NPR

fishfoodie wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:22 pm Be interesting to see how Sue Gray is deployed; she's a formidable individual, & there's a lot of work to be done to clean up a Civil Service that has obviously suffered under the Tories, & crucial Depts like the HO need major reforming, & some of the highest level officials who forgot that they're supposed to be INDEPENDENT, need to be shown the door.

I also hope on Monday we get the Russian Interference report published, the Covid Inquiry gets given powers to access all, & I mean all personal devices, & they get the cooperation of GCHQ to recover any deleted messages. Then they can take a 10 minute break, & announce the launch of a Public Inquiry into the whole VIP Lane, & PPE Procurement process !

In short, FUCK THE TORIES !!, & nail the bumblecunts flabby carcass to the wall, if they can find nails long enough to support the weight.

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:45 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:15 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:54 pm



The differential in opportunity and outcomes is still very real, as it is for class and colour. This permeates every strand of life in the UK.

I understand the likes of Tate having a receptive audience, but that audience is not at fault here. It's a lot easier to point and scream "Wokery" than it is to tackle multi-layered problems of gender, class, race, lack of level playing fields etc.

My go-to is always the three people at a table with ten biscuits on a plate in the middle. One person reaches over and takes nine biscuits. Another reaches for the last biscuit and the first person turns to the third and says, "They're trying to steal your biscuit"

Tate and others are the useful idiots of the person with the nine biscuits.

Salanya has asked a good question which I will attempt to answer properly on another day.

On your point. Taking my profession, as a high level view it is basically 50/50 male-female, with men earning significantly more and occupying management positions. At my junior level? It is 80/20 female-male. If you take the high level stat the profession is a disgrace, if you live it on the ground the reality is very very different. Young men who like reform/Tate live on the ground. Reality is very different to what it was a few decades ago.

Disclaimer - I am very very much OK with my profession’s gender balance. It’s a thing rather than a bad thing if that makes any sense.

Was just about to make that point. Among the younger adults we're really starting to see the impact of a relatively long term trend in growing attainment differentials between male and female pupils, which then manifests in a widening gender imbalance for university attendance. Graduates on average do still outearn non-graduates, so we're getting more and more young men who feel like they're at the bottom of the heap and that no one's interested in helping them not be.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:15 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:54 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:37 pm

Paddington mentioned school in there. My direct and vicarious experience as a young male teacher was that female teachers just won't allow boys the same behavioural latitude that male teachers will. They're very quick to clamp down on harmless rough-housing between friends or general boistrousness.

The school I worked at had dedicated STEM programs for the girls, but not the boys. They had dedicated assemblies on (or around if the dates didn't fit) international women's day, but not international men's day. A lot more assembly time devoted to inspiring women and feminism. Which is difficult to challenge as a staff member when outnumbered.

I'm sure a lot of female students went to female teachers rather than me if they had issues they wanted to discuss, a lot of the male ones wouldn't have had a similar option because the gender balance of staff was so skewed. And even if they did go to a female teacher, they're not going to be able to dispense the same advice or understand a problem a boy brings them in the same way that a male teacher would get or propose solutions that would work with other males. Cuts the other way too. Despite best intentions I wouldn't be able to advise a girl as I would a boy, we just have very different lived, gendered experience.

People wring hands over the popularity of Andrew Tate among young men and some of the indications we're beginning to see that they skew more to the right politically, but I get it. Leaving aside whether they're right or wrong a lot of young men end up feeling like it's a woman's world and that men are being left behind, yet they frequently encounter a dominant societal narrative that refuses to acknowledge that viewpoint and tells them they remain more privileged. They often feel dismissed and belittled, so they gravitate to people and ideas that don't make them feel that way.

The differential in opportunity and outcomes is still very real, as it is for class and colour. This permeates every strand of life in the UK.

I understand the likes of Tate having a receptive audience, but that audience is not at fault here. It's a lot easier to point and scream "Wokery" than it is to tackle multi-layered problems of gender, class, race, lack of level playing fields etc.

