ORAC
Now out of Stalinist clutches, my evening has definitely been brightened by your link. Many thanks.
TE
You say the point of the conference is for you to address the high-heidyins. Maybe you're right, but we come to that conclusion from different perspectives. There was a lot of hooraying when the RAF signed up with Stonewall. I found it a retrograde step. This is perhaps best illustrated by Fis
king Air Cdre Hughesdon's
RAF News article explaining the move:
Stonewall is one of the leading organisations addressing the needs of lesbians, homosexual men and bisexuals and 'Diversity Champions' provides a forum for employers to share best practice in promoting diversity in the workplace.
The scheme has more than 250 members from the public and private sectors including the Royal Navy and the MOD Civil Service. The RAF's move attracted coverage in the national media with claims that it was planning to spend tens of thousands of pounds on advertising for recruits in the gay media.
So why did the RAF join?
The Armed Forces have, frankly, a chequered history in addressing sexual orientation issues. While the RAF, in conjunction with MOD generally, has now fully met its statutory obligations, we still know relatively little about how our personnel policies, and underpinning culture, are directly or indirectly affecting lesbian, gay and bisexual members. Indeed, it could well be argued that the lesbian, gay and bisexual community has been under-represented when considering wider RAF diversity issues, partly since sexual orientation is neither as overt as skin colour or gender nor as identifiable via symbols of religious affiliation.
By joining the Stonewall 'Diversity Champions' programme we will be in a better position to ensure that the policies we have in place are not inadvertently working against RAF personnel of any sexual orientation.
We will also be able to take advantage of advice to ensure that our policies mark the RAF out as an equal opportunity employer, thus promoting recruitment and retention.
Stonewall is one of the leading organisations addressing the needs of lesbians, homosexual men and bisexuals ...
Personally, Id rather be called a poof than a homosexual. That is a C19th term dreamed up by quacks when we were thought to be diseased / disordered. Assuming the good Air Cdre to be straight (fairly or unfairly), why does he think he needs to employ professional poofs from Stonewall or folk from the CRE to find out that, wait for it ... the professional needs of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and black people are ... (this will come as a mighty shock so prepare yourself) ... no different to his own.
The Armed Forces have, frankly, a chequered history in addressing sexual orientation issues.
No, if we were mincing our words they have a chequered history. If we're being frank, the Armed forces have an appalling history on these issues. However, we're hopefully moving on from there.
we still know relatively little about how our personnel policies, and underpinning culture, are directly or indirectly affecting lesbian, gay and bisexual members.
Your personnel policies and official culture will affect all your people. Military officers are trained to look at everything from the other side's point of view. It should not be beyond your wit to examine your culture and policy with a view to how it will affect the men and women under your command. Now that you've stopped the queerhunts and are applying the
equality legislation, your gay people will be affected exactly the same way as your straight people.
Indeed, it could well be argued that the lesbian, gay and bisexual community
Is there a heterosexual community? No there isn't. Why do you think gay men would wish to band together either in their own community or in conjunction with lesbians (with whom they have less in common that they have with straight men or women) or bisexuals to the exclusion of all others? People exist in communities within which you will find folk of all sorts; even gay ginger Scotsmen (Sorry TonkaEngO!).
sexual orientation is neither as overt as skin colour or gender nor as identifiable via symbols of religious affiliation
Yes, and this gives us a special insight into the ludicrousness of discrimination because we're the only people who, under the old regime, could become niggers overnight or, in my case, in the time it took to say "Yes".
ensure that the policies we have in place are not inadvertently working against RAF personnel of any sexual orientation.
The notion of indirect discrimination has been around since at least 1975. If you can't ensure that your policies are not inadvertently working against RAF personnel, then you shouldn't be in the job you're in or drawing the salary you're drawing. See also answer below.
thus promoting recruitment and retention
Well, since at my alleged re-entry interview the interviewer spent just under a third of the time telling me how bad it was nowadays and from other evidence, you seem to have
fecked up royally on that one!
I can imagine no better example of a public service heirarchy being so desperate to analyze its workforce into separate 'diversity constituencies' and find their imagined individual needs that they've lost sight of the needs of their whole workforce. It will obviously be a surprise to the heirarchy when they eventually find out that the needs of each member of the workforce are by and large identical.
When I were a lad, it used to be called not being able to see the wood for the trees.