Equality and Diversity Laws, should these be scrapped??

If only there was a way to know that it never works out the way they think it will.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/insight/trump-faces-steep-drop-in-young-male-support-amid-record-low-polls/gm-GM5B2451BC

If women ‘take’ jobs, who is losing them, and why did they (the losers) have them in the first place? Also, what can the colour of someone’s skin have to do with their ability to do a job?

EDI laws don’t privilege anyone- they just ensure that attitudes such as David’s don’t affect opportunities for anyone other than white men. Or at least that is the intention. If recruiters have to show that they have not discriminated against the disabled (who may be white men) people of colour (who may be men) gay people (who may be white men) and so on, then jobs can be ‘taken’ by the most suitable candidates. If a white male gets the job, then he will know that he is the best candidate, not that he got it yo keep out pesky women or upstart people of colour.

But I remember David backing out of a similar argument some time ago by saying he had enjoyed winding us all up, so I am a bit reluctant to give this part if the discussion any more candle.

I will say that I very much disagree with KB, however.

Iam64

It’s interesting that domestic abusers appear to be overly represented in those arrested in public order / riots like in Southport and other areas

Oh David - you really don't have a clue what it has been like for so many women in our lifetimes, do you? And we manage at last to get to a situation where women have more power an equality, get decent education and often achieve more than men:
and at last listened to, to a degree, as regards abuse of different kinds, and come along and say how you understand these poor entitled white males because of the changes.

I did reflect on that, Iam. I think it's maybe that those are the more obvious, as in but it's actually across the board when you consider coercive abuse too? You've worked in the field far more than my limited personal and voluntary organisation contacts however.

David49

There is a perception amongst men, some women too that benefits are too easy to claim and to generous to non working people groups which they are paying for.

Badenoch is going to get a lot of support if this policy is promote, she is not a polititian that I favour but many will.

There is a perception amongst men, some women that benefits are too easy to claim
Not amongst people who've family or friends needing support. Why politicians are allowed to lie about benefit-related subjects - it's quite beyond me

David49

There is a perception amongst men, some women too that benefits are too easy to claim and to generous to non working people groups which they are paying for.

Badenoch is going to get a lot of support if this policy is promote, she is not a polititian that I favour but many will.

When you say non-working people, do you mean people who are unemployed, or does that include disabled people, carers, and pensioners? These are all people getting benefits.

It’s interesting that domestic abusers appear to be overly represented in those arrested in public order / riots like in Southport and other areas

I am all for a more productive discussion.

David49

twaddle

David49

Discrimination and equality has gone mad there is only one group that is not vulnerable, white males, assuming they are not gay, disabled or some other disadvantage.
It doesn't affect me Im old and vulnerable now, so enjoying the advantages, that women, migrants, ethnic this or that and all the other groups have been getting.

In my opinion, that's a gross exaggeration.

White males are the largest group voting for Reform, not just high earners, working class too, they are very dissatisfied, this spills over into the riots we see in Southampton and Belfast. They are fed up with discrimination against them in many many ways, not least by women taking many of the jobs.

There is clearly a significant level of dissatisfaction among some voters, including many white working-class men, and that helps explain support for Reform. Concerns about economic insecurity, housing, wages, public services, cultural change, and trust in political institutions are real and deserve to be taken seriously.

However, it's important to distinguish between dissatisfaction and the reasons attributed to it. Claims that white men face widespread discrimination or that women are "taking many of the jobs" are contentious and require evidence (something David doesn't offer). Employment is not a fixed pie where one group's gains automatically come at another group's expense. Women's increased participation in the workforce has largely reflected social and economic changes rather than jobs being taken from men.

Similarly, riots and public disorder are complex phenomena. They can be influenced by political grievances, economic conditions, social tensions, misinformation, local circumstances, and the actions of specific groups. It is difficult to attribute them to a single cause or to the views of any one demographic group.

A more productive discussion is not whether one group is to blame, but why some people feel left behind - why they feel they should automatically be given jobs others can do better - and which policies might address those concerns without turning different groups against each other.

My DIL is an engineer, and is head of her department. She has been consulted by an eminent university regarding the content and structure of their postgraduate courses.
Maybe the men in her team feel the need to " push back" ...or maybe they respect her as a knowledgeable leader

Maremia

Men are pushing back, to get back to where?

The nineteenth century, I think...

Men are pushing back, to get back to where?

The M word?

What changes are men pushing back against

You're not an Andrew Tate fan, are you David?

I wondered when someone would use the M word it's the answer to everything, but it doesnt change anything, men are pushing back against the changes that are happening

That's why society is changing in ways you don't like

Blinko I couldn’t agree more and “Jobcentre” as a name is completely misleading!!

