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

If you're all about diversity ...

133 replies

tobee · 02/08/2024 18:02

are you not always excluding someone? So it not possible to be truly diverse ever?

Pretty sure I'm preaching to the choir here (😃) but I was thinking this a lot over the last few days. Since the furore over the apparent depiction of The Last Supper at the Olympics opening ceremony offending Christians and my thoughts meandering around lots of other things in and the news atm.

Basically, inclusion and diversity become oppositional. And yet it's the done thing to trumpet your inclusivity and diversity.

Or am I reading it wrong?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Lifelover16 · 03/08/2024 21:56

DEI does not appear to me to include older people of any race, ethnicity, cultural heritage , gender preference, religion, dis/ability or sex.

FKAT · 03/08/2024 21:58

Also discrimination is a neutral term that has recently become considered inherently bad. To discriminate is to make choices, distinguish, identify.

It's fine to discriminate against toddlers if you're recruiting for the fire service. It's fine to discriminate against arsenic if you're making a salad dressing.

Illegal discrimination is bad. But that's cos it's illegal.

CassieMaddox · 03/08/2024 22:23

Screamingabdabz · 02/08/2024 22:55

Yep diversity never seems to include working class people unless they tick one of the other boxes…

Show quote history

This isn't true. Lots of employers take action to increase opportunities and representation of working class people now because they know there are barriers.

CassieMaddox · 03/08/2024 22:27

Codlingmoths · 03/08/2024 05:09

I’m really sad to read this and I hope this isn’t how most people on fwr think. Diversity as an employer initiative isn’t always done well, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth having. I look at the world and democracy is being done pretty terribly in lots of places but I think that’s worth having too. My company did a session recently on working with neurodiverse people, wasn’t in my Timezone but I am going to watch the recording. We have other dei initiatives too. I love that we have all this stuff which is thinking about how to work with people who are different from us, as they bring different perspectives and ideas and that’s valuable. I don’t think diversity should exclude white men and socioeconomic background is relevant too.

I agree with you.
An organisation that doesn't do "diversity and inclusion" and has a lot of staff thinking white men are the most disadvantaged group won't be a very fun place for a woman to work

KielderWater · 03/08/2024 22:39

CassieMaddox · 03/08/2024 22:27

I agree with you.
An organisation that doesn't do "diversity and inclusion" and has a lot of staff thinking white men are the most disadvantaged group won't be a very fun place for a woman to work

Show quote history

White working class boys are the most underachieving group in society.

BlessedKali · 03/08/2024 22:42

Codlingmoths · 03/08/2024 05:09

I’m really sad to read this and I hope this isn’t how most people on fwr think. Diversity as an employer initiative isn’t always done well, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth having. I look at the world and democracy is being done pretty terribly in lots of places but I think that’s worth having too. My company did a session recently on working with neurodiverse people, wasn’t in my Timezone but I am going to watch the recording. We have other dei initiatives too. I love that we have all this stuff which is thinking about how to work with people who are different from us, as they bring different perspectives and ideas and that’s valuable. I don’t think diversity should exclude white men and socioeconomic background is relevant too.

I think you are mixing up 'accessibility' and 'diversity'. Or, in other words: 'equity of opportunity' and 'equity of outcome'.

In your example, training people to be aware of neuro divergence gives neurodivergent people access. Access is allowing all people the same access to opportunity.

'Diversity' is more about equity of outcome, so giving quotas that need to be filled. This means people might get jobs not because of merit, but simply because they fit in a certain category.

Western institutions are world leading in part because hey have always been a meritocracy.

BlessedKali · 03/08/2024 22:44

CassieMaddox · 03/08/2024 22:27

I agree with you.
An organisation that doesn't do "diversity and inclusion" and has a lot of staff thinking white men are the most disadvantaged group won't be a very fun place for a woman to work

Show quote history

We need to get over the oppression Olympics and stop endlessly trying to categorise people in how much of a victim they arez and just work towards a society that has opportunity for all.

This obsession with 'white male privilige' is nothing more than racsim in fashionable attire

Shennie100 · 03/08/2024 23:18

It wasn't "the last supper" and nothing to do with Christians. It was a Greek banquet (as the Olympics began there) with the God of wine.
Sometimes, people think everything is about them.

KielderWater · 03/08/2024 23:27

Shennie100 · 03/08/2024 23:18

It wasn't "the last supper" and nothing to do with Christians. It was a Greek banquet (as the Olympics began there) with the God of wine.
Sometimes, people think everything is about them.

I saw that spin they tried to put on it. Unfortunately people had kept the receipts where they clearly stated otherwise.

Codlingmoths · 03/08/2024 23:45

BlessedKali · 03/08/2024 22:42

I think you are mixing up 'accessibility' and 'diversity'. Or, in other words: 'equity of opportunity' and 'equity of outcome'.

In your example, training people to be aware of neuro divergence gives neurodivergent people access. Access is allowing all people the same access to opportunity.

'Diversity' is more about equity of outcome, so giving quotas that need to be filled. This means people might get jobs not because of merit, but simply because they fit in a certain category.

Western institutions are world leading in part because hey have always been a meritocracy.

Show quote history

No, I am not. That is my work diversity program. That is what good diversity programs do. Others don’t, that doesn’t make them the true diversity definition and companies like mine wrong. Honestly.

CassieMaddox · 03/08/2024 23:49

KielderWater · 03/08/2024 22:39

White working class boys are the most underachieving group in society.

Show quote history

Bollocks

CassieMaddox · 03/08/2024 23:50

BlessedKali · 03/08/2024 22:42

I think you are mixing up 'accessibility' and 'diversity'. Or, in other words: 'equity of opportunity' and 'equity of outcome'.

In your example, training people to be aware of neuro divergence gives neurodivergent people access. Access is allowing all people the same access to opportunity.

'Diversity' is more about equity of outcome, so giving quotas that need to be filled. This means people might get jobs not because of merit, but simply because they fit in a certain category.

Western institutions are world leading in part because hey have always been a meritocracy.

Show quote history

In your example, training people to be aware of neuro divergence gives neurodivergent people access. Access is allowing all people the same access to opportunity.

This is exactly what inclusivity training is Confused

CassieMaddox · 03/08/2024 23:52

BlessedKali · 03/08/2024 22:44

We need to get over the oppression Olympics and stop endlessly trying to categorise people in how much of a victim they arez and just work towards a society that has opportunity for all.

This obsession with 'white male privilige' is nothing more than racsim in fashionable attire

Show quote history

"Oppression olympics" 🙄
You aren't coming across as someone with much experience of trying to work in male dominated companies to be honest.

TempestTost · 04/08/2024 00:03

StickItInTheFamilyAlbum · 03/08/2024 11:15

I rather not to be hired than given a job to tick a box. I would be extremely uncomfortable and I am not anyone’s underdog project.

The fact that someone can tick a box doesn't mean that that's the only reason that they were hired for the post. That can be a comforting fiction for some people.

"Denying that it was social engineering, [Helen Mountfield] recalled how she had once discussed with a judge positive discrimination for female lawyers wanting to join the bench. “He said, ‘You know, I think it would be dreadful for women. They would feel they were only there because they were women.’ And I said to him, ‘Does it undermine your self-confidence that you’re a white man? Do you ever think, maybe I’m only a judge because I’m a white man and if I was a woman I wouldn’t be here?’”"

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/state-pupils-flock-to-oxford-college-and-degree-results-soar-q96p7bxj0

Kaitlyn Greenidge:
When someone manages to rise up through our hobbled alleged meritocracy and is crowned the first to hold a position, I know that does not mean that they were the only one who possibly could. I'd assumed everyone understood this, but it has become clear to me in the last few years, as these news of firsts in media and publishing and film and sports came rolling in, as people wrote and agonized over what felt like a shift in culture, that that was naive. People in power, the ones doing the crowning, generally believe that there is no one else qualified until they happen to decide to bestow the crown. It's easier that way, isn't it? To think that the first happened just because the right person finally managed to emerge and break through, and not because there was a whole system put in place to make sure no one who looks a certain way or comes from a particular background ever has a chance to do so in the first place. I am reminded of a Chris Rock quote, one he gave during Barack Obama's second term as president. "To say Obama is progress is saying that he's the first Black person that is qualified to be president. That's not Black progress. That's white progress. There's been Black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years."

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a34426455/the-bind-of-being-first/

No one is saying people shouldn't get jobs because they are members of a certain group.

They are talking about people being given jobs because they are members of a certain group, which logically means excluding other due to group membership.

TempestTost · 04/08/2024 00:11

CassieMaddox · 03/08/2024 23:49

Bollocks

Show quote history

Not at all, though the picture is slightly more complicated, depending on what elements you are looking and how you weight them.

The reasons are very similar to the reasons other groups struggle generationally.

