Kemi Badenoch: Diversity policies should not "come at the expense of white men"

[AdamRyan]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1879473/kemi-badenoch-diversity-white-men/amp

https://www.independent.co.uk/business/kemi-badenoch-diversity-initiatives-can-be-ineffective-and-counterproductive-b2515403.html

Two links with different headlines but the gist is the same.

White men are disproportionately represented in a number of organisations (including the RAF which Badenoch highlighted). Any activity that increases representation of any other groups including women is necessarily therefore going to come at the expense of white men.

I know KB is anti-woke but I hadn't realised she was also anti-feminist. I cannot get my head round this statement at all. It's all a bit "people, know your place"

Just to hammer my point home, there are many big reasons why we don't have many female software developers and "microaggressions" ain't high on the list.

I'd be interested to hear about what you think puts girls off physics.

Our system in Canada is a bit differernt, but I did biology and chemistry in the first part of high school. I just wasn't so interested in physics, because I say it as more math focused, and I wasn't a strong math student. Mainly because I was stubborn and found it boring as a kid and fell behind. My chemistry teacher was a woman and a great teacher, but in the end I didn't carry on with that and left biology as my final science. I just found living things way more interesting than atoms and molecules.

I've never been discouraged in math or science by either male or female teachers, and my computer science teacher really encouraged me to go in that direction, quite the opposite really, teachers were always encouraging,and a pretty good mix of men and women. In the end I studied philosophy at university.

My own take is that it's really not that unusual - a lot of girls are just less interested and are looking for a certain amount of social interaction in their work. Different areas of work should be open to all, but it's not a problem to me if groups make somewhat different choices. (And you see the same sometimes with different cultural backgrounds too. Which is ok in my view.)

Great post.
Illustrates perfectly the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread that any intervention (if it is agreed that is required) needs to be at the level where the problem occurs and assuming that it is discrimination at the the emplyment level is just so often obviouly not the issue.

I was asked to carry out a questionnaire/mini investigation into this at my school.

At my sch all srudents start out doing 4 A levels then most drop to 3 (something i disapprove but a topic for another thread).

Not only do we have a low proportion of girls choosing physics, in line with national trends, but a disproportionate number were choosing physics as their one to drop.

So I asked them why, and among some other things the main response was they don't like being the only girl, or only one of two in the class.

We are trying to fix this by clustering girls where we have two classes in the same time slot - eg if 16 boys and 4 girls want to study Physics, previously we'd have 8b+2g in each class, now we'd try to have 10b in class A and 6b+4g in Class B. It seems to be helping for now.

This theory is strongly backed up by the fact all-girls' schools have disproportionately more girls choosing physics.

I'd like to think that having a female teacher might also boost retention of girls but I'm biased! And there's not much evidence of this.

One thing I want to add in defence of my subject that I adore - physics, engineering and related fields may be bad for sex ratio but we do have a good track record for diversity of economic background. Compared to many Arts subjects. So there's that.

Didn't want anyone to think I was trashing physics!

That's interesting. I don't think it would have bothered me, but I know my middle daughter would be very put off by a class that was mostly boys, so I can certainly see that could be a real factor. Putting the girls together in one section is a good idea.

When I was a student, we used to have separate gym classes for girls and boys once we were past about age 11. That's no longer the case, and it really put my daughters off of gym. In general I think there is a lot to be said for separate girls and boys education.

There are two main issues: one is the available candidate pool or applicant set (not the same as many would say the candidate pool is usually wider than the applicant set and you need to look harder) and the other is the drop off in women as you get to senior levels. Interviewing women at Google seems focussed on the latter. I expect a capable company to be able to tackle both at the same time; not sure how this could possibly be a point of criticism.

I disagree other sciences are more ‘social’ to study, why would that be? I think maths is the key- it’s the key to mt

Posted to early- it’s the key to physics success, to maths and to engineering and computer science. So girls in maths should be a huge focus.

Hmm, I've never claimed other sciences are more social to study so you'll have to put that question to someone else who has claimed that. I'm not even sure what "more social to study" means.

