http://lord-feverstone.blogspot.com/...white-men.html



Force admits rejecting white men

Gloucestershire police force has admitted illegally rejecting 108 job applicants because they were white men.

The Police Federation said the force has been trying to recruit more female officers and more people from ethnic minorities to meet a government target.

What amazes me is they actually admitted discriminating against white men. There are people out there who say such discrimination cannot possibly happen because "white men have it all." Reality checks like this are, of course, wasted on such people.

But one of the unsuccessful applicants, Matt Powell took legal action and has been awarded £2,500 by a tribunal.

Mr Powell, 30, said he became suspicious when he was told he had been "randomly deselected".

A tribunal actually awarded money to a white man alleging discrimination. With as politically correct as this world is becoming, this blows me away. Cases like this do not fit the accepted "wisdom" that "white men are evil oppressors with the world at their feet" and "everyone else is a sweet, innocent victim of white male oppression." Newsflash: white men can be wronged too.

By the way, has anyone ever heard of "random deselection" before? I would think if a police force was looking for the most qualified applicants, they would not choose to randomly disregard applications. Of course, we know the deselection in this case was hardly random.

The case comes six months after Avon and Somerset Police admitted it had illegally rejected almost 200 applications from white men for the same reason.

Apparently, such discrimination has happened elsewhere.

Police are under pressure to meet the government target, set in 1999, that by 2009, 7% of police officers in England and Wales should be from ethnic minority groups.

In September 2005, only 1.6% of Gloucestershire Police officers were black or Asian.

...

Earlier this year, Gloucestershire's Assistant Chief Constable Michael Matthews admitted 'positive action' had been taken to recruit more women and from ethnic minorities.

"It is essential in a democratic policing environment to ensure that under-represented groups are prioritised in our recruitment drives," he said.

I have never heard a compelling reason for why the presence of minorities is so important there ought to be goals (read: quotas) for their recruitment. Just because some Assistant Chief Constable says it is does not mean I believe it. I do not see so-called underrepresentation as a "problem," but then again, I think outside of the politically correct prison so many others have incarcerated themselves in.

Mr Powell's solicitor, Nigel Tillott, said: "The impact of this is that it is now clear how far public authorities can go in positive action.

"What they cannot do is discriminate against white males when it comes to job applications."

What makes preferring minorities in recruitment inherently positive? Oops! I have forgotten I am to accept this without question. The politically correct gods have spoken.

This kind of discrimination is running rampant across western nations; the trick is though, that most of it is effectively covered up. I remember taking a law and security program years ago, and fellow students telling me that the RCMP would not even give them applications - because they were white male. News story front page? Hardly. Under the Bob Rae government, we saw the first job ad denying applications to white males altogether, appearing in newspaper print.

While such discrimination is as strong as it ever was, it is kept much more hidden from the public eye. Now phrases like: "applications are particularly encouraged from women, visible minorities, francophones and native Canadians." or some crap to that effect are used instead.

Universities and colleges across Canada support equity in their application process as well, and now, instead of just applying with your name and GPA, you are asked to describe yourself as male/female, white/non-white, and to list the racial and ethnic group to which you belong. Universities en masse, all have the exact same statement about reverse discrimination - looking through their webpages - "employment equity does not mean reverse discrimination... blah blah blah." The least they could do would be to develop their own seperately, well-worded lies!

I remember the University of Calgary reporting that well over 50% of their medical students would be women back in the late 1990's - surpassing the target they had set for themselves, and that the University was celebrating this inequity as a great step forward towards progress. Believe me, if the university of Calgary, (a university within Canada's most right-wing, conservative province), is playing quota bean counting, then rest assured, they all are.

When people try to tell me that employment equity is not a form of "reverse discrimination" I say "".

"If the pen is mightier than the sword, best keep it sharp."

Lest some of you think that my account is based solely upon hearsay, consider this article from the National Post on University Preference:

In his 1994 book Selling Illusions: the Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada, Neil Bissoondath -- a Canadian of Trinidadian background -- offered a stinging indictment of preferential hiring programs aimed at visible minorities. "As a member of one of those targeted racial minorities, I can think of few things more demeaning to me than to be offered an advantage because of my skin colour," he wrote. "It is demeaning because, no matter what I have struggled to achieve, I am still being judged on the colour of my skin and not simply as a human being with strengths and weaknesses. I am still, even with the best of intentions, being viewed racially -- and that is offensive to me." Mr. Bissondath was correct: Hiring quotas that lower the standards for female and minority applicants are an offence to the very people they purport to help. Well-intentioned though they may be, they falsely suggest that all women, blacks and Indians should be judged by a lower standard because they are unable to live up to the standards set by white males. In addition, of course, they are grossly prejudicial toward those same white males in that they deny opportunities to them on the basis of race or gender -- a clear-cut case of discrimination.

Though the federal government has yet to abandon its "employment equity" programs, other governments seem to have lost their enthusiasm, most notably the government of Ontario, which stopped forcing affirmative action on the province's corporations in the mid-'90s. But heavy-handed racial and sex preference programs are still very much in vogue -- especially at academic institutions.

This month, the University of Victoria's School of Child and Youth Care began advertising for a new assistant professor. But there is a catch: Only native Canadians need apply. "In accordance with the University's Equity Plan and pursuant to Section 42 of the B.C. Human Rights code," the ad explains, "the selection will be limited to aboriginal peoples. Candidates from this group are encouraged to self-identify." While this may be an extreme example in that it explicitly excludes more than 95% of the Canadian population, it is not an isolated one. For the past five years, British Columbia's government has allowed provincial universities to enact various equity plans to increase participation by visible minorities, aboriginals, women and the disabled. Not coincidentally, discriminatory hiring appears to have grown considerably more prevalent. In 2001, Doreen Kimura, a visiting professor in the psychology department of Simon Fraser University, conducted a survey on the hiring rates of men and women at two B.C. universities. She found that while women accounted for 29% of applicants, they accounted for 41% of those hired. Ms. Kimura subsequently concluded that in some cases, it appeared women had been hired over better-qualified men

In Ontario, as well, universities continue to place far too much attention on race and gender -- not just in hiring practices (as when Wilfrid Laurier's Department of Psychology attempted to "address a gender imbalance" in 1999 by considering only female applicants for a faculty position), but in the student admissions process. The majority of Ontario law schools have a special "Aboriginal" category under which applicants are subjected to less-rigorous standards, and several complement this with an additional "access" category for minority group members who claim to have faced discrimination or other "systemic" disadvantages. In some cases, the discrepancy in standards would surely strike even affirmative action advocates as absurd; at York University's Osgoode Hall law school, aboriginal applicants are required only to achieve a Law School Admission Test score in the 26th percentile or better to be considered -- i.e., a standard so low that it excludes only the worst-performing 25 out of every 100 test-takers. Non-minority students, on the other hand, are typically expected to score in the top 25%. If the Osgoode Hall playing field were level, any professional recruiter who exhibited a general bias toward the school's non-aboriginal graduates would properly be deemed a racist. But under the current scheme, such a preference would seem entirely rational.

We do not dispute that it is a noble goal for Canadian universities to be reflective of our country's demographics, both in terms of faculty and the student body. But under no circumstances should this be achieved through heavy-handed programs that reward race, ethnicity or gender over merit. While these programs may help university administrators meet their quota numbers, they also imbue women and minorities with the stigma of inferiority.

Indeed. It has been like this for a couple of decades now. Let me relate the story of a friend of mine, back in 1990. He's got a PhD in English, and at the time had about 10 years of teaching experience, both at the high school and junior college levels, plus another 10 years of industrial experience doing technical writing, the latter requiring very close coordination with both the engineering department and project management.

A job came up at the local community college for someone who could act as a liason between the English department and local industries. Their advertisement specifically requested at least 5 years experience in both teaching and industry. My friend, ideally suited for the position, spoke to the department head who, quite excited about the fact that there actually was someone with more than the necessary experience available, asked him to submit his resume' immediately. He did so.

When more than two months went by without any feedback from the college, my friend called the department head to find out what was going on. The department head expressed his disappoiintment that he had not submitted an application, and was quite a bit annoyed to discover that he had indeed submitted one. It seems that without even advising the department head ,they hired a woman with only 5 years of teaching experience (and no industrial experience at all).

The dept. head dug around and found that my friend's application never made it past the Affirmative Action Office, despite his unique qualifications. He was furious, but he did not have the final say-so. AA did.

So the next job my friend applied for at that school (he has a Spanish surname, but is of Spanish, not Central or South American extraction) he checked off "Hispanic" on the application. He got an interview almost immediately! He didn't get that job either, but he at least felt that the process had been fair, as the woman who got that one was more qualified for that specific position than he. But the experience only reinforced his recognition that discrimination against white males in academia was and remains epidemic.

Check out the link below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4929958.stm

If North American men think they have it bad, they should wait a couple of years until British reality becomes our own. The feminist virus is not constrained by mere mountain ranges and oceans my friends.

In case you can't access the above, and for archival purposes, (because these are the kinds of articles which most swiftly find their way to the "soon to be deleted pile"), the article outlining the plight of young British men in finding work after completing their degrees is pasted here: (splat!)

Graduate women 'find more jobs'
Men are more likely than women to be unemployed six months after graduating from first degree, Masters and PhD courses, according to research.

An estimated 8% of men were jobless six months after a first degree, compared with 4.7% of women, reported the Higher Education Careers Service Unit (Hecsu).
The study of 2004 graduates found more women took part-time or unpaid work, or combined work with further study.
But women were slightly more likely to be in work that did not need a degree.
Dr Charlie Ball, Hecsu labour market analyst, said: "It would seem some men and some women graduates are approaching job seeking rather differently, particularly when they are having a little bit of trouble finding work straight away.
"The women's view is, 'My dream job hasn't arrived, so I will go out and get a few more skills and more experience under my belt so that when it arrives I will be ready'.
"Men are perhaps thinking, 'My dream job hasn't arrived yet - I will just stay here until it does'."
Skills shortage
Hecsu found 6% of male Masters graduates were unemployed after six months, compared with 3.8% of women. The figures after PhD were 4.5% for men and 3.1% for women.
Total employment figures, which exclude those in further study and unavailable for work, after first degree were 73.6% for women and 70% for men.

Students we find part-time work for will have an advantage over someone with no work experience at all
Obi Okwuadigbo
Programmes manager, Thefutureworks
Men remained marginally behind women after gaining Masters qualifications, with 80.5% employment compared with 81.4% for women.
After doing PhDs, 87% of men had jobs after six months and 86.8% of women.
A report earlier this year by the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) predicted a 15% rise in graduate positions, but said that as well as academic achievement employers wanted good team-workers with communication skills and cultural awareness.
Work experience
Addressing that problem is one of the aims of a commercial recruitment agency, Thefutureworks, launched by Coventry University.
As well as helping graduates locate permanent posts, the agency finds part-time work for undergraduates.

I am learning a lot of skills that I will be able to put forward when I graduate
Victoria Collins
Coventry University student
Programmes manager Obi Okwuadigbo said undergraduates with part-time jobs gained invaluable experience including working in a team and communicating with different types of people.
The agency had placed about 100 students in positions working up to 15 hours a week, said Mr Okwuadigbo.
"The students that we do manage to find part-time work for, they will have an advantage over someone who has no part-time work experience at all," he said.
"They are ahead of the game, and in a much stronger position."
He added that several employers had already expressed an interest in permanently retaining students after they graduated.
"From an employer's point of view it is fantastic - they are getting intellectual people who are currently students and are eager and keen to experience the working world."
'Life lessons'
Second-year marketing management student Victoria Collins was one of the first people found part-time work by the agency.
The 20-year-old said her work at education charity Young Enterprise West Midlands allowed her to apply her studies, and also offered "life lessons".
"For me, getting up on time and getting into a lecture had been mission impossible," she said.
She was learning business procedures, to communicate with people at all levels of the organisation, and applying theory learned for her degree in areas such as accounting.
"I am doing something that I absolutely love, and I am learning about it all the time.
"It complements my studies, which I am so thankful for, and I am just learning a lot of skills that I will be able to put forward when I graduate." The annual Unite survey of student life this year reported that more than 40% of students took part-time jobs.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...on/4929958.stm

Published: 2006/04/21 12:40:55 GMT


"If the pen is mightier than the sword, best keep it sharp."

I love this passage especially much:

"The women's view is, 'My dream job hasn't arrived, so I will go out and get a few more skills and more experience under my belt so that when it arrives I will be ready'.
"Men are perhaps thinking, 'My dream job hasn't arrived yet - I will just stay here until it does'."

I'm thinking that this kind of politically correct poppycock, (I'm taking the liberty of using the term 'poppycock' for our British readers), isn't going to fly much longer, even with nearly a half century of feminist brainwashing. The fact of the matter is that less men than ever are even getting into university in the first place, and that those who do get BAs and Masters degrees, are at CONSIDERABLE disadvantage when trying to find jobs as evidenced by the numbers! If these numbers were reversed, bra store shelves would be emptied in a burning frenzy which could well punch a new hole in the ozone layer overnight.

It's not that these men think, "well umm duh, I guess I'll just keep furthering my education because that way I'll get the job I want umm duh." NO! These men tried to find work and couldn't and so were FORCED to return to school to further their education once again, in the hopes that being overqualified for the job, might actually give them a 'fair' chance at getting it!

What this article details is not a difference in life choices, but a difference in life OUTCOMES based on genetalia. Programs like WISE and others, which promote women ahead of men, combined with affirmative action hiring policies, and women-only grants, have left men at a distinct disadvantage in that nation, and for that matter most nations (at least those of the westernized feminist-state set).

Sadly, stupidity has no shortage of mirrors as we are all too quickly finding out. There are mirrors in Canada, NewZealand, Australia, Britain, France, Sweden, Norway, Germany and on and on... and so the disease spreads near the speed of light, bouncing from mirror to mirror until we're all looking at much more than a mere seven years bad luck.

"If the pen is mightier than the sword, best keep it sharp."

Actually, I think we may be a seeing slightly different phenomenon. Remember, the observation was that women are gaining employment more easily than men, but are somewhat more likely to take a job for which they are overqualified. The put-down was that men are intentionally holding out for the "right" job, whereas women are purportedly more flexible.

What I think may actually be going on is that men are finding it more difficult than women to get hired for jobs for which they are overqualified, for reasons that have everything to do with choice. I've seen this bias myself. There have been times in my life when I absolutely needed a job, and I was willing to take a lesser position if that job at least had an upward path that I might pursue in the future, or which at least gave me something that would look good on a resume. Overwhelmingly, such jobs were not offered to me, largely because the employer feared (possibly with some justification, if the "upward path" he offered wasn't actually there) that I would leave for greener pastures as soon as my prospects improved.

I believe that women will be offered such jobs much more frequently than men because employers perceive (correctly, I might add) that women are far more likely to be seeking a job for its own sake, or because there are perquisites that better suit her needs outside the workplace. As a result, she is less likely to remain unemployed, but also less likely to progress to the top of the corporate food chain, and a poster girl for feminists who insist that highly qualified women aren't being "allowed" into the top spots.

I must disagree wholeheartedly, and would address your attention to the numbers. Men are not so stupid as to overlook the opportunities that part-time work might provide them, as the article assumes. Moreover, men don't go to university as often as women do any longer, anywhere! When men go to university, it is to achieve a degree (step.1) and then get a job (step.2). The fact that this is NOT happening, (at least not for males), is evidence of gendered discrimination in Britain.

Women are offered jobs more frequently because of gender quotas, and not because they are more or less likely to stay working at a given job. If you doubt this, then be prepared to be blown away by reality: women get pregnant and men do not!

Whether employers might believe that a man could be looking to expand his horizons elsewhere, such an employer should also be considering the very real possibility, that his female Bachelor's degree might leave to start a family, or, just as her male competitors, (for that is what the genders have become), leave to pursue higher education, or more suitable work elsewhere. When you factor in pregnancy and family concerns, the female candidate is by far the greater risk.

In other words, you argument simply doesn't wash for me at all. I do not believe for an instant that upward mobility is the issue here. Certainly moving upwards of a Master's degree is pure insanity for most men, so why would an employer believe this to be his intent? In fact, in Britain, men make up a higher percentage of the unemployed - again lending credence to my argument that this is not some sort of twisted foolhardy decision making on the part of employers and young male grads, but rather blatant discrimination (period).

Women are more likely to get jobs in the first place, overqualified or no. That's what the numbers show. The article also indicates the importance of part-time and lower-level jobs in generating opportunities higher up the ladder as well - something only the women, for some odd reason, seem to be taking advantage of.

Quotas and quotas on top of the quotas.

"If the pen is mightier than the sword, best keep it sharp."