Greg Clarke's "Once in a Generation" FA Reforms; with added racism and sexism

JON.B said:
Whatever happened to simply employing people who were best qualified and suited for a specific job role, regardless of gender, colour, age, ethnicity or any other definition they can come up with?
Click to expand...

That's what most people want but unfortunately we're a while away from realising that.

I'm not sure about the validity of the experiments (I didn't look too much into it), but I recall reading a few examples where identical resumes were sent in to employers with only the names switched (either typically male or female names) and of course the females were neglected. Similar accounts happen in daily workplace occurrences too, where it's just easier to get the same thing done being a male. We want it to be equal for everyone but implicit (let alone explicit) sexism is a thing.

The other thing to remember is that a group (could be talking about sex, race) may not be the most qualified because of structural sexism or racism etc that exists which limits their potential from the get go. So yeah, even if progress is being made you may need to artificially boost these things until society catches up to the level you want.
 
sammsky1 said:
Too much wrong with this to even start to answer. So I wont bother except to say you're either a troll or incredibly naive.
Click to expand...
Just say it's wrong because you say so and say I must be a troll? Fantastic rebuttal.

sammsky1 said:
Whoopy doo. So what?
Click to expand...
So my education tells me that the conclusions being jumped to are terrible and not supported.

Please see my NBA example above and tell me how that discrepancy is not based on discrimination but this one is? Or just continue to offer no rebuttals, dive to conclusions and call me a troll. If the latter is what you want then we're done.
 
Your NBA example is surely flawed because players - whether Jewish, black, Catholics etc - would still be *men* participating in contests designated for male competitors only. Besides, an actual policy of discrimination needn't exist for there to be discrimination, so rendering it invisible to statistical analysis. A sports' governing body is different though as, in theory at the very least, physical excellence and gender should ideally be irrelevant.
 
Why three women? If they're so insistent on it being fair, why not five women?

Maybe it should be one of each of the predominant races and sexes in the UK. One white man and white woman, one black man and black woman, one south Asian man and woman, etc. Just three women is a cop out.
 
SteveJ said:
Your NBA example is surely flawed because players - whether Jewish, black, Catholics etc - would still be *men* participating in contests designated for male competitors only.
Click to expand...
It's using the same line of thinking which is being used in this case to state there must be gender discrimination because there is a statistical disparity. I just did a quick Google regarding the NFL and it found only 9 players in that were Jewish. If the argument is that statistical disparity evidently, alone demonstrates discrimination against a certain group of people, then I'd assume that in all cases of disparity the same people who come to this conclusion would assume discrimination. There are many factors which could contribute to these things, assuming discrimination doesn't help.

SteveJ said:
Besides, an actual policy of discrimination needn't exist for there to be discrimination, so rendering it invisible to statistical analysis.
Click to expand...
That's correct but I didn't say it did. However the disparity itself does not demonstrate discrimination. Discrimination needs to be demonstrated on a individual case by case basis.

SteveJ said:
A sports' governing body is different though as, in theory at the very least, physical excellence and gender should ideally be irrelevant.
Click to expand...
There's a whole range of factors which could be effecting this. For example, I work in data analysis and the overwhelming , vast majority of people who study similar subjects in higher education are men. I'd guess that 90%+ were men at my university and it's a similar story at every uni in the country. As a result the vast majority of people who work in my field are men. This still leads some people to believe that women are being discriminated against in my field because there is so many more men working in positions in companies in our field, when if anything they've got an advantage as companies don't want to appear to be sexist so the women who do study in our field get an advantage.

Based on the small information we know (simply the number of women who are in these FA board positions), we can't come to a good conclusion of why this is the case without more information.
 
Last edited:
I agree with some of your points, GJ. The waters are often muddied somewhat by obvious egoists like Sol Campbell complaining that he hasn't got the England job. Some people simply are aren't suited to speak for victims of discrimination, as their only 'cause' seems to be themselves.
 
