners got a day out at the Cisco offices.
Positive discrimination is bad, the only place where quotas should be in force is the recruitment department to reduce bias. And yes, as a white male I'm probably biased in saying that!
Thank you for amply articulating the core of the issue in a way that I have never been able to.ks is very common nowadays because most women don't really want to be engineers, instead they want to do things like lawyering and medicine and other worthless subservient jobs. .I went to a technical college, there were only six women in the engineering course , both years included. There BMW did a special work experience week for the students of our college, but only girls were allowed to apply. As you can imagine, there were literally dozens of young men who were gagging at the bit to go, but instead they had to make way for the girls, 4 of whom didn't even come from our college in the end becuase there wasn't enough interest, and of the other two, one wanted to go into biotechnology and went because it sounded fairly interesting. Only one girl in our college had any interest in actually being an automotive engineer.
The outrage was quite palpable, almost as bad as the time the team who won the Fujitsu industry group recieved laptops worth £1000, while the other side of the year did a project with Cisco where the winners got a day out at the Cisco offices.
Positive discrimination is bad, the only place where quotas should be in force is the recruitment department to reduce bias. And yes, as a white male I'm probably biased in saying that!
otolith said:
Leon R said:
otolith said:
Biggy Stardust said:
otolith said:
I don't see them banning those in protected categories, so no it's not.The other is a program that males are not allowed to apply for.
Not the same.
DaveCWK said:
There is no 'test' & no evidence that can demonstrate someone identifies as non-binary.
You say you're non-binary on the application form & that's it - you are non-binary; as non-binary as the most non-binariest of people, so this is still open to everyone.
I’m glad someone mentioned it! Phew the future of JLR saved. You say you're non-binary on the application form & that's it - you are non-binary; as non-binary as the most non-binariest of people, so this is still open to everyone.
Why do people read the Mail? I never understand this they must be constantly angry people.
Leon R said:
otolith said:
Leon R said:
otolith said:
Biggy Stardust said:
otolith said:
I don't see them banning those in protected categories, so no it's not.The other is a program that males are not allowed to apply for.
Not the same.
BoRED S2upid said:
I’m glad someone mentioned it! Phew the future of JLR saved.
Why do people read the Mail? I never understand this they must be constantly angry people.
It feeds into something primal and appeals to those who are often looking to scapegoat their own frustrations, easy, low rent explanations. Individualism is the flavour of our times, any other explanation for societal ills like poverty or inequality are rejected and the Mail reinforces that view with its biased, bigoted output. Why do people read the Mail? I never understand this they must be constantly angry people.
Leon R said:
IMO it is different if you are the company that holds the positions and I would feel the exact same way if a legal firm offered a two week internship to only males from that same school.
Even if that was part of a programme of internships open to everyone that generally only girls were applying for?I just don't see the difference between this and the programme to encourage white working class boys into higher education. It's just about showing them that this option is not just for other people, it's for them too.
otolith said:
Leon R said:
IMO it is different if you are the company that holds the positions and I would feel the exact same way if a legal firm offered a two week internship to only males from that same school.
Even if that was part of a programme of internships open to everyone that generally only girls were applying for?I just don't see the difference between this and the programme to encourage white working class boys into higher education. It's just about showing them that this option is not just for other people, it's for them too.
I make an active effort engage with interested people and I do my best to make sure they understand everything they need to apply for any positions we have in the future and the month long learning course we do over the summer.
If the company told me that the summer course was going to be exclusively offered to a specific gender to try and get numbers up I would not take part.
Leon R said:
If the company told me that the summer course was going to be exclusively offered to a specific gender to try and get numbers up I would not take part.
OK - but they don't appear to be doing that, they are devoting some of the 2 week modules to girls, the rest will presumably continue to be dominated by boys. Dashnine said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
DaveCWK said:
There is no 'test' & no evidence that can demonstrate someone identifies as non-binary.
You say you're non-binary on the application form & that's it - you are non-binary; as non-binary as the most non-binariest of people, so this is still open to everyone.
I once took a non-binary test. I got 0.You say you're non-binary on the application form & that's it - you are non-binary; as non-binary as the most non-binariest of people, so this is still open to everyone.
There is nothing wrong with offering a course exclusively to girls, as long as they say that there is also a course offered to boys.
Sometimes we need to offer separate courses to boys and girls as I can see how a girl might not want to go on an engineering course with boys, in the same way we should offer some courses for boys only for positions that have been perceived as more female roles in previous years.
But if this was simply robbing young lads a chance to experience a role they would have loved to try and then JLR, as should any company, hold their heads in shame.
My daughter did a theatre course at Uni, and one of the work experiences was at the BBC for one of the years was a fortnight behind the scenes, production, direction etc. etc.
But when it came through it was only available for BAME and LGBT students.
Absolutely shocking.
