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.

MerchantofVenice

And just when you were so close to being a pleasant person you couldn't help it.

"overbearing bigots"
"help you to see why your views are pathetic"
"albeit accompanied by eye-rolling from the more obnoxious privileged"
"boorish members of the privileged group"
"They have a big strop"

Jesus cunting Christ! If that's the closest you get to an intelligent and interesting response then we really aren't going to get anywhere.

I understood the main thrust of your arguement but this isn't about concessions for a bullied minority. It's not against all these "privileged" people wanting to be in charge, it's about equality and I'm afraid all your post does is reinforce my opinion that you have a bad attitude and

One question though. You say, "Do you imagine that, because I like to defend minority groups against overbearing bigots, that I must be a member of every minority group?" yet you assume that these representatives of minority groups will want to be in charge and be overbearing bigots. You base that on the fact they're white, straight men. How is that not bigotry and any different?

I think if you want intelligent and interesting responses, you need to write an intelligent and well considered OP.

What was wrong with the OP rafals? And do you think that none of the replies have been intelligent or considered? I think most have (including most of mine)

Thing is, OP, you think you're being so clever with your 'well they said they wanted equality and here it is' stance - but in fact your very starting position is obnoxious and mean-spirited. Are you surprised that people are riled and coming back at you? You are so disingenuous - as if you don't know that the very premise for this thread was a nasty, goady one.

You keep quoting the bits where I'm critical of you, as if I don't know what I've written. I repeat, your opening stance on this was a nasty, snide one. You reap what you sow.

Just to clarify, you are not 'the clever one' presiding over an intellectual debate. You are the sort of twat who would challenge a one-legged person to a race and say, all wide-eyed, that you thought they wanted equality.

Egosum I totally agree

And it's so churlish to object to these groups having the (tiny) privilege of these exclusive groups whilst still having to put up with many examples of discrimination.I could possibly understand OP's point if we had successfully eradicated all forms of prejudice towards these groups already. But, um, we haven't. So in the meantime let's not add insult to injury, hey?

Oh, and OP, I'm still puzzled as to why you thought I'd be so concerned with being 'pleasant' to you when you have such odious views??