Sex discrimination and all the other unlawful discriminations to become lawful

[Tadpolesinponds]

...if Reform wins the next general election.
Politics latest: Reform would scrap Equality Act, says Braverman | Politics News | Sky News

"Entrenching the importance of the family in the curriculum. Switching child benefit to incentivise families to have more children. Introducing a ‘negative child benefit’ tax for those who don’t have offspring"

His further comments have all been very clear that he takes issues with childless women, not men. Women have plenty of reason to be concerned when men start talking about our reproduction capabilities and making suggestions on what should or should not be encouraged, when actually we want men to just mind their business especially hypocrites such as himself that didn't have a family until 39 and most likely is ignorant to the many reasons people may not have children.

In fact there are quite regularly people on MN and even FWR who are asking for just that, a tax break to make life for families easier

I don't dispute that families need support. I think it's laughably naive to think parties like reform or restore are going to do that especially since many of their supporters will claim to support the above but also opposed lifting the benefit cap (as do Reform).

Is partly because of who their friends/supporters are in the US. I am generally sceptical of the "Andrew Doyle has an office in the same street as someone who knows someone in America who is in the Heritage Foundation so Andrew Doyle is a fascist". But Farage is being quite directly funded by people who do have those very extreme beliefs. And there has been a certain amount of Motte and Bailey tactics going on. Saying something with quite extreme implications, then proposing something vague that could just be about tax breaks for families or could be more extreme and then when people accuse them of being extreme saying "what it's just about tax breaks". Basically he is trying to play to several very different audiences and I don't know who he is lying to.

I am more suspicious because in the run up to the US election there were lots of people scoffing at the more extreme predictions of what Trump would do. The whole "conspiracy" around project 2025 was seen as something that would never happened. And now they are enacting project 2025 pretty much word for word.

I don't think the UK public is the same as the US public in terms of what they want. But that doesn't mean parties in America/the UK can't have the same people funding them.

And now I do feel like a crazy conspiracist and maybe I am. I just don't think all the concerns about Reform and women's rights are mere hysteria.

@TempestTost if a man complained that he couldn't access a service because it was for women only would you see that as a problem with equality legislation?

Completely agree, they are weaponising concerns for young white boys or the mental health of white British children even though they make other statements that make it very clear they couldn't give a toss about either of these things. For everyone on that thread angry at the idea that a charity had funding to support referrals from BAME groups and PP using it as an example of why scrapping the EA would be good - Reform et all are always banging on about how they want to restrict support for those with mental health anyway. Do people actually think that reform or restore want to invest in the mental health or education of white children? Its so obvious they're being disingenuous by how contradictory they are and it would be funny if it wasn't so scary that people are falling for this.

He even says that quiet bit out loud - that he doesn't want middle class white men to lose any advantage.

It is not just the sections that deal with 'Sex', but disability, age, sexual orientation and so on. I don't think the vast majority of people have any clue about the depth and reach of the Act and what it contains.

What they are appealing to is resentment over DEI policies whereby it is perceived that preference is given to other people on the basis of their protected characteristic...which is felt disadvantages working class, white children ( and boys in particularly) . DEI type policies ( positive discrimination) have created an almighty backlash.

I think this issue goes beyond sex, and is more about culture and perceived
social engineeering ( for those that this announcement is meant to appeal to.)

I think this issue goes beyond sex, and is more about culture and perceived
social engineeering ( for those that this announcement is meant to appeal to.)
Agree. Look at the recent survey about BBC.
BBC vows to better reflect working-class audiences around UK - BBC News https://share.google/zzCma6IyY70gKWEoa

I remember there was a lot of talk about class etc even in the 90s. Particularly regarding how to encourage more talented state school kids/working class kids to go to/be accepted into the top Universities. What happened was the right wing newspapers (Telegraph, Mail) really kicked against that complaining about social engineering. There was loads of talk about upper middle class kids being discriminated against any time there was an attempt to help WC kids.
Then the narrative shifted and it became all about other characteristics (this was wrong, class should always have been part of the convo). But very rapidly the same papers and often the same journalists also changed tack and suddenly they were very concerned about the working class being left behind. It's very transparent.

I don't know if class should be a protected characteristic. I don't know how that would work. But it is positive that the BBC is at least acknowledging the lack of representation as an issue. How you tackle it without allowing people to game the system is another issue since I think it's quite hard to "prove" class. I think tackling the issues at the source (outreach, finding) would work better than quotas.

