NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=644961

Örebro University has been found guilty of discrimination by the local Tingsrätt (criminal court of first instance) and has to pay 75000 kr (~ €8220) to two women who were not accepted to a health developer programme on account of the university wishing to positively discriminate men into the field. The court found that while the law allows for the under-represented sex to be given preference, it does so only in cases where the applicants' merits are the same, which they were not in this case (the men had worse grades than the women).

This follows last December's ruling by the Supreme court which found that two Swedish women had been discriminated against by Uppsala University on the basis of ethnicity when 30 of the the 300 seats in its law programme were reserved for applicants that had both parents born abroad; an earmarking without which the women would have been accepted as their grades were better than those of the accepted applicants with immigrant backgrounds. They were awarded the same sum.

I have to say that I support these rulings as it strikes me as deeply unfair, and also a horrible ground for resentment, to apply quotas to people who do not have competitive merits. I do however also support that if one aspect is under-represented and the merits are equal that the universities be allowed to correct that skewness and not create another one instead.

Thoughts?

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=644961

Örebro University has been found guilty of discrimination by the local Tingsrätt (criminal court of first instance) and has to pay 75000 kr (~ €8220) to two women who were not accepted to a health developer programme on account of the university wishing to positively discriminate men into the field. The court found that while the law allows for the under-represented sex to be given preference, it does so only in cases where the applicants' merits are the same, which they were not in this case (the men had worse grades than the women).

This follows last December's ruling by the Supreme court which found that two Swedish women had been discriminated against by Uppsala University on the basis of ethnicity when 30 of the the 300 seats in its law programme were reserved for applicants that had both parents born abroad; an earmarking without which the women would have been accepted as their grades were better than those of the accepted applicants with immigrant backgrounds. They were awarded the same sum.

I have to say that I support these rulings as it strikes me as deeply unfair, and also a horrible ground for resentment, to applies quotas to people who do not have competitive merits. I do however also support that if one aspect is under-represented and the merits are equal that the universities be allowed to correct that skewness and not create another one instead.

Thoughts?

Here in the US, it wouldn't matter if the underrepresented group had worse test scores or worse grades. They would find some other criteria such as "diverse background" to justify taking the people with less capability into the system.

The court found that while the law allows for the under-represented sex to be given preference, it does so only in cases where the applicants' merits are the same, which they were not in this case (the men had worse grades than the women).

did the men in question's grade meet the basic requirements for acceptance?

did the men in question's grade meet the basic requirements for acceptance?

Most universities I know base their basic requirements on their applicants.

Such that, if they get a lot of high-end applicants, they will take as many as they can, going by the best, until they have filled up all seats. Then, the 'worst' of those applicants will be the requirement for next year.

did the men in question's grade meet the basic requirements for acceptance?

The application process is such that without basic requirements for acceptance (1. 90% of all courses one has taken in one's prior schooling must have at least a passing grade; 2. among those must be contained courses deemed prerequisites for the programme, e.g. more advanced maths and physics and chemistry courses for engineering programmes and so on) one is automatically disqualified. Once the basic requirements are met, the GPA or one's SweSAT results are used to rank you among the other applicants.

If, say, there are 200 seats available in your selection group (GPA from a Gymnasium (upper secondary school), or SweSAT score, or SweSAT score + minimum five year work experience, or GPA from a community college being the most common groups when interviews are not used) and you rank in the top 200, you will be accepted. If you rank 201 and below, you won't. What happened in this case is that the women ranked well enough to be accepted but were rejected because men that ranked lower than they were given "their" spots.

Most universities I know base their basic requirements on their applicants.

Such that, if they get a lot of high-end applicants, they will take as many as they can, going by the best, until they have filled up all seats. Then, the 'worst' of those applicants will be the requirement for next year.

yes, but once basic requirements have been met, it seems that there are a number of legitimate ways one could determine bestness. and, in fact, since a single measure is completely inadequate to the job, we must use a combination of things. so maybe one candidate had higher grades and test scores but their writing sample is atrocious, while someone else had the opposite situation - which of them is the best? well that depends. and so, once basic requirements are met, why not include other factors if there is a compelling social justification for them, such as promotion of equality?

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=644961

Örebro University has been found guilty of discrimination by the local Tingsrätt (criminal court of first instance) and has to pay 75000 kr (~ €8220) to two women who were not accepted to a health developer programme on account of the university wishing to positively discriminate men into the field. The court found that while the law allows for the under-represented sex to be given preference, it does so only in cases where the applicants' merits are the same, which they were not in this case (the men had worse grades than the women).

