"simply not enough" women in news, Lords say

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30835704

What complete and utter bilge.

After how many years of equality legislation, whereby it is firmly established that a job should be done by the person most suited for it, without discrimination on ground of race, age, colour, religion, or sex... the house of lords decide that the person who gets the job should be female.

Meh.

BBC breakfast news - Female co-host. Female Sports presenter. Female business correspondent. Female Weather presenter.

On Monday they had 2 reporters on the road and both were female.

Seems to me, women are in the news a lot more than men first thing in a morning!

We have a staff development/progression system that specifically targets women, LBGT and ethnic minorities.

Nevermind the fact that a system already exists which applies to all staff already.........


They never actually seem to understand that certain people do not actually want certain jobs. Preferential treatment is completely unacceptable, but forcing the equilibribrium in jobs not far different.

Seems to me that women outnumber men in the news & as presenters in general.

The article states
"We heard, for example, that men interviewed as experts outnumber women four to one on radio and TV.

"Despite the fact that women make up just over half the population, they are under-represented, both as staff and as experts, in news and current affairs broadcasting."
But do they represent just over half of experts?

And I thought this was a very sexist statement:

"And although we recognise the fact that the nature of the sector means that there are additional barriers to women - for example, the fast-paced nature of news which can mean anti-social hours, and freelance work that can make it harder for women with caring responsibilities - the situation is simply not good enough." Load of rubbish IMO

Typical stereo typing bollocks and patronising nonsense spouted by uninformed idiots who think positive discrimination is a good thing.

Get the right person for the job, simple as.

I think you're being a touch hard on yourself, but if the cap fits...

I'm all out of milk Jim. But will full fat cream do?

Nicely, Joe, thanks!

Our situation may not be typical, but Mrs J is able to choose whether she has paid employment or not. Within my immediate family, 4 out of 6 are/were in the same position as Mrs J. I see it is a positive that she is able to make that choice. It is a choice more readily available to (and socially acceptable for) women.

The more pertinent question is not what percentage of which sex do the job, but what percentage of those able and willing to do the job.

There is a need to combat prejudice. It is not as simple as saying get the right person for the job, as perceptions of who the right person is are skewed (often sub-consciously) by inappropriate and irrelevant considerations. However, requiring a particular percentage of women to be out working sends a message that you are of less worth if you devote your life to something other than being an "economically viable unit". That I live and work so as to allow Mrs J that freedom places a greater value on her, not a lesser.

Hear, hear.