I remember lots of excellent drama etc with working class characters coming from the wave of working class grammar school kids.
If you read the whole article there's this.
Often when shows appear "clunky" or inauthentic, the review suggested, it was because "diversity seems superimposed rather than arising out of the subject".

"Audiences are particularly unforgiving of this if it challenges their expectations of what they have switched on to see," the review said.

"If there's an Agatha Christie murder mystery over the Christmas period, they won't expect to be taken into anti-colonial struggles, alongside the country-house murder.

"Unless it's very skilfully done, there is a danger it will feel overly didactic and preachy, as if the viewer is being lectured or a point is being made heavy-handedly. A vital component of quality for the viewer is authenticity."
This is the core issue DEI, lecturing, looking down their noses at people. This is Farage's greatest selling point, he doesn't do that. And that's what the Equality Act has become - lecturing.

Yes, but even Agatha Christie could be tied in, not necessarily with anti colonialism but with the early 20th century British in the middle east. She was extremely interested in mesopotamia/Iraq and some of her mysteries are set there and include local characters as she was also very interested in the local culture. And some of the white/Western protagonists in those stories are written a little bit racist/snobby etc. You could easily have an adaptation of one of those stories and have an upset viewer assume a passing reference to such things is a modern "woke" insert when in reality it comes from Agatha Christy herself. I'm not sure but I think there are also references to what I guess you would term anti-colonialist movements in one of her books. I think one of the murders is assumed to be some sort of shadowy local gang but actually isn't.

It's like people getting angry that a programme driving in more detail into Jane Austen's influences brought up slavery. But Jane Austin WAS influenced by the abolitionist circles she moved in. It's not made up...

I do see what you mean. I just don't think Agatha Christie is the best example.

Farage does nothing but preach to WC people. He tells us constantly that our poor neighbourhoods, inadequate housing, lack of access to services we need and our disproportionate likelihood to be victims of crime is the fault of the black and brown people within our communities.
He is now extending his range somewhat to preach to male people that they face an additional threat from women's protections.
Farage has not come with an open mind into WC communities to listen and formulate policies based on what he's heard.
Farage has a solution and came looking for problems he could twist to justify it.

I know those were the reports words not yours! I think it does go down to expectations. Agatha Christie is her own whole thing now. I think my mum has an almost Pavlovian response to a new Christmas special "oh lovely" and then a sofa blanket just appears. So then it's what is the BBC for - meeting people's expectations and being comfortable but also potentially boring and sliding into irrelevance. Or being all exciting and innovative and pissing people of. I don't think the problem is just wanting to be progressive or a lack of diverse voices although that's definitely part of the problem.

I’d like to add at this point. Overly didactic = Silent Witness every time they do an ‘issue’.

I agree with some of that. It’s a bit of a soapbox of mine, the assumption that Christie is all cosy drawing rooms. I think that comes from early adaptations. There are quite a lot of things in the books which would get labelled as ‘woke’ now. Granted there’s also a lot of definitely ‘not woke’ stuff, but it’s a mixed bag.

There’s a bit in the Guardian about colour blind casting in Lord of the Flies and how it distorts the themes of the novel. For me that highlights what I think should be the real criticism of diversity initiatives. They are often ill thought out exercises in doing the easy thing, and don’t really address structural inequality.

Exactly, that's what I'm getting at. All the training initiatives under the illusion that a powerpoint and a self righteous trainer can change the world.

And a flag. Must have a flag.

A lot of that perception of wokeness or clunkiness, particular with something like Agatha Christie or the adaptions of some classics is just where people haven't read the original texts and seen that those themes are present and weren't touched on in previous adaptions though, although sometimes the way it's written in is bad so that adds to people thinking it's a clunky irrelevant insert. Can you explain how the equality act in itself can be or has become "lecturing"? Surely the whole point behind *EDI initiatives and education is that people are going to not be aware of issues that affect disabled people, women, different ethnicities etc but I don't see how that equates to looking down their noses at people who exactly would feel looked down on. I can't imagine why a woman would appreciate EDI when it comes to supporting women and girls in work or education yet find it lecturing to be educated on support Black, lesbian or disabled woman might need. What do you think of the initiative into he article you linked to increase women presenters over 60? I think a lot of the perception of "social engineering" sounds a bit silly or at least I wonder if those who feel that way acknowledge that society was every socially engineered to centre and raise up men?

