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

[Metaphor]

You didn't read anything I wrote, did you?

I read every prejudiced word you wrote.

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.

This statement compounds your prejudice. It says that men would automatically be in the 'opposite' direction, whatever that means.

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.

You're the one who made the gazelle/lion analogy. For fuck's sake, do you really think that any man in contention for 'sex discrimination officer' could reasonably be called a lion?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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?

I am agnostic. At best you can state what she said in full to provide context. Then, you can say "maybe she's sexist."

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

That is an assumption.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You are making the implicit assumption that sex discrimination is only against women. Since that is not true your argument falls apart.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Does anyone know of any man who has wanted this job and been looked over for it?

 

[Alias2]

The very idea of a sex discrimination commissioner is nuts.

 

[Metaphor]

Does anyone know of any man who has wanted this job and been looked over for it?

Since it's a political appointment, the consideration process is secret, so we'll never know.

But my OP isn't asking people to speculate on whether it will/has happened, but rather, is there a defensible reason to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Does anyone know of any man who has wanted this job and been looked over for it?

Since it's a political appointment, the consideration process is secret, so we'll never know.

But my OP isn't asking people to speculate on whether it will/has happened, but rather, is there a defensible reason to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner?

...but you begin with a premise that it is already being done...which if it is not an arguable point to you, then it has become a distraction throughout the thread.

 

[arkirk]

Since it's a political appointment, the consideration process is secret, so we'll never know.

But my OP isn't asking people to speculate on whether it will/has happened, but rather, is there a defensible reason to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner?

...but you begin with a premise that it is already being done...which if it is not an arguable point to you, then it has become a distraction throughout the thread.

In a funny way I have to agree with Alias 2 on this one....the problem is that the commissioner would be appointed and have all sorts of political strings. These always count for more of what an appointee does...eg. Eric Holder. He was unfit for AG and he proved it. It was all about political debts to bankers. You could have the same thing with a sexual discrimination commissioner and it would be almost invisible. Choosing such a commissioner would be a matter of choosing someone not willing to accept sexual discrimination. That could be a man, but more likely a woman who would be subject to the same kind of inducements to non action. You think Carly Fiorina would be a good bet?...or Ann Coulter?

 

[Metaphor]

Since it's a political appointment, the consideration process is secret, so we'll never know.

But my OP isn't asking people to speculate on whether it will/has happened, but rather, is there a defensible reason to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner?

...but you begin with a premise that it is already being done...which if it is not an arguable point to you, then it has become a distraction throughout the thread.

I believe it to be the case that since the creation of the position (in 1984), the consideration process has discriminated against men in the grossest way it is possible; men as a sex are not even to be considered.

But whether that's true or not, I'm interested in whether people think the idea is defensible.

 

[Metaphor]

...but you begin with a premise that it is already being done...which if it is not an arguable point to you, then it has become a distraction throughout the thread.

In a funny way I have to agree with Alias 2 on this one....the problem is that the commissioner would be appointed and have all sorts of political strings. These always count for more of what an appointee does...eg. Eric Holder. He was unfit for AG and he proved it. It was all about political debts to bankers. You could have the same thing with a sexual discrimination commissioner and it would be almost invisible. Choosing such a commissioner would be a matter of choosing someone not willing to accept sexual discrimination. That could be a man, but more likely a woman who would be subject to the same kind of inducements to non action. You think Carly Fiorina would be a good bet?...or Ann Coulter?

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner is appointed specifically to oversee and uphold the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). Obviously, any appointee would have to be committed to overseeing and upholding the Act, and if you had made public statements, for example, approving of sex discrimination in employment, then you are obviously unsuitable.

But the gender of the appointee is surely irrelevant.

Indeed, the Act also forbids discrimination on sexual orientation or pregnancy status, but it is surely not the case that only a pregnant woman of a minority sexual orientation is suitable.

