tamaghis wrote:mrman1980uk wrote:
Is it not fundamental to the principle of equality of treatment that there are no places where one or other sex ought to be the main focus or in control?
In theory, yes. In practice there are so many instances of hidden discrimination that it sometimes (understatement?) it is fairer to become aware of these differences, and start treating people differently to account for their different treatment in other contexts.
This purported difference between theory and practice is misconceived, and is often an attempt to circumvent analysis. If the theory is descriptive, if it differs from the reality which it describes, the theory is simply wrong. If it is prescriptive, and the practice that it prescribes is different from it, then the practice is wrong in so far as the theory is right (and the rightness of the theory is not determined by the practice).
Also, the idea that unequal treatment can somehow "account for", in general terms, other unequal treatment is equally misconceived. It is impossible to have equal outcomes without equal treatment, as how people are treated is necessarily an important part of every outcome.
The only reason that sexism is wrong in the first place is because the difference in treatment has no rational basis. The reason that makes it wrong necessarily applies to every such case, so it is logically incoherent to claim that difference in treatment on the grounds of sex is justified because others unjustifiably differ in their treatment of others on the ground of sex. When so stated, the absurdity is plain. Indeed, those demanding inequality in the name of equality should be subject to the greatest of suspicion as to their motives, as much of the purported reasoning deployed in favour of such assertions is inherently sectarian and/or bigoted.
mrman1980uk wrote:
The people who cause the problems are the people who think that it matters what sex that people are, except in the very specific situations when it really does (i.e., those necessarily connected to the actual biological difference between the sexes).
Not necessarily, often it is those who claim there is no issue who are most susceptible to implicit discrimination. A heightened awareness can counteract stereotypes or lead to procedures that minimise (implicit) discrimination
Also, real life is incredibly complex and messy. For example, having names on applications often leads to discrimination against woman and ethnic minorities, anonymised applications are better, however may lead to other factors playing a role, e.g. Less experience due to baby years. In an ideal world, a significant number of men might take baby years, and so it wouldn't significantly discriminate one sex, but in the current world it does. So we need to ask whether this amount of experience is really necessary, or it would be less discriminatory to look at a wider sample of applicants/using applicants gender to counterweight some of the imbalances.[/quote]
There is a fundamental difference between claiming that "there is no issue" (i.e., that others do not irrationally distinguish on the ground of sex) and stating that the people who cause the problems are those that think that it matters what sex that people are except when it is biologically relevant: the latter explicitly acknowledges, whereas the former explicitly denies, that there do or may exist bigots who improperly discriminate on the ground of sex (and the same applies equally to all bases on which people may irrationally discriminate).
Your example, I am afraid, does not make any kind of coherent case in favour of discrimination on the ground of sex other than where strictly biologically relevant. Either having more experience genuinely does make the candidate a better employee, in which case it is wrong to prohibit an employer from choosing a candidate on that basis, or it does not, in which case the problem is irrational discrimination on the ground of experience and sex has nothing to do with it. If the issue is that employers might be concerned about a gap in employment history because a person has looked after children, then, again, either this is a genuine cause for concern, in which case it is wrong to prohibit employers treating it as such, or it makes no difference in reality, and it is discrimination on the ground of parental career breaks, not sex, that is the issue. It is irrelevant whether, in fact, as things stand, discrimination against people who have taken career breaks to raise children adversely affects women more than men: if it is not wrong, the differential effect is irrelevant, and, if it is wrong, the prohibition of it would benefit women in the precise proportion in which they suffer detriment. There is no justification anywhere for taking specific account of anyone's sex.