I suspect resentment stems when it is perceived that standards are lowered in order to appoint candidates from protected categories.

Regarding universities and the push to get as many young people as possible into university, I do think it has resulted in lower standards. Grade inflation is absolutely a thing....and students now going to university have to be taught how to structure and plan an essay, for example. Obviously some of this is down, also, to the fact that students are now consumers and universities have to attract them in order to survive, regardless of their suitability.

Social engineering has all sorts of consequences and sometimes the more negative impacts are not known until after they've been implemented. So now, we have come to realise that going to university is not the be all and end all, and that university education guarantees nobody a well paid job -- plus now young people leave with a lot of debt. Whereas traditional skilled tradesmen and women can earn good money and never be short of work if they are good enough. Not everyone is naturally academic.

Social class is an amporphous concept and it is difficult to categorise using traditional measures. Is it about income, is it about education, is it about culture?

Societal values shift and change and with it the priorities of governments. The job of journalists is to critique that.

But this isn't a problem with the Equality Act. It doesn't require its repeal. This is a problem with the privileging of style over substance. Something that is very much the way Reform operates.

Agree. I'm not against the Equality Act, I'm against not reading the room because that leads to the backlash. Reform is able to suggest repeal because it has recently spawned an overtly unhinged activism, not from the EHRC but lobby and pressure groups.
Anyone who has been dragooned onto diversity training can be excused expressing their frustration.
Anyone who has been disciplined for wrong speak or read the numerous cases of those that have will be rightly enraged e.g.

https://x.com/i/status/2024466996998353117
With the support of the Free Speech Union, Martin was preparing to bring claims for constructive dismissal, discrimination and harassment at an employment tribunal.
We are delighted to confirm that both parties have now reached a settlement, with Trinity Laban admitting that Mr Speake is not racist.

I see many of the problems with the DEI initiatives and social engineering which seems to be being applied without much sophistication BUT I cannot see how it is linked to the Equality Act. Positive discrimination measures in the EA are quite tightly controlled and quite a few of the ones we see are actually not allowed in law if someone challenges them. Removing the EA would not stop DEI initiatives and would make the unfair ones easier to implement with no legal challenge possible.
What worries me most is that Reform do not have a good enough understanding of the issues around this to begin making changes.

Sorry to nick pick (just my warped sense of humour), but some people do know with 100% certainty that their future does not hold pregnancy.
😀

And of course we all know with 100% certainty that we will age.

I'm not saying we don't need an Equality Act. I do think we need to firm up what it is actually saying as in the Supreme Court judgement. It also needs proper enforcement mechanisms. Litigation for individuals is expensive.

The battles at the moment are about freedom of speech and positive discrimination. We have the police harrassing people because someone from a protected group has been upset.
I do not think Reform is capable of doing this review. I have and will never vote for them. I didn't vote Brexit but I can understand the people who did.

I've copied a bit from Don't Divide Us report I linked to above.

The Equality Act and Its Intermediaries
Between the letter of a law and its power to
determine social actions lie many things, including the organisational intermediaries who guide its interpretation. Here it is helpful to scrutinise the language of the EA itself, compared to government guidance, and guidance from the EHRC.
The S 26 of the EA defines
16 Harassment as applied to
any protected characteristic:
1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
A) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
B) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
i) violating B’s dignity, or
ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
The terms are over-general with any number of interpretations, which, in turn, invites further explication and guidance.
Government Advice on Workplace Bullying and Harassment fleshes out
17 the definition:
Bullying and harassment is behaviour that makes someone feel intimidated or offended. Harassment is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.
Examples of bullying or harassing behaviour include:
■ spreading malicious rumours
■ unfair treatment
■ picking on or regularly undermining someone
■ denying someone’s training or promotion
opportunities
Bullying and harassment can happen:
■ face-to-face
■ by letter
■ by email
■ by phone
Notable by its absence compared to the EA itself is the idea of intention, as in the formulation ‘the conduct has the purpose of….’. This is highly pertinent since
another tenet of identity politics in relation to race is the importance given to the concept of ‘unconscious bias’, which, in effect, ignores or devalues the traditional model of the individual as having inner directed agency
or intentionality.

And I've just seen
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has appointed Dame Antonia Romeo as cabinet secretary, the UK's top civil servant.
This is without a proper recruitment process and after much talk of it should be a woman.