Jump to content

Cancel culture


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

We don't know if they're doing fine or not but surely the point is that they shouldn't be fast tracked ahead of someone who "may" be equally as good purely on their choice of sexual orientation or where they were born / religion ??

I honestly can't understand how you think this is ok.

To put it another way, if the E-Mail had stated that any white straight worker should be fast tracked as "talent" purely because they were white and straight, then I'm 100% certain that there would have been an uproar and rightly so.

I'll say it again, "talent" should be "talent" irrespective of their country of birth, sexual orientation, ethnic roots or their religion.

People choose their sexual orientation? Also, your employer is fast tracking people into management based on where they were born and their religion too? Do you know what the qualifying criteria is?

In a country in which white heterosexual people had been historically disadvantaged compared to the majority of the population, I'd suggest that attempts to make it easier for white heterosexual people to advance in the workplace would be entirely fair. Do you disagree?

Do you believe that, before these kinds of measures started to be implemented, people from minority groups were evaluated based purely on their talent?

(yes, I'm sealioning like f**k, before anyone else points it out)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Hope nobody has bought tickets to see Jerry Sadowitz in Dundee. The Whitehall Theatre are planning to talk to the Pleasance before deciding whether to allow him to perform.

Looks inevitable that another venue is going to decide to protect the rest of us from making our own minds up about him.

So much for Jerry "cashing in" on the publicity.

Depressingly predictable.

 

His show is to go ahead in Dundee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I think there's some merit in your complaint, but i don't completely agree with it. 

I think that where there might be reasons common to a group of people for that group of people underachieving in the workplace then there's a good moral argument for giving that group support.  That's also the legal position for groups identified by protected characteristics. 

If a firm identified that white people were under-represented in senior positions they could absolutely and legally take affirmative action to remedy that.  

Merely being on a leadership type scheme doesn't usually guarantee advancement.

Where i think you do have a point,  possibly by accident,  is that this traditionally excludes white males from extra support.  Lots don't need it.  Kids from underprivileged backgrounds do need the extra push (not all,  but in general,  on average etc). 

Economic status and class aren't equalities act protected characteristics so it is difficult to provide extra support on that basis. I think that it should be possible within the law but it just doesn't occur to many employers. 

 

A very well made point and I'd agree with pretty much all of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I think there's some merit in your complaint, but i don't completely agree with it. 

I think that where there might be reasons common to a group of people for that group of people underachieving in the workplace then there's a good moral argument for giving that group support.  That's also the legal position for groups identified by protected characteristics. 

If a firm identified that white people were under-represented in senior positions they could absolutely and legally take affirmative action to remedy that.  

Merely being on a leadership type scheme doesn't usually guarantee advancement.

Where i think you do have a point,  possibly by accident,  is that this traditionally excludes white males from extra support.  Lots don't need it.  Kids from underprivileged backgrounds do need the extra push (not all,  but in general,  on average etc). 

Economic status and class aren't equalities act protected characteristics so it is difficult to provide extra support on that basis. I think that it should be possible within the law but it just doesn't occur to many employers. 

 

That's fine, we can agree to disagree and ultimately it's all down to personal opinions of what we deem to be the right or wrong way to go about things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s been a long time since I’ve been in the workplace and things have obviously changed for the better overall but as I am now a client/customer I do have a few niggles about dealing with women professionals.

we had the same financial advisor for about 20years who we both liked enormously but inevitably he retired and the firm assigned us a lady to take over from him. This happened to be during Covid and she never actually managed to meet with us for one reason or another. We then heard that she was on maternity leave and we were assigned a male advisor who immediately dealt with our affairs very efficiently. After building up a good relationship with this chap we were told that the lady was now back at work after giving birth, on a part time basis, and she would be dealing with our affairs. We objected to this and insisted we keep the man with whom we had built up a good relationship.

This must happen quite a lot and must put women at a disadvantage but just shows that there are pluses for firms in majoring with male employees as they can offer clients much more certainty and continuity.

After all, its the client who pays the fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

It’s been a long time since I’ve been in the workplace and things have obviously changed for the better overall but as I am now a client/customer I do have a few niggles about dealing with women professionals.

we had the same financial advisor for about 20years who we both liked enormously but inevitably he retired and the firm assigned us a lady to take over from him. This happened to be during Covid and she never actually managed to meet with us for one reason or another. We then heard that she was on maternity leave and we were assigned a male advisor who immediately dealt with our affairs very efficiently. After building up a good relationship with this chap we were told that the lady was now back at work after giving birth, on a part time basis, and she would be dealing with our affairs. We objected to this and insisted we keep the man with whom we had built up a good relationship.

This must happen quite a lot and must put women at a disadvantage but just shows that there are pluses for firms in majoring with male employees as they can offer clients much more certainty and continuity.

After all, its the client who pays the fees.

A few niggles? You had one niggle. She went on maternity leave. You really are a horrible old fucker Pete. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

I don’t want some woman handling my financial affairs. What if she menstruates all over my portfolio?

Choose one that's post-menopausal or anorexic.  Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, coprolite said:

I see barely employable cretins are still blaming the pc brigade for them being barely employable cretins.  I'd have been CEO by now if all the CEO jobs weren't taken by 1 legged Ghanaian lesbians. 

I blame Partick Thistle and their erstwhile highheidyin Jim Oliver who'd deal with anybody, whether they were Asian, Eskimo or a one-eyed black lesbian saxophone player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

It’s been a long time since I’ve been in the workplace and things have obviously changed for the better overall but as I am now a client/customer I do have a few niggles about dealing with women professionals.

we had the same financial advisor for about 20years who we both liked enormously but inevitably he retired and the firm assigned us a lady to take over from him. This happened to be during Covid and she never actually managed to meet with us for one reason or another. We then heard that she was on maternity leave and we were assigned a male advisor who immediately dealt with our affairs very efficiently. After building up a good relationship with this chap we were told that the lady was now back at work after giving birth, on a part time basis, and she would be dealing with our affairs. We objected to this and insisted we keep the man with whom we had built up a good relationship.

This must happen quite a lot and must put women at a disadvantage but just shows that there are pluses for firms in majoring with male employees as they can offer clients much more certainty and continuity.

After all, its the client who pays the fees.

I worked in financial services for about 30 years. The average IFA is mid 50s, white, male.

Probably a golf club member, usually a bit of a dick 😁

Many more women, thankfully, dont rely on their husbands for money (as its not the 1970s any more) and require financial advice. Many of them dont necessarily want to talk to a middle aged guy and prefer talking to a female - Its important to build up a rapport with any professional adviser - and so many more women have joined the profession.

In my experience, there is zero difference in the professionalism of male or female IFAs, except that most female IFAs have had to work harder to get into good positions (hence why some just start their own businesses).

As you say, you pay the fees, so you get to decide who looks after your money.

But to exclude someone simply because they are the only gender who can give birth seems a wee bit daft - and the part time bit is a red herring, no IFA will deal with your business full time, she will just deal with fewer clients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

I worked in financial services for about 30 years. The average IFA is mid 50s, white, male.

Probably a golf club member, usually a bit of a dick 😁

Many more women, thankfully, dont rely on their husbands for money (as its not the 1970s any more) and require financial advice. Many of them dont necessarily want to talk to a middle aged guy and prefer talking to a female - Its important to build up a rapport with any professional adviser - and so many more women have joined the profession.

In my experience, there is zero difference in the professionalism of male or female IFAs, except that most female IFAs have had to work harder to get into good positions (hence why some just start their own businesses).

As you say, you pay the fees, so you get to decide who looks after your money.

But to exclude someone simply because they are the only gender who can give birth seems a wee bit daft - and the part time bit is a red herring, no IFA will deal with your business full time, she will just deal with fewer clients.

Fair point.

Maybe just the circumstances pertaining to ourselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my field of research, most folk I know are women. Of all the researchers and PhD students I have recruited as part of my team, only one has been a male. Quite often I only ever get applications from women. 

Never gave it a second thought until now. Just hire the best people, regardless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...