Gender Equality - the real solution
I have been reading a free magazine http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu - Special Issue April 2009 - Women and Science - "The march towards equality".
Read it carefully : the conclusion I reached is ... "if, women seek "potential" gender equality of 40% by positive discrimation/positive action - then 10% actually get there on merit! That means 40% of men experienced "actual" positive discrimination/positive action and 10% of men were meritious - the issue has to relate to equality 50:50".
The article I found most interesting in the magazine was "Developing Diversity - It is a Friday afternoon in a rather special laboratory. One where female researchers are not playing supporting roles". The conclusion - "Engaged on their individual quests, these men and women researchers nevertheless work as team members. "I [Jean-Francois Moreau] believe that a group of men does not necessarily have the same behaviour as a group that includes women. Scientific gender mix is a positive thing. Generally speaking, women seem to me to be more concerned about the common interest. They are also quicker to discover this common interest, whereas the men often persist with their own reasoning". What could possibly be being discussed round the coffee table area that is not being discussed down the pub: positive discrimination [doorstop common interest topic] - perhaps we can see who the lab rats are - controlled experiment! I wonder who realised and who did not!
The solution of positive discrimination and positive action as European FP7 policy appears to me to be not a correct approach to equality. Perhaps FP8 if and when it may occur could have a policy "positive 'no' discrimination" or even "flip a coin" - which would assist meritorious appointment to post and especially positions of power. In any event, the statistics measured against FP7 would be interesting ... Correct me if I am wrong, but I reckon there is unlikely to be a FP7 policy "flip a coin"/positive "no" discrimination!
Furthermore, the solution appears apparent to me - if you 'perceive' you are experiencing a glass ceiling, ask did you put it there yourself, and therefore ask yourself if it is self-imposed what do I need to do to rectify it. INEQUALITY IS something you do to yourself via your own subjectivity!
However, if you are experiencing the "corporate psychopath" and/or corruption and/or organised crime then removal of the obstruction appears to me to be the most sensible route - assuming that you can report misconduct or corruption or organised crime to your "professional bodies" so as to discreetly deal with it - you should not need to professionally whistleblow otherwise. You can also issue Writ and [litigate]/[arbitrate] and ask for the application of the rule of law via the judiciary! Unfortunately, having used this route it generally historically and at the current time is toothless in relation to the Law Society/Bar Council and Judiciary - but then lawyers, barristers, judges are supposed to be "educated and trained" to know better in any event. UNEQUAL is something others do to you via their and others subjectivity - you now know the material difference concerning "Equality".
There is currently prima facia genuine gender equality opportunities available in the police at the moment : never mind "positive discrimination" if you think you have reached a glass ceiling in your police career - carpe diem - clue : politicians : beyond reproach (not) : misconduct in public office (a real offence) and other lesser offences: what are you waiting for ... don't all rush!
Moreover, removing politicians who are not beyond reproach and criminalising means "genuine" authentic "meritorious" opportunities raising the 10% and encroaching on the 40% no need to positively discriminate/positive action. You know it makes sense.
The local Herald & Post last week deserves a mention - 18 police officers were sent round to look at the criminal property damage circumstantially occasioned to "Fred the Shred's" house - a brick apparently smashed a window ... . How many police officers are currently sent round to the Royal Bank of Scotland to investigate the "ponsi scheme" that saw the bank lose £26billion - the highest bank heist in history in the UK. [Micro/Macro criminality - circumstances = consequences or just plain [cause and effect] what's the material difference concerning crime and crimality? Lord Donaldson's two nuclear weapons - the Anton Pillar Order and the Maraeva Injunction do not appear to have been launched ... and nobody apparently knows the whereabouts of 'Fred the Shred' : his boat did not sink attempting to reach an off-shore trust [with that pension] by any chance! My goodness, the gender equality opportunities available for promotion in the Police these days ... you know the reason why you need to go for promotion - you're not going to get it in your pay increase or your pension ... other than via Brown envelopes commonly known as organised crime, legal mafia and corruption - don't even try to claim expenses! misconduct in public office - you never know where these SAS bods can get to these days!
