Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The Times view on Stonewall and corporate diversity guidelines 22/10/21

41 replies

Gastonia · 22/10/2021 22:04

I presume this Times leader is for Saturday's print paper, as it is timed at 9pm today.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-stonewall-and-corporate-diversity-guidelines-6kpjqh3wj
I can't work out how to get a share token, but it says: "Today The Times reports on the newest foray into corporate boardrooms under the misleading guise of breaking the gender glass ceiling." So maybe there'll be more in tomorrow's paper.

OP posts:
Alektopteryx · 23/10/2021 09:37

FWS shared this on FB. I don't know if it's related but it is certainly apposite

The Times view on Stonewall and corporate diversity guidelines 22/10/21
RoastChicory · 23/10/2021 10:59

The Legal Feminist submission give a great example of how women can fight back on this. If you’re in a firm with ‘gender targets’ and the targets are based on gender identity not sex, start identifying as either non-binary or prefer not to say.

So my company has a target for at least 40% of senior staff to be women. If the survey asks for my sex, I answer correctly. If it asks what gender I identify with, I’m either ‘prefer not to say’, ‘other’ or ‘non-binary’. If they choose to make a target based on nebulous identity, I won’t count and they’ll fail their target.

If enough senior women started doing this, in confidential staff surveys, firms would quickly wake up to the issue.

NapoleonOzmolysis · 23/10/2021 11:16

Is anyone else having problems with liking comments on the Times website?
I've been making a point of doing so on articles like this one but the last couple of days they are not registering. Is it just me?

GoodieMoomin · 23/10/2021 11:24

Same here @NapoleonOzmolysis

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 23/10/2021 12:21

Why would they think that you can just import practices from other countries without considering the different laws which are in place in different countries?

Because it feels like people keep using phrases and mantras that have meaning in other countries but are inappropriate in a UK context?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4347395-Against-White-Feminism?msgid=110745933

nauticant · 23/10/2021 13:27

Is anyone else having problems with liking comments on the Times website?

I'm pretty sure that comments I liked later on didn't have a "like" from me. Also, a lot of comments are being deleted. There's speculation there's mass reporting going on to get comments taken down but I haven't seen any direct evidence of that.

teawamutu · 23/10/2021 13:30

@NapoleonOzmolysis

Is anyone else having problems with liking comments on the Times website? I've been making a point of doing so on articles like this one but the last couple of days they are not registering. Is it just me?
I notice my likes don't always stick, but I think that might be when comments are edited.

And someone clearly went on a reporting spree the other day - an entire conversation deleted.

Bowednotbroken · 23/10/2021 13:52

My 'likes' aren't registering any more either. I did wonder if it's because I'm reading as a guest? I get the paper version rather than digital, but obviously follow links when kindly provided.

Bowednotbroken · 23/10/2021 13:53

And, I mean, they've recently closed the option to like as a guest?

Cuck00soup · 23/10/2021 14:07

@NapoleonOzmolysis

Is anyone else having problems with liking comments on the Times website? I've been making a point of doing so on articles like this one but the last couple of days they are not registering. Is it just me?
Also back to having comments deleted for using the W word.
secular111 · 23/10/2021 14:17

As previously mentioned the Legal Feminist Response to FCA Consultations is very clear; the proposals, if adopted by the FCA would leave it vulnerable to an accusation that it had breached its Public Sector Equality Duty set out in the Equality Act 2010. In addition the proposals appear to have forgotten about the existing mandatory disclosure regime in the Companies Act 2006, particularly section 414C(8).

The Legal Feminist 'collective' is of the opinion that we have formed the view that the proposals outlined in the CP are flawed, perhaps fatally, in view of the difficulty of reconciling them with other laws and regulations in these specialist areas.

Which is a polite way of saying however drafted these proposals was, well, a bit amateurish and didn't properly research the subject (perhaps driven by the ideology rather than respect for the law and regulation).

The consequence is that the FCA's proposals are likely unlawful and would place Companies in the awkward position of being in likely breach of the law if they adopted the FCA's requirements. So in effect the FCA could easily render itself an organisation promoting unlawful activity. I suspect that The Treasury (which the FCA is responsible-to) would step in to dissolve it rapidly and start-up a new organisation untarnished by any staff from the former FCA, through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). I think the FCA works to a 'Charter' and if it could be shown to be in breach of its own mission, the current organisation could be wound-up and immediately replaced by another.

CircusSands · 23/10/2021 15:06

LBC discussion now

timeisnotaline · 23/10/2021 15:25

I really can’t imagine the treasury just dissolving the fca. That is pretty much what happened in 2013 when the fsa was dissolved for a twin peaks structure - the fca and pra. It was a significant undertaking! Reprimanded and asked to rectify and perhaps undertake a review more likely.

Neverforgetwhothisisfor · 23/10/2021 16:45

I am pleased that the story has now been covered, and the Times chose to write a leader about it.

However it is frustrating how so few women are actually willing to stand up and be counted on this subject. Yes I know people are worried about their jobs (for which they are probably being paid 75p in the pound compared to men), but unless women are willing to speak up (and no, not only on MN), the FCA, Stonewall and male patriarchy will continue their march.

Blibbyblobby · 23/10/2021 17:32

Times article was open for comments, now closed and existing comments cannot be seen. Before that, the comments were overwhelmingly respectfully acknowledging trans people's rights and identities but raising the many reasons why including anyone who self-identifies as a women in this measure is detrimental to female people.

Yay! More silencing the evidence that a significant number of people have valid concerns that are nothing to do with bigotry or transphobia.

Easy to say everyone agrees with you when you can suppress the evidence that they don't.

But one has to wonder why it seems easier to censor objections than simply make the, presumably strong and clear, case as to why they are not in reality a problem. After all, why would someone with good arguments not make them?

Blibbyblobby · 23/10/2021 17:50

Ah no, still closed but the existing comments are back.

I withdraw my rant above as far as it pertains to this Times article. But rant still stands for all the other spaces, real life and virtual, that hold the mutually incompatible positions of silencing debate while claiming no one minds.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread