The problems with gender equality while trying to satisfy the numbers game in jobs

I WAS amazed on reading the Agenda article by Meryl Kenny article (“Gender quotas ensure the best and brightest candidates are selected”, The Herald, January 12), to find that an academic could write such a biased and selective article on the gender balance question.

The entire article completely omits some critical points that destroy the validity of the conclusions.

Phrases such as “assumption … that women have less merit than men” and “focus on women’s (perceived lack of) merit” reflect a patently false syllogism for anyone with a modicum of training in logic, which goes something like this:

Most top positions are filled by men;

More men than women are in top positions;

Therefore men show greater merit than women.

This is nothing more than a numbers game and is patently false as it excludes all other factors that affect selection.

Do equal numbers always wish to apply? Or have the same level of suitability? It could be that the work/ responsibilities of the post appeal more to men than women; the post could involve conflict with other responsibilities that some women may feel are more important to them; more men may have the particular qualifications and experience required; and sometimes only men (or, for that matter, women) might wish to apply, so that selecting the most suitable might upset the gender balance; and there is the fact, most often ignored, that there are still large numbers of women who may deliberately choose to put family first and just remain in work they enjoy, rather than focus on a career.

I wholeheartedly agree with the drive for equality of opportunity, but if we insist on that opportunity being taken by some who do not want it, to satisfy a numbers game, we deny the diversity of personal ambition and the right of choice. P Davidson, Gartcows Road, Falkirk. MERYL Kenny’s Agenda is a classic example of feminist doublethink, in that discrimination against women is wrong but discrimination against men is not. The headline claims that gender quotas ensure the best candidates are selected, but this presumably would not apply if the best turned out to be male.

Her claim that voters do not penalise “quota women” is incorrect. There was an example in Wales a number of years ago (the constituency’s name escapes me) where the sitting Labour MP was deselected and replaced by a woman, despite being highly regarded. He was simply the “wrong” sex. He subsequently stood as an independent and won. This suggests that choosing a woman because she’s a woman is not a strategy to win over voters.

Dr Kenny makes no mention, of course, of when it would become okay to choose a man.

I rather suspect the answer would always be “not yet”. Alan Jenkins, 0/1, 111 Helensburgh Drive, Glasgow.