The way we treat each other can perhaps be linked to the way in which we view each other; and an inequality of regard can lead to an inequality of treatment.  Hence, many societies have laws against discrimination, to ensure that even where an individual’s regard may be biased, their behaviour cannot reflect this bias.

The rules against discrimination can be quite restrictive; in France for example, the anti-discrimination laws clearly specify 25 criteria which cannot be used to discriminate between people; ranging from Customs and Religion, to Name and Nationality.  These criteria cross all domains including employment, and indeed, the only criteria that can be used for discrimination when seeking an employee are those which are specifically related to the completion of the job required – therefore as an employer in France I am not permitted to specify in my job advert that I am looking for a specific gender to fill the role – unless, for example the presence of a uterus is a requirement to fulfil the job (such as in child birth).  Yet, these ant-discrimination laws do not apply universally, there are exceptions granted for some areas of life:  of which possibly the most notable are religion, sports and acting…  Religious institutions for example are permitted to maintain discriminatory policies such as that held by the Catholic church which precludes women from being ordained as priests.  Sporting associations can select athletes of a specific gender, and the acting/ entertainment community can also discriminate on gender.

Why should this be important?  The creation of anti-discrimination laws is designed to ensure that all people can be treated equally, that no person or group of people can be subjugated or oppressed.  However, I would contend that every exception to those laws, weakens them; to the extent that discrimination persists.

In the case of religion, religious institutions are permitted to maintain certain discriminatory practices because they are considered to be organisms of conviction.  In the case of the Catholic Church, women are considered ineligible for ordainment by the institution itself – although the reasons for this seem (to the uninitiated) to be vague at best:

1. Jesus did not select any women as apostles
2. the church considers that men and women have different roles in life
3. it has been like this for 2000 years

I would question all of these, simply because they add up to the church basically saying “…because we say so…”.  However, on a point of principal, I would argue that if we followed the last of these points, then we would still be living in caves and banging rocks together to make music!!  The fact that you have done something before cannot be used as a justification for doing it again!

The tolerance by society of a religion’s refusal to employ women in certain positions – for which they are perfectly capable – is nothing short of discriminatory.  This practice allows both the religion and society to continue to send the message that there are some jobs for which women are not fit.  Not only is this a contradiction of the society’s values, but it is also a tacit acceptance that the ‘word of god’ takes precedence over the word of humans – a remarkable position for a lay republic such as France to take one might think.  Permitting such an exception surely serves only to set the example that any person or body who holds a view sufficiently strongly should be able to exercise that view – in which case the Ku Klux Klan should be allowed to discriminate against all non-whites since this is a view they have held for more than 150 years…

Discrimination of this type is not limited to religion however, if we look at the entertainment industry, it is apparently acceptable (in French law) for candidates to be sought and chosen based upon not only their gender, but also other physical features such as height and shape. This absence of anti-discrimination law permits that the industry be moulded and shaped according to specific (and subjective) design.  This allows direct control over the images portrayed by the industry, and in an industry whose role includes the portrayal of society, this effectively allows a control over what is considered to be normal.  If say, such an industry favoured the employment of slim, blonde women, this would permit that anyone looking at society through this medium would think that only slim, blonde women were of value and that all other women were inferior…

Even if we step away for a moment from the question of the fact that there is no reason that a female character needs to be portrayed by a women, and a male character by a man (except perhaps in pornography) we are faced with the real question of why we should want a role to be filled by a person of a specific gender, as such practice serves only to reinforce (or break?) stereotypes.  Surely, this is a key area in which equality should be targeted – since the media is responsible for the broadcast of images across nationalities/ languages and cultures.

Permitting such an exception for actors and models also however infuses other areas: the automotive industry has historically only used pretty women as promotional agents at shows – a practice which is clearly discriminatory, since gender is not a requirement for the job.  However, when tackled with this, they circumvented the law by employing ‘models’ – who of course, can be selected based on sex, size and shape…

Exceptions to the laws of discrimination do not protect specific industries, they permit agencies to bypass the law.  Either we believe as a society that all people are equal, or we do not.  If we believe that they are equal, then no form of discrimination can be accepted; be this in religion, sport or acting.  If however, we accept that people are not equal, then it would seem reasonable to lay down the criteria for this belief, so that people can be aware of their entitlement rights from birth.