This follows last December's ruling by the Supreme court which found that two Swedish women had been discriminated against by Uppsala University on the basis of ethnicity when 30 of the the 300 seats in its law programme were reserved for applicants that had both parents born abroad; an earmarking without which the women would have been accepted as their grades were better than those of the accepted applicants with immigrant backgrounds. They were awarded the same sum.

I have to say that I support these rulings as it strikes me as deeply unfair, and also a horrible ground for resentment, to apply quotas to people who do not have competitive merits. I do however also support that if one aspect is under-represented and the merits are equal that the universities be allowed to correct that skewness and not create another one instead.

Thoughts?


That sounds a bit off to tell the truth. Underepresentation? Isn't that scewing discrimination law a bit. I thought the idea was to make it so that it is possible for all people irregardless of sex, age, race religioin etc... to have the same chances at these oppertunities. Not exclude one set of people in favour of an 'underepresented' faction?

Isn't that also discrimination?

yes, but once basic requirements have been met, it seems that there are a number of legitimate ways one could determine bestness. and, in fact, since a single measure is completely inadequate to the job, we must use a combination of things. so maybe one candidate had higher grades and test scores but their writing sample is atrocious, while someone else had the opposite situation - which of them is the best? well that depends. and so, once basic requirements are met, why not include other factors if there is a compelling social justification for them, such as promotion of equality?

You seem to be making a compelling argument for promotion of mediocrity.

Point of fact, California universities had a system where a set of seats was automatically reserved for certain minorities. If they didn't have that system in place, 90 percent of the engineering students would be Chinese, Japanese, or Korean, and the rest would be white.

That's what the results would be if we chose people on the basis of their academic performance (and that includes writing).

If we say we want a target of X seats to be filled by people with lesser academic qualifications, but obscure our meaning by saying, "we want people who have had inner city living experiences" we're promoting mediocrity.

In fact, I think that a lot of policies today not only promote mediocrity, they celebrate it.

We're finding newer and better ways to celebrate mediocrity, and slamming people with actual ability.

If we say we want a target of X seats to be filled by people with lesser academic qualifications, but obscure our meaning by saying, "we want people who have had inner city living experiences" we're promoting mediocrity.

or, you know, the increasing spread of excellence in the future. either way.

We're finding newer and better ways to celebrate mediocrity, and slamming people with actual ability.

yes, those poor put upon people at the top of the class. where ever shall they go? i mean, there is only the one university on the entire planet and they only get to apply the once, so they just have no chance.

That sounds a bit off to tell the truth. Underepresentation? Isn't that scewing discrimination law a bit. I thought the idea was to make it so that it is possible for all people irregardless of sex, age, race religioin etc... to have the same chances at these oppertunities. Not exclude one set of people in favour of an 'underepresented' faction?

Isn't that also discrimination?

You've completely missed the point. Say there are two applicants with an identical GPA in a GPA selection group - they can only be set apart scholastically with their GPAs (no other merit-based procedure is available), and that's out the window now. One is a man, one is a woman. The programme they are applying to has so far accepted 75% women and 25% men in that group. That is clearly skewed seeing that the ratio in society is around 50%. So, to correct the under-representation of men in the programme the man is favoured over the woman.

Application processes are discriminative by their very nature. That is what this is about - correcting a skewness on the larger scale by selecting the under-represented when there is no other way to discriminate, thus favouring diversity. But that is only to be available when there is no difference in academic merit is what the courts have ruled.

or, you know, the increasing spread of excellence in the future. either way.

Putting idiots in college doesn't make them any smarter.

Putting idiots in college doesn't make them any smarter.

evidence?
and why should we think that being an idiot meets the basic requirements in most places?

evidence?
and why should we think that being an idiot meets the basic requirements in most places?

The university system in California was (prior to changes forced on them) putting people in university who had test scores that were over 1 standard deviation below average.

The university system in California was (prior to changes forced on them) putting people in university who had test scores that were over 1 standard deviation below average.

and?

You've completely missed the point. Say there are two applicants with an identical GPA in a GPA selection group - they can only be set apart scholastically with their GPAs (no other merit-based procedure is available), and that's out the window now. One is a man, one is a woman. The programme they are applying to has so far accepted 75% women and 25% men in that group. That is clearly skewed seeing that the ratio in society is around 50%. So, to correct the under-representation of men in the programme the man is favoured over the woman.

