Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

I was trying to hear you out yesterday but it's really hard to continue doing that when you are bending words to fit nonsensical definitions and not listening to why you are wrong.

'share the PC' cannot mean anything other than what it says. Twisting this is like saying TWAW and expecting us all to nod.

No.

Because this is a feminism board and we are feminists and you are the opposite of a feminist.

But their positive action programmes are also separate.

They have a programme which aims to get to 40% of partners being female by 2030.

They also have separate programmes, an "Ethnicity action plan" and a "Black action plan", covering staff who come under those protected characteristics.

Those programmes have the aim of getting to 12% of ethnic minority and 3% of black partners.

These are entirely separate programmes.

The women's programme is solely for women and the ethnicity programmes are for both men and women who have the appropriate ethnicity.

As well as the conflicts of interest pointed out above, to combine only these two groups (women and men with GR) you still have to argue with that it is legitimate and proportionate to exclude other groups of men for example men with disability, who definitely do suffer from healthcare and economic disadvantage. Can you do this?

I’m not sure the case is proved that men with GR suffer from economic disadvantage as a group, and certainly not in comparison to women.

I would never imagine you all to nod. I’ve read enough on here to know that wouldn’t happen.

Every time someone has accused me of being nonsensical I have come back with a sound argument. Then there’s a lot of back and forth and name calling. People trying to make me ‘give up’ and goading me, twisting my words and derailing and sealioning.

But ironically, I think by pushing through I actually proved the premise of my argument to be correct. Someone said that the WI including trans women would be unlawful. But frankly, it wouldn’t be.

I suspect that, proportionally, gender related medicine for adult males is much better funded than women’s reproductive medicine.

Research, well, there’s a significant paucity of decent research on the gender side. But that probably suits a lot of people who would rather that there isn’t any reliable ecpvidence, because the results wouldn’t suit their agenda.

Just not true. It’s one programme.

https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/about/press-room/deloitte-named-a-top-50-employer-for-gender-equality-june24.html

Deloitte launched its ‘Future Leaders Programme’ in 2022. This programme aims to improve representation of women and underrepresented ethnic groups in leadership roles. The first cohort of 500 (76% women) ran in 2022 and consisted of training, networking and peer learning. Nearly a quarter (24%) were promoted in its first- year.

crikey

impressive levels of delusion here

right up there with thinking that bouncing into the thread with the words 'another overexcited GC' is a way to open a constructive debate

Every time we have accused you of being nonsensical you have repeated exactly the same argument we just said was nonsensical.

Politely ignoring the link I just shared?

politely ignoring the fact that the first person to do any name calling was you?

I don't see the relevance of the link you just shared tbh.

Convenient. It’s a link to one of the most well known positive action programmes that the previous poster (and all of you) argued doesn’t exist because it is based around two PCs.

BernardBlacksMolluscs please stop goading me, I won’t reply.

Evidence that things exist, is not evidence that they are lawful.

Have you thought anymore about my comment of 11:47 WhatNextCats?

winding someone up who thinks 'sunshine' is a sexist term is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel

you may wish to consider having a more realistic view of what's actually pejorative, and as previously mentioned, entering a thread with name calling rarely results in 100% friendly engagement

I am always happy to offer further life coaching tips

Sorry, I missed that.

This is a legal positive action initiative focused on the clear underrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities in leadership. It targets specific gaps identified by data, not every form of disadvantage. If that were necessary, every form of positive action would be incredibly difficult to justify.

I applaud the patience of those still engaging with @WhatNextCatsAsDoctors . It has actually been super useful to see the arguments laid out so clearly.

I do suspect that due to being reluctant to say no to the kind of man who barges in where he's clearly not wanted, NFWI won't actually change their policy until they are somehow forced to

Evidence that things exist, is not evidence that they are lawful.

And as we've agreed, positive action programmes are entirely different to membership organisations and covered by different clauses with different rules in the Equality Act.

There is no relevance - it's a word game/logic fail.

• Both clauses contain the phrase 'share a protected characteristic'.
• This programme exists for multiple groups.
• Therefore a membership organisation can restrict membership to multiple groups.
• Despite only the membership organisation clause talking about restricting membership to individuals sharing a protected characteristic, not the positive action clause.

What do you think it proves? They will still have had to justify positive action by looking at separate groups.

And none of that is relevant to the WI which can exclude men from membership without any reference to proportionality or legitimate aims.

What it can’t do is be a mixed sex organisation, but then exclude some men because they are men. That is unlawfully treating men less favourably than women.

It has actually been super useful to see the arguments laid out so clearly.

I've enjoyed it. I can at least understand the arguments to argue against them. A lot of what we get is so incoherent it's not even wrong.

This is constructing an argument you could imagine someone making in court, and it's no worse than the stuff that lost Amnesty and the Scottish Government the case.

"Convenient. It’s a link to one of the most well known positive action programmes that the previous poster (and all of you) argued doesn’t exist because it is based around two PCs."

I think that you might misunderstand what is going on there.

There are two separate programmes, one for women and one for ethnic minorities. Both programmes have identified some actions that will help both of those groups.

Since both programmes have a number of shared actions that will benefit both of them then it makes sense organise that together.

This is where the Future Leaders programme comes into it. It provides support or actions to both the Womens action plan and the black action plan.

This is clearly mentioned by the black action plan when it speaks of how black people will be supported:

"Focusing on intentional, effective and impactful sponsorship for the Black pipeline for example, through our Future Leaders Programme."

[emphasis added]

So, the Future Leaders Programme is simply used to deliver a part of the Black Action Plan.

And since the Women's Plan also requires similar support then that is also actioned through the Future Leaders Programme.

However, the Future Leaders Programme is only a part of the Black action plan. Deloitte are aware that black people need support in ways that white women may not and they provide that as part of the Black action plan.

Likewise, they are aware that women need support in different areas (such as returning to work after being away for an extended period as a parent) and support is given for that under the Women's action plan.

So, the Future Leaders Programme is simply a tool that is used by two separate action plans to help deliver the support that these two action plans require to meet their aims.

And the two separate action plans each have a single protected characteristic.

https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/about/story/purpose-values/about-deloitte-uk/black-action-plan.html

This programme aims to improve representation of women and underrepresented ethnic groups in leadership roles.

Aimed, as it clearly states, at multiple diverse groups. It’s a sort of umbrella programme with different strands. So, irrelevant to any point about groups that should be restricted to people who share a singular protected characteristic.

You do realise that the conclusion you came to is something the majority of this thread was pushing could never happen?

I think “separate” is another word you have trouble with.