Is it okay to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner?

[Metaphor]

The opening paragraphs of this article caught my attention

We need a new federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

We must all call on the government to do the right thing and appoint the best woman to the job.

For context, from wiki

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner is an Australian federal government position established to oversee the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The position was created alongside the Act as one of the specialist commissioners of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

It does not seem that a man has ever been considered for the role, although I can find nothing to explain why the role of Sex Discrimination Commissioner is automatically considered a position only suitable for a woman.

Indeed, the Act itself seems to make such a restriction unlawful, if the Federal Government is considered an 'employer'

Discrimination in employment or in superannuation
(1) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities:

(a) in the arrangements made for the purpose of determining who should be offered employment;

(b) in determining who should be offered employment; or

(c) in the terms or conditions on which employment is offered.

The Act itself appears to 'bind the Crown' (although strangely says the Crown can't be prosecuted, which makes me wonder what it means to bind the Crown.

Extent to which Act binds the Crown
(1) This Act binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth and of Norfolk Island but, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, does not bind the Crown in right of a State.

(2) Nothing in this Act renders the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, of a State or of Norfolk Island liable to be prosecuted for an offence.

Does anyone agree in principle that it is permissible or desirable to discriminate by sex in the appointment of a sex discrimination commissioner?

 

[bigfield]

Jenna Price evidently thinks that only women should be considered for the role, and that's ironic, but that's merely her opinion, not the opinion of the Government.

It does not seem that a man has ever been considered for the role, although I can find nothing to explain why the role of Sex Discrimination Commissioner is automatically considered a position only suitable for a woman.

You're jumping to the conclusion that men are actually being excluded. Your only evidence is that the position has only ever been held by women; Price's opinion is irrelevant. It's quite plausible that the best person for the job has been a woman each time, and that the Government has not broken the laws against sex discrimination.

Your conclusion could be right--the government might see the appointment of a man as political suicide--but you simply haven't demonstrated it to be the case.

Does anyone agree in principle that it is permissible or desirable to discriminate by sex in the appointment of a sex discrimination commissioner?

In principle, it would neither be desirable nor permissible. The avoidance of an 'old boy's club' is a weak justification.

 

[Metaphor]

You're jumping to the conclusion that men are actually being excluded.

Actually, I'm not suggesting that it is incontrovertibly the case that the appointments have been sex discriminatory. I'm not privy to the parliamentary selection proceedings, but Price's article doesn't even consider the possibility that the role might be filled by a man. Coupled with the appointment history, the multiple lines of evidence is suggestive that there is ubiquitous acceptance of the belief that the role is only for a woman.

Your only evidence is that the position has only ever been held by women; Price's opinion is irrelevant. It's quite plausible that the best person for the job has been a woman each time, and that the Government has not broken the laws against sex discrimination.

If my reading of the Act is correct, it wouldn't matter if the Government had, as the Government is 'bound' by the Act but there's no enforcement mechanism. Which is the same as saying they're not bound.

Your conclusion could be right--the government might see the appointment of a man as political suicide--but you simply haven't demonstrated it to be the case.

I think there's zero possibility of any man being considered even in principle for the role. Now, maybe 'political suicide' is one of the exemptions that the Act provides, but I doubt it.

 

[bigfield]

Actually, I'm not suggesting that it is incontrovertibly the case that the appointments have been sex discriminatory. I'm not privy to the parliamentary selection proceedings, but Price's article doesn't even consider the possibility that the role might be filled by a man. Coupled with the appointment history, the multiple lines of evidence is suggestive that there is ubiquitous acceptance of the belief that the role is only for a woman.

I have no doubt that plenty of people hold that belief.

But also consider that it may be vanishingly rare for a man to have the necessary credentials for this job, which includes a history of work related to gender equity. That would justify Price excluding men in her article.

Your only evidence is that the position has only ever been held by women; Price's opinion is irrelevant. It's quite plausible that the best person for the job has been a woman each time, and that the Government has not broken the laws against sex discrimination.

If my reading of the Act is correct, it wouldn't matter if the Government had, as the Government is 'bound' by the Act but there's no enforcement mechanism. Which is the same as saying they're not bound.

I think you're right about that, too.

It's ironic that sex discrimination is permissible in the appointment of the sex discrimination commissioner. It's a 'do as I say, not as I do' arrangement.

Your conclusion could be right--the government might see the appointment of a man as political suicide--but you simply haven't demonstrated it to be the case.

I think there's zero possibility of any man being considered even in principle for the role. Now, maybe 'political suicide' is one of the exemptions that the Act provides, but I doubt it.

I don't consider it a valid justification, simply a likely one.

 

[Tigers!]

But also consider that it may be vanishingly rare for a man to have the necessary credentials for this job, which includes a history of work related to gender equity. That would justify Price excluding men in her article.

When you consider that including the state/territory appointments no male has ever been appointed.

The reason no male has the necessary credentials is that men are not even considered suitable.

Reminds me of the Proudfoot affair.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But also consider that it may be vanishingly rare for a man to have the necessary credentials for this job, which includes a history of work related to gender equity. That would justify Price excluding men in her article.