GrandJury said:
There's a whole range of factors which could be effecting this. For example, I work in data analysis and the overwhelming , vast majority of people who study similar subjects in higher education are men. I'd guess that 90%+ were men at my university and it's a similar story at every uni in the country. As a result the vast majority of people who work in my field are men. This still leads some people to believe that women are being discriminated against in my field because there is so many more men working in positions in companies in our field, when if anything they've got an advantage as companies don't want to appear to be sexist so the women who do study in our field get an advantage.
Click to expand...


Actually we do have interesting data from a slightly different era and political system.

In the USSR, the proportion of engineers who were women was over 50% since the 60s. The number of chemistry PhDs going to women was about 40%+. At the same time, these numbers were in the single digits or low double digits in the US. Today, the corresponding numbers for engineers in the US are still low double digits, while female chemistry PhDs are around 30% (IIRC). More interestingly, the number of women engineers in modern Russia has declined since 1991 (fall of the USSR, return of the Orthodox Church), and has now fallen below 50%.
I'm not aware of the statistics for statisticians (heh) but this suggests that professions we tend to see as male-dominated need not necessarily be so - in fact, it suggests that either there is active discrimination (which I know exists, but is perhaps not the dominating factor), or, more likely, that the environment and culture we grow up in is very likely to impact the decisions we make.

Sources:
http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/6985/view
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...en-in-stem-than-america-does-today-180948141/


Edit: China too has >40% female engineers
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/stubborn-obstacles-whats-hindering-female-engineers/
 
Last edited:
Someone's sex and colour has no bearing on their ability to do the job, if the best people are 12 old white men or 12 16 year old black girls then so be it.

Quotas are bullshit.
 
Physiocrat said:
Add one for a disabled member too.
Click to expand...

Not really, everyone is either male or female, so no need to make a case for select groups within the genders. Otherwise the board would have to have about 50 people on it. 3 blokes and 3 women or any sexual orientation, ability or whatever is fair.
Shame we don't live in a world where the best person for the job gets it, regardless of all the bs. FA has been an old boys exclusive club for decades.
 
712 said:
Yeah, I'd just put out an advert for a one-legged mixed-race transgender zoroastrian pygmy ex-prisoner with learning difficulties, that should do it.
Click to expand...

The big question though- male to female or female to male trans?
 
They need to take some of the Premier League's money and actually spend it on grassroots football. Should be subsidising coaching courses for youth coaches all over the country for example. Refereeing too.
 
endless_wheelies said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eg-Clarke-FA-reform-proposals-generation.html

I was wondering what the Cafe thinks of Greg Clarke's proposed FA reforms? Key points as I understand them are-
- Reduction in FA board size from 12 to 10
- Three FA board seats reserved for women
- Term limits for board members set at 3 x 3 Years
- Revamped FA Council with increased ethnic diversity and life/senior vice-presidents losing voting rights


Will these changes be enough to placate the government? Should they be enough? Should three board seats be reserved for women? Is he right that the Premier League should be left to itself?
Click to expand...

Yeah, go on and assume their gender you sexist pigs.

I see no fixed seats for two-spirits. Disgusting.
 
berbatrick said:
Actually we do have interesting data from a slightly different era and political system.

In the USSR, the proportion of engineers who were women was over 50% since the 60s. The number of chemistry PhDs going to women was about 40%+. At the same time, these numbers were in the single digits or low double digits in the US. Today, the corresponding numbers for engineers in the US are still low double digits, while female chemistry PhDs are around 30% (IIRC). More interestingly, the number of women engineers in modern Russia has declined since 1991 (fall of the USSR, return of the Orthodox Church), and has now fallen below 50%.
I'm not aware of the statistics for statisticians (heh) but this suggests that professions we tend to see as male-dominated need not necessarily be so - in fact, it suggests that either there is active discrimination (which I know exists, but is perhaps not the dominating factor), or, more likely, that the environment and culture we grow up in is very likely to impact the decisions we make.

Sources:
http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/6985/view
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...en-in-stem-than-america-does-today-180948141/


Edit: China too has >40% female engineers
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/stubborn-obstacles-whats-hindering-female-engineers/
Click to expand...

Interesting but I do not know how comparable The USSR is to modern, western countries in this regard. The female to male ratio at universities in the UK is around 60/40 and is still increasing. Yet if we take the example of engineering, if you are a male or female I do not believe you will find any difficulty in finding a job in your field as it is such a needed profession and yet women are vastly outnumbered. Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9444289/Women-in-UK-engineering-jobs-worryingly-low.html

Another example from data I've seen, is that when it comes to higher education in the UK at least, men are more likely to study fields which lead to higher paying jobs than their female counterparts (men tend to study subjects like IT and engineering where women are more likely to study art and nursing as an example) and men are also more likely to work full time and work more hours on average. This goes a long way to explaining the gender pay gap for example which people summarise women being discriminated against. Whether this is down to individual choice or other reasons is not clear.

This is why discrimination needs to be proven on a case by case basis and simply people assuming that a statistical disparity must mean inequality is just conjecture.
 
Last edited:
Ducklegs said:
Someone's sex and colour has no bearing on their ability to do the job, if the best people are 12 old white men or 12 16 year old black girls then so be it.

Quotas are bullshit.
Click to expand...

Look, if the people in leadership are 12 old white men, then their decision making will be based on the priorities they see and understand as important. You could argue that an old white man could understand the needs of women, LGBT and ethnic minority players as well as a member of those groups could, and in theory you'd be right, however in practise that's not what has happened. We still don't have a single openly gay player in the league, which is utterly ridiculous. Various ethnic minority groups are still wildly under-represented. Women's football is still way behind where it should be.

In reality you can't have a fully representative leadership without that leadership being comprised of an actually representative group. Maybe one day after sexist and racism and bigotry are eliminated then this could happen, but in today's world its just not realistic.
 
Kentonio said:
Look, if the people in leadership are 12 old white men, then their decision making will be based on the priorities they see and understand as important. You could argue that an old white man could understand the needs of women, LGBT and ethnic minority players as well as a member of those groups could, and in theory you'd be right, however in practise that's not what has happened. We still don't have a single openly gay player in the league, which is utterly ridiculous. Various ethnic minority groups are still wildly under-represented. Women's football is still way behind where it should be.

In reality you can't have a fully representative leadership without that leadership being comprised of an actually representative group. Maybe one day after sexist and racism and bigotry are eliminated then this could happen, but in today's world its just not realistic.
Click to expand...

Those things won't be changed by quotas on the F.A board, these are all wider social issues that really are nothing to do with people whose sole concern is administering a game.

The remit for being on the board should be capability based for all concerned.
 
Ducklegs said:
Those things won't be changed by quotas on the F.A board, these are all wider social issues that really are nothing to do with people whose sole concern is administering a game.

The remit for being on the board should be capability based for all concerned.
Click to expand...

Quotas are just a way of forcing change in the direction it needs to go, and they're only being proposed because the change wasn't happening without them. As for 'the best people for the job' does anyone here genuinely think the FA is being run by the cream of British talent? Really?
 
Kentonio said:
Look, if the people in leadership are 12 old white men, then their decision making will be based on the priorities they see and understand as important. You could argue that an old white man could understand the needs of women, LGBT and ethnic minority players as well as a member of those groups could, and in theory you'd be right, however in practise that's not what has happened. We still don't have a single openly gay player in the league, which is utterly ridiculous. Various ethnic minority groups are still wildly under-represented. Women's football is still way behind where it should be.

In reality you can't have a fully representative leadership without that leadership being comprised of an actually representative group. Maybe one day after sexist and racism and bigotry are eliminated then this could happen, but in today's world its just not realistic.
Click to expand...

hah, I got LGBT in post 3, you're way too slow.
 
So, this guy has allegedly just used the term ‘coloured footballers’ in a meeting with the government about diversity!

I didn’t think I could give up some things again and again.

What a cretin
 
Saw a clip on BBC news, embarrassing stuff. Surely he's got to go.
 
K Stand Knut said:
So, this guy has allegedly just used the term ‘coloured footballers’ in a meeting with the government about diversity!

I didn’t think I could give up some things again and again.

What a cretin
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the term “coloured” is necessarily racist, it’s just the term that a lot of older people use for non-white people, they use it trying to be polite.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
I'm not sure the term “coloured” is necessarily racist, it’s just the term that a lot of older people use for non-white people, they use it trying to be polite.
Click to expand...
Yeah I've heard this before even from family, best thing to do is educate them and move on. It is not said with the intention to offend.
 
fecking hell, did he really say this stuff? Jesus fecking Christ. Some people.

If he says this stuff out loud in an interview, what does he say to privately to friends?
 
I don’t actually think he meant anything malicious with his comments but the way he worded them has really shown him up to be a bit of a dinosaur, the girls not wanting balls kicked at them in particular
 
I can see why coloured isn’t accepted and it’s mainly due to non whites being referred to as coloured, I.e coloured bus queue, white bus queue.

I can also completely see why someone may refer to a non-white as coloured, because people naturally may assume people who aren’t white are coloured, as a lot of people assume colour as non-white.

However when someone in this position says it’s, it’s sheer stupidity. I mean for crying out loud you must know it might offend people.

I did chuckle when I read all his comments and I bet most did.

I do wonder will Gay jokes be banned in all settings, will Race jokes be banned in all settings even comedy clubs, there was talk of this.

Am I wrong to think because Gay jokes apply to all races it does seem a bit more jovial in a comedy setting. Feck knows.
 
SuperiorXI said:
Yeah I've heard this before even from family, best thing to do is educate them and move on. It is not said with the intention to offend.
Click to expand...
Not an excuse for those in charge of governing bodies whose message has a national outreach.
 
Deery said:
I don’t actually think he meant anything malicious with his comments but the way he worded them has really shown him up to be a bit of a dinosaur, the girls not wanting balls kicked at them impartiality.
Click to expand...
I can hear Megan Rapinoe rolling her eyes
 
dal said:
I can see why coloured isn’t accepted and it’s mainly due to non whites being referred to as coloured, I.e coloured bus queue, white bus queue.

I can also completely see why someone may refer to a non-white as coloured, because people naturally may assume people who aren’t white are coloured, as a lot of people assume colour as non-white.

However when someone in this position says it’s, it’s sheer stupidity. I mean for crying out loud you must know it might offend people.

I did chuckle when I read all his comments and I bet most did.

I do wonder will Gay jokes be banned in all settings, will Race jokes be banned in all settings even comedy clubs, there was talk of this.

Am I wrong to think because Gay jokes apply to all races it does seem a bit more jovial in a comedy setting. Feck knows.
Click to expand...

"Coloured" used to be the politically correct way to describe a non-white person but at some point the term "person of colour" replaced it. This is simply an old man mistakenly using the outdated term and as a result lost his job because of it. I'm sure in a few year's time when "person of colour" is no longer acceptable we'll see some other poor bastard make the same mistake and pay the price for it.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
I'm not sure the term “coloured” is necessarily racist, it’s just the term that a lot of older people use for non-white people, they use it trying to be polite.
Click to expand...
What’s specifically wrong or racist with using the word ‘coloured’ and what is the acceptable or appropriate language nowadays?

eg: I saw the term ‘person of colour’ used a lot during the BLM month

in my opinion, ‘white’ people Should lose this term as they are not white, but pink. It’s the appropriation of the colour white and it’s associations that is the core of the problem.
 
Bale Bale Bale said:
"Coloured" used to be the politically correct way to describe a non-white person but at some point the term "person of colour" replaced it. This is simply an old man mistakenly using the outdated term and as a result lost his job because of it. I'm sure in a few year's time when "person of colour" is no longer acceptable we'll see some other poor bastard make the same mistake and pay the price for it.
Click to expand...
A job he clearly was not qualified for. People in senior positions have to know it's been decades since it was at all normal to call people 'coloured'. You're not fit for the job if you don't know that.
 
I am from an ethnic minority and under 30. Can someone explain why "coloured people" is considered offensive? Doesn't seem that different to people of colour? Are people from minorities offended by this? And if we aren't does using it matter? From my (small) circles, it's usually white people that are angry about the use of the term "coloured people" and condemn it.


(Not that I'm saying they shouldn't call out things they feel are offensive to others)

(Also, this isn't to say Greg Clarke is any good)

(feel like I have to clarify everything that is said on this topic, because that is the world we live in right now)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.