1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Priti Patel: Bullying claims from time at DfID revealed

Discussion in 'Personal' started by chelsea2, Mar 4, 2020.

  1. a1976

    a1976 Established commenter

    I commend Priti for doing her job. We could do with fewer jobsworths aka civil servants.
     
    Jonntyboy and artboyusa like this.
  2. Morninglover

    Morninglover Star commenter


    She was sacked previously. Evidence she doesn't, actually, 'do her job':

    "The minister quit after being summoned back from a trip to Uganda and Ethiopia by Downing Street after it emerged she failed to be candid with May about 14 unofficial meetings with Israeli ministers, businesspeople and a senior lobbyist".


    https://www.theguardian.com/politic...resign-over-unofficial-meetings-with-israelis
     
  3. border_walker

    border_walker Lead commenter

    Technically these are tusks.
     
    alex_teccy likes this.
  4. vannie

    vannie Star commenter

    Disingenuous nonsense.
     
    chelsea2, ilovesooty and Orkrider2 like this.
  5. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    Definitely not misogynistic and certainly not racist... not when it's in the Guardian.
    [​IMG]
     
  6. alex_teccy

    alex_teccy Star commenter

    Evoloutionary traits are not basic, they are complex and even more so in social species.
    It's not a question of moving on, 99% of human evoloution was spent in the Paleolithic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic i.e as nomadic hunter gathers, so evoloutionary psychology is a science that looks at behaviour as adaptions, byproducts a noise that made operating in that envioronment possible as a social species.
    Moral codes, hierachies do not influence our actions they are social adpatations.

    I certainly agree that men and women worked together throughout history, and that patterns of work have changed as technologies have evolved. Exploitation occured, but people have moved to places of work because they aspire to a better life for themselves and children. I think that's a bit of an aside though.
    Perhaps societiy has been run largely by men, but part of that is that positions of wealth and power is part of mate selection critieria for women, for example. In any case history is replete with examples of women in power, many of them behaving in a very "toxic" manner.
    Remember of course, that historically the vast majority of men were kept in positions of poverty and faced barriers to power as much as women did. If you were a peasant, slave or serf, you were staying that way, end of, so it's daft to potray that as a gender thing.
    They worked together to overcome some tremendous odds, including an infant mortality rate of 5/7 children before the age of four. I don't think you are at correct to take todays morality and force it onto the past is correct at all.
    Men as the "breadwinner" is not an "idea" at all. People do not experince attraction, invest in children, because of an idea, they do it because it is innate.

    So going back to the 99% of our evoloution. It's not a "stereoetype" that the majority of hunting was carried out by men; that is observable science in the form of looking at cross-cultures, for example men are better at mental-rotation tasks, found in a study across 53 cultures, necessary for calculating depth and range when using weapons, or cross-cultural studies showing that men are far more likely to take risks. Looking at genetic methods which determine human origins in Africa and the kind of environment, flora and fauna encountered by humans, looking at archeological records (e.g. bone fragments) which show the types of injuries encountered by early man. Looking at data from existing hunter-gather societies which show different roles between the genders.


    All of these (and more) are sources of data and evidence to test hypothesis about human behaviour and this is what the standard-social model cannot provide- any coherent theory of learning.
    You said it yourself a few posts ago
    Who's construct is it? Values don't create themselves, which is why TM is a fairy-tale, an archetype for a culture that pretends not to use archetypes. Stereotypes can be used to describe behaviour, but the stereotype cannot describe the motivation behind those behaviours only adaptation can do that.

    And then we have peoples attitude to stereotypes themselves. Suggest that stereotypes are not self creating and everyone loses their minds:

     
  7. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Of course... :rolleyes:

    Fascinating watching the "anti-racist" crowd suddenly forget their principles. Must buy more popcorn.
     
    Kandahar and alex_teccy like this.
  8. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    Just curious if there's something I'm missing here- are you suggesting that some one who is either from an ethnic minority back ground and/or female should be allowed to do things such as ignore employment rights that say a white male shouldn't?

    What other rules do you suggest Priti Patel be exempt from?
     
  9. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    Stereotypes are not necessarily inaccurate. They are an evolutionary thing so will have an element of truth. Some are purposely created to be false though. Most people carry stereotypes of groups with them,whether they acknowledge them or not (e.g. people don't tend to ask young children for directions when there is an adult with them - that is stereotyping).

    The problems come when people make assumptions against a person (or group of people) based on that stereotype without attempting comparing them against it and considering its accuracy for them.
     
    alex_teccy likes this.
  10. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    Given Patel - a woman and of Indian heritage - and Johnson - a man and of white British heritage - were both caricatured in the same way, I'm struggling to see how the cartoon can be either misogynistic or racist.
    [​IMG]
     
  11. harsh-but-fair

    harsh-but-fair Star commenter

    [​IMG]
     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  12. alex_teccy

    alex_teccy Star commenter

    On the whole I agree with you.
    I think that they also allow individuals to opperate in a socieites, that since the development of language. allow relationships with other individuals far beyond immediate kinship groups.
    Using stereotypes allows an individual to make reasonable judgements about the values of an individual. That's a very useful tool, though not without limitations. Stereotypes are valuable to marketing and design analysis, for the similar reasons. I wonder if the danger comes not when assumptions are made per-se (assumptions are a necessity for stereotypes), but when stereotypes are used to make judgements about morality.
    Also, I don't think stereotypes can be created. Exploited, perpetuated, perