Printable View
The mobos are a thing because underepresentation of black and minority artists. It would be sad if they had to create a female music and film awards due to underepresentation. Its ludicrous to say there would ever be separation in an awards show because of race its completely different and absurdQuote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
I think in some spheres there is still an element of racial segregation. The MOBO Awards would be an obvious example. Obviously not exclusively for people of colour but set up in response to the under representation of black culture in mainstream awards. Indirectly linked to my line of work there is the BIH Awards for black and Asian people working in the food and drink sector (largely because there was an under representation in the major awards in the sector). There are also things like the American Black Film Awards or the NACCP Theatre Awards.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
I agree with your overall point though that greater inclusivity across the board is the most desirable outcome. Both in terms of those winning the awards and those with a say in who does so. Even with public votes I think there is still an inherent bias against women in a sphere like sport though because male sporting achievement is given so much more gravitas. Had England men won the Euros in 2021 and Kane got SPOTY no one would have batted an eyelid. The women won their tournament and Beth Mead got the award and many claimed it was 'a joke' and an example of 'woke culture'. That's the mentality you have to try and change.
I do think we are moving slowly in the right direction with such things and the greater promotion given to womens sport and the like will go some way to resolving these issues for future generations.
We have separate categories for nationalities. For type of school you go to. For type of disability you might have. There are all sorts of categories.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
I doubt there is any demand for one for race though. Not in pro sport.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why is it completely different and absurd? There is a clear biological reason to separate men and women in sport. Is there a similar biological reason why women are at a disadvantage in acting or music?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The answer is no of course - we've separated categories due to a sexist selection and decision making process.
Therefore why keep the stasis quo when what needs fixing is how decisions are made?
I of course am not advocating separate awards for race. I agree its absurd. But if you follow my above logic, why is it any more absurd then separating based on gender?
Thanks for your response and actually engaging with my point. Agree we still have a long way to go but in a world where gender is fast becoming a grey area rather than black and white, I just can't understand the need to stick with old binary categories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
There is definitely an issue here, but one way to approach it feels quite old fashioned imo and does nothing to actually challenge the problem (women have their own awards so what's the issue). It just kicks the can down the road.
Better to deal with the inherent bias that leads to a lack of representation.
RE your last line, I don't think you've picked up the discussion correctly. This was about awards and having separate categories, not sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You seriously don't see a ******g ridiculously large difference between an organisation choosing to separate an award based by gender, compared to if they did by race..Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
It depends. An award for acting or music, where there is no biological reason why women are at disadvantage? Then yes the comparison is with race is fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sport where women are at a biological disadvantage to men? Yes of course equating race and gender is ridiculous.
A question for you since you seem to be misunderstanding my point. Do you think women have any natural, genetic or inbuilt reason why they can't be as good at acting or music as men?
Presuming your answer is no, the question will be why they win less awards. And the answer will be inherent bias. So we can keep having a separate category and ignore the issue, or we can tackle it and build a fair system which prevents systemic discrimination against women, minorities etc. Not easy but doable.
Also, when we are moving towards gender fluidity and non-binary, why keep an archaic, binary model? Where does a non-binary actor like Emma D'Arcy fit into a male / female award category?
Because its beyond nieve to think gender neutral categories won't be dominated by men. If in 5 years there is equal men and women nominees at the brits I'll come back and say fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
In the meantime this thread is going off into a tangent
https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/s...b_6OlY5srpf1jw
Rishi going for it?[emoji102]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the legal advice he is getting says it impacts UK Equality Legislation what else is he supposed to do? Ignore the legal advice and just do nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It’s a political decision. Strange thing to go on though. It will be law in England within the next 5 years anyway because it is supported by Starmer.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh, so you believe Starmer now? So House of Lords gone in 5 years will it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Reseller removes J.K. Rowling's name from Harry Potter books (nypost.com)
Charging $170 to put a new cover on Harry Potter books without J K Rowling's name on them...quite a money-maker if enough suckers buy into this.
Be surprised if there's not some sort of copyright infringement here, but maybe not if folk have already bought the original books.
You’d need to be a very special individual to buy anything like that.[emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think Starmer knows what he believes. He was one of those caught floundering last year when asking political types to define a woman was de rigueur. Fearful of giving the correct answer (adult human female) he blathered a bit about gender recognition and equal rights, which has left Labour with a woolly stance on the issue (witness their supine performance at Holyrood last month when they passed up the chance to help kick this bill into touch by simply tinkering ineffectually around the edges). As ever, he'll see which way the wind's blowing before forming a clear opinion on this but he's got a few years before he has to commit to anything significant. Sunak as PM on the other hand, is faced having to make a call on a bill which will without doubt impact on UK equality laws and as far as I can see has no option but to put this legislation on hold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Or perhaps one who believes the theory that she used the name Robert Galbraith as an homage to the pioneer of conversion therapy :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
He was his usual non-committal self about this during his Kuenssberg interview earlier, although he did at least concede concerns about the new age of transition in Scotland (something which has often been overshadowed by the furore over the erosion of women's rights):Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Starmer concerned about age of gender transition in Scotland
Kuenssberg pushes Starmer and asks again, if Labour were in power, would he look to introduce a system of gender self-identification as Scotland has done?
Starmer says he wants to modernise the system and is looking at all options to "take out the indignities".
He says he has concerns that the age of transition is 16 in Scotland and the significance of the Equality Act.
He says there is a small number of people born with a gender they don't identify with and they need to be respected.
Asked if he would block the Scottish legislation, Starmer says he will wait and see what the UK government will do.
Not like Starmer to say ‘wait and see’. [emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bit more meat on the bones here from various sources:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Starmer: '16 is too young to change legal gender' - BBC News
Hard to see this not ending up in court.
Just to focus in on the headline, Starmer obviously doesn't know (or care, maybe?) that 16 is the age of majority in Scotland. Added to his claim to have been head of prosecution for the whole UK it does seem he doesn't really understand the country he wants to run.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
He’s no more interested in Scotland than the average Tory. When Tony Blair became Labour leader he was regularly in Scotland. Starmer visits about as often as Johnson did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That BBC report quotes Maggie Chapman who I saw on video from the Scottish Greens saying 6 and 7 year olds need more support as they often recognise they are trans at that age. I can see the Greens pushing for this but I think most SNP MSPs will reject this.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
At least he's finally come out with something concrete on this issue. I fail to understand why, if he feels this way, he didn't make that clear to Sarwar so that Scottish Labour actually knew where they stood. Had he done so there's a chance this ill thought through legislation could have been voted down and spared us the ongoing fallout.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
She's cut from the same bampot cloth as Harvie and Slater.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Surely he respects devolution enough to allow his members up here autonomy on devolved matters? Add to that that his concrete input is to disrespect the Scottish legal system and it really does look like Starmer is a UK centralist.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Why do Scottish Labour need to know where they stand from London? Can they not think for themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought I had misheard Starmer this morning when he seemed to claim that a Labour amendment to the GRRA in respect of its relationship to the EA had been voted down.
It turns out that I heard it correctly. This from within his own party.
https://twitter.com/LGBTLabScot/stat...ym8oR-3FA&s=19
So has he been badly advised, has he not read it properly, or is he lying?
It may have been a Scottish Parliamentary Bill but it was clear it would have nationwide repercussions. I know Ian Murray was heavily involved behind the scenes in helping to co-ordinate Scottish Labour's strategy (such as it was) on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
As I posted earlier in the thread I don't think he's been clued up enough from the start on this and has ended up creating all sorts of confusion today re his party's stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod