Are White British Men somehow “disadvantaged”

In my friendship group we all know how each other votes and politics is frequently discussed. Why on earth would it be secret? Unless we were ashamed?

My middle grandson is having a great time at an all boys state grammar school. Many of the boys are Indian or Chinese and come from families who are very focused on education and they are mostly high achievers. The school is also very keen on sports - and the sports are very competitive, which my grandson loves. When I spent a day there I found myself thinking how nice it was not having any girls messing things up. He does mix with a lot of girls at his drama classes at the weekend,

www.gov.uk/government/publications/positive-action-in-the-workplace-guidance-for-employers/positive-action-in-the-workplace#what-is-the-difference-between-positive-action-and-positive-discrimination

This is from the government's website:

What is the difference between positive action and positive discrimination?

Positive action is not positive discrimination. Positive discrimination is unlawful in Great Britain. If an action treating a particular group more favourably does not meet the statutory requirements in the Act for taking positive action, then it is likely to be unlawful direct discrimination under the Act, irrespective of the motives behind taking it. Some people may refer to this type of unlawful preferential treatment as ‘positive discrimination’. However, it is not unlawful for an employer to treat a disabled person more favourably in comparison to a non-disabled person.

Some examples of initiatives that would probably constitute unlawful discrimination are:

recruiting or promoting a person solely because they have a relevant protected characteristic (without regard to the legal criteria)
setting quotas (as opposed to targets) to recruit or promote a particular number or proportion of people with protected characteristics irrespective of merit
requiring that places for those with particular protected characteristics are reserved on interview panels, irrespective of whether there are more suitable candidates excluded who do not have that particular characteristic
creating schemes to benefit those with a particular protected characteristic, without any evidence that the group in question is at a disadvantage or has different needs
Positive discrimination may also occur where a disadvantaged or underrepresented group that shares a protected characteristic is treated preferentially (but not in accordance with the legal criteria or existing exemptions) to address inequality.

Positive action should not be confused with ‘affirmative’ action, which was first introduced in the USA and has since been adopted in some other countries. Although the general aims to promote greater equality of opportunity are similar, affirmative action can be more prescriptive than positive action and often involves the use of quotas to reduce the underrepresentation of some groups. For example, this could involve setting quotas to interview a minimum number of people from underrepresented groups for certain roles. As above, introducing such quotas could constitute positive discrimination as they are mandatory and employers may need to put forward less qualified candidates for hiring or promotion opportunities to meet any minimum restrictions. Targets differ from quotas as they are not mandatory and can be used to make improvements without compromising the ability for employers to put forward the best candidates for roles. When considering taking positive action, you should be careful not to use American resources about affirmative action, as they do not set out the legal position in this country.

To avoid positive discrimination, an employer should follow the steps set out in this guidance. In particular, an employer must reasonably think that one of the 3 conditions – disadvantage, different needs, or disproportionately low participation – applies to the particular group before taking measures targeting it.

An example of positive discrimination is the case of Furlong v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police. Cheshire Police operated a policy of treating all candidates who passed the recruitment tests (regardless of score) as being equally qualified for the job. Ethnic minority candidates were then prioritised for selection. The Employment Tribunal found that Cheshire Police Service directly discriminated on grounds of sex, race and sexual orientation against Mr Furlong, who was a white, heterosexual male.

The Tribunal found that while there was evidence that ethnic minority groups were underrepresented within the force, reliance on section 159 of the Act failed because the prioritised candidates were not as well qualified as Mr Furlong. The tribunal therefore found that the action taken by the police force was unlawful because the test in section 159(4) was not met. First, the police force had set an artificially low threshold in their recruitment tests and it was wrong that all 127 candidates were equally suitable for the job. Second, the tribunal found that the police force’s recruitment approach of prioritising ethnic minority candidates had the hallmarks of being a policy. And third, although the police force had a legitimate aim to improve ethnic diversity in its force, the tribunal held that the blanket approach to positive action in recruitment was not reasonably necessary or a proportionate means of achieving that legitimate aim. More information on positive action in recruitment is available in later sections of this guidance.

So this was in last week’s news; www.linkedin.com/posts/elliot-hammer-37522920_middle-class-white-men-banned-from-public-activity-7469009904591155200-oyye

This is wrong, I believe strongly in meritocracy, it should always be the best person for the job.

Cossy I am amazed you know the voting habits of your friendship group, do you have to fill in an application to join?

Only my husband and children know how I vote.

Foxie thanks for clarifying. Personally I don’t think “positive action” is a bad thing and I certainly don’t want to see DEI disappearing or watered down. Nor do I wish to see a watered down version of the equality act.

To me and so many others it would be a totally retrograde step.

foxie48

Positive discrimination has been illegal in the UK since 2010, people are getting confused with "positive discrimination" which is illegal and "positive action" which is legal and is about removing the barriers to equality so that everyone has a fair opportunity. There is so much misunderstanding about DEI that I despair!

You and me both

Positive discrimination has been illegal in the UK since 2010, people are getting confused with "positive discrimination" which is illegal and "positive action" which is legal and is about removing the barriers to equality so that everyone has a fair opportunity. There is so much misunderstanding about DEI that I despair!

Oreo I think many boys would. My grandson is about to start an all boys secondary school (state non-selective) in September, I’ll report back.

My only fear, for want of a better word, is that boys and girls do need to interact during puberty and teens, so educating them both separately is great, so long as they get the chance to do other activities mixing with each other. Our DGS dances and does musical theatre where he and the other few male dancers are surrounded by girls!

Ask David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Prince William ……

Cossy

Sorry about typos in my posts. I was one of those girls for whom concentration was very hard!

Me too 👍🏻🙄

Cossy

Sorry about typos in my posts. I was one of those girls for whom concentration was very hard!

Join the club😂

I do wonder if boys would respond better to an all boys school from aged 11 with lots of male teachers and plenty of sports?

Sorry about typos in my posts. I was one of those girls for whom concentration was very hard!

Luckygirl but this applies to all boys, not just British White Boys, and it is a huge generalisation. Some boys are much more placid and patience and some girls are unable to sit still for more than five minutes.

I do think, as an aside, we start our “formal” education too early.

I think it starts in the education system which undoubtedly favours girls, who are better able to sit and concentrate than boys. Big generalisation of course, but this is what I have observed.

School represents a child's first experience of the British "system" that they experience and if that is frustrating then it sets up a negative expectation.

The rigid teaching to the test mentality that came with Gove is hugely disadvantageous to boys.

Galaxy I agree with everything to say, BUT do all these thing apply only to British White Men?

🤷🏻‍♀️

They are disadvantaged in some areas and advantaged in some.
Boys frequently perform worse than girls in education, men are more likely to commit suicide, they are more likely to experience violence, particularly stranger violence. They figure highly in jobs which are dangerous. I can list the advantages as well but generally they are more obvious.