Is this acceptable, or sexist and racist?

Post by **jtaylor** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:34 am

Question Time on BBC1 on Thursday night had the following lady on it:-

YVONNE THOMPSON CBE
Career: Yvonne is one of the UK's top business women, and president of the European Federation of Black Women Business Owners.

She also sits on the boards of a number of business organisations including Business Link for London and the Department of Trade and Industry's Small Business Council, and chairs the DTI's Ethnic Minority Business Forum and the African Caribbean Business Network.
This month she was named one of the 50 most powerful black women in Britain by the New Nation newspaper.

Is this acceptable to be perpetuating that there is a difference between men and women in business, and to be implying that there's a difference between a black woman in business and a white woman in business?
Would it be acceptable to refer to someone as the "most Powerfull white women in Britain" or to have a "European Federation of White Men Business Owners"

I suggest that these types of organisations are now causing more damage in explicitly implying there's a difference, rather than reducing the distinction and racism/sexism in society?

J
NB:- I have no problem with her as an individual - I can't really comment on what she said, as I fell asleep early-in the programme!

sejintenej · Post by **sejintenej** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:41 am

Careful, Julian.

Don't forget that there is an Association of Black Police Officers (or similar name) but no white equivalent. I suspect that any attempt to form a white equivalent in any sphere would be considered a parallel to the KKK

Great Plum · Post by **Great Plum** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:36 am

I think these sort of associations such as the ones she sits on should not be in exisitence as it pushes the colour of their skin into the forefront rather than how good they are at their jobs which surely is all that matters!

Katharine · Post by **Katharine** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:20 am

This is always a problem with positive discrimination. I have never felt entirely comfortable with it. When I was applying to Oxford I knew one college had an OB, Ida Busbridge, as a Maths don; for me that was enough to reason to apply to a different college. I felt I would never have known whether I got in on my own merit or the OB connection. That may be an absolute slur on Ida's objectivity but it was the way I felt at the time.

Post by **jtaylor** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:39 am

sejintenej wrote:Careful, Julian.

Don't forget that there is an Association of Black Police Officers (or similar name) but no white equivalent. I suspect that any attempt to form a white equivalent in any sphere would be considered a parallel to the KKK

And, that's EXACTLY my point. Why the distinction??
I'm DEFINITELY not suggesting that we should have an Association of White Police Officers - that would be completely unacceptable. So why is a Black association OK??

Angela Woodford · Post by **Angela Woodford** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:08 pm

jtaylor wrote:
sejintenej wrote:Careful, Julian.

Don't forget that there is an Association of Black Police Officers (or similar name) but no white equivalent. I suspect that any attempt to form a white equivalent in any sphere would be considered a parallel to the KKK
And, that's EXACTLY my point. Why the distinction??
I'm DEFINITELY not suggesting that we should have an Association of White Police Officers - that would be completely unacceptable. So why is a Black association OK??

Completely in agreement with you guys. It seems that ethic minorities can use terminology that would be completely banned otherwise.

I've heard black citizens actually use the n word about each other.

I've seen black members of the congregation at a church fete buying golliwog brooches!

And when I was discussing Islamic dress with our British Pakistani Corner Shop gorgeous Brothers (I still need a burqu'a) the words "loonies" "unable to see a woman's face for communication" "explosives concealed" "load of bollocks" were used by them! I could hardly believe it.

Extraordinary.

Angela

englishangel · Post by **englishangel** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:03 pm

I agree with you guys.

midget · Post by **midget** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:00 pm

So do I. I think the Association of Black Police Officers is institutionally racist by definition.

Hannoir · Post by **Hannoir** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:54 pm

Uh ok.
I'm going to have to disagree.

The reason that these ethnic minorities have these groups in the first place is because they are disadvantaged in the first place. For example, black people (for want of a better term) need this form of representation to help them to get to an equal position in society. Not because they are incapable, but because they have often come from poorer backgrounds (so therefore poorer schooling etc..), therefore being denied opportunities, and more often than not just because people are plain racist. Same with the LGBT community - they *do* get hassle in the workplace so they need such groups to provide support, and the same with women.
More often than not these groups are formed by these communities themselves because they feel they need the representation. If I, for example, felt that my interests as a white middle class disabled female were not being met, I'd do something about, just as all these minority organisations have done. There is economic evidence and theory surrounding the job prospects/uptake of ethnic minorties, LGBT community and women to show that they do do worse, than, well, I hate to say it, white middle class males.
At the moment I think we are in a point in our society where we need these groups, in order to create equal opportunities as far as possible. However, in however many years time, when opportunities are "more equal" so to speak, these groups won't be needed, and I bet you that their activity and power will decrease over time because of it.
Affirmative action does make me uneasy - I had to do a presentation on it a while back so I read about it - specifically South Africa but I did get information about women and ethnic minorities too. Whilst I do disagree that it is unfair, i'd rather it happen when it was needed (i.e. until things are well, more equal, so to speak) and then get rid of it.
Uh thats it from me.

sejintenej · Post by **sejintenej** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:09 pm

Hannoir wrote:Uh ok.
I'm going to have to disagree.

If I, for example, felt that my interests as a white middle class disabled female were not being met, I'd do something about, just as all these minority organisations have done.

I don't know about New Zealand but over here I doubt if you would be allowed under race laws to form a White Association or a Middle Class Association or a White Female Asssociation. You could get away with "Disabled" provided it was not specifically white, with Female so long as it is not specifically white and Middle Class provided it is not white. OTOH you could have a Coloured, Indian, Sikh, Punjabi, Muslim (but I doubt Christian) anything along those lines.

Even if you can get round race laws then you would still be got by the police under laws covering behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace - it only needs one complaint, suggestion that perhaps something should be done .......

icomefromalanddownunder · Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:34 am

Hannoir wrote:Uh ok.
I'm going to have to disagree.

The reason that these ethnic minorities have these groups in the first place is because they are disadvantaged in the first place.

In Adelaide we have The Working Womens Centre who represented me in a case of Unfair Dismissal. They won for me, and it didn't cost me a cent. If I were male they would have been unable to help me, I would have had to employ someone privately, I couldn't have afforded that.

I was very grateful to the WWC, more for the moral victory than the money, but I did fell uncomfortable about the positive discrimination. My Representative explained that I should be grateful, but not guilty: that the Government had initiated the Centre when things were far worse for women in the workforce, but that we still have a long way to go.

Still not sure about that one.

Post by **jtaylor** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:38 pm

So I guess the fundamental question to answer is - where is the tipping point beyond which a positive organisation becomes a negative one.
It may have been setup with all the right intentions, but as equality is reached then the distinction which is inevitable created due to the existence of the organisation self-perpetuates the exact thing they were trying to counter!

J.R. · Post by **J.R.** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:18 pm

Nice one, Julian - Nice one !

Given that I have posted my views on such subjects before, I feel it better to leave this one to others.

Incidently, did you know that if you stare very hard at a woman wearing a habib, they get very flustered ?? I think they get the message though, and its NOT illegal to do so.

englishangel · Post by **englishangel** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:04 pm

J.R. wrote:Nice one, Julian - Nice one !

Given that I have posted my views on such subjects before, I feel it better to leave this one to others.

Incidently, did you know that if you stare very hard at a woman wearing a habib, they get very flustered ?? I think they get the message though, and its NOT illegal to do so.

I think I would get flustered too and I don't wear a habib.

Post by **jtaylor** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:03 pm

englishangel wrote:I think I would get flustered too and I don't wear a habib.

Just if it any bloke staring at you, or specifically because it was JR staring at you knowing his reputation!???