The woke roll back continues

[Hoardasurass]

Jack Daniels has ditched all it's woke policies and it's lgbtq equality index membership

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/22/jack-daniels-owner-scraps-diversity-targets-amid-anti-woke/

The question of employment equity or LGB groups in employment is a strange one. Overall, this is a group that is better off than average financially, and does well in professional kinds of jobs with good benefits and working conditions.

Of course there can always be some people who are jerks, but the employers role here is to make sure such people keep their jerkiness private and if they don't they are disappointed.

Now that pensions etc can apply to same sex couples, there really isn't much that needs to be done to accommodate LGB people in the workplace.

And the corollary of the jerk thing is that no one can expect that other employees need to affirm or approve of their lives or beliefs or marriages or whatever. That stuff is as inappropriate in the workplace as coming out and telling others you don't approve. So DEI pushing allyship or whatever is inappropriate at a basic level.

@newmummycwharf1 It's good that you say you are not being distracted from the research - but you still keep pushing the "systemic racism" line without apparently considering the impact that has. Outcomes in maternity are related to antenatal care. What impact do you think it has on willingness to engage with care when your community constantly tells you it's all racist. What impact does it have on NHS staff when they are constantly told they are not allowed sometimes to have a bad day because their dog has died or their partner has dumped them without being told they are racist. Not everything that is bad is racist.

Yes there are racists in the NHS and yes research has been poor - still is in often excluding the female half of the population.

It's actually quite racist to comment on the ethnicity of researchers, but perhaps that's an example of systemic racism for you.

Racism is the belief that a race has specific inherent characteristics that make them inferior to other races. Mentioning race or ethnicity is not racism. Hope that helps

The race of a researcher is of no relevance to the quality of their research, mentioning it is therefore unnecessary unless you are implying that they have special insight because of their ethnicity - so it's racist.

It is of relevance because, at a minimum, it influences the diversity of research they do and their perspectives. Humans are not a monolith

https://www.ukri.org/what-we-do/supporting-healthy-research-and-innovation-culture/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/epsrc/ethnicity-and-race-equality-in-our-portfolio/

Hope that helps

, it influences the diversity of research they do and their perspectives.

@newmummycwharf1 so your implication here is that only non white reserechers can carry out diverse research so are therefore inferior. Sounds kinda racist to me. HTH

Ugh terrible typing.

The implication is that white researchers are inferior.

Exactly this! How does this help disabled, minorities, pregnant women etc. it’s just putting up a flag and then saying we are great and inclusive. Actually you are not - you are excluding 99% of the population is how most sensible people see it.

One of the problems I see with DEI is the supply and demand imbalance of racism.

It is my belief that in society there are now very few racists (as per the definition below) but an ever increasing number of people that wish to find racism or describe behaviour as racist.

The problem with this approach is firstly the over use of the words racist, racism and discrimination. Secondly it starts to destroy ambition and hope in non white communities- "why bother trying when we are constantly told we won't succeed anyway because of institutional racism ".

The supply/ demand imbalance on racial discrimination has also led to campaigners or activists seeking to find discrimination in other previously less discussed areas such as trans rights or mental health. A side effect of this is that more well known areas of discrimination such as disability or sexism become increasingly overlooked.

Note: racism is defined as a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race and leading to behaviours or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice.

There are courses on ethnicity and diversity in research. Feel free to educate yourself if you are interested.

Do you really mean to be passive aggressive in your phrasing. -as if alternative perspectives must be put in their place?

"Humans are not a monolith" also suggests that there are no defining characteristic amongst people of a particular race or ethnicity......'Diversity' need, therefore, not be predicated on race or ethnicity, any more than it need be predicated on any other 'defining' characteristic.

GPWM!

@newmummycwharf1 Humans all originated in Africa and still share 99.9% of DNA.https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Genetics-vs-Genomics#:~:text=All%20human%20beings%20are%2099.9,about%20the%20causes%20of%20diseases. We have far more in common than we have differences - but some people make a living from exaggerating the differences.