 

[arkirk]

In a funny way I have to agree with Alias 2 on this one....the problem is that the commissioner would be appointed and have all sorts of political strings. These always count for more of what an appointee does...eg. Eric Holder. He was unfit for AG and he proved it. It was all about political debts to bankers. You could have the same thing with a sexual discrimination commissioner and it would be almost invisible. Choosing such a commissioner would be a matter of choosing someone not willing to accept sexual discrimination. That could be a man, but more likely a woman who would be subject to the same kind of inducements to non action. You think Carly Fiorina would be a good bet?...or Ann Coulter?

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner is appointed specifically to oversee and uphold the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). Obviously, any appointee would have to be committed to overseeing and upholding the Act, and if you had made public statements, for example, approving of sex discrimination in employment, then you are obviously unsuitable.

But the gender of the appointee is surely irrelevant.

Indeed, the Act also forbids discrimination on sexual orientation or pregnancy status, but it is surely not the case that only a pregnant woman of a minority sexual orientation is suitable.

What I have been trying to make clear is that there is a schism between the major parties in our country regarding how many civil rights a woman may exercise. As long as the position is an appointment, it can at times be an appointment of the party and that would severely restrict women's rights. That would be the Republican party. We have demonstrated in our country that our citizens somehow are blind to the interests of the Republican party or at least large factions within that party and they sometimes elect Republicans. So...when that happens, you get a lifeless commissioner who busies him/her/self with undoing the anti discrimination laws as best he/she can from the appointed position. This phenomenon greatly expanded and some feel it started with the administration of Andrew Jackson. and his spoils system. For those who do not understand how it works....TO THE ELECTORAL VICTORS GO THE SPOILS. From that point forward the game got real dirty and today many commissions and secretary positions in government are busy negative engineering the laws of the land for their party. We know this is true but we still try to keep the faith and think it is alright. That is what I was talking about.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

I think you'd be best off with somebody as objective as possible. I wouldn't want somebody who had no idea what gender discrimination was and couldn't identify it, but nor would I want somebody who read gender discrimination into every event and led a witch(or warlock) hunt. I'd want to avoid a "touch of the Derecs" as you say as well as a "touch of the Athenas" when it comes to race. I'd want somebody balanced and as objective as possible, and I don't see why that would have to be a person of one gender or the other.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...but you begin with a premise that it is already being done...which if it is not an arguable point to you, then it has become a distraction throughout the thread.

I believe it to be the case that since the creation of the position (in 1984), the consideration process has discriminated against men in the grossest way it is possible; men as a sex are not even to be considered.

But whether that's true or not, I'm interested in whether people think the idea is defensible.

I think that in theory a man can do the job. In practice, though, maybe most often there will be a more qualified woman for the position than a man...at least currently in our period of history, whatever that means?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...but you begin with a premise that it is already being done...which if it is not an arguable point to you, then it has become a distraction throughout the thread.

In a funny way I have to agree with Alias 2 on this one....the problem is that the commissioner would be appointed and have all sorts of political strings. These always count for more of what an appointee does...eg. Eric Holder. He was unfit for AG and he proved it. It was all about political debts to bankers. You could have the same thing with a sexual discrimination commissioner and it would be almost invisible. Choosing such a commissioner would be a matter of choosing someone not willing to accept sexual discrimination. That could be a man, but more likely a woman who would be subject to the same kind of inducements to non action.

My point was that Metaphor cannot say for sure that there is an actual case of discrimination here.

You think Carly Fiorina would be a good bet?

She could possibly be okay given her experiences, but I do not think she has the technical qualifications. If she were to go get them that would improve her chances at being chosen for such position.

...or Ann Coulter?

Not at all. She has no interest in being serious, just making noise.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

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.

You are making the implicit assumption that sex discrimination is only against women. Since that is not true your argument falls apart.

I acknowledged in two separate places that discrimination occurs against men. Some people read selectively. Some people can only see in terms of black-and-white. Those people appear to be taking the stance that "there are myriad superbly qualified women applying for this job but let's actively search out a man who may be suitable and employ him, because discrimination."

Talk about make my point for me.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Does anyone know of any man who has wanted this job and been looked over for it?

Since it's a political appointment, the consideration process is secret, so we'll never know.

Do you know of any man meeting the qualifications for the job in question? Any man doing work in the field of sexual discrimination?

But my OP isn't asking people to speculate on whether it will/has happened, but rather, is there a defensible reason to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner?

Since i don't know what constitutes defensible, I can't answer that. Defensible in a court of law, defensible in the court of public opinion, defensible with regards to public or private morality, all entail different rules, different qualifications. If you are asking if I personally think is it okay to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner, then the answer is no.

 

[Metaphor]

Since it's a political appointment, the consideration process is secret, so we'll never know.

Do you know of any man meeting the qualifications for the job in question? Any man doing work in the field of sexual discrimination?

But my OP isn't asking people to speculate on whether it will/has happened, but rather, is there a defensible reason to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner?

Since i don't know what constitutes defensible, I can't answer that. Defensible in a court of law, defensible in the court of public opinion, defensible with regards to public or private morality, all entail different rules, different qualifications. If you are asking if I personally think is it okay to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner, then the answer is no.

I mean morally defensible, as you describe above. I also agree with you that it is not okay to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe it to be the case that since the creation of the position (in 1984), the consideration process has discriminated against men in the grossest way it is possible; men as a sex are not even to be considered.

But whether that's true or not, I'm interested in whether people think the idea is defensible.

I think that in theory a man can do the job. In practice, though, maybe most often there will be a more qualified woman for the position than a man...at least currently in our period of history, whatever that means?

You haven't answered my question, though. Is it morally defensible to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Making the decision purely based on gender would be wrong.

No one is really doing that though.

 

[Metaphor]

Making the decision purely based on gender would be wrong.

Almost no decision could be based 'purely' on gender, it is not a necessary condition for maximal discrimination by gender to have occurred. For example, automatically ruling out men as eligible is gross discrimination. Consciously or unconsciously rating male applicants as less suitable because they're men is discrimination. Hiring one candidate over another where the 'tipping' point is that you preferred one gender over the other is also discrimination.

In all of these cases, however, nobody would have been hired 'purely' on gender, because even in the 'only women considered' option, they're presumably still ranking the female candidates against each other on merit.

No one is really doing that though.

Actually, we don't know whether it's going on or not.

I took two lines of evidence and on the balance of probabilities, I think it's happening. The first is that in the entire time the office has existed, only women have been appointed. On its own, of course, this would be very weak evidence. The second line is that the only opinion writer I have seen talk about it does not appear to consider any specific man a possibility or men in general.

So, perhaps you can refine your answer:

Do you believe that it would be wrong to rule out men for consideration, or consciously or unconsciously find them 'less suitable' solely for being a man?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I observe a constant emotional reaction from men (no not all) when it comes to gender issues like discrimination. While this is not a discrimination issue, if you look at the affirmative consent thread, many guys are against taking such a class. It's the kind of knowledge and kind of training here that is relevant. Men [no not all men] are much less likely to have the qualifications because they are much less likely to voluntarily get involved in the training. So given that probability, there easily might not be evidence at all. On the other hand, maybe I have no idea what I am talking about?

So when you write "[t]he first is that in the entire time the office has existed, only women have been appointed," there is an underlying assumption of equal probabilities of a man or woman being most qualified for the office. Like I wrote already to you, in theory, maybe, in practice, maybe not. Along those lines, I see that Athena keeps asking you a question about which men are qualified but you can't answer. Wouldn't you know of one if he were qualified? I will extend that question, for all the years of sex discrimination officers, name a more qualified male candidate than the one appointed. Can you do it? If not, is this evidence of absence?

Do you believe that it would be wrong to rule out men for consideration, or consciously or unconsciously find them 'less suitable' solely for being a man?

If all things in the world were equal I would answer strongly "No." I am still inclined to say No, even in our world.