Application processes are discriminative by their very nature. That is what this is about - correcting a skewness on the larger scale by selecting the under-represented when there is no other way to discriminate, thus favouring diversity. But that is only to be available when there is no difference in academic merit is what the courts have ruled.



Heh on the contary I understand perfectly.

In a scenerio as laid out above, then perhaps some other acedemic test needs to be set, or as is the case in real life, the one that makes the best impression in an interview.

You are correct of course, all selection critaria is by its nature discriminatory. The ratio in socicity need have no bearing on the matter, and is in this instance along the lines of a red herring. I understand that selection criteria needs to be set, and that one methoed or other needs be adhered to, but selection along the lines of sex(to maintian the status quo, or not) is still sexual discrimination. In this cae the selection should have been only along academic lines, at least that way no charges of discrimination can be leveld.

Places and positions should always be allocated upon merit, and nothing else. Whyever should any institution be placed in a situation whereby they could be obliged to forego quality for the purpose of satisfying a quota?

Such a principle only increases resentment towards minorities who one would imagine, if our enlightened legislators feel positive discrimination to be a necessity, are already much resented and discriminated against.

Heh on the contary I understand perfectly.

In a scenerio as laid out above, then perhaps some other acedemic test needs to be set, or as is the case in real life, the one that makes the best impression in an interview.

There are no interviews since it's a GPA group and not an interview group. The whole point of a GPA group is that you apply with nothing else but the GPA.

You are correct of course, all selection critaria is by its nature discriminatory. The ratio in socicity need have no bearing on the matter, and is in this instance along the lines of a red herring. I understand that selection criteria needs to be set, and that one methoed or other needs be adhered to, but selection along the lines of sex(to maintian the status quo, or not) is still sexual discrimination. In this cae the selection should have been only along academic lines, at least that way no charges of discrimination can be leveld.

What part of "there is no difference in the for the group measurable merit" do you not understand? They are equivalent academically - not a single thing differs them in the way we measure them - the GPA.

Men have already been discriminated indirectly by the fact that 75% are women in the group. What you're doing is ignoring that discrimination, as if were somehow less, and focusing on another one, despite the fact that women have already been indirectly favoured.

Places and positions should always be allocated upon merit, and nothing else.

Define an absolute scale of merit for every place and position. Consider that one of the criteria for merit may be diversity.

Whyever should any institution be placed in a situation whereby they could be obliged to forego quality for the purpose of satisfying a quota?

You are arguing against fantasy -- at least as the US is concerned.

Affirmative action programs are adopted from within institutions. They are not imposed from without.

Affirmative action programs in the US almost never involve anything even vaguely resembling a quota.

Affirmative action does not mean a reduction in quality of persons placed.

Such a principle only increases resentment towards minorities who one would imagine, if our enlightened legislators feel positive discrimination to be a necessity, are already much resented and discriminated against.

Heaven forbid the minorities cease to be oppressed. If they were to get ahead, it would cause too much resentment.

Define an absolute scale of merit for every place and position. Consider that one of the criteria for merit may be diversity.<snip>

Affirmative action does not mean a reduction in quality of persons placed.


The moment you change the criteria to de-emphasize test scores and grades in favor of far more subjective criteria such as "family background" or "experience in inner city life" you are reducing the quality.

Diversity is not a criteria, especially when made upon the false science of race.

The moment you change the criteria to de-emphasize test scores and grades in favor of far more subjective criteria such as "family background" or "experience in inner city life" you are reducing the quality.

only if you have defined quality incorrectly. nobody who knows what they are talking about thinks grades and test scores are the be-all and end-all when it comes to criteria for quality. in fact, as a person who happens to be very good at getting good grades and doing well on standardized tests, i can tell you that those things are skills that are essentially divorced from all sorts of other important features of 'quality'.

only if you have defined quality incorrectly. nobody who knows what they are talking about thinks grades and test scores are the be-all and end-all when it comes to criteria for quality. in fact, as a person who happens to be very good at getting good grades and doing well on standardized tests, i can tell you that those things are skills that are essentially divorced from all sorts of other important features of 'quality'.

Diversity is not something that enhances ability. Period.

Diversity is not something that enhances ability. Period.

but it does enhance intellectual perspectives, justice, and future ability.

but it does enhance intellectual perspectives, justice, and future ability.