Read it carefully : the conclusion I reached is ... "if, women seek "potential" gender equality of 40% by positive discrimation/positive action - then 10% actually get there on merit! That means 40% of men experienced "actual" positive discrimination/positive action and 10% of men were meritious - the issue has to relate to equality 50:50".
The article I found most interesting in the magazine was "Developing Diversity - It is a Friday afternoon in a rather special laboratory. One where female researchers are not playing supporting roles". The conclusion - "Engaged on their individual quests, these men and women researchers nevertheless work as team members. "I [Jean-Francois Moreau] believe that a group of men does not necessarily have the same behaviour as a group that includes women. Scientific gender mix is a positive thing. Generally speaking, women seem to me to be more concerned about the common interest. They are also quicker to discover this common interest, whereas the men often persist with their own reasoning". What could possibly be being discussed round the coffee table area that is not being discussed down the pub: positive discrimination [doorstop common interest topic] - perhaps we can see who the lab rats are - controlled experiment! I wonder who realised and who did not!
The solution of positive discrimination and positive action as European FP7 policy appears to me to be not a correct approach to equality. Perhaps FP8 if and when it may occur could have a policy "positive 'no' discrimination" or even "flip a coin" - which would assist meritorious appointment to post and especially positions of power. In any event, the statistics measured against FP7 would be interesting ... Correct me if I am wrong, but I reckon there is unlikely to be a FP7 policy "flip a coin"/positive "no" discrimination!
Furthermore, the solution appears apparent to me - if you 'perceive' you are experiencing a glass ceiling, ask did you put it there yourself, and therefore ask yourself if it is self-imposed what do I need to do to rectify it. INEQUALITY IS something you do to yourself via your own subjectivity!
However, if you are experiencing the "corporate psychopath" and/or corruption and/or organised crime then removal of the obstruction appears to me to be the most sensible route - assuming that you can report misconduct or corruption or organised crime to your "professional bodies" so as to discreetly deal with it - you should not need to professionally whistleblow otherwise. You can also issue Writ and [litigate]/[arbitrate] and ask for the application of the rule of law via the judiciary! Unfortunately, having used this route it generally historically and at the current time is toothless in relation to the Law Society/Bar Council and Judiciary - but then lawyers, barristers, judges are supposed to be "educated and trained" to know better in any event. UNEQUAL is something others do to you via their and others subjectivity - you now know the material difference concerning "Equality".
There is currently prima facia genuine gender equality opportunities available in the police at the moment : never mind "positive discrimination" if you think you have reached a glass ceiling in your police career - carpe diem - clue : politicians : beyond reproach (not) : misconduct in public office (a real offence) and other lesser offences: what are you waiting for ... don't all rush!
Moreover, removing politicians who are not beyond reproach and criminalising means "genuine" authentic "meritorious" opportunities raising the 10% and encroaching on the 40% no need to positively discriminate/positive action. You know it makes sense.
The local Herald & Post last week deserves a mention - 18 police officers were sent round to look at the criminal property damage circumstantially occasioned to "Fred the Shred's" house - a brick apparently smashed a window ... . How many police officers are currently sent round to the Royal Bank of Scotland to investigate the "ponsi scheme" that saw the bank lose £26billion - the highest bank heist in history in the UK. [Micro/Macro criminality - circumstances = consequences or just plain [cause and effect] what's the material difference concerning crime and crimality? Lord Donaldson's two nuclear weapons - the Anton Pillar Order and the Maraeva Injunction do not appear to have been launched ... and nobody apparently knows the whereabouts of 'Fred the Shred' : his boat did not sink attempting to reach an off-shore trust [with that pension] by any chance! My goodness, the gender equality opportunities available for promotion in the Police these days ... you know the reason why you need to go for promotion - you're not going to get it in your pay increase or your pension ... other than via Brown envelopes commonly known as organised crime, legal mafia and corruption - don't even try to claim expenses! misconduct in public office - you never know where these SAS bods can get to these days!
posted by Lesley McDade at 4:37 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home