Friday Links

• [content note:rape] We Mixed Our Drinks Rape culture: still around; still as grim as ever
• Helen G at The F-Word: Argentina's Senate passes gender identity law
• richie79 at Big Fat Blog: Chewing the Fat in the UK
• Neue Politik: Civil Partnerships and Marriage: What's The Difference?
• Same Difference: Coalition Failed To Test Fairness Of Spending Cuts, Finds EHRC Report
• Lisa Wade at Sociological Images: Are Our Politics More Consistent Than Our Opinions?

The Government Inequalities Office

The recent newsletter from the Government Equalities Office can basically be summed up as "Well, it's all a bit difficult. Let's not bother". It's the result of their previous "regulation is evil" review.

The measures announced today include:

Repealing Third Party Harassment law, which will ensure employers are no longer liable for the harassment of an employee by a third party (for example, a customer). A consultation on this change is launched today.

The Law Gazette has a summary of the existing law, and the case law it's based on.

Note that it firstly requires this to happen more than once and secondly requires that the employer could reasonably have done something about it but didn't.

The 'Bernard Manning' case (which held that the employer was liable for inviting a racist and sexist comedian to insult their staff, even though the comedian was not a direct employee) is fairly important since third parties include suppliers and contractors.

It's not clear that repealing this part will actually stop employers being liable, as the Equalities Office apparently holds the view that all harassment is direct discrimination, and of course the case law establishing liability predated the law they're going to repeal. Unless they intend to repeal it by adding a statement that employers are explicitly not liable, of course, which is unlikely to stand up in court.

Next...

Reviewing the Public Sector Equality Duty - a legal obligation on public bodies to consider the impact of their decisions on different groups - to establish whether it is operating as intended.

Repealing the Socio-Economic Duty - a legal obligation on public bodies to consider the impact of their decisions on social class.

I'd be more worried about the first point if the government had not repeatedly shown that it's completely trivial to ignore it anyway, if you are the government. Repealing the Socio-Economic Duty is hardly surprising either, given how obviously they've been ignoring it so far.

Then...

Tackling gold-plating and over-compliance by working with the British Chambers of Commerce to help small-and-medium-sized companies understand what they do and don't need to do in order to comply with the Equality Act.

We must remember that the Act's purpose is to give plausible deniability when people are discriminated against. Some companies have got confused and gone beyond this to attempt to actually stop the discrimination.

Repealing employment tribunals' 'wider recommendations' powers, which will remove the power of tribunals to recommend the introduction of, or changes to, policies that affect all of an employer's staff - not just the employee who brought the case. A consultation on this change is launched today.

We must remember that it is far more effective, and good for the employer, if they have to deal with several separate discrimination cases for the same issue, rather than a tribunal being able to suggest a way to improve general practice after the first one.

The "individual solution to systematic problem" approach of course never fails to keep discriminated-against people from causing too much trouble.

And a bunch to do with the EHRC

Repealing unnecessary powers and duties. Some of the EHRC's powers and duties under the Equality Act 2006 will be scrapped in order to help it focus on its core functions.

Tighter financial controls. The EHRC will comply with government-wide spending rules - in particular, controls on recruitment, consultancy and marketing.

Budget review. The EHRC's budget was cut by over half as part of the 2010 Spending Review. There will now be a comprehensive review of the remainder of the EHRC's budget, to be completed this autumn.

New leadership. A new Chairman and a new, smaller Board will be recruited.

"Having funding, powers, and staff is interfering with the EHRC's duty to pretend everything is fine. We will review this."

They're not necessarily the most useful or sensible organisation, but I doubt these changes will help.

...all in all, about what you'd expect from the Conservative Party.

About four years ago, you couldn't talk about an issue like this without a Lib Dem popping up to say that they were the only major party to have:

Upholding these values of individual and social justice, we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality.

in their Constitution. The lack of an entry for "social class" is telling, in light of the above repeals, isn't it.

I haven't seen a Lib Dem mention that for a while now. Whether that's because there are fewer Lib Dems or because they've realised that like a lot of Constitutional statements it's basically meaningless words, I'm not sure.

Friday Links

• eastsidekate at Shakesville: On Why I Left the Academy
• [content note: terrorism] Left Outside: Who’s responsible? You fucking are!
• [content note: rape] Too much to say for myself: Justice for survivors
• s.e. smith: What’s So Bad About Feelings, Anyway?
• Patient C: Words and Political Correctness
• DavidG at Where's the Benefit?: The Price of Hate #BADD2012
• The universe in powers of 10 (very visual, needs modern browser)

A few reports that Ed
Miliband will be attending the Gala this year. Now, even saying
he'll attend and then not turning up is closer than any of his
predecessors got, but will he actually make it this year? It's one prediction I'll
be quite happy to be wrong about.

No-one could possibly have predicted that

Well, no-one could possibly have predicted that: Secondary school pupils 'not eating enough' according to the BBC headline. No, it's not an article about child poverty and malnutrition.

It turns out that...

For example, in 2004 43% of pupils had chips with their lunch compared to just 7% in 2011.

And almost all schools have ditched the sale of chocolate, sweets and crisps.

...if you remove the provision of food which is both tasty and provides lots of energy...

School Food Trust research suggests pupils get a quarter of the recommended daily intake from lunch, rather than the third that is advised.

[...]

"Despite huge improvements to what's on the menu, teenagers are still not choosing food combinations that will give them enough energy and nutrients to stay alert all afternoon."

...the people eating that food will be short on energy.

Apparently...

[the research] found significant improvements in the nutritional value of meals offered by secondary schools and healthier choices made by pupils.

It may well be true that the vitamins and other nutrients are
better provided than they were a decade ago. But as regards basic
energy, complaining that students aren't getting enough when there's
been a near-ban on the foods best at providing energy is absurd.

But then, this is a society where some "energy drinks" are actively
marketed as "low calorie"¹, so perhaps it shouldn't be all that
surprising that nutritionists are acting baffled at the reduction of
calorie content leading to a reduction in energy.

Footnote

¹ Because the way that calorie content of food is
calculated bears very little resemblance to most human's metabolic
processes², I can believe that it's very possible to
produce an energy drink which metabolises well but doesn't test high
in calories.

² Essentially: set fire to the food, see how much energy
this releases, then apply some 19th century adjustment factors to
vaguely account for composition. Modern
measurements skip the "set fire to the food" step and just
calculate based on broad composition approximately how much energy
would be released if one did set fire to it, but the underlying
principle is the same. People with furnace-based instead of
chemically-based digestive systems will probably get reasonably
accurate results from this.

Friday Links

• Hagley Road to Ladywood: Cliches of 2012 #3
• Writings of a Trans Activist: Gender statistic guidelines revised by HESA
• Zero at the Bone: A thought towards more productive social justice conversations
• Melissa McEwan at Shakesville: An Observation
• James Meikle at The Guardian: X-ray trial on asylum seekers started without formal approval
• incurable hippie at Where's the Benefit?: 32 deaths a week
• s.e. smith: Choices Do Not Occur In a Vacuum
• Sindelókë: Of Dogs and Lizards: A Parable of Privilege

Friday Links

• Jessamyn Smith at Geek Feminism: What she really said: Fighting sexist jokes the geeky way!
• s.e. smith: We Are More Fascinated By the Stars Than the Oceans
• CP Reece at The F-Word: Smashing our heads on the glass ceiling: what Public Service in the North does to intelligent women
• SharonBrennan at Where's the Benefit?: Budget 2012: the disabled marginalised yet again, with worse to come?
• Diary of a Goldfish: The Undebateable Undateables
• Sparky at Womanist Musings: The Realities of Heterosexism
• damali ayo at Racialicious: What Race Is Your Dog?
• The Curvature: Arrested at Hospital for Demanding Medical Care, Woman Dies in Jail Cell
• Den of the Hyena: Let Them Eat Cake

Friday Links

• s.e. smith: Armchair Diagnosis: Just Don’t
• Sarah Brown's Blog: Towards a Less Simplistic Perception of Gender
• China Miéville at Racialicious: When Did Bigotry Get So Needy?
• Another Angry Woman: Gaslighting, power and differences of opinion
• Dr. Cary Gabriel Costello at Intersex Roadshow: How Common is Intersex Status?
• Lisa Wade at Sociological Images: EU Recalls Racist Propaganda
• Helen G at The F-Word: Landmark move towards same-sex marriage a step closer

Friday Links

• Philippa Willitts at The F-Word: Are you a neighbour from hell? You might be surprised.
• Forty Shades Of Grey: Life on benefits
• s.e. smith: On cooking alone
• Renee at Womanist Musings: Men, Sexism and Faux Oppression
• [trigger warning] A radical transfeminist: The Ethical Prude: Imagining An Authentic Sex-Negative Feminism
• tigtog at Hoyden About Town: Quote OTD: Freedom, Rights and Accountability – the denialism of fools and knaves
• Laurie Penny at New Statesman: So, it turns out feminism is a CIA plot to undermine the left
• Conn Mac Gabhann at Left Foot Forward: Anti-Traveller attitudes continue to go unchallenged in Britain
• [trigger warning] nominatissima:Consent, Disability, & Sexual Abuse
• Spark in Darkness: Sympathise, don't empathise
• [trigger warning] Another Angry Woman: Rape and “no crimes”: this is a fucking travesty
• Jolene Tan at The F-Word: Domestic worker rights under threat - again
• s.e. smith: In the Garden: Flowers!

Friday Links

• Philippa Willitts at The F-Word: Shocked headline as fat disabled woman has fun
• Yet Another Kiri Bloggish Thing Waitwaitwait
• [trigger warning] Melissa McEwan at Shakesville: Today in Rape Culture and Not Crazy
• s.e. smith: Universal Design Does Not Mean Ugly Design
• DavidG at Where's the Benefit?: The Magical Thinking at DWP Gets Worse
• Irregular Webcomic: Sharing Art
• Sarah Brown's Blog: Hunting Trans People For Sport, Profit, Charity and Teh Lulz

Why is a pancake unlike a marriage?

Yesterday, in the UK and other countries, was Pancake Day, a secular celebration of the tastiness of pancakes.

It was also, of course, Shrove Tuesday, the last date in the Christian Calendar before the start of Lent. Traditionally, pancakes would be eaten to use up stocks of rich foods before the start of Lent fasting and repentance.

The secular co-option of the fun bits of the tradition in a way that almost entirely inverts the point of the tradition is not unique to this particular event, of course, but I wasn't able to find anyone anywhere complaining that the celebration of Pancake Day was taking away from the meaning and seriousness of Shrove Tuesday and Lent.

Meanwhile, the usual forces of Christianity-excused heterosexism were campaigning strongly that their particular current definition of marriage should be the only legally-supported and state-recognised one, on the grounds that allowing other definitions - even trivial amendments which entirely retain the stated¹ point of the tradition - would weaken their own.

It's an interesting contrast.

Footnote

¹ There are arguably certain points - more common historically - regarding the control of women which same-sex marriage would subvert, of course. But they will deny if asked that this is the particular point that would be weakened.

Friday Links

• Writings of a Trans Activist: British media in a tizzy over pregnant man
• DavidG at Where's the Benefit?: Magical Thinking and Miracle Cures
• A Bee of a Certain Age: Defending the kyriarchy
• Jender at Feminist Philosophers: “If you see something, do something”
• TransGriot: WTF? Whitney Ain't Even In Her Grave Yet...
• s.e. smith: Job ‘Support’ Programmes and Enforced Poverty
• Zero at the Bone: Two kinds of whiteness: reimagining white people in fantasy and science fiction
• Annalytica at Lashings of Ginger Beer: CBT and me

Friday Links

• The Intersex Roadshow: On Sex/Gender Checkboxes
• Anjum Klair at TouchStone: So there is no shortage of jobs?
• tigtog at Hoyden About Town: Thought of the day: when does bigotry occur?
• [trigger warning] Blue Milk: The cult of masculinity and sexual violence in war
• Garland Grey at Tiger Beatdown: Personal Decisions, Global Catastrophes: Capitalism is Not Inherently Friendly to Human Life
• Complicity: Leveson Inquiry submission by Trans Media Watch
• Paul Krugman: Different Slopes for Different Folks

Friday Links

• Spark in Darkness: Ok, enough, I have to rant about this messed up economic bullshit
• [trigger warning] HarpyMarx: Children are unbeatable
• Libertarian Lou's Blog: Three faces of feminism: Louise Mensch, Laurie Penny, and Jodie Marsh
• Zero at the Bone: Emotional performance
• Tulip Siddiq and Peter Allen at Left Foot Forward: Too many councillors leaving leaves councils too homogeneous
• Patrick Wintour at the Guardian: Coalition overturns Lords amendments on welfare and bans further dissent
• UK Polling Report: The problem with “Do you agree or disagree with this statement” questions

...and after the last few months, something to make a change: Famous Paintings Improved by Cats

Keep poor people out

The BBC reports that:

The government has pledged to cut net migration from 242,000 - the figure for the year ending September 2010 - to the "tens of thousands" last seen in the 1990s.

It plans to do this by making the UK such an unpleasant place to live that large numbers of current residents leave.

Well, no. That's just a happy side effect of its other policies. It plans to directly do this by setting a really high minimum salary - over £31,000, or more than 75% of existing workers earn.

Because the Conservatives are a pro-family party, people wishing to live with their non-EU partner in this country will be subject to a somewhat less strict standard. Their partner need only earn around £20,000, or around median wage, to be allowed in.

(Their pro-business and pro-British credentials are going to take a bit of a hit from this "minimum wage increased for foreigners only" policy, too)

Friday Links

• HarpyMarx: Work Capability Assessment and the ATOS experience
• [trigger warning] Sian and Crooked Rib: It is never her fault
• [trigger warning] A Radical TransFeminist: Under Duress: Agency, Power and Consent, Part Two: “Yes”
• Trans Youth Takes On World: Gender recognition under threat in UK universities and Update on the HESA gender statistics affair
• Echidne of the Snakes: Internet Misogyny For The Day
• Lisa at Where's the Benefit?: And in the news...