|
Written by Cate Schafer
|
|
Sunday, 29 June 2008 |
|
As a woman, I am all for equality. With that being said, parts of the recent Equality Bill are just silly and meaningless.
The recent Equality Bill is now allowing 'positive discrimination' in hiring practices. That is, employers can now favour women or ethnic-minority applicants over equally qualified males. This law doesn't require the employer to hire the minority, so if they are both equally qualified what is the point in the legislation? The male could still be hired if the employer sees their personality working better for the job. This is just another example of pointless legislation that causes the state to interfere.
The proposal is said to tackle the ‘problem’ of men dominating industries such as construction. Apparently women only make up 1 percent of the construction workforce. Honestly that doesn't surprise me, nor does it bother me. I don't know too many women who want to work in construction or who are qualified. Strength and physical fitness are important elements in entering the construction field and I'm sure if a woman was interested in this area and did hold the requisite muscularity she could find an employer.
In the end, this part of the bill is a purely symbolic legislation that is unnecessary and intrudes upon private business and also sets a standard that forces employers to categorize people into separate pools such as woman, minority or male instead of evaluating them as individuals, impartially and equally.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Since we're talking about political correctness here, how about a little less in your writing.
"The male could still be hired if the employer sees *his* personality working better for the job" would be more accurate and infinitely more pleasant-sounding.
I agree with the point of your post, but, please, let's not use the grotesque grammar of feminism especially when criticising it.