Change in focus in equality policy...

Bingowings it is this. USA slant for sure but I found it interesting in understanding right wing mindset when you're lefty at heart. And why it makes sense to them and they're not just horrible etc.

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/160358594X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabc_-k92FbWJ7C4VJ?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

Will catch up on thread now

I try and read Harman's article and all I hear really is blah blah blah. It's just more of the standard gobbledegood. Sigh. There is no political party that at the moment is making enough sense to be a reasonable opposition at a time when the goal couldn't be more open.

She quite deliberately conflates them, I think.

Harriet Harman's reponse to Liz Truss. Can't help feeling it's not a very coherant response. She's also conflating gender and sex. www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/liz-truss-is-trying-to-set-up-a-hierarchy-of-suffering-and-turn-back-the-clock-on-40-years-of-equalities-progress

They're right though. There is zero evidence that unconscious bias training even works, and a lot of questions around the validity of the research is is based on.
Well, depends what you mean by "works". I don't think it reduces sexism or racism because I think most sexists and racists aren't doing it subconsciously.
What it does do though, is remove any claim of "I didn't know it was racist" and enable organisations to discipline those staff. It also brings them into training without specifying they may be sexist or racist, and then opening a conversation about attitudes and acceptable work behaviour.
We have only just got to a position in my workplace where you can talk about sexism/racism, and thats only happened by treating the majority with kid gloves ("of course noone means to be racist, its just subconscious, blahblah"). Its a backwards step to remove the training in my opinion.

I'm not sure about that. She references transparency in business and pay data. I expect Domestic Violence and other violence against women will still feature. I reckon they're waking up to the importance of women's votes in the future. It'll be hard for Labour to get back the votes they've lost and women tended to support Labour more than men.

This is a good call politically for the situation we’re finding ourselves in.

Many people are going to find their living standards dropping. In those circumstances being told that you’re privileged because you’re white, male or straight is likely to make you angry rather than compassionate. A lot of people in these groups are going to feel hard done by and they are not about to lap up a message that actually, they’re kind of lucky.

That kind of trade off is often why nothing is done about corruption.

It's essentially a cash cow for certain organisations and individual "experts".

It's functioned to allow institutions to look like they are doing something.

Link to the speech as publish by .gov
www.gov.uk/government/speeches/fight-for-fairness

And, although I realise I am repeating myself, thinking that maybe this stop Stonewall having a voice with Government, it might, but then it is just as likely to stop women's campaigns having a voice the Government listens to.

They will be talking to "Women in Business" ie "feminism" as a political tool to analysise lack of equality for women could find itself in the Government's dustbin.

Right wing papers are loving this speech. And it fits in with the (easy to make) criticism that Labour has lost touch with its roots and is just bunch of woke Londoners who have now idea how the real world works.

I believe in evidence based policy, didn't Tony Blair at one point. Quite honestly I want them to deliver, it's down to Labour to deal with the identity politics fiasco if they want to be considered trustworthy. Unconcious bias training was a waste of money.
A post Covid world facing climate change is a totally different world.
My main problem is the emphasis on social mobility. What is also necessary are good well paid jobs in care work etc and reform of the gig economy. It's not about everyone becoming an entrepreneur.

I apologise for the source, but guido fawkes have a transcript of the speech:

Redtoothbrush why are you apologising for the source?

*hopefully not giving them any more money to try to steal our rights, that is.

Not sure that's really Stonewall's strong point, these days, so hopefully not.

failing to defend single-sex spaces, hard fought for by generations of women

Are the government going to stop funding Stonewall who are trying to do away with single sex exemptions now then, please?

The lack of virtue signalling in that content is noticeable though, and notable for its rarity. Sex mentioned several times along with gender reassignment rather than any other term, FGM is clearly mentioned and the type of feminism that leaves women on their own to fight for child care.

It's not PC, it's not of the current fashion. That's an interesting signal by itself. But the govt are preparing for a country facing very real immediate issues like imminent food shortages, massed unemployment and worse; it is not going to be an electorate with much patience for first world problems, or for the traditional Labour heartlands responding well to being told they're too white, straight, heteronormative and lots of other wanky jargon when their kids are going hungry.

Luxury beliefs aren't going to be going down well in the near future.

Many aspects of that speech at one time would have been spoken by a Labour leader or minister. Now of course they're so in thrall to the identity politics bullies that their "debate" consist of threats, mantra chanting and cries of bigot aimed at anyone who expects to discuss and debate (see Rosie Duffield as a classic example).

What a tragedy and where the hell it leads those of us who would quite like to vote for the Labour party in the future I have no idea. The plus side is if this puts an end to the Stonewall / lobby group gravy train, everyone will benefit.

You'd hope it would be a wake up call for Labour

I'm hoping it shifts the Overton window enough to allow Labour to focus on the fact that women's unpaid labour props up the economy and maintains their oppression.

I also don't think people who believe that "people are only poor because they're lazy" can be trusted to address poverty.

This is a government that was found by the courts to be discriminating against disabled people with mental illness and had to be forced by the courts to "stop" discriminating. Discrimination against people with mental health disabilities is still at the heart of PIP and ESA.

It has fuck all to do with people's "identity" as a disabled person. The government has deliberately created structural nightmares for disabled people and deliberately impoverished them. Never mind taking the pandemic as a chance to row back on their civil rights.

The reason why disabled people can't obtain and retain employment is all about individual choices and agency, not systemic or structural? You'd have to be really stupid to believe that.

But, yeah, sure, we should totally trust them. I'm sure this won't make life harder for disabled people at all.