I also haven't criticised Google for interviewing women internally. The phrase I used was it's a noble goal.

You're right that it works towards treating a different problem to the one I raised, which was my point.

I've also specifically said that we need to look at getting more girls into Maths A level.

You've written "I disagree" but I'm not sure any of what you said seems to refute what I've said so now I'm wondering if you've quoted the wrong comment

I don't think physics is more or less social so much as very much about things rather than people or other living organisms.

But I'd agree interest and ability in mathematics is a factor. When I think about the women I know that have done degrees in math, most have gone into different types of accounting and business, I don't know one that went on to graduate type work, rather than academia where I do know a few men who went in that direction.

Even if that's a general trend though there could be a lot of reasons for it. My husband worked in a science section of the civil service, and they always had a lot of women, I think because the hours and benefits were very good for mothers. I could see that in accounting over academia too.

Im Irish, we have way more single sex schools and It's interesting to note that, in single sex schools more girls do science subjects and more boys do home economics and art. They are not "
boy" or "girl" subjects any more.

Also anecdotally, when women do science in university they still gravitate towards a different type of (biology) science such as microbiology rather then genetics. I don't know why this is.

And what do you say to those women who do work in technology and have to deal with "microaggressions" and downright sexism every day?

I've worked in tech for 20 years. I used to be passionate about getting more women into it as a career. Over the past 5 years or so I've got ground down by the outright hostility of male colleagues to women, the subtle bullying, the exclusion and the unwillingness of leadership to tackle it because "he's a very talented software person".

I've seen more junior women join and fail to thrive against an undercurrent of sexism.

I'm now in a position where I'd counsel any woman long and hard about starting a career in tech, because you have to be very thick skinned and you have to get very used to watching mediocre men sprint past you in a race you can't compete in as a woman.

None of that is to do with "bottlenecks in school". It's to do with men trying to protect their territory.

Increasing the sex ratio will do more to reduce sexist behaviour, than hoping for causality the other way around.

I think what KB is saying about EDI training is that nagging people, to check their privilege and stop microaggressing, is literally counterproductive and just produces resentment and division, without actually reducing the problem. I agree

I'm glad Kemi's sending a very loud and clear signal to the women who now apparently care that they too can be dispensed with. Must be a shock to the system. 'I understood her point when it was those other people, but women... WOMEN!'

@DojaPhat what’s the context there?

I'm an ex-software engineer. I consider myself very lucky to have gone to two all-girl secondary schools, so when I was good at maths that's all there was to it: I was in a streamed class with all the other girls who were good at maths. There's a real freedom in that.

I never seemed to have a problem being taken seriously by companies, getting interviews & job offers, being promoted, etc, but once in a job there were always some sexist guys around & (in those days) very few women managers. We didn't have any women's support groups. I actually had a boss who said to a visitor, as I happened to walk past his open office door, "I don't agree with women being in the workplace." I paused & gave him an 'Oh really?' look before walking on, & he got up from behind his desk & shut the door!😂

Here's a 2022 article about the RAF diversity thing, in case it hasn't appeared yet (haven't RTFT):

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/26/mod-mistakes-made-raf-diversity-recruitment-drive

Wow, talk about waffling. Basically, "No standards were dropped but we acknowledge that maybe somehow some might have been dropped but probably only in a way that doesn't matter, we'll look into it, no worries."

Leaves me with the feeling nothing went wrong....

A bit shocked no one saw this coming as if when she says "anti-woke" she means "anti-feminst" etc. Like, come on people - she's playing you. She knows she can grab votes from the folks here on this board if she'd only just say stuff about trans people rather than air her other vile stuff out there. Like, how did none of you see "far right conservative MP doesn't like feminism" coming???

I think she is referring to esp the recent RAF policy of recruiting from minorities and ignoring suitable white men - which is illegal in UK law as being racist and sexist.

Yes, this should be simple, but maybe needs saying out loud.

It doesn't mean at the expense of the grouping, white men.

It means at the expense of individual white men. It is not lawful to discriminate against individual white men any more than anyone else.