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.

I completely agree with your last comments but you're basing your opinion as to who can or can't contribute based on their gender, sex, sexuality, ableness etc which is discrimination in its purest form.

I'm baffled you don't see it.

You're extraordinarily obtuse if you can't see a difference between:

'We are now going to have a chat about what it's actually like being disabled in the workplace - share our stories, our frustrations, our experiences, and think about what we would find helpful, so probably just people who actually do have experience of this in this particular group would be best'

and

'We are now going to have a chat about how to move the company forward - so that'll be just the straight white men, please'.

Try reading my post (and the article you posted) properly. This is the union for academic staff in higher education. Where straight white men are hugely over-represented, and all the more so as you move up the scale. It's not about male primary school teachers or 18 year old males going to university.

I'm baffled that you are failing to grasp the nuances of this debate despite having had them explained clearly several times.

There is room for all types of discussion and debate, but the discussions that are had can be very different dependent on who is present and who isn't.

The discussions that are had in groups made up only of people with a particular shared characteristic are different to those in groups where everyone is part of a minority group and different again to groups open to everyone. The dynamics of the group changes which is why what a previous poster said about the make up of the groups depending on the objective you are trying to achieve is true. That isn't discrimination.

We need all types of discussion and the main conference will provide the more open debates.

I'm not alone in being more hesitant in sharing experiences in more open debates due to the risk of having them minimised by someone with no experience speaking from a position of privilege. Often without them realising they are doing it.

I've been in a breakout session at a conference before, which was for women in STEM, and men were allowed in. So we had useful comments like, "if you have suffered harassment, why didn't you just complain to your HoD?" When the HoD is the harasser? Even if they're not, they'be got massive power over your career,and if you're just starting out, you don't want to be labelled as a person who's difficult to collaborate with (because you decided to stand up and complain about discrimination.)

The other helpful contribution was the man who said, "I'm sorry this happened to you, but it isn'the like that everywhere - I've never seen it happen or heard of it from anyone I worked with." And then you have to spend time explaining why he might not be the first point of contact for a colleague who is having to deal with it all. And when you'very only got 50 minutes or so in the session, you don't need to waste half of it explaining the basics to straight white men - they should be in a separate session for that.

You wouldn't put KS2 and A-level maths students in the same class and expect them to achieve the same things as if you take them in separate classes. It might be interesting to do, but you would get different outcomes. Likewise, the objectives of breakout sessions might have specific goals which means separating grpups makes sense.

Agreed ego. Although you'd need to get everyone to agree to that or it won't really work.

If someone wants to attend a session like that - and they have no experience of what is being discussed, the best thing is just to shut up, listen and learn

But they won't shut up and learn, will they ? They will dominate the session by

expecting everyone to explain the issues to them ( because it's not real until the privileged person agrees that it is)

Arguing that it's imaginary because they have never seen it

Victim blaming

You see it all the time on MN too. Sigh.

This is where the insane ideology of political correctness has led us.

Like the Maoists before, we'll soon all be crazy and paranoid. We'll shoot all the birds and execute the entire "intelligentsia".

Perhaps the solution would be for the conference to add an additional breakout session for straight white men to talk about the challenges of being equality reps when they have no direct experience of discrimination themselves...

^^

How exactly has the idea of political correctness led us here? And where is 'here'.

Since the white straight men present are also equality reps, they are unlikely to be unhappy, surely? They will have their own session in the 'Mea Culpa' room in which they expiate their guilt by punching cushions and forcing themselves to eat quinoa.

But quinoa is nice. Although there are ethical issues about the Western fashion for it making it too expensive for those for whom it's a staple crop.

Oh, is that what they all do? All of them? Hmm! It only takes one. I went to an information session recently where the room was about 80% female, a few men, mainly PoC. There was one white man. I kid you not, he took up about 50% of the question time. And I'm being generous there. The lovely (and I know him, very knowledgeable) man of colour sitting next to me was interrupted by the white man. He actually rolled his eyes and grinned at me. We all saw what was happening.

Near the end the white man did apologise for asking so many questions. I imagine that was him 'checking his privilege'. And I bet he was patting himself on the back for doing so.

That session was about non-profit housing. If it had been about the experiences of the PoC in the non-profit housing world?

I think this thread demonstrates very clearly why these breakout groups are still needed.

OP, you won't listen to people who have disclosed their protected characteristics telling you why these groups are necessary. That's exactly why you need to be excluded.

If anyone is keen to to learn stuff about the experiences of people who experience discrimination based on skin colour, sexual orientation, disability etc, they could try reading some books. If that's too much of a commitment, there's always youtube!

poor white straight men - they are so disadvantaged! Some of them seem to find it so hard to accept that not everything is about them and their needs. 'Safe spaces' are needed for as long as other voices are shouted down / talked over / ignored. But then I'm someone who wishes mumsnet was a women-only space.

Totally agree with having break out sessions for people with protected characteristics. I experience different things in life to a man, but i understand a black woman or a disabled woman or a trans woman would have a different life experience to me, and would need to form a network with others of a similar life experience. I am totally pro positive action.

AdjustableWench

I think I'd be allowed because of my gender.

stopitatonce

"But then I'm someone who wishes mumsnet was a women-only space"

Well, I can't say exactly what I think about you as the post would simply be deleted, but thank god people like you are confined to the internet; at least, I've never met one of you in real life.

Did I find your picture online?

and it's a forum, not a 'space', FFS.

A lot of people have written thoughtful, considered replies and you're being aggressive and rude, OP.

poor white straight men - they are so disadvantaged! Some of them seem to find it so hard to accept that not everything is about them and their needs. 'Safe spaces' are needed for as long as other voices are shouted down / talked over / ignored. But then I'm someone who wishes mumsnet was a women-only space.

I wish mumsnet was free of turnips who said twattish things like 'safe spaces' and 'cis-women' but you can't win them all.

OP you are v offensive.

You took issue with my earlier post in which I hadn't bothered to go into explanations. You made some comment about my 'bad attitude' and how you're sure (on what basis I don't know) that I only get upset about these things when it benefits me - which is 100% wrong. Do you imagine that, because I like to defend minority groups against overbearing bigots, that I must be a member of every minority group? What a depressing way to think.

Anyway, here's a little analogy that may help you to see why your views are pathetic.

Imagine a school playground in which one group of privileged kids ride roughshod over the rights of others for ages and ages. Their misdemeanours are ignored by the teachers, they get away with all sorts, for AGES. Gradually, they are forced into various concessions towards the smaller groups of other kids who fear them. Gradually, the other groups don't get kicked and spat at as much. There are even some moments of friendship across groups. The privileged group still dominates all school activities, but others are allowed to join in, albeit accompanied by eye-rolling from the more obnoxious privileged.

The smaller groups have always sought comfort in their groups. They've been through a lot and they still suffer abuse. They like to get together and chat. But certain boorish members of the privileged group think that at every single one of their chats, one of their own group should be present 'to learn' about their experiences (even though it's not for learning, it's for shared experience). Some of the larger group think that the minorities are getting uppity, and that they do not appreciate all the concessions that have been made. They have a big strop because they are not in charge of every group ever.

Do you see now why I think it's pathetic to suggest that the 'tables have tipped too far'? No, I don't suppose you do.

RupertPupkin

A lot of people have written thoughtful, considered replies

Yes, they've made for interesting reading.

and you're being aggressive and rude, OP.

I have been rude back to some posters who don't have the intelligence to write considered replies. No where have I been aggressive though.

Are we building up to being Doxxed again?