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"

OK, so basically your point is if one is born female they should be happy to accept reduced life chances because they can have babies.

Where my point is one shouldn't be categorised by default as a second class human if they are born female, babies or no babies.

There is absolutely no need for work/society to be structured to benefit men. It's all human generated concepts that we could change to benefit women equally.

Loads of men of my acquaintance equally would like to spend more time with their children. Apart from birth and breastfeeding, there is nothing about parenting that means mothers are better equipped for it than fathers.

Adam - do you support the current idiocy of DEI, do you think it has anything at all to do with feminism, except in a performative way (menopause policies)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9ac50df5-657c-4b00-aa42-8a7b6162d976?shareToken=d8eef38dca6255a1c015538f27076fac

The position of women in the workforce has improved immensely during my lifetime. I'm seeing a distinct backward trend and increasing misogyny which concerns me greatly. As a 'woman in STEM' what's your strategy for achieving a feminist Utopia in your

lifetime? Or do you want to support yet more DEI training?.
Or do you just have an animus against Kemi?

Lots of us choose to have time with our babies even if it means we lose money
and others, male or female, progress in our absence. With one of mine I was pregnant at the same time as a colleague. I had a year off, well really more than a year as I tagged six weeks annual on to it. The colleague had 4 weeks off and included her two weeks foreign holiday in those 4 weeks. She ended up in a more senior role than I did and why shouldn't she. I had over 4 years maternity leave in total, she had 4 weeks (I have 4 children she has one.)

We both made our choices, she might think I'm a fool for letting motherhood affect my career, I think those years were priceless and I wouldn't do anything different.

I don't think anyone should lose out on life chances because they might make the same choices as me but I think it is perfectly reasonable that I lose out because life moved on while I wasn't at work. I think the same would be true of a man who decided to take 4 years out of his career to do something, being a SAHD, cycling round the world, living in a Buddhist retreat or whatever.

What does diversity training achieve?

Like genuine question.

Does everyone get a positive experience from them or does it led to hidden resentment and a hidden toxic backlash building up?

Feedback from these courses is unlikely to result in honest comments because someone has literally just been told certain opinions are verboten.

Does it also led to others becoming zealots over the subject and this desire to demonstrate everything is diverse even when it perhaps isn't needed?

Does it actually improve things or is progress being made for other reasons - including pushier parents from different cultural backgrounds?

Does the focus become diversity rather than the actual problem/subject you are addressing?

Is diversity becoming a sector that grifts upon government for the benefit of those in that sector over and above those it's supposed to be helping?

We need to be seeing added benefit.

If we are also seeing very negative unintended consequences we should also be acknowledging this and talking about them.

I presume she wants to be Tory leader and PM.

Is this actually a thread about EDI (an interesting topic), or is it just an excuse to sneer at Badenoch and the awful GC people who are associated with her?

The point has to be, if you are employing 6 people who are equally skilled, why are you giving the job to the white male rather than the black female if there's nothing to pick between them as candidates.

That would mean you were selecting based on gender/colour.

Who knows ? Take it as you find it.

My take is that what Kemi Badenoch believes very much aligns with what will further Kemi Badendochs chosen career in the Tory party.

I want policies that allow women to have children without being disadvantaged. It’s still not properly done because child care and housing has got more expensive.

I think I feel women’s work is undervalued is the biggest issue.

Employers need to facilitate parents- part of the problem is that work is now so intense you can’t afford to be momentarily inattentive. People can’t afford time for parents’ evenings and medical appointments and sick kids. So someone is sacrificed and it’s almost always the woman. Men as a result fly because they have a live in housekeeper and nanny. Making it ever harder to keep up.

And honestly, kids of well educated and well off parents will always do better on average. It’s like complaining that wealthy people live in nicer places. Duh.

It depends on your processes. Blinding cvs for example is not discriminating. Saying half the shortlist must be women is not discriminating as you get a balanced shortlist from which you hire on merit. So there’s ensuring and encouraging opportunity for women without discriminating.

Yes blind cvs should be compulsory, but then you say half shortlist should be women. Doesn't that undermine blind cvs.

One of the biggest problems is the low status and salary of jobs which are predominantely female, largely caring roles. They need to be quantified differently somehow. At the moment GDP works against women - how do you increase productivity in care homes.

I think training is the way you give your workforce the skills they need to execute their job.
In a leadership sense part of their job is to get the best out of the people on the team and that requires skills in empathy, influencing, coaching and motivating people. To do that well you have to understand the people on your team, the barriers they might have and what they might need. You also need to be aware of your own blind spots and how your experience colours your perception.

So yes, I think diversity training is important. I've worked for some companies where its been done really well.

I also think it's not enough and companies need to be far more zero tolerance about prejudice. There is too much "he didn't mean it" when men behave badly.

I'm motivated party by the fact the minister for women and Equalities doesn't appear to be doing much for women or equality, and partly by the disconnect between how the report is being positioned and what it actually says.

E.g. the times article says:
"British companies should not waste money on diversity training in the workplace because it is “ineffective” and often fails to achieve its stated objectives, a report commissioned by the government has concluded."

When you read the report that isn't what it concluded at all. I'm interested why and how that has happened.

Also the difference in reporting between left and right wing press (right wing press far more likely to have a headline about the impact on white men).

There are lots of things I find interesting about it.

I don't like Badenoch, this kind of report is part of the reason why. But I know lots of posters on here have different opinions so thought it would be interesting to see what they though.

Yes, and all other things being equal that needs to be the criteria. So why is it "unfair" if that criteria goes in favour of the woman or person of different ethnicity? That implies "white male" is and should be the default option and everyone else has to be better to stand a chance.

Yes and part of that is the intrinsic view that womens work is worth less,because women are doing it

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2016/03/22/2003642142 (picked for no paywall).

The Authority Gap by Mary-Ann Sieghert is great on this.

I'm interested in this interpretation. What do you see as her privilege? As far as I can see she is not from wealth. She has worked very hard and is paving a path for others to do the same.

Actually there is a tool in EA2010.
Positive action in recruitment and promotion.
Presumed to be rarely used because it's not easy. As someone already mentioned Furlong V Cheshire police, is an example of wrong use of that. And iirc the only example actually.

You can prefer candidate from underrepresented background IF the final 2 candidates are of equal merit. Proving equal merit can be difficult because is there even such thing as actual equal merit which would stand up in tribunal if one candidate decided they were discriminated against?

What I've noticed with this is a lot of the work feels like treating symptoms rather than causes. E.g. we support women because they are likely to be disadvantaged by childcare responsibilities instead of supporting people with caring responsibilities. I worry that doing this in the wrong way further disenfranchises the already disadvantaged.

Well if it comes down to 2 people who are equally suited and qualified for the job the only fair way would be to toss a coin. Deciding you need to have more men/women/black/disabled people and choosing on that basis isn't treating people equally. It would mean one person starts out with an advantage that doesn't mean that are the best candidate.

Her father was a doctor and her mother was a professor. She wasn't exactly from a deprived background. To be fair to her she doesn't go on and on about her NHS connections like the PM.

What is intrinsically wrong with a company saying "these two people are equal on merit, but this person has another attribute that I know my team needs more of, so I'm giving them the job"? Seems totally fair enough to me.

Men have had the advantage of that being the default for years, maybe they can take a small hit for a bit to redress the balance.

minister for women and Equalities doesn't appear to be doing much for women or equality,

She seems to be doing an awful lot for the Minister for Women and Equalities though.

I think this exactly the way it should work, and the way I've always applied it.
I think the way job specs and criteria also need to be looked at carefully - there's a lot of grade inflation going on (asking for graduates when it isn't necessary to the job), making judgements about hobbies etc which have no relation to the job. If a job is likely to be popular this is a way of reducing candidates.
There's been some very embarrassing results from recruitment by AI.

What she's managed to do with her statements around this is really bring to the fore the hair-brained idea that the road to equality, or rather equity, is a zero sum game in which the most advantaged invariably end up as the least advantaged group, and as a result the road should be either blocked or heavily curtailed. She's definitely doing a lot to make herself appear more appealing to the tory base but again, it will all be in vain. Her use of 'Black woman' as opposed to 'white man' is interesting because if that were the long and short of it she just might have been able to get resounding applause, but she's betting against another group whose support she definitely needs, given the scrupulous manner she's courted them.

The issue I'd have with it is it isn't 'men' that would be taking the hit but 'a man'. With all the positive discrimination it still comes down to 'sorry Dave you didn't get the job because your a man' 'congratulations Sarah you get the job because you're a woman'.
Sarah may well be suited for the job but it ends up the selection is down to her sex.
I'd be happier with the other suggestion of a toss of the coin.