Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Knew this would happen, had to turn down job

454 replies

Trixie78 · 22/04/2021 13:23

I'm furious, have been out of work for a while. Was offered a temporary contract writing and implementating policy for a public sector organisation. Just up my street and would really have helped us out. Turns out they're Stonewall champions and are full on TWAW and have all rights to anything they want. I asked to review some of their current policies and it's all cisgender crap and lists of stuff we must and mustn't do to make all Trans people safe. We'll I've obviously had to turn down the role and worse I told the recruiter why so will probably never get a job through them now. There are companies out there that haven't bought into all this crap aren't there?

OP posts:
Butwasitherdriveway · 22/04/2021 19:14

[quote Trixie78]@Butwasitherdriveway

Yes, yes she did. She claimed she was acting for people who couldn't afford to do it.

Erm, no haven't said that in any of my posts. I turned down the job because I don't agree with their policies and don't want to be responsible for updating/defending them.[/quote]
'I agree I'm in a privileged position to be able to do this and feel outraged for the women who don't have the same option to make the choices I have'

Yes you did.

Butwasitherdriveway · 22/04/2021 19:14

@Erkrie

Why all women? Why not all people?

The clue is in the name of this part of MN. Take a look.

Which is fine if you believe feminism is only about biological women.
Original poster
Trixie78 · 22/04/2021 19:15

@Erkrie

~Yes, yes she did. She claimed she was acting for people who couldn't afford to do it.

Oh did she. That's great. Thanks op 👍

You're welcome I think. Feel free to call me Saint Trixie78 from now on 🤣🤣🤣
OP posts:
PotholeHellhole · 22/04/2021 19:15

How does "feel outraged" = "acting for"?

Erkrie · 22/04/2021 19:15

Yes, yes she did. She claimed she was acting for people who couldn't afford to do it.

I've just looked through all the ops posts and she didn't say that at all. You misrepresented her. ☹️

Butwasitherdriveway · 22/04/2021 19:16

@Trixie78

You've still not said other than the promotion of TWAW what it was about the employment policies that were so dreadful you couldn't work for them.

Could you elaborate?

Butwasitherdriveway · 22/04/2021 19:16

@Erkrie

Yes, yes she did. She claimed she was acting for people who couldn't afford to do it.

I've just looked through all the ops posts and she didn't say that at all. You misrepresented her. ☹️

Why would OP feel outraged for people if she didn't believe they had the same beliefs as her?
Erkrie · 22/04/2021 19:16

Which is fine if you believe feminism is only about biological women.

I do ☺️

AssassinatedBeauty · 22/04/2021 19:17

The OP has said exactly what the issue was.

Original poster
Trixie78 · 22/04/2021 19:17

@Butwasitherdriveway

Which is fine if you believe feminism is only about biological women

AHH great, we're all good then as I do absolutely believe feminism is only about biological women.

OP posts:
Erkrie · 22/04/2021 19:17

Why would OP feel outraged for people if she didn't believe they had the same beliefs as her

Well she is here. Why not ask her yourself? ☺️

Butwasitherdriveway · 22/04/2021 19:17

@Erkrie

Which is fine if you believe feminism is only about biological women.

I do ☺️

Ah.

Feminism. Supporting women unless they make any kind of decision that doesn't suit us. Got you.

VanGoghsDog · 22/04/2021 19:17

@ListeningQuietly

VanGogh It's not worth it, I tried it but was told "the lawyers have said the first version is right and this is the way organizations are going now". And how can I argue with the govt lawyers? I use legislation.gov.uk nearly every day they can argue "the lawyers" till they are blue in the face but up against that website, most people crumble am currently seeking a killer clause from 1980 for a particular purpose Grin
I am aware of the law and his to find it, I have a law degree.

But the org has invested in these lawyers, who are on the govt framework and they are not going to argue with them when their advice comes with insurance and mine doesn't.

But I do raise it every time and every time my manager says "oh, I didn't realize that" and every time the lawyers say it's just the way all firms are now interpreting it.

Butwasitherdriveway · 22/04/2021 19:18

@Erkrie

Why would OP feel outraged for people if she didn't believe they had the same beliefs as her

Well she is here. Why not ask her yourself? ☺️

I did and we discussed it. You felt the need to butt in so I addressed it to you too.
LostToucan · 22/04/2021 19:18

Yes, yes she did. She claimed she was acting for people who couldn't afford to do it.

Funny that. I’ve looked at OP’s posts and nowhere did she say that.

Recognising that she is fortunate to be in a position to turn down a job when others are not in that position is not the same thing as “claiming she was acting for people who couldn't afford to do it”.

Lordamighty · 22/04/2021 19:18

twitter.com/tappy1008/status/1384405655876943874?s=20

I thought I was a dog person until I saw this, now I’m team cat forever.

Butwasitherdriveway · 22/04/2021 19:18

[quote Trixie78]@Butwasitherdriveway

Which is fine if you believe feminism is only about biological women

AHH great, we're all good then as I do absolutely believe feminism is only about biological women.[/quote]
Then you're not a feminist.

Caring about a women's rights but only on your terms is not feminism and it's somewhat embarrassing to claim it is

VanGoghsDog · 22/04/2021 19:19

[quote Butwasitherdriveway]@Trixie78

You've still not said other than the promotion of TWAW what it was about the employment policies that were so dreadful you couldn't work for them.

Could you elaborate?[/quote]
Why should she?

Butwasitherdriveway · 22/04/2021 19:19

@LostToucan

Yes, yes she did. She claimed she was acting for people who couldn't afford to do it.

Funny that. I’ve looked at OP’s posts and nowhere did she say that.

Recognising that she is fortunate to be in a position to turn down a job when others are not in that position is not the same thing as “claiming she was acting for people who couldn't afford to do it”.

She said she was outraged for others. Why?
Erkrie · 22/04/2021 19:19

Feminism. Supporting women unless they make any kind of decision that doesn't suit us. Got you

Now you're misrepresenting me. Seems to be a bit of a habit here from you today. That's not very nice is it. ☹️

Butwasitherdriveway · 22/04/2021 19:20

@VanGoghsDog

Because , she's expecting opinions (support ) on the fact she turned down a job based on policies.

Without saying what these policies are , how on earth are we supposed to know if she's being unfair?

Not all of us start beating our chests at the sound of TWAW or stonewall.

We need actual reasons.

Erkrie · 22/04/2021 19:21

I did and we discussed it. You felt the need to butt in so I addressed it to you too.

That's funny. Anyone would think you believe you and the op had been having a private conversation instead of talking on a public internet forum ☺️

Butwasitherdriveway · 22/04/2021 19:21

@Erkrie

Feminism. Supporting women unless they make any kind of decision that doesn't suit us. Got you

Now you're misrepresenting me. Seems to be a bit of a habit here from you today. That's not very nice is it. ☹️

😴
PheasantPlucker1 · 22/04/2021 19:21

Butitwasherdriveway feminism is for females.

Do you know what a female is?

Butwasitherdriveway · 22/04/2021 19:22

@Erkrie

I did and we discussed it. You felt the need to butt in so I addressed it to you too.

That's funny. Anyone would think you believe you and the op had been having a private conversation instead of talking on a public internet forum ☺️

You absolutely can, but don't pretend I haven't addressed OP just because you also requested a personal response.