Sometimes we need to offer separate courses to boys and girls as I can see how a girl might not want to go on an engineering course with boys, in the same way we should offer some courses for boys only for positions that have been perceived as more female roles in previous years.
But if this was simply robbing young lads a chance to experience a role they would have loved to try and then JLR, as should any company, hold their heads in shame.
My daughter did a theatre course at Uni, and one of the work experiences was at the BBC for one of the years was a fortnight behind the scenes, production, direction etc. etc.
But when it came through it was only available for BAME and LGBT students.
Absolutely shocking.
otolith said:
Leon R said:
If the company told me that the summer course was going to be exclusively offered to a specific gender to try and get numbers up I would not take part.
OK - but they don't appear to be doing that, they are devoting some of the 2 week modules to girls, the rest will presumably continue to be dominated by boys. C4ME said:
Women in STEM has been and continues to be a problem in this country.
Is it a 'problem' though? Are there queues of women wanting careers in the many many subjects that count as STEM but can't get in? Or do some people feel women are underrepresented in a certain subset of STEM fields and are trying to drag women into them while ignoring their presence in others?
Are non-STEM areas with gender imbalance trying similar schemes?
If people want to do certain jobs they will. Gender balance in many roles has shifted rapidly at various points - teaching and medicine for example - without anyone trying to force it.
menousername said:
GroundEffect said:
My department, designing electrified powertrains, has roughly 70 people. We have 2 women engineers. Both VERY smart and ruthless. We need more.
Why though?Presumably all 70 are very smart. Not sure ruthless is a good character trait but if thats what your company wants I imagine all 70 are smart and ruthless.
In other words you have the hired the right people for the job and the ratios do not matter be it 68/2, 50/50, or 2/68.
What does more of the same add?
Our department has hired the best of the best in the company (they must have misread someone else's CV as mine) and it should be noted we have one of the lowest UK national cohorts.
pquinn said:
Is it a 'problem' though?
Are there queues of women wanting careers in the many many subjects that count as STEM but can't get in? Or do some people feel women are underrepresented in a certain subset of STEM fields and are trying to drag women into them while ignoring their presence in others?
Are non-STEM areas with gender imbalance trying similar schemes?
If people want to do certain jobs they will. Gender balance in many roles has shifted rapidly at various points - teaching and medicine for example - without anyone trying to force it.
Yes, it's an issue. Partly for the girls who don't know that they want to be engineers, because they've never thought of it. But mainly for engineering (also science, technology, maths, whatever) which is missing out on 50% of its potentially best and brightest prospects.Are there queues of women wanting careers in the many many subjects that count as STEM but can't get in? Or do some people feel women are underrepresented in a certain subset of STEM fields and are trying to drag women into them while ignoring their presence in others?
Are non-STEM areas with gender imbalance trying similar schemes?
If people want to do certain jobs they will. Gender balance in many roles has shifted rapidly at various points - teaching and medicine for example - without anyone trying to force it.
Unless you believe that girls are inherently less good at technical subjects?
pquinn said:
Is it a 'problem' though?
Are there queues of women wanting careers in the many many subjects that count as STEM but can't get in? Or do some people feel women are underrepresented in a certain subset of STEM fields and are trying to drag women into them while ignoring their presence in others?
Are non-STEM areas with gender imbalance trying similar schemes?
If people want to do certain jobs they will. Gender balance in many roles has shifted rapidly at various points - teaching and medicine for example - without anyone trying to force it.
It is a problem if you consider everyone to have exactly the same innate interests and aptitude regardless of sex. Then gender disparities in outcomes can be held up as an example of discrimination in society.Are there queues of women wanting careers in the many many subjects that count as STEM but can't get in? Or do some people feel women are underrepresented in a certain subset of STEM fields and are trying to drag women into them while ignoring their presence in others?
Are non-STEM areas with gender imbalance trying similar schemes?
If people want to do certain jobs they will. Gender balance in many roles has shifted rapidly at various points - teaching and medicine for example - without anyone trying to force it.
There are a number of "high status" roles that are becoming increasingly feminised. In the law for example the percentage of newly qualified solicitors who are female seems to be close to two thirds each year.
It might just be that women, on average, prefer to be lawyers, or phycologists, than engineers......
Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 3rd March 11:25
deckster said:
Yes, it's an issue. Partly for the girls who don't know that they want to be engineers, because they've never thought of it. But mainly for engineering (also science, technology, maths, whatever) which is missing out on 50% of its potentially best and brightest prospects.
Unless you believe that girls are inherently less good at technical subjects?
and if those 50% of the "best and brightest" prospects are already studying a subject in which they have more interest?, and are overrepresented in?Unless you believe that girls are inherently less good at technical subjects?
Are you going to stop them studying law, phycology, etc and force them to study a STEM subject?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff