Sponsored Links

Is ... Woke?

It clearly is institutional discrimination against men, that's simply a fact. Just because a profession doesn't split 50/50 by sex or reflect the general population by ethnicity/race it is not an indicator of discrimination or unfairness. It is well documented that women naturally skew towards different interests and than men, gendered behaviour is rooted in biology and is not simply a "social construct". Females skew towards people men skew towards "things" and you can see this in job areas selected.
 
Sponsored Links
They are not discriminating against men. That would be bad. They are looking to "attract and retain" more women, which is good.

If they were saying "BT has a hiring freeze on men", I'd be looking for a pitchfork.

But the article says they are doing what they can to attract and retain women. More women in STEM is excellent and I praise them for it.
 
It clearly is institutional discrimination against men, that's simply a fact. Just because a profession doesn't split 50/50 by sex or reflect the general population by ethnicity/race it is not an indicator of discrimination or unfairness. It is well documented that women naturally skew towards different interests and than men, gendered behaviour is rooted in biology and is not simply a "social construct". Females skew towards people men skew towards "things" and you can see this in job areas selected.
If they'll be so uninterested (because "biology") then they won't take the job and all will be great again.
And they're hardly pushing for 50/50..the actual percentages are probably abysmal.
 
They are not discriminating against men. That would be bad. They are looking to "attract and retain" more women, which is good.

If they were saying "BT has a hiring freeze on men", I'd be looking for a pitchfork.

But the article says they are doing what they can to attract and retain women. More women in STEM is excellent and I praise them for it.
They are clearly stating favouritism towards female candidates, I see I'm going to be dealing with a lot people dancing on the head of a pin as they try to pretend favouritism is not discrimination.
 
If they'll be so uninterested (because "biology") then they won't take the job and all will be great again.
And they're hardly pushing for 50/50..the actual percentages are probably abysmal.
Nice try but that's not what I stated, women as a population skew to people men as a population skew to things which is one of the reasons why professions don't split 50/50 by sex. And yes it's biology, whether you've bothered to research it or not.

Some women will be interested and they will be more favourably treated than male candidates - as stated. Discrimination.
 
Sponsored Links
If me and a woman have exactly the same technical skills and are in every way identical other than gender, and their workforce is 99% other white males, I'm actually 100% OK with them hiring the woman, it's what I would do in my company.

Because she's going to bring a different perspective and lived experience that is missing from the team.

No point in discussing this further as I suspect we won't agree. Attracting and retaining is fine. Let's see more BT job adverts aimed at women.

What the RAF did is completely different and illegal.
 
Why turn off comments when companies roll out outrageous institutional sexism/quotas that discriminate against men?


Major UK Broadband and Mobile Providers Commit to Recruit More Women​

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.p...e-providers-commit-to-recruit-more-women.html
Maybe because the site is called ISPreview and not Fox News? I for one don't care about this topic, people are not willing to accept either argument and are simply trying to state their opinion above everyone's else. Keep the comments closed Mark in articles that draw the haters, much better this way!
 
Congrats Bob on making a topic title that breaks the anti-trolling rule. You could have made it a constructive debate, but then you made it personal too, and I find that offensive. I have now edited it to remove my personal name.

Obviously, I turned the comments off on that article because it was bound to attract hate speech and moronic commentary more than constructive arguments, which is much as I've seen before with similar articles. This is much more of an issue with the Online Safety Bill looming, so you can expect to see it happen more often.

I'm also not a big fan of the politically driven and divisive garbage heap that is populist term slinging. Woke, elites, brexiters, fake news (particularly when applied to factual reports), cancel culture (especially when those that complain about it, also do it), remoaners, snowflakes, lefty, hard right etc. Over time these terms have become warped and lost any legitimate meaning they might have once had, if they ever had it.

I find all of those terms to now be fairly banal, particularly when their use is adopted to fill a void left by the speakers lack of a reasoned and hopefully constructive counter-argument. It's the debating equivalent of being 5 years old in a school playground and saying "well.. mines bigger than yours" as a retaliatory jibe.

Take "woke" as a prime example, since you raise it. Until politicians, such as Donald Trump, started using it as a seemingly common insult to criticise opponents for a variety of things, then I can't ever recall having heard it much before in common discussions. But according to the dictionary, being woke means to be "aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality" - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woke .

On that basis alone, then yes, I would consider myself woke (sorry), due to harbouring a disgust for racists and a respect for systems that treat people as equals (man, woman, black, white etc.), without prejudice, much as I was raised (having an extremely strong and intelligent sister helps). I would also hope that is true for most people. To me, the opposite of woke is thus somebody who is racist and or has no interest in inequality or tackling social problems.

So, consider this a final warning, if you insist on making incendiary and trolling topic titles then I'm happy to erase your account. We don’t allow that kind of crap on this forum.
 
Sponsored Links
Congrats Bob on making a topic title that breaks the anti-trolling rule. You could have made it a constructive debate, but then you made it personal too, and I find that offensive. I have now edited it to remove my personal name.

Obviously, I turned the comments off on that article because it was bound to attract hate speech and moronic commentary more than constructive arguments, which is much as I've seen before with similar articles. This is much more of an issue with the Online Safety Bill looming, so you can expect to see it happen more often.

I'm also not a big fan of the politically driven and divisive garbage heap that is populist term slinging. Woke, elites, brexiters, fake news (particularly when applied to factual reports), cancel culture (especially when those that complain about it, also do it), remoaners, snowflakes, lefty, hard right etc. Over time these terms have become warped and lost any legitimate meaning they might have once had, if they ever had it.

I find all of those terms to now be fairly banal, particularly when their use is adopted to fill a void left by the speakers lack of a reasoned and hopefully constructive counter-argument. It's the debating equivalent of being 5 years old in a school playground and saying "well.. mines bigger than yours" as a retaliatory jibe.

Take "woke" as a prime example, since you raise it. Until politicians, such as Donald Trump, started using it as a seemingly common insult to criticise opponents for a variety of things, then I can't ever recall having heard it much before in common discussions. But according to the dictionary, being woke means to be "aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality" - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woke .

On that basis alone, then yes, I would consider myself woke (sorry), due to harbouring a disgust for racists and a respect for systems that treat people as equals (man, woman, black, white etc.), without prejudice, much as I was raised (having an extremely strong and intelligent sister helps). I would also hope that is true for most people. To me, the opposite of woke is thus somebody who is racist and or has no interest in inequality or tackling social problems.

So, consider this a final warning, if you insist on making incendiary and trolling topic titles then I'm happy to erase your account. We don’t allow that kind of crap on this forum.
Wholly agree with this mark.
 
On that basis alone, then yes, I would consider myself woke (sorry), due to harbouring a disgust for racists and a respect for systems that treat people as equals (man, woman, black, white etc.), without prejudice

The whole article is about implementing institutional prejudice, some people are more equal than others.
 
This is a very awkward topic of conversation and depends entirely on perspective and context.

Does it mean that up until recently, they've favoured recruiting men over women?

I guess for me, the first question to ask would be for each vacancy, how many men and women apply? And then how many of those men and women fit the criteria to do the job?
And then, who then gets the position? If it's always been mostly men then there's a problem.
I personally don't care what hangs between your legs (or doesn't), so long as your a good fit for the role, that there is room for development and have the right personality traits to fit in.

If they're now actively looking to recruit women candidates over men, that's discrimination.

If however they are looking to make the positions more attractive to women, to encourage applications, then why aren't they doing that in the first place? You don't get a pat on the back for doing something you should be doing anyway.
 
For millennia we've had prejudice against women, leaning a little but on the other side won't hurt, if anything it's too little.
And when I say "leaning" I mean ensuring there's less prejudice against them, I do not equate that to "more prejudice against men".

I think it is pretty clear there are 2 sides here with strong opinions and perhaps the only civilised move is "not to play".

Let's agree to disagree and call it a day.
 
Sponsored Links
Just to add, I've personally witnessed many times the recruitment and development of women in industry based solely on looks and sex over ability and it never played out well.

Many were turned into post turtles unfortunately and put into positions they had no right to be in because they were underskilled for it and the sheer panic and stress of being in that position and being expected to perform is massively unfair and I honestly felt bad for them.

It would have been different had they if been treated fairly, trained, coached, developed like you would anyone else rather than put up on this high pedestal just for show.
 
Maybe because the site is called ISPreview and not Fox News? I for one don't care about this topic, people are not willing to accept either argument and are simply trying to state their opinion above everyone's else. Keep the comments closed Mark in articles that draw the haters, much better this way!
umm NO how about leave the comments open and if you don't care to read them then don't, and WOW by the way Nice of you to tar everyone with the same brush , a brush coated thickly in your own prejudices and opinions.
 
umm NO how about leave the comments open and if you don't care to read them then don't, and WOW by the way Nice of you to tar everyone with the same brush , a brush coated thickly in your own prejudices and opinions.
It's not about reading them, the comments section of the articles allows anonymous users to post stuff that has no place on the front of this website, and harms the brand reputation of ispreview.

Any article which could cause problems will have it's comments section disabled.

You're welcome to leave your comments on an article in the ispreview forums as this is what the forum is for.

I hope that makes sense, one day, articles and forum will be interlinked and comments will be linked to forum members, and this anonymous issue will disappear.

Until this happens the staff of ispreview will lock the comments section of articles that they deem as not needing comments on the front of this website.
 
umm NO how about leave the comments open and if you don't care to read them then don't, and WOW by the way Nice of you to tar everyone with the same brush , a brush coated thickly in your own prejudices and opinions.
Why is that people think they have right to express their opinion on forums or websites owned by private companies?

Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10 states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

You have no rights with regards to a forum owned by a private company or even a private individual. In fact not only you have no rights but also there are plenty of limitations for your "freedom of speech" which could easily apply in this case such as morals, reputation or rights of others:

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

So clearly Mark J can do whatever he likes with the website, forums, posts, etc and you have no recourse. If you don't lilke how he runs the site you can go somewhere else. Or create your own website if so you feel like it. If you stay, play by the rules, if you don't like the rules, leave. Those are your ONLY choices.

If you go to a shop and you don't like how the store manager runs it do you start posting notices in the store front on how the store should be run? No, you leave the shop and never come back. Why can't people not do the same for forums and sites? Do they think they own something because they spent X amount of time posting in the forum? Or because they invested a lot of time reading the site contents? It's silly really.
 
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £24.00 - 26.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
NOW UK ISP Logo
NOW £24.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £25.99
145Mbps
Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Youfibre UK ISP Logo
Youfibre £23.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (6026)
  2. BT (3639)
  3. Politics (2721)
  4. Business (2439)
  5. Openreach (2405)
  6. Building Digital UK (2330)
  7. Mobile Broadband (2146)
  8. FTTC (2083)
  9. Statistics (1901)
  10. 4G (1816)
  11. Virgin Media (1764)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1582)
  13. Fibre Optic (1467)
  14. Wireless Internet (1462)
  15. 5G (1407)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules