AIBU - "white, straight, able-bodied man? You cannot attend" - it's finally happened!

[enterYourPassword]

Story here

A lecturers’ union is refusing to let its officers take part in debates at an equality summit if they are white, straight, able-bodied men.

The equality conference of the University and College Union said that members must declare their ‘protected characteristic’ – whether they are gay, disabled, female or from an ethnic minority – when applying to attend.

Activists say that it means representatives who do not qualify cannot participate in all of the discussions – even though they have been elected by their union branch.

AIBU in thinking that this is exactly the opposite of what is supposed to be being achieved? It reminds me of that horrible excuse for a human Bahar Mustafa.

A Union refusing to let any officers take part (despite their jobs being working in equality) unless they have a "protected characteristic" makes no sense to me. A simplistic arguement to say that if the roles were reversed there would be an outcry but surely it should swing both ways.

It's patronising in the extreme to suggest the professionals have nothing to contribute unless they are part of a 'minority'. I've posted as my SIL (white, straight, middle class) is involved in this insomuch as she was invited to attend or perhaps invited to apply to attend (immaterial).

I personally think this is wrong. Any form of discrimination is bad and can have no positive outcome and no less so when enacted by what were a traditionally struggling minority - although they now seem to be a flourishing and powerful political force with extremely misguided attempts to create 'safe spaces' becoming the very thing they purport to be against.

Im not sure what discrimitory issues a straight white man would have

I think there are plenty of problems facing men actually. The numbers of men at Universities are at an all time low. Boys have been falling way behind girls at every level in education. The high suicide rates among men. Boys suffering due to growing up with no fathers. So many men dying and critically injured in workplace accidents, homelessness, victims of violence etc..

The men who stormed the beaches in you meme came back traumatised. If they had wanted a group to talk about that, among themselves? What would you think about a bunch of people who had been at home wanting to attend to talk about their feeling about being left behind, about how their brother/son had been on the beaches, about how sympathetic they were? They work for the MoD, they work with veterans, they're feeling...

What if the interlopers were used to dominating the conversations, used to always having their voices heard? What if they wanted the veterans to explain D-Day to them, explain their pain and trauma? What if some of them wanted to minimise what happened? To explain that 'not all non-veterans'?

All nonsense if you believe, as some do, that equality has been achieved and that black, gay, disabled people, women are all whining about nothing... There is no discrimination and they have nothing to talk about. Certainly not SECRETLY. I don't believe that.

The answer to whether these breakout groups are unfairly excluding others is to look at the objective of the breakout sessions.

Is the objective to discuss wider aims and ideas in the conference? Is it to educate people on the specific issues of having a certain characteristic? Or is it specifically for those people with a certain characteristic to discuss shared experiences in a private and safe space?

Are the delegates staying in their job roles for these sessions? Or are they being addressed as people who live with a certain characteristic? Are they being invited to a group to connect in a personal and intimate way, sharing stories that will make them vulnerable?

The 'rule' about who can go to the break out groups can be reasonable or unreasonable dependent on the objectives and roles people will play.

I suspect the vehement arguing could be resolved if people can dig a little deeper into the facts.

Btw I think it's such a shame when people declare 'equality, it's gone too far' and that sort of thing. More than a shame, it's personally really upsetting that you think the way I have to live my life is acceptable I can assure you it really isn't. And having been a normal white woman and now a disabled white woman, I can assure you my actual real life experiences are now very, very different.

I am discriminated against, and excluded alot of the time. It's sodding hard and absolutely not fair. It takes courage and resolve to keep pushing on and not letting the frequent very distressing behavior of others get the better of me. It would be so easy to retreat from the world and I have to steel myself to even step outside my house.

Come 'walk' a mile in my shoes if you really believe I live a wonderful life full of privilege and advantage showered upon me.

You are being ridiculous, OP.

contortionist - no I wouldn't ask that in a discussion about black gay males, I was using it as an example of discrimination against a group that doesn't get breakout sessions.

The men who stormed the beaches had alot of courage, but their struggle didn't end there, if they made it out alive of course.

They came home injured, mentally and physically. And home wasn't ready for its heroes unless they came back in the sanitized cookie cutter shapes society expected.

Drink was the easiest way to numb the pain both in and out. And drugs also, with a lot of men coming back with unbearable pain, opiates and other medicines were needed just to get through the pain.

And the way we look back now is based on our culture now but also society then. And society then didn't let men show weakness, show pain, injury, hardship. Men were supposed to just slot back in like the war never happened and displays of infirmity or effects from the terrible traumas they'd gone through we're not understood.

There were some injuries which were accepted eg leg/ arm injuries or amputation. But sadly there were a lot of others that were not accepted and people often ended up as outcasts or hidden away out of sight so they didn't offend anyone else's eyes.

The facial injuries, spinal injuries, or terrible shell shock were the worst to end up with in the lottery of war wounds.

Spinal injury patients were only just being considered worth treating, the expectation, and reality, being the patients died rapidly from pressure sores and urinary tract infections. In the First World War these men were shipped home alive, in coffins. Imagine the terror and then the lack of treatment until they just died. Hideous. The idea of living with paralysis from a spinal core injury was completely new, and faced great resistance. This kind of injury was considered too terrible for someone to live. And if they did love due to pioneering treatment, the discrimination they faced was beyond imagining.

Then those with facial injuries. The disfigurement which left these poor men as outcasts. Of course they couldn't get a proper job as no one wanted them, and children would scream in terror as they were taught these men were the boogeyman who's come and get them if they didn't wash behind their ears.

And lastly, mental health, through PTSD or through traumatic brain injury. These injuries were not understood, and the patient was often blamed for their change in behavior or personality. Any flashbacks or 'not normal' behavior was not met with understanding by the majority. It was a huge stigma.

So yes, they were incredibly brave to fight in the war. But it doesn't devalue non wartime struggles and hardship. And for many in the example given, these brave heroes came back and had to deal with the terrible stigma, exclusion and discrimination. The same discrimination people face today.

Are you saying straight white men are incapable of forming their own groups to discuss the issues they face?

Olivia there is a difference between having issues to deal with and having issues as the result of discrimination - the two are not always the same. I would certainly say though that a straight, white male could suffer discrimination due to class. This happens a lot.

Are they trying to tell the people voting for their reps that unless they vote in someone with the same protected characteristic as themselves then their voice (through their rep) will not be heard?

The break-out sessions are for people with a common interest (ie. (a) specific protected characteristic(s)) to discuss things that affect them. Presumably, the insights that emerge will be fed back to a plenary session. That's when all reps who don't share the particular characteristic(s) will be able to listen, learn, respond, disagree, question or whatever else they want.

Organising like this would not be necessary, in a perfect world. Sadly, the reality tends to be that many of the advantaged white straight men, often with the best will in the world, may dominate discussions even about people quite different from them and the experiences those different people have. Consequently, in order to get those experiences heard, people fall back on segregation.

Very often on these threads, a lot of posters don't realise this happens. But as a black woman professional, I can assure you I've spent umpteen years of work as the only ethnic minority person in the room having various levels of well-meaning white people who do not have any experience of mixing with other races tell me confidently how it is for me and getting it wrong.

Well RE: the falling levels of achievement among boys in schools. It could be seen as a result of discrimination and it could be argued that as far as schools in the UK are concerned, nowhere near enough is being done to tackle the declining proportion of men in the teaching profession. I know in NYC there is a recruitment strategy to address this issue.

Barbarian I'm interested in what you mean by straight, white males could suffer discrimination due to class. Can you give an example of what you mean by this please?

There is an awful lot of positive discrimination in schools now in favour of male teachers, especially in primaries and in girls' secondaries like mine. It's probably not technically legal but I know in my school if there were two equally qualified candidates for a job then a male candidate would have an edge. In many primaries they are desperate to recruit male staff and they often progress rapidly into management. In my secondary school middle leadership jobs have been created for 3 male teachers after just 1-2 years of teaching because of fear they would go elsewhere. When we asked about creating the equivalent post in my department, which is larger for my female colleague with the same level of experience and training and better results there was "no money" for it.
Whilst that irks me I do think it is good that we have so many men on the staff now. When I first arrived there were very very few straight men in my school (I think perhaps 3 in a staff of about 100 people) and I do think girls benefit from having male as well as female teachers, TAs and support staff.
It definitely is something head teachers are aware of. We've just hired a new male member of staff in my department (he was the strongest candidate by far in this case) and I'll be the only woman in a department of 4.

As white straight males have ruled the roost since yonks, surely it's not a huge concession to allow the non w,nons,non ms a little workshop to discuss what they want without the presence of a swm?

White straight able-bodied men are vastly over-represented in higher education. Especially as you move up the ranks. They dominate management and the professoriate. No fear of disadvantage there.

It is so unbelievably pathetic when people who are not in minority groups whinge about being excluded. Makes me so mad.

Oh and 'the tables have tipped too far'???? Really? You should be ashamed.

MerchantofVenice

It is so unbelievably pathetic when people who are not in minority groups whinge about being excluded. Makes me so mad.

Oh and 'the tables have tipped too far'???? Really? You should be ashamed.

Tell me why? Try to avoid the insults ("whinge", "you should be ashamed", "pathetic") and explain why I should be ashamed? I understand you're "mad" but just because someone is a minority shouldn't give them rights to exclude a majority. Does that extend to women ie. feminism, as I believe populations tend to be 50/50. I suspect your (bad) attitude ends there and your overwhelming angst only rears its ugly head when it benefits you.

maudgonemad

Lets try to keep it factual.

www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/2013/jan/29/how-many-men-and-women-are-studying-at-my-university

So you're all for positive discrimination are you?

Your straight, white, able-bodied male is the subject of positive discrimination every day of his life.

Your straight, white, able-bodied male is the subject of positive discrimination every day of his life.

And I assume you disagree with that? If so, why aren't you against all forms of it ie. in this case? Are you saying that discrimination is only unfair when you aren't benefitting?

ego

asks for clarification on stuff and expects their voice to be the strong one?

Oh, is that what they all do? All of them? Hmm!

My answer, of course it wouldn't be helpful. [rollseyes]

Would it be helpful if all the Asian people opened corner shops instead of contributing to the discussion?

My sentence above is not racist. I'm trying to point out your rank hypocrisy!

I have to go and re-write a presentation for a man . I'll be back later and would love to know why you think your comments aren't discriminatory and based on negative stereotypes.