Off topic discussion of the day

It's gotten awfully quiet around here with all the doom and gloom, so I thought I'd raise a debating point -

The BBC's directors have announced that they want to ban all male panel shoes, forcing programs such as mock the week and have I got news for you to have female panellists. Is this right?

My answer is no, purely because it will make sexism worse, not better. The women that do appear on those shows do so on merit, but forcing the show to field women immediately makes it look like the only reason they are there is to fulfill that requirement.

It branches into a deeper argument though - this isn't the only place it happens. It's regularly required for job interviews to invite equal numbers of men and women to interview, and ensure workplaces are split50/50. But surely for the sake of the business and the market it provides, the best candidates should be selected regardless of of that unbalances the sexes? If women aren't getting these jobs then we need to address why they aren't the best candidates, not potentially force a business to hire the wrong person because it looks sexist if they don't hire the woman.

Right? Help me out here guys

Your shovel, mate.....keep on digging......  

Loose women... ban that shite mock the week, 8 out of 10 cats etc ban Them all, but keep celebrity juice,

Nothing to do with sexism its just they're all fecking s**t

I think it kind of sums you up that you want to ban more intellectual comedy like 8 out of ten cats but keep the lowest denominator of panel shows that is celebrity juice vin....

Tache

I agree actually. Without this turning into a political thread, I just don't agree with labour's all women shortlists for the reason you mention red - people should be appointed on merit and not gender.

Rhys wrote:Tache

I agree actually.  Without this turning into a political thread, I just don't agree with labour's all women shortlists for the reason you mention red - people should be appointed on merit and not gender.  

Hurray an ally!

That's my point in a nutshell really - you pick employees on merit not ensuring a balance of genders. If picking the best candidates means you get a workplace full of men or a workplace full of women, then that's just unfortunately how it happened. You should then address why the opposite sex wasn't up to scratch, not start lowering the quality on offer to balance it out.

Now just sit down and take a deep breathe please Red as I don't want you to faint. I agree with you 100%.  

Meh.... so feckin what,

Red, this is ruining your reputation. I agree as well.

Can we agree red writes essays instead of short posts? Can we agree red is an arsehole? Sorry red

I'm agreeing with Tache as well now!

I knew you would have no trouble agreeing with me CS, especially the on the latter part,

Can we also agree that Tache has just demonstrated he's an unfit moderator by calling another mod an a**ehole completely unprovoked?   

Lighten up red Jesus Christ! who lit the fuse on your tampon?

Tans Tache wrote:Lighten up red :sniggers:Jesus Christ! who lit the fuse on your tampon?

Tache if that joke was on purpose it was quite brilliant, but alas I think you're a few cards short of a full house and therefore it was probably entirely accidental