David, your comments are exactly the kind that fuel outbreaks of violence and misogyny. Women taking jobs - speechless here

There needs to be a complete review of the entire job centre service, much longer appointments, removal of pointless and penalising staff targets, much closer links between job centre work coaches and local employers, better use of targeted training for claimants at all levels and then moving onto employment specific training targeted at vacancies in the VA local labour market. So so much more could be done across the UK to make our job centres do what it says on the Tim, source jobs, prepare people for work.

I worked in Jobcentres in the early 80s. This is almost word for word what was on offer then. Trained Employment Advisers having a good knowledge of the local labour market and training opportunities, able to advise and guide people towards productive career opportunities.

The whole thing was scrapped and now we have Jobcentres hardly worthy of the name - Jobcentres 'light' if you like. All in the name of saving money.

The problem is, that you’re right, it’s a “perception” not a reality.

Having worked in the benefits arena, in a myriad of roles and in partnership with local councils and family workers, I can utterly assure you, anyone living purely on benefits, unless they are working on the side, have a whole host of disabilities and children with disabilities or drug dealing is NOT living a life full of luxuries! (Between 2009-2022)

I’ve been in family homes and I’ve seen and heard shocking stories about WHY people are living on benefits, ranging from having to raise their grandchildren as Dad “did a runner” and mum is unable to look after her own children (drugs/disabilities/mental breakdown/disappeared herself and in two heartbreaking families, Mum murdered by Dad), to Mum or Dad having severe disabilities, addiction issues, or other issues, homelessness, children not in education, children unwell or disabled. There are so many more reasons than some people, fortunate never to have been unemployed, realise and these cases are much more common that the men and women holidaying in Benidorm, with 60” tellers, manicured nails, false eye lashes out clubbing whilst drinking and smoking, which the media, especially the DM, and certain TV channels love to portray.

Of course anyone who can work should work and those finding getting a job hard should have resource to help them do so.

I’m not quite sure why some think only Badenoch is concerned about those on benefits who should be working are not working, as far as I can see ALL parties want and need as many people in work as possible.

At the risk of being a complete bore, may I remind you that Universal Credit working people on low incomes, people too unwell to work, people who will never work due to disabilities ie severe learning difficulties, those “between jobs”, those made redundant, school/college/University leavers, as well long term unemployed.

There needs to be a complete review of the entire job centre service, much longer appointments, removal of pointless and penalising staff targets, much closer links between job centre work coaches and local employers, better use of targeted training for claimants at all levels and then moving onto employment specific training targeted at vacancies in the VA local labour market. So so much more could be done across the UK to make our job centres do what it says on the Tim, source jobs, prepare people for work.

I did hope that this kind of attitude to men had waned, or peaked, as the trans activists nonsense seems to have done since the High Court ruling.

sundowngirl

From AI

"white working-class boys face severe, well-documented disadvantages, particularly in education"

"organisations and academic institutions push harder to address historical inequities, there has been a noticeable decline in the hiring and representation of young white men in elite pathways and some corporate roles"

" Many argue that well-intentioned quotas or diversity programs can inadvertently create a system where white males feel sidelined or systematically excluded from opportunities."

Surely the principle should be simple: the best person should get the job. Any form of discrimination, whether direct or indirect, is unfair. We are not calling for a return to "white privilege" or preferential treatment for any group; we are simply advocating for fairness, equal opportunity, and hiring based on merit, skills, and suitability for the role.

Good comments.
Our SIL who works for a well known firm told me that he and his dept had to attend a ‘diversity training’ talk, as part of the Company’s commitment to this that and the other.He said that most of it was what they already knew but that the rather aggressive woman giving the talk said to him when he raised a point with her ‘I don’t want to hear from you as a privileged white male’ ! SIL isn’t a youngster with an attitude he’s a CEO who’s 40 and mild mannered.

rafichagran
Ah, thank you.

I did really mean that they were most likely to be discriminated against, but again, it depends on a host of other factors, I'm sure.

Plus, I'm not sure what changes have taken place since I learnt about sociology.

I'm wildly out of date, i suppose

There is a perception amongst men, some women too that benefits are too easy to claim and to generous to non working people groups which they are paying for.

Badenoch is going to get a lot of support if this policy is promote, she is not a polititian that I favour but many will.

👍

sundowngirl

From AI

"white working-class boys face severe, well-documented disadvantages, particularly in education"

"organisations and academic institutions push harder to address historical inequities, there has been a noticeable decline in the hiring and representation of young white men in elite pathways and some corporate roles"

" Many argue that well-intentioned quotas or diversity programs can inadvertently create a system where white males feel sidelined or systematically excluded from opportunities."

Surely the principle should be simple: the best person should get the job. Any form of discrimination, whether direct or indirect, is unfair. We are not calling for a return to "white privilege" or preferential treatment for any group; we are simply advocating for fairness, equal opportunity, and hiring based on merit, skills, and suitability for the role.

I agree. Nothing wrong at all in ensuring ALL have a fair and equal chance at getting an interview and ultimately a job role, providing they meet the criteria and experience and knowledge required to do the best job.