My go-to is always the three people at a table with ten biscuits on a plate in the middle. One person reaches over and takes nine biscuits. Another reaches for the last biscuit and the first person turns to the third and says, "They're trying to steal your biscuit"

Tate and others are the useful idiots of the person with the nine biscuits.

Salanya has asked a good question which I will attempt to answer properly on another day.

On your point. Taking my profession, as a high level view it is basically 50/50 male-female, with men earning significantly more and occupying management positions. At my junior level? It is 80/20 female-male. If you take the high level stat the profession is a disgrace, if you live it on the ground the reality is very very different. Young men who like reform/Tate live on the ground. Reality is very different to what it was a few decades ago.

Disclaimer - I am very very much OK with my profession’s gender balance. It’s a thing rather than a bad thing if that makes any sense.

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:55 pm Women are much more likely to go to university than men and have been for many years. They are also more likely to complete their studies and gain a first or upper second-class degree. However, after graduation, men are more likely to be in ‘highly skilled’ employment or further study just after graduation. Male graduate average earnings are around 9% higher than female earnings one year after graduation. This earnings gap grows substantially over their early careers and reaches 31% ten years after graduation.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... /cbp-9195/

Women in STEM Statistics – General Outlook for Female Students

https://www.stemwomen.com/women-in-stem ... statistics

fishfoodie wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:53 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:45 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:15 pm

Salanya has asked a good question which I will attempt to answer properly on another day.

On your point. Taking my profession, as a high level view it is basically 50/50 male-female, with men earning significantly more and occupying management positions. At my junior level? It is 80/20 female-male. If you take the high level stat the profession is a disgrace, if you live it on the ground the reality is very very different. Young men who like reform/Tate live on the ground. Reality is very different to what it was a few decades ago.

Disclaimer - I am very very much OK with my profession’s gender balance. It’s a thing rather than a bad thing if that makes any sense.

Was just about to make that point. Among the younger adults we're really starting to see the impact of a relatively long term trend in growing attainment differentials between male and female pupils, which then manifests in a widening gender imbalance for university attendance. Graduates on average do still outearn non-graduates, so we're getting more and more young men who feel like they're at the bottom of the heap and that no one's interested in helping them not be.

I assume the UK is the same as Ireland, & girls do considerably better than boys in their A-Levels ?

Ireland always had separate education for the sexes @ 2nd level education, & over the last couple of decades has gradually stopped this, & while this has been good for the girls, as they now have access to more subject choices, & have maintained their exam performance lead, it's been a disaster for the boys who've dropped further behind, as they did much better in a single sex environment without the distract of the opposite sex in the classroom.

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:30 pm I'm watching PorFra extra time, but just quickly, and I'll come back to it, we should be looking at putting equal status on vocational qualifications and trades as degrees.
Then go wholesale into making sure quality of service and price is maintained across the trades and services

That is more likely to engage disenfranchised young people than anything else

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:36 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:30 pm I'm watching PorFra extra time, but just quickly, and I'll come back to it, we should be looking at putting equal status on vocational qualifications and trades as degrees.
Then go wholesale into making sure quality of service and price is maintained across the trades and services

That is more likely to engage disenfranchised young people than anything else

The difficulty is convincing employers they’re equal status. The people who give the qualifications can say they are as much as you want, but if employers don’t think they are, tough shit. But things like graduate apprenticeships are terrific, and employers see them as valuable, so finding ways to increase the number of people going through that is what we need. The problem is take up - I was speaking to someone from DBT last year and he was telling me BAE Systems and Babcock couldn’t get enough applicants for their welding apprenticeships. After four years you’d be on £50k - not bad at 21!

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:36 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:30 pm I'm watching PorFra extra time, but just quickly, and I'll come back to it, we should be looking at putting equal status on vocational qualifications and trades as degrees.
Then go wholesale into making sure quality of service and price is maintained across the trades and services

That is more likely to engage disenfranchised young people than anything else

The difficulty is convincing employers they’re equal status. The people who give the qualifications can say they are as much as you want, but if employers don’t think they are, tough shit. But things like graduate apprenticeships are terrific, and employers see them as valuable, so finding ways to increase the number of people going through that is what we need. The problem is take up - I was speaking to someone from DBT last year and he was telling me BAE Systems and Babcock couldn’t get enough applicants for their welding apprenticeships. After four years you’d be on £50k - not bad at 21!

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:36 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:30 pm I'm watching PorFra extra time, but just quickly, and I'll come back to it, we should be looking at putting equal status on vocational qualifications and trades as degrees.
Then go wholesale into making sure quality of service and price is maintained across the trades and services

That is more likely to engage disenfranchised young people than anything else

The difficulty is convincing employers they’re equal status. The people who give the qualifications can say they are as much as you want, but if employers don’t think they are, tough shit. But things like graduate apprenticeships are terrific, and employers see them as valuable, so finding ways to increase the number of people going through that is what we need. The problem is take up - I was speaking to someone from DBT last year and he was telling me BAE Systems and Babcock couldn’t get enough applicants for their welding apprenticeships. After four years you’d be on £50k - not bad at 21!

fishfoodie wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:46 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:36 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:30 pm I'm watching PorFra extra time, but just quickly, and I'll come back to it, we should be looking at putting equal status on vocational qualifications and trades as degrees.
Then go wholesale into making sure quality of service and price is maintained across the trades and services

That is more likely to engage disenfranchised young people than anything else

The difficulty is convincing employers they’re equal status. The people who give the qualifications can say they are as much as you want, but if employers don’t think they are, tough shit. But things like graduate apprenticeships are terrific, and employers see them as valuable, so finding ways to increase the number of people going through that is what we need. The problem is take up - I was speaking to someone from DBT last year and he was telling me BAE Systems and Babcock couldn’t get enough applicants for their welding apprenticeships. After four years you’d be on £50k - not bad at 21!

Yep, & its not like 5 years after becoming a nurse you are still resting on your laurels & haven't got further qualifications.

The mantra these days is lifelong learning, but employers like to pretend that just because you don't have an MBA or a Masters they shouldn't reward you beyond the increment.

Show teenagers a career where they don't have to get up to their oxers in debt with a Degree, & they'll have work, & be recognised & rewarded appropriately without having to go to the gulf or Oz, & they'll take up apprenticeships, & you'll be able to cut immigration, & still build those houses & submarines, & nuclear power stations etc

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:55 pm

fishfoodie wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:46 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:36 pm

The difficulty is convincing employers they’re equal status. The people who give the qualifications can say they are as much as you want, but if employers don’t think they are, tough shit. But things like graduate apprenticeships are terrific, and employers see them as valuable, so finding ways to increase the number of people going through that is what we need. The problem is take up - I was speaking to someone from DBT last year and he was telling me BAE Systems and Babcock couldn’t get enough applicants for their welding apprenticeships. After four years you’d be on £50k - not bad at 21!

Yep, & its not like 5 years after becoming a nurse you are still resting on your laurels & haven't got further qualifications.

The mantra these days is lifelong learning, but employers like to pretend that just because you don't have an MBA or a Masters they shouldn't reward you beyond the increment.

Show teenagers a career where they don't have to get up to their oxers in debt with a Degree, & they'll have work, & be recognised & rewarded appropriately without having to go to the gulf or Oz, & they'll take up apprenticeships, & you'll be able to cut immigration, & still build those houses & submarines, & nuclear power stations etc

Provided the learner incurs the debt. Which was less of an issue for those with no prior tuition fee debt or even the lower levels of debt from the first round of fees, but the cohorts that had the £9k fees are already saddled with amounts they'll struggle to get out from under.

Employers' lack of will to contribute to the training they expect people to have is one of many investment problems the UK has.

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:36 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:30 pm I'm watching PorFra extra time, but just quickly, and I'll come back to it, we should be looking at putting equal status on vocational qualifications and trades as degrees.
Then go wholesale into making sure quality of service and price is maintained across the trades and services

That is more likely to engage disenfranchised young people than anything else

The difficulty is convincing employers they’re equal status. The people who give the qualifications can say they are as much as you want, but if employers don’t think they are, tough shit. But things like graduate apprenticeships are terrific, and employers see them as valuable, so finding ways to increase the number of people going through that is what we need. The problem is take up - I was speaking to someone from DBT last year and he was telling me BAE Systems and Babcock couldn’t get enough applicants for their welding apprenticeships. After four years you’d be on £50k - not bad at 21!

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:48 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:36 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:30 pm I'm watching PorFra extra time, but just quickly, and I'll come back to it, we should be looking at putting equal status on vocational qualifications and trades as degrees.
Then go wholesale into making sure quality of service and price is maintained across the trades and services

That is more likely to engage disenfranchised young people than anything else

The difficulty is convincing employers they’re equal status. The people who give the qualifications can say they are as much as you want, but if employers don’t think they are, tough shit. But things like graduate apprenticeships are terrific, and employers see them as valuable, so finding ways to increase the number of people going through that is what we need. The problem is take up - I was speaking to someone from DBT last year and he was telling me BAE Systems and Babcock couldn’t get enough applicants for their welding apprenticeships. After four years you’d be on £50k - not bad at 21!

The shoot out was not bad at all. France winning out.

Anyway, when we don't put equal status on trades we end up with cowboys and huge price differences and no one knowing who to hire, it's pot luck to get good people at a fair price. Then we have to import skills.

When I was at uni forty years ago we were shown a report by one of the chartered engineering institutes that said that was going to happen on the route we were taking and so it did.

Oxbow wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:12 pm

Is it just me or does anybody else think that Sunak's wife looks like a haunted doll in the background, every time Sunak blinks she inches just that bit closer...

petej wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 10:37 pm
You get cowboys and girls in professions as well they often do well and avoid those who correct them and catch them out as bullshitters.

Oxbow wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:12 pm

Is it just me or does anybody else think that Sunak's wife looks like a haunted doll in the background, every time Sunak wanks she inches just that bit closer...

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:12 pm

_Os_ wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:06 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:57 pm People leave their constituencies! They see what’s happened in other parts of the country and don’t want it for their area! Areas with diversity tend to become more pro diversity as non-white people are allowed to vote! Is this really not obvious?

There has to be immigrants in those areas for them to be using NHS services, when you see vox pops from those places they blame immigrants which don't exist in those places for stuff like that. They don't need to worry about immigrants if they remain where there are economically.

It's very obvious why shit holes are voting for this stuff, a scapegoat has been found and they keep voting against it (look at the Leave percentages in those four places), just like most of them voted Tory too. The Tories have nuked those places with austerity then Brexit inflation.

Those places aren't fucked because there's some more Indians in London or whatever. A good deal of why they're fucked is because of what they're voting for.

As I said, people can see what has happened elsewhere and don’t want it for their area. Their motivations are straightforward, you don’t have to agree with them. And what’s above is a radically different argument to what you were running with 5 minutes ago

vball wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 12:27 pm Due to boundary changes, not sure the "guessers" have it right.
2019 was SNP at 40% with 7% over Lib Dems.
2024 prediction is Lib Dems getting 80% and SNP 17%. Hope it is true but doubt it.

Simian wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:05 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:15 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:54 pm



The differential in opportunity and outcomes is still very real, as it is for class and colour. This permeates every strand of life in the UK.

I understand the likes of Tate having a receptive audience, but that audience is not at fault here. It's a lot easier to point and scream "Wokery" than it is to tackle multi-layered problems of gender, class, race, lack of level playing fields etc.

My go-to is always the three people at a table with ten biscuits on a plate in the middle. One person reaches over and takes nine biscuits. Another reaches for the last biscuit and the first person turns to the third and says, "They're trying to steal your biscuit"

Tate and others are the useful idiots of the person with the nine biscuits.

Salanya has asked a good question which I will attempt to answer properly on another day.

On your point. Taking my profession, as a high level view it is basically 50/50 male-female, with men earning significantly more and occupying management positions. At my junior level? It is 80/20 female-male. If you take the high level stat the profession is a disgrace, if you live it on the ground the reality is very very different. Young men who like reform/Tate live on the ground. Reality is very different to what it was a few decades ago.

Disclaimer - I am very very much OK with my profession’s gender balance. It’s a thing rather than a bad thing if that makes any sense.

That there is such a large majority of women at entry level positions and yet men still go on to earn more on average and are more likely to progress to elevated positions suggests there is some sort of systemic bias though.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:07 am

Simian wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:05 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:15 pm

Salanya has asked a good question which I will attempt to answer properly on another day.

On your point. Taking my profession, as a high level view it is basically 50/50 male-female, with men earning significantly more and occupying management positions. At my junior level? It is 80/20 female-male. If you take the high level stat the profession is a disgrace, if you live it on the ground the reality is very very different. Young men who like reform/Tate live on the ground. Reality is very different to what it was a few decades ago.

Disclaimer - I am very very much OK with my profession’s gender balance. It’s a thing rather than a bad thing if that makes any sense.

That there is such a large majority of women at entry level positions and yet men still go on to earn more on average and are more likely to progress to elevated positions suggests there is some sort of systemic bias though.

Yeah my point isn’t about systemic bias (although we can’t know what current 22 year olds will go on to earn when they’re older!).

The question was why do figures from the radical right seem to have a pull with young men that they don’t with women. What your Dad could earn vs what your Mum could is irrelevant to that.

I like neeps wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:13 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:07 am

Simian wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:05 pm

That there is such a large majority of women at entry level positions and yet men still go on to earn more on average and are more likely to progress to elevated positions suggests there is some sort of systemic bias though.

Yeah my point isn’t about systemic bias (although we can’t know what current 22 year olds will go on to earn when they’re older!).

The question was why do figures from the radical right seem to have a pull with young men that they don’t with women. What your Dad could earn vs what your Mum could is irrelevant to that.

Because women see young equality as helpful to them and young men don't for exactly that reason it's still engrained in men that men are the breadwinner.

petej wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:21 am

I like neeps wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:13 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:07 am
Yeah my point isn’t about systemic bias (although we can’t know what current 22 year olds will go on to earn when they’re older!).

The question was why do figures from the radical right seem to have a pull with young men that they don’t with women. What your Dad could earn vs what your Mum could is irrelevant to that.

Because women see young equality as helpful to them and young men don't for exactly that reason it's still engrained in men that men are the breadwinner.

If equality was better used you could certainly nail companies on parental leave which are still very unbalanced outside of legal minimums.

JM2K6 wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:34 am Really not sure how we're turning the draw of Tate and the hateful scumbags of Reform into some kind of finger pointing at how mean society is to young men.

People like this have always drawn in angry young men, precisely because they offer a "dream" of nothing being their fault and the world owing them money, fame, women, and freedom from consequences.

The "feminising" of society is extremely milquetoast and the mildest push back on males has led to extreme amounts of toy throwing.

salanya wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:40 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:29 pm

Now now.

It would be an early own goal I feel.

Mandelson was asked about this last night. He suggested that essentially Starmer has had a very close knit top team for some time and intends to translate that directly into government. Clearly two vacancies opened up last night but the principle was sound.

On the point about young men and Reform, young men live in an increasingly female coded society in ways that I don’t think are immediately obvious to people who are older. They also tend to react against whatever the establishment view they are presented with, as just about every generation has. To them, the establishment presentation from teachers/media (they don’t read the Sun, come in) has always been really quite left/liberal, in a way that wasn’t true even for someone like myself that’s a decade older or so (we got similar talks at school but it was always clear that the older teachers didn’t have their hearts in it). It isn’t/shouldn’t be a shock to see them react against it

Okay, I'll bite: what is supposed to be a 'female coded society' ?
I appreciate modern society isn't as focused on the men being dominant, and it might be more 'woke', but how is that coded for/by females?
It may be harder for many men to work out their role and identity in these modern times, but to label society as 'female coded', you create half of the issue.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:47 am Then getting into work - if you want a decent career you are fundamentally heading towards a grad scheme. If you want to get on a grad scheme you need to get through the process set by the 90-100% female HR team, unsurprisingly this process then leads to the prioritisation of traits that are more common in women. Just as a team of men is more likely to hire the man, the same is true (and more so) in reverse.

Simian wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:44 am

JM2K6 wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:34 am Really not sure how we're turning the draw of Tate and the hateful scumbags of Reform into some kind of finger pointing at how mean society is to young men.

People like this have always drawn in angry young men, precisely because they offer a "dream" of nothing being their fault and the world owing them money, fame, women, and freedom from consequences.

The "feminising" of society is extremely milquetoast and the mildest push back on males has led to extreme amounts of toy throwing.

Yup. That’s my take too. I find the whole argument very bizarre, totally at odds with what’s actually happening, and actually pretty concerning, tbh!

Tichtheid wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 10:27 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:47 am Then getting into work - if you want a decent career you are fundamentally heading towards a grad scheme. If you want to get on a grad scheme you need to get through the process set by the 90-100% female HR team, unsurprisingly this process then leads to the prioritisation of traits that are more common in women. Just as a team of men is more likely to hire the man, the same is true (and more so) in reverse.

I just read this out to my wife - a just-retired HR/Organisational Development director.

She said that people do tend to recruit themselves, so to speak, but also that men dominate senior HR roles, even if the majority of the workforce is female. Also, the grad scheme recruitment process is very often devised externally, so the make of the team doing the recruiting is of little relevance.
The third point is that the so-called "feminising" of roles is the prioritising of team working, collaboration and communication over "self" and personal ambition. This is because the latter has been found to be toxic and not good for productivity in the workplace.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 11:29 am

Tichtheid wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 10:27 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:47 am Then getting into work - if you want a decent career you are fundamentally heading towards a grad scheme. If you want to get on a grad scheme you need to get through the process set by the 90-100% female HR team, unsurprisingly this process then leads to the prioritisation of traits that are more common in women. Just as a team of men is more likely to hire the man, the same is true (and more so) in reverse.

I just read this out to my wife - a just-retired HR/Organisational Development director.

She said that people do tend to recruit themselves, so to speak, but also that men dominate senior HR roles, even if the majority of the workforce is female. Also, the grad scheme recruitment process is very often devised externally, so the make of the team doing the recruiting is of little relevance.
The third point is that the so-called "feminising" of roles is the prioritising of team working, collaboration and communication over "self" and personal ambition. This is because the latter has been found to be toxic and not good for productivity in the workplace.

Someone makes up grad schemes, whether internal or external. They are very likely to be heavily female! Men being senior in HR is less true than it was even a decade ago.

Yes, we have left a lot of ‘male’ toxic work traits in the past (or are trying to). There are plenty of ‘female’ toxic work traits that can be just as damaging though. I’m not attempting to hark back to imagined glory days, I’m trying to explain why there is a cluster of young men who are not buying what society is selling them. You don’t have to think they’re right but it’s worth taking them more seriously than they tend to be

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:47 am

salanya wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:40 pm


Mandelson was asked about this last night. He suggested that essentially Starmer has had a very close knit top team for some time and intends to translate that directly into government. Clearly two vacancies opened up last night but the principle was sound.

On the point about young men and Reform, young men live in an increasingly female coded society in ways that I don’t think are immediately obvious to people who are older. They also tend to react against whatever the establishment view they are presented with, as just about every generation has. To them, the establishment presentation from teachers/media (they don’t read the Sun, come in) has always been really quite left/liberal, in a way that wasn’t true even for someone like myself that’s a decade older or so (we got similar talks at school but it was always clear that the older teachers didn’t have their hearts in it). It isn’t/shouldn’t be a shock to see them react against it

Okay, I'll bite: what is supposed to be a 'female coded society' ?
I appreciate modern society isn't as focused on the men being dominant, and it might be more 'woke', but how is that coded for/by females?
It may be harder for many men to work out their role and identity in these modern times, but to label society as 'female coded', you create half of the issue.

So:
Starting with the caveat that this is the world seen through the eyes of a 20 something. That x profession was a nightmare to be a woman in/that C Suite are still blokes in suits *doesn’t matter* because this is ancient history to them.

The professions that a young lad interacts with are increasingly female dominated. Notably school and university. Sock has described his experiences as a younger male teacher which chimes with what I was alluding to.

Men and women *on a statistical basis* respond to different stimuli, and the fact that there is a female majority in these places means that the stimuli that women are more likely to respond better to are prioritised and the opposite are discouraged. Some examples:

- increasing importance of coursework over exams
- reduced tolerance for ‘boys will be boys’ stuff on the playground
- a higher focus on care and safety over competition
- a focus (and this I think is clearly across society now) on process over results
- as a personal example and I don’t claim that this is representative, in my first job my female team and I had real issues because I wouldn’t colour code my work, because it fries my brain. They couldn’t wrap their heads around the idea that colours would confuse someone, and that I’d rather just see the numbers.

There are far, far fewer outlets for positive masculinity now. Club rugby’s decline a great example. You can’t separate modern society and more assertive femininity from the decline in numbers of men aged 25+ who are “allowed” to play regular team sport. Similarly, if post match social antics ‘leak’, men are in real trouble now and there’s a greater expectation on model behaviour. I go to my cricket club’s bar to blow off steam, not to ‘be the change you want to see’!

There’s a general earnestness to education, media and general society that tends to rub young men up the wrong way (take a look at Gen Z memes, largely made by blokes, and you’ll see it is very irreverent) What I’m getting towards here is that the bloke who is now 60/70 something that spent his teenage years taking the piss out of the vicar and mucking around in church is showing the same feelings as a teenager taking the piss out of their teacher for talking about DEI today.

Basically I think that a lot of people who are passionate about equity (using it as a catch all category here) see themselves as insurgents taking on a stuffy reactionary establishment. To the kids, these people *are* the establishment.

Then getting into work - if you want a decent career you are fundamentally heading towards a grad scheme. If you want to get on a grad scheme you need to get through the process set by the 90-100% female HR team, unsurprisingly this process then leads to the prioritisation of traits that are more common in women. Just as a team of men is more likely to hire the man, the same is true (and more so) in reverse.

As I’ve said, I don’t mind that in my role there’s 2 blokes for every 8 women. It does mean though that I work in a ‘female coded’ environment. Small examples - work socials take weeks to organise because we go through rounds of dietary requirements/menu checks/offering 15 dates for the event. We struggled to raise an 8 for a corporate cricket tournament but sell out any event that requires dressing up etc. The kind of networking events that me and the other bloke in my cohort thrive at tend to not get sign off etc etc.

Going more macro - a passed over young man is not going to be mollified by being told that most of the senior people in their 60s are men. Their experience is women achieve more, advance quicker but men are somehow privileged. You can see how this does not compute even if you don’t agree with it.

Appreciate I’ve rambled a bit.

sockwithaticket wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2024 10:52 am As well you should. The disillusion and anger of young men who increasingly feel divorced from wider society doesn't seem to be going anywhere, not least because attempts to try and explain the phenomenon largely seem to be met with dismissal, often with a side order of sneering.

Simian wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:17 am

sockwithaticket wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2024 10:52 am As well you should. The disillusion and anger of young men who increasingly feel divorced from wider society doesn't seem to be going anywhere, not least because attempts to try and explain the phenomenon largely seem to be met with dismissal, often with a side order of sneering.

I don’t think anger that the deck has become slightly less stacked in their favour should be met with compassion and sympathy. It’s childish and should be treated as such, imo.

Hal Jordan wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2024 12:18 pm

Simian wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:17 am

sockwithaticket wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2024 10:52 am As well you should. The disillusion and anger of young men who increasingly feel divorced from wider society doesn't seem to be going anywhere, not least because attempts to try and explain the phenomenon largely seem to be met with dismissal, often with a side order of sneering.

I don’t think anger that the deck has become slightly less stacked in their favour should be met with compassion and sympathy. It’s childish and should be treated as such, imo.

And it's absolutely no excuse to go running towards the likes of Rapey Tate.