KielderWater · 04/08/2024 00:28

Anyone who has worked in school in (overwhelmingly white) ex mining/industrial areas or coastal communities knows about the chronic underachievement of particularly males in those area. These are not mobile populations - they do not leave their towns. They are areas where multigenerational long term unemployment is the norm.

The most deprived area in the UK is not inner city London or Leeds, it is Jaywick in Clayton. Yes - Nigel Farage’s constituency. The next eight most deprived areas are all in Blackpool.

CassieMaddox · 04/08/2024 11:33

KielderWater · 04/08/2024 00:18

Show quote history

You said "white working class boys are the most underachieving group in society"

That's a far right piece of nonsense. I'm not saying they are disadvantaged, they are. But "the most disadvantaged" they are not.

And why is your post not "Oppression olympics"?

CassieMaddox · 04/08/2024 11:42

I'm going to explain more. The studies on this use "free school meals" as their way of identifying working class. This is a subset of the working class obviously. When all working class are included, the pattern is different.

They also tend to use GCSE grades and attendance at university as a measure of attainment. Neither of which actually measure life performance accurately. Many of thebarriers negatively impacting other groups happen at work.

If you read into why white boys are doing worse it's likely because of a language deficit caused by a lack of conversation in the home. Ironically the exact kind of thing Sure Start centres were designed to tackle (and had started to, before the Conservative government cut them).

It's a really complex subject that in my opinion has been over simplified by the populist tendencies of the previous government.

MotherofChaosandDestruction · 04/08/2024 11:54

Some of the comments here seem to be direct from the 'Andrew Tate's playbook - no one is discriminating against white men. The world is built around white men, whilst some companies may seem to over exert their DEI initiatives is it really against all realms of possibilities that black/brown/disabled/women have got onto schemes because they are the best candidates and the level playing field has enabled that?

I agree that class is not considered nearly enough and that some initiatives come direct from CRT/queer theory which I absolutely don't agree with. Diversity and level the playing field is so important to enable people to have a chance against white men.

CassieMaddox · 04/08/2024 11:56

MotherofChaosandDestruction · 04/08/2024 11:54

Some of the comments here seem to be direct from the 'Andrew Tate's playbook - no one is discriminating against white men. The world is built around white men, whilst some companies may seem to over exert their DEI initiatives is it really against all realms of possibilities that black/brown/disabled/women have got onto schemes because they are the best candidates and the level playing field has enabled that?

I agree that class is not considered nearly enough and that some initiatives come direct from CRT/queer theory which I absolutely don't agree with. Diversity and level the playing field is so important to enable people to have a chance against white men.

Well said 👏

Brainworm · 04/08/2024 12:01

Different organisations have different ideas about EDI.

Some think it's about appointing and retaining the highest performing for the role. Many think/ recognise that 'the best' may not be identified from conventional routes (e.g the person who went to Eton and Oxford may actually not be as capable as an inner city kid who went to a sink comp and didn't get to university). Therefore, they think it's in their organisation's interest to have recruitment and development pathways to help them find and promote 'the best' (recognising there is a lot of untapped talent in marginalised groups). Their 'diversity hires' come spotting yet to be realised talent.

Others think their role is to engage in social engineering and right past societal wrongs. They seek to hire and promote people from specific demographics, regardless of whether they are or have potential to be 'the best'. They aim for equal representation rather than the assumption that this will naturally occur when you have effective talent management processes.

Successful organisations tend to unapologetically take the first approach. They also don't encounter as much spurious EDI nonsense (as opposed to legitimate claims of discrimination) in the workplace as they are performance based in their judgements and grifters tend to leave of their own making.

Sadly, there is plenty of discrimination in the workplace. It's a travesty that most of the EDI initiatives do bugger all about this!

KielderWater · 04/08/2024 12:13

If you read into why white boys are doing worse…

So you agree they are doing worse?

KielderWater · 04/08/2024 12:14

MotherofChaosandDestruction · 04/08/2024 11:54

Some of the comments here seem to be direct from the 'Andrew Tate's playbook - no one is discriminating against white men. The world is built around white men, whilst some companies may seem to over exert their DEI initiatives is it really against all realms of possibilities that black/brown/disabled/women have got onto schemes because they are the best candidates and the level playing field has enabled that?

I agree that class is not considered nearly enough and that some initiatives come direct from CRT/queer theory which I absolutely don't agree with. Diversity and level the playing field is so important to enable people to have a chance against white men.

You do not think targets of 40% BAME discriminates against the group that makes up 82% of the population?