No, it does not.

No, it does not.

evidence says you=wrong. we've tested this proposition, and these were the results.

evidence says you=wrong. we've tested this proposition, and these were the results.

Sorry, I've had the misfortune to work with the products of educational affirmative action.

We're talking people who have trouble breathing, let alone writing software.

But they're diverse!

We keep them on the contract so that we can claim to be diverse - not that they are able to do any useful work.

but it does enhance intellectual perspectives, justice, and future ability.

No. The great axiom, and flaw, of the proponents of positive discrimination is that diversity is an end in of itself. Diversity does not necessarily introduce a greater range of intellectual perspectives, unless one only allows certain ethnic and social groups to hold certain intellectual views, whilst the contention that diversity increases justice requires qualification. Does an absence of discrimination, and the diversity likely to ensue, increase "justice" within an institution? Yes, however, diversity does not equate to "justice" in an ideological sense; can a homogenous group of white, middle class males still possess, and employ, the very modern sense of justice you espouse? Yes, despite their not being "diverse".

There are no interviews since it's a GPA group and not an interview group. The whole point of a GPA group is that you apply with nothing else but the GPA.

Remember I said 'then perhaps some other acedemic test needs to be set'



What part of "there is no difference in the for the group measurable merit" do you not understand? They are equivalent academically - not a single thing differs them in the way we measure them - the GPA.


Ohhh easy tiger!;) Can I first bring your attention to my quote above. As you should be able to tell from it, I understood perfectly, now can you understand that my post offered a suggestion? Towhit; another acedemic test, or an interview.


Men have already been discriminated indirectly by the fact that 75% are women in the group. What you're doing is ignoring that discrimination, as if were somehow less, and focusing on another one, despite the fact that women have already been indirectly favoured.

How is that discrimination? If 75% of the succesfull applicants are thus far women, does that show inherent discrimination, or does it show only that 75% of the succesfull aplicants to date have been women?

The type of discrimination that law looks after is not one of maintaining the status quo, nor should it be, but rather to enable all people a fair shot. If in this case more sucessfull applicants have been women exactly how and why does that show us that discrimination has been happening?

No. The great axiom, and flaw, of the proponents of positive discrimination is that diversity is an end in of itself. Diversity does not necessarily introduce a greater range of intellectual perspectives, unless one only allows certain ethnic and social groups to hold certain intellectual views, whilst the contention that diversity increases justice requires qualification. Does an absence of discrimination, and the diversity likely to ensue, increase "justice" within an institution? Yes, however, diversity does not equate to "justice" in an ideological sense; can a homogenous group of white, middle class males still possess, and employ, the very modern sense of justice you espouse? Yes, despite their not being "diverse".

Free Soviets believes that you aren't being "just" unless you are also rewarding mediocrity.

I...I...I...god, I never thought I'd say this...I agree with *grits teeth* Fass.

Remember I said 'then perhaps some other acedemic test needs to be set'

And that's nonsensical since the purpose - the raison d'être - of a GPA group is for it to be GPA-based. They are free to apply through some other group if they wish; your suggestion is pointless because it solves nothing within the GPA group.

Ohhh easy tiger!;) Can I first bring your attention to my quote above. As you should be able to tell from it, I understood perfectly, now can you understand that my post offered a suggestion? Towhit; another acedemic test, or an interview.

Again: your suggestion is pointless as it solves nothing.

How is that discrimination? If 75% of the succesfull applicants are thus far women, does that show inherent discrimination, or does it show only that 75% of the succesfull aplicants to date have been women?

The type of discrimination that law looks after is not one of maintaining the status quo, nor should it be, but rather to enable all people a fair shot. If in this case more sucessfull applicants have been women exactly how and why does that show us that discrimination has been happening?

Swedish women overall score better academically than men in current curricula and school systems - this has been known for a long time. The situation is thus that certain highly academically competitive programmes are being, for lack of a better word, emasculated in that women are preselected at every step of the way through this institutional bias and many more of them get better grades than men. So of course it's discrimination to let that stand, and then to favour a man who is academically equal to a woman if the choice stands between them is a natural way of fighting this tendency as a stop gap.

Of course in the long run what is needed are ways of counteracting this bias in favour of women - getting men and boys up to par in an acceptably equal extent - but that's just what that is, long run, and no solution to those already subjected to it. A level playing field should yield roughly 50% of each gender everywhere; where such is not the case, the field is not level or even desirable. You're ignoring all that.

I...I...I...god, I never thought I'd say this...I agree with *grits teeth* Fass.

The cherry popped, it's all smooth sailing.

I hate positive discrimination.....I have two guys at my Uni both of whom are utterly incompetent but will never be sacked due to positive discrimination, and they know it. Grrrrrr!

My concern with affirmative action / positive discrimmination is that it may undermine the people it is supposed to help; i.e. if people are assumed to be in their role only as a result of AA, it will affect the way they are treated, whether they are given responsibilities or new tasks. It may also cause a lack of self confidence if a person feels they didn't really make it on their own merits. however, I haven't seen enough of it to know if that's what happens.

one of the interesting things about 'affirmative action' is that whether you agree with what it is trying to do or not.....it isn't even doing THAT. The claim behind affirmative action is that they are trying to help those without the opportunity to better themselves through education. But somehow, this translates into black, male, female, hispanic, etc. Guess what? There are rich people that went to fancy private schools of every race and gender. There are people of every race and gender that had no money and went to a worthless excuse for a school.

I'd rather have a female Swedish doctor who got into Medical School based on her own merits perform my appendectomy then a male Swedish doctor who got into Medical School based on "Positive Discrimination".

I'd rather have a female Swedish doctor who got into Medical School based on her own merits perform my appendectomy then a male Swedish doctor who got into Medical School based on "Positive Discrimination".

You may have enquired as to what medical school your doctor attended, perhaps even enquired as to how well they did in medical school (although I doubt it). I am rather sure you have never enquired from a doctor as to how he or she got into medical school. It just isn't relevant compared to other information about the doctor.

I'll also note the prerequisite consideration here is that both the female doctor and male doctor met the qualifications ("had the merits") to get into medical school in the first place. The question is just one of distribution among qualified applicants.

I'd rather have a female Swedish doctor who got into Medical School based on her own merits perform my appendectomy then a male Swedish doctor who got into Medical School based on "Positive Discrimination".

Swedish medical programmes have had an almost representative gender ratio for quite some time, so even if this illegal scheme were available, it wouldn't be used. Seeing as you need a 100% GPA/SweSAT score to even have a chance at being accepted to med school in Sweden, it would be quite hard for them to choose anyone with "lower" merits when everyone's are as high as they can be. So, you needn't worry, even if I think it's silly to think that upper secondary school would have anything to do with what one is taught in med school.

Although, it may be worth examining the Swedish educational system is somehow inherently biased against men. Theoretically, men (as a group) should have the same test scores as women, but Fass states that women consistently score higher then men. Although no evidence of this bias exists, it may be worth further investigation.

Be that as it may, there is no reason why any unproven bias would permit obviously underqualified candidates from taking spots away from other qualified candidates based on sex.

The moment you change the criteria to de-emphasize test scores and grades in favor of far more subjective criteria such as "family background" or "experience in inner city life" you are reducing the quality.

"De-emphasize"? How about not consider solely?

What about other criteria like where they went to school, participation in extracurricular activities, talent (athletic, musical, artistic, etc), legacy, strength of essay, etc?

Diversity is not a criteria, especially when made upon the false science of race.

Diversity is a valid goal of an educational institution.

Race, especially as popularly understood, is weak or even false issue as a matter of biology or anthropology. As a socio-political concept, however, race is very real. It is because racism exists that we must have programs that take affirmative action to end it.

Although, it may be worth examining the Swedish educational system is somehow inherently biased against men. Theoretically, men (as a group) should have the same test scores as women, but Fass states that women consistently score higher then men. Although no evidence of this bias exists, it may be worth further investigation.

Oh, there's tonnes of research being done on it, but it seems to have stayed at the research stage. Maybe they found out men are simply dumber and when stripped of the former privileges they hold no candle to women? ;P

Be that as it may, there is no reason why any unproven bias would permit obviously underqualified candidates from taking spots away from other qualified candidates based on sex.

That's what the courts found illegal. Only when their qualifications are equal does the law permit for the under-represented sex to be favoured. Maybe it would be better if they flipped a coin, but that wouldn't equalise, just solidify.

That sounds a bit off to tell the truth. Underepresentation? Isn't that scewing discrimination law a bit. I thought the idea was to make it so that it is possible for all people irregardless of sex, age, race religioin etc... to have the same chances at these oppertunities. Not exclude one set of people in favour of an 'underepresented' faction?

Isn't that also discrimination?

IRregardless? :mad:

Sorry, I had to...

And now to my actual point.

The theory behind Affirmative Action is to counterbalance the existing racism in the higher ranks of companies, colleges, etc. However, in practice, this sort of thing is fairly common, which is a reason why I am against affirmative action.

I'd rather have a female Swedish doctor who got into Medical School based on her own merits perform my appendectomy then a male Swedish doctor who got into Medical School based on "Positive Discrimination".

The positive discrimination your talking about is for someone who has equal or better test scores than a person of the opposite sex. They just given that person preference due to existing discriminations or stereotypes that exist for said industry.

If anything the swedish system should be applauded as quite a well thought out approach.

I'm against all discrimination. Racial, sexual, positive, negative, pancake, syrup, etc.

I'm against all forms of control. Birth control, mind control, self control...
-Rat, "Pearls Before Swine"

You've completely missed the point. Say there are two applicants with an identical GPA in a GPA selection group - they can only be set apart scholastically with their GPAs (no other merit-based procedure is available), and that's out the window now. One is a man, one is a woman. The programme they are applying to has so far accepted 75% women and 25% men in that group. That is clearly skewed seeing that the ratio in society is around 50%. So, to correct the under-representation of men in the programme the man is favoured over the woman.

Application processes are discriminative by their very nature. That is what this is about - correcting a skewness on the larger scale by selecting the under-represented when there is no other way to discriminate, thus favouring diversity. But that is only to be available when there is no difference in academic merit is what the courts have ruled.

As long as judging the under-represented group is based upon application ratios and not societal ratios, I have no problem with this.

If 75% of applicants are female, it does not seem wrong that 75% of accepted applicants are female.

EDIT: Who is this:

http://www.dn.se/content/1/c6/64/39/60/miller153.jpg

Dear Fassigen,

I agree with you.

Love, Ilie.

Dear Fassigen,

I agree with you.

Love, Ilie.

Funny, I agree with him too. And I have been a lot lately.

Which leads to the question of what has he done with the real Fass?

Funny, I agree with him too. And I have been a lot lately.

Which leads to the question of what has he done with the real Fass?

Yes, very frightening. Especially with the rash of "body-snatcher" type movies out lately, like Bug and 28 Weeks Later...

Yes, very frightening. Especially with the rash of "body-snatcher" type movies out lately, like Bug and 28 Weeks Later...

Terrifying, if you ask me.

Terrifying, if you ask me.

Yeah, I can't see that stuff. I have a hard enough time getting to sleep at night...Fass doesn't live around me, right?

I have to say that I support these rulings as it strikes me as deeply unfair, and also a horrible ground for resentment, to apply quotas to people who do not have competitive merits. I do however also support that if one aspect is under-represented and the merits are equal that the universities be allowed to correct that skewness and not create another one instead.

Thoughts?

Sounds about right to me.

EDIT: Who is this:

http://www.dn.se/content/1/c6/64/39/60/miller153.jpg

The text next to the image: Egentligen skulle hon inte få göra rollen. Men Sienna Miller hoppar in i alla fall. Kolla vad nästan alla talar om...

A level playing field should yield roughly 50% of each gender everywhere; where such is not the case, the field is not level or even desirable. You're ignoring all that.

I'm gonna just reply to this bit if ya don't mind. because you see I am not ignoring, it, I just don't know why it is a big deal.

I would ask what exactly is discriminatory(in the wrong way) about an unlevel playing feild? Lets just stick to gender for the mo. If for example there where more male butchers than female, and thus female butchers are massivly underepresented(and infact this is just the case) then what does this show us?

Does it show that there is masive sexual discrimination going on within the butchery trade?
Does it show that woman do not want to be butchers?
Does it show that men are better at the trade than women?

What about my own trade, I work in IT, another feild that is massively underrepresented by females, yet it is because they don't want to work in the trade more so than men being better at it, or there being discrimination based upon gender.

As I have already pointed out the dirscrimination laws that we have are more to do with makeing sure that woman get an equal chance to become butchers, then making sure that the split is 50-50.

If it can be shown that this 75% of places go to women, and that it does so based on merit, then where is the discrimination here? It can only be said that there is any if men are not getting the places soley because they are men. An unlevel playing felid, is not nessicarily an indcation of wrongfull discrimination.