Racism is treating your colleague differently because of their ethnicity. You wouldnt have mentioned who did the research if the lead had been male, pale and stale (unless he was trans).

I recommend this book for you https://www.amazon.co.uk/Woke-Racism-Religion-Betrayed-America/dp/1800751427

Btw you seem to be missing the point on ethnicity in research - much more about the subjects than the researcher.

There are courses on ethnicity and diversity in research. Feel free to educate yourself if you are interested.

@newmummycwharf1

I always cringe when people say to "educate yourself". It demonstrates a lack of ability to argue the point.

This

Not for me... I quickly prostrate myself, sobbing in thanks that I have seen the light and am READY TO BE EDUCATED!!!

@DoreenonTill8

"Not for me... I quickly prostrate myself, sobbing in thanks that I have seen the light and am READY TO BE EDUCATED!!"

Well seems you are in luck because the left has always been a big supporter of re education camps from China to Vietnam to N Korea.

Tonnes of research showing inclusive research in terms of participants is critical. Similarly, evidence demonstrating the positive impact of diversity amongst researchers. It improves diversity of participation, diversity of thought and enquiry, amongst other benefits.

UKRI, MRC, NIHR - all the major research councils have extensive white papers on this, in addition to scientific literature available freely via Pubmed to anyone interested in truly understanding as opposed to bored and keen to argue.

As earlier said, education is your friend. And if you can get on mumsnet, you can educate yourself

I also find that when people use the lazy "educate yourself" what they really mean is I want you to read sources that confirm my bias.

Or in the case of trans nonsense people educate themselves and end up TERFs. 😂😂

How is that different from the direction of travel in the current DEI regime?

Assuming that DEI activists won’t happily shaft anyone (regardless of protected characteristic) is naive in the extreme.

Regardless of intention, DEI practitioners tend to make things worse by being intransigent, high handed, and spiteful.

… and I have never seen Diversity practices improve with the DEI practitioners. It tends to happen within organizations through a couple of individuals leading by example in a non-patronizing way.

@newmummycwharf1 I actually thing the APGAR paper you link to above is a good exaple of activism replacing evidence based medicine.
I'm not sure if I'm posting this in haste, and will regret being blunt, but as you say you are so high up in the organisation which is driving alot of this research-ajacent activity and policy development, I want to point out that the APGAR test is a screening tool, not a diagnostic tool. So infants with dark skin are not being "diagnosed as cyanotic," they are receiving one less point on a screening tool that then leads to further treatment (if urgent) or investigation, not diagnosis.

I think it's probably just more difficult to quickly and accurately observe cyanosis around the lips of baby with dark skin than light.
Writing up papers about how midwives are marking down babies of women of colour for not having pink enough skin looks great to an audience who have no experience working with newborns. But would you want to be the midwife who says, It looks to me like that infant is oxygen deprived but I won't say anything because maybe I'm just being racist. ?

This ☝️

would never celebrate this

Also using the word ‘woke’ disparagingly is a massive red flag for me, coming out of anti-equal rights/far right corners of the internet and people saying ‘political correctness gone mad’ etc 🤢

But that’s just it. DEI in its current incarnation has done very little to address the very real obstacles still faced by women, disabled people and people of colour, and indeed LGB people.

The issue is that DEI overall has been completely hijacked by the genderist lobby, and further privileges the already privileged (straight white males, mostly) at the expense of those who have been and still are traditionally marginalised.

That’s my beef with it. I hate the way that much-needed initiatives to encourage genuine inclusion and diversity have been contaminated with this fake “inclusion” and “diversity” that actually does the opposite of what it’s supposed to.

I don’t know what the answer is, but the kind of “DEI” I personally am happy to see go has, as you point out, completely failed to redress the balance as it was supposed to.