When you consider that including the state/territory appointments no male has ever been appointed.

The reason no male has the necessary credentials is that men are not even considered suitable.

Reminds me of the Proudfoot affair.

The reason no male has the necessary credentials is that men are not even considered suitable?

Are you saying that in reality there are men with similar credentials to the women who have held the position, but they were not considered?

 

[bigfield]

But also consider that it may be vanishingly rare for a man to have the necessary credentials for this job, which includes a history of work related to gender equity. That would justify Price excluding men in her article.

When you consider that including the state/territory appointments no male has ever been appointed.

The reason no male has the necessary credentials is that men are not even considered suitable.

Just a guess on your part.

 

[Tigers!]

When you consider that including the state/territory appointments no male has ever been appointed.

The reason no male has the necessary credentials is that men are not even considered suitable.

Just a guess on your part.

You know of a male in either state or commonwealth that has been appointed sex discrimination commissioner?

- - - Updated - - -

When you consider that including the state/territory appointments no male has ever been appointed.

The reason no male has the necessary credentials is that men are not even considered suitable.

Reminds me of the Proudfoot affair.

The reason no male has the necessary credentials is that men are not even considered suitable?

Are you saying that in reality there are men with similar credentials to the women who have held the position, but they were not considered?

If a male is never given the opportunity w ewill never know if they are suitable.

Feminists constantly complain that women are never given certain opportunities. Seems like the case but in reverse here.

 

[bigfield]

Just a guess on your part.

You know of a male in either state or commonwealth that has been appointed sex discrimination commissioner?

I did not mean that you were guessing that no man has ever been appointed commissioner. That's an easily verified fact.

I meant that you are guessing that "men are not even considered suitable".

If a male is never given the opportunity w ewill never know if they are suitable.

One can be considered suitable for a job but not be given the job. This is true for countless job applicants around the world who looked over in favour of someone else who is even more suitable.

It may be possible that men are excluded from the selection process entirely because of their sex, but you can't possibly know that simply by looking at the successful candidates. You have failed to rule out the plausible alternative that the selection process has been entirely fair but that in every case, the most meritorious choice for the job was a woman.

Feminists constantly complain that women are never given certain opportunities. Seems like the case but in reverse here.

If a feminist were to follow the same line of reasoning as you have done here, they would only be correct by luck.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Just a guess on your part.

You know of a male in either state or commonwealth that has been appointed sex discrimination commissioner?

- - - Updated - - -

When you consider that including the state/territory appointments no male has ever been appointed.

The reason no male has the necessary credentials is that men are not even considered suitable.

Reminds me of the Proudfoot affair.

The reason no male has the necessary credentials is that men are not even considered suitable?

Are you saying that in reality there are men with similar credentials to the women who have held the position, but they were not considered?

If a male is never given the opportunity w ewill never know if they are suitable.

That doesn't answer the question. Are you saying that in reality there are men with similar credentials to the women who have held the position, but they were not considered?

Feminists constantly complain that women are never given certain opportunities. Seems like the case but in reverse here.

What feminists are saying hire women for work for which they have no training nor inclination?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's more of the quote.

We need a new federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

We must all call on the government to do the right thing and appoint the best woman to the job.

There is an excellent list of possible candidates: former attorney-general Nicola Roxon, esteemed law and gender researcher Susan Harris-Rimmer, former Westpac chief executive Gail Kelly, award-winning journalist Virginia Haussegger, the Australian Bar Association president Fiona McLeod and onwards.

 

[arkirk]

A lot of us are suspicious of committees, thinking of them merely as ruling cliques. Our problem with discrimination of any kind (sexual included) is in imagining one can appoint some sort of czar to "take care of the problem." The idea being we can find someone who can take care of the problem and we will of course trust him/her to use good judgment in the their "job." Unfortunately, things don't work that way. These commissioners and the like are all beholden to the people who appoint them and that is problematic when it comes to sexual discrimination. A lot of right wing arguments revolve around the differences between men and women. A commissioner from the right wing will do the exact opposite of what the position calls for because the right wing believes in DISRCRIMINATION....SEXUAL, IN THE MATTER OF VOTING, IN THE MATTER OF SALARY, IN THE MATTER OF BEING GOD FEARING, in the matter of women having control over what happens in their bodies. That takes me back to our suspicions of committees. I feel the problem with appointed leadership in discrimination matters can only be overcome by direct democratic actions and not by the actions of people who pick and choose what they do.

A case in point being Eric Holder who didn't do his job prosecuting banking heads who destroyed the working peoples' economies which incidentally are still on the rocks. The same political rules seem to apply. If you can bamboozle your way into an appointed position of power you get powers you can use to YOUR, not the PEOPLE's advantage. I am sure there are men who would benefit the rights of women. The problem is that these men are too principled to resort to the skulduggery it takes to get appointed to a position where they might be able to help. It is a dilemna what with lying politicians and their slimey appointments.

 

[Metaphor]

Here's more of the quote.

We need a new federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

We must all call on the government to do the right thing and appoint the best woman to the job.

There is an excellent list of possible candidates: former attorney-general Nicola Roxon, esteemed law and gender researcher Susan Harris-Rimmer, former Westpac chief executive Gail Kelly, award-winning journalist Virginia Haussegger, the Australian Bar Association president Fiona McLeod and onwards.

What purpose does quoting more of the article serve? Is there some doubt that there are women qualified to hold the position?

 

[arkirk]

Here's more of the quote.

What purpose does quoting more of the article serve? Is there some doubt that there are women qualified to hold the position?

Perhaps there is nobody qualified to hold the position as it is a political appointment for a nearly intractable problem. The position exists to create the illusion something is being done about sexual discrimination when nothing of the kind is happening on a very large scale in this country whose legislature is persecuting Planned Parenthood.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's more of the quote.

What purpose does quoting more of the article serve? Is there some doubt that there are women qualified to hold the position?

Suppose Al Gore said to W during the election, "may the best man win." Would you complain that Al Gore is sexist?

I am not stating that this is the exact same thing but it does provide a context to know who the persons are who have the most likely shots at the position as in the case of Al Gore and Bush.

 

[Metaphor]

What purpose does quoting more of the article serve? Is there some doubt that there are women qualified to hold the position?

Suppose Al Gore said to W during the election, "may the best man win." Would you complain that Al Gore is sexist?

I am not stating that this is the exact same thing but it does provide a context to know who the persons are who have the most likely shots at the position as in the case of Al Gore and Bush.

It isn't even close the the same thing. The next President will either be whoever the Republican candidate is or whoever the Democrat candidate is, so the field is literally two people wide and in the case of Gore v Bush, the word 'man' applies.

Do you believe Jenna Price made a gender-blind search and assessment of qualified candidates, noticed that all her selections happened to be women, and then decided to open her article with a gender-exclusive noun?

Sir, she did not. She took it for granted that the position belongs to a woman and proceeded with her research accordingly.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

From her article we can conclude that Jenna Price wrote something sexist, but that is really all we can conclude without more information.

I do find it refreshing that nobody in this thread has yet argued that yes, it is appropriate to exclude men from consideration for this position.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

From her article we can conclude that Jenna Price wrote something sexist, but that is really all we can conclude without more information.

I do find it refreshing that nobody in this thread has yet argued that yes, it is appropriate to exclude men from consideration for this position.

I may be about to disappoint you, but bear with me.

In a society where gender discrimination was 50/50 in either direction, either gender could adequately fill this role. In a society where the balance is redressing with each passing year but the predominance of discrimination is still against women, I suspect only a woman has the lived experience to be effective and passionate in this area.

A man who has personal experience of gender discrimination (and it certainly does happen in the other direction, but it's not as entrenched) is likely to have a touch of the Derecs about him, and there is a possibility he has sought the role for the wrong reasons. A woman with a comparable bias would at least be competent to identify discriminations which men, even the best of them, have a tendency to deny.

Having said that, I would be surprised by any claims that any of the women listed above would be subject to bias, if discharging this duty.

To put a man at the head of this particular Commission would be analogous to putting a lion in charge of the gazelle park. It may be a perfectly just and unbiassed lion but he would have to be something special, in terms of life experience, before he could come to an understanding of the dynamic that every woman lives with, the minute she enters the workforce.

There are historical and practical reasons, not to exclude men from consideration, but to only choose one if they show a level of understanding of the issues commensurate with that which comes with the territory of being female. There are so many eminently qualified gazelles out there.

 

[Metaphor]

I suspect only a woman has the lived experience to be effective and passionate in this area.

You realise, I'm sure, the irony of your position? You are prejudging an entire gender as incapable of being effective and passionate on a particular issue.

Having said that, I would be surprised by any claims that any of the women listed above would be subject to bias, if discharging this duty.

So, any man in the position is likely to be biased, but no woman is?

To put a man at the head of this particular Commission would be analogous to putting a lion in charge of the gazelle park. It may be a perfectly just and unbiassed lion but he would have to be something special, in terms of life experience, before he could come to an understanding of the dynamic that every woman lives with, the minute she enters the workforce.

So, all men are predators, and all women are victims? If not, what is this analogy about?

 

[spikepipsqueak]

You realise, I'm sure, the irony of your position? You are prejudging an entire gender as incapable of being effective and passionate on a particular issue.

Having said that, I would be surprised by any claims that any of the women listed above would be subject to bias, if discharging this duty.

So, any man in the position is likely to be biased, but no woman is?

To put a man at the head of this particular Commission would be analogous to putting a lion in charge of the gazelle park. It may be a perfectly just and unbiassed lion but he would have to be something special, in terms of life experience, before he could come to an understanding of the dynamic that every woman lives with, the minute she enters the workforce.

So, all men are predators, and all women are victims? If not, what is this analogy about?

You didn't read anything I wrote, did you? I pointed out that the passion would be at least be in the direction that favours the reason for the creation of the Commissioner in the first place.

And I'm a bit sick of how, when people make a statement which discusses a situation on balance, you always go to all this and all that. It's not what I said, and you have the reading comprehension to know it. Any time you want to discuss what I actually said, I'm up for it.