New n**i Legislation

Question

New laws are being passed in the UK, so if equal candidates apply for the same position, the white male is last in the que. Mionorities and women have to be picked ahead.

What do femmini make of this?

As a white male, am I now the persecuted! I'm a bit scared. There is a feeling the boot is on the other foot now. Unfortunately, I am young and didn't have a chance to benefit from the male dominated female and minority slavery of the past, if indeed this ever really happened.

It's so sad that I have to suffer for revenge on a different generation of men, but will the guys fight - no! We aren't that dumb, we have been conditioned to accept the world, not try to stitch it up in our favour!

Answer 1

This is a proposed bill - it has a long way to go before it becomes law, which I very much doubt it will do.  

However, this is what you have to expect from a socialist government.  Socialists often attempt to resolve de-facto inequalities in society through non-liberal means - one example of this would be the higher financial assistance I receive for going to university, as my earnings are below a certain amount.  A middle class pupil would not receive these benefits.  Does this equal n**i persecution against them?  I doubt you would say so.  

Ultimately, those opposed to these measures should vote for a different party at the next election.  Like many feminists, I am a liberal democrat, so I would be opposed to these measures on the grounds that I see it as social engineering - but what else do you expect from the Big Nanny otherwise known as the Labour party?  :-)

Answer 2

Why are you worried about what's happing in the UK if you live here in the US?  

Answer 3

Kommissar Harman has put forward many hateful and insane ideas. I think her previous one was to abolish women's prisons and just jail men,

I told them no good would come of it when they started handing out the asylum keys to the inmates.

Answer 4

Since I am not a resident of the UK, I cannot comment on a situation that I know liitle about.  But I doubt anywhere in the western world, especially in the UK, with its class distinctions, the one nation above all others that institutionalized racism, would white men be put in the back simply because they are white.

In the USA we are familiar with the angry white male.  Be the angry white male never stops to think for a moment that quite often HE is / was put at the front of the line simply because he is/was a white male.  And with a legacy of "it's not what you know but who you know", cronyism, and nepotism, it behooves me that white men NEVER sue other white men over promotions.

Answer 5

Let them show their true colours, decent society will reject them.

Answer 6

Firstly, this proposed law is not gender specific, so it applies to men and women equally.

Secondly it does not compel employers to do anything.

It really is pathetic to see white males complaining about discrimination. Women are far more likely to be discriminated against in applying for jobs and promotions/pay rises in the UK, due to entrenched discrimination and our unequal maternity laws. If the government was serious about ending inequality they would firstly ensure men and women had equal parental leave.

How can anti-feminist men expect feminists to take them seriously when they don't even understand what they are talking about?

Answer 7

You're correct. Get rid of this corruption in your land and stand against Nazism once again.

Answer 8

This is disgusting.. I can't believe they think equal outcome is justified without equal opportunity.. its communism and absolute discrimination.

It doesn't promote people based on merit but based on who you are: a woman or a black person.. this is why equality is such a dangerous concept, everyone has their own brand. Equity is so much more useful since its about ppl getting what they DESERVE competing on equal footing.

Entrenched discrimination? What the h**l is this then? its just perpetuating the problem

And you tracey, you're quite happy to rant when it suits your interests but when it doesn't you just deny the facts and delude yourself like the misogynists you oppose.. way to go! =D

edit: I would love to hear the opinions of anyone who gave my comment a thumbs down but i'm assuming no one has a logical reason to disagree with my statement.. I'll wait though (Y)

edit: @thing.. "over a white man" were the key words I think most people take issue with. Its relatively a given that equally capable people have an equal opportunity so why try to imply that blacks and women should have any form of manipulated opportunity?

Answer 9

Right, another white guy claiming that he is discriminated against. Frankly, white men claiming they are disadvantaged when they live in  world entirely run and controlled by white males has to be the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. Want some cheese with your whine?  

Answer 10

What is now legal for employers: "These two people are equally able but I prefer to hire a woman."  

What is still illegal: "These two people are equally able, but I prefer to hire a man."

Answer 11

While I, as a white British male, have to tread softly, softly through the minefield that is PC in Britain, I choose not to feel persecuted.  

I have to admit that I have not really ever been marginalised for bieng a whiteChristian male in the UK, but I do know of some blokes who have.  This why I am against any form of "affirmitive action": it is simply reverse discrimination.  As an employer, I want to choose the best person for the positions I hire without:

1.  Loony Leftie New Labour PC that says I must hire certain people in preference to others, else I face a barrage of government supported lobby-group interference in my business.

2.  Risk of legal sanction and ability to trade.

3.  Risk of legal threats from disaffected people who seem to think that they have the right to tell me that I must hire them because they are black/female/asian/g*y or whatever.  I have never been threatened legally by a white bloke.  I have, at least once, by all the others.

In relation to those trying to take you to task for your comments on slavery, you do have a point: it is all very well to say that Britain only implemented limited emancipation, but the US still took MUCH longer to do it.  There is litle or no "ex-slave" culture in the UK.  It still exists strongly in the US.

To restate: I am against any form of social engineering that seeks to advance certain people on any basis where they are not disabled.  

Answer 12

Yes you are persecuted.  The media and feminists have declared war.  The Governments and lawyers idly stand by while Western Civilization devolves into social chaos.  They control by pitting Citizen against Citizen.  

I haven't seen one woman upset over this.  Hmm and I thought feminists were for equality?  How is this equality?

Answer 13

Afraid to post a link to a well-known newspaper's story on the "problem"?   Otherwise I think you are probably not conveying much in the way of truth or accuracy or balance.

"They said making bosses audit pay to assess the gap between male and female staff will be costly and put them at risk of legal challenges from women who do not think they are paid enough.

But Miss Harman said: 'There might be controversy, but you don't get progress if there isn't a push forward. Women will be able to see they are paid less than men and they will be able to complain and challenge it."

TRANSPARENCY.  WOW.  Sounds GREAT to me!

Answer 14

"The UK was the first nation to BAN slavery, well before your set of hick red necks got beaten by the pasty mash of northerners."

It only "banned" slavery on British homeland soil. It was perfectly comfortable with slavery in its colonies.

If your knowledge and interpretation of that history is so dicey, I'm thinking that your first point is hysterical hyperbole. Sorry.

Answer 15

The article you have given us, says:

"The Equality Bill, which was unveiled yesterday, will also make it legal for the first time to promote a woman or a black person over a white man if they are equally able."

That is NOT the same as forcing bosses to select a woman or black male, it actually gives bosses more choice. They CAN select a woman or black male who is EQUALLY ABLE without risking being sued by a white guy.

The key words seem to be 'equally able', and it seems employers will still be able to chose, but without running the risk of being sued by white guys claiming 'bias' if a minority candidate gets the job.

As for employers screaming about red tape, I wouldn't put too much stock in it. It's the same screaming you hear whenever a new tax is introduced or payroll legislation is changed "more staff hours ~ we'll all be rooned".

It's a nonsense and designed to let parliament and staff know the burden the poor boss labours under.

You won't hear the same screaming when the duty on Mercedes is lowered and all the paperwork has to change.

And why would you ~ someone in accounts will be doing it, not the boss.

Cheers :-)

Answer 16

I would not worry, if you think that the equal opportunity laws in the UK have anything in common with Nazism you are so stupid you will never be in a position where you will be considered of equal merit to any woman or black person, man or woman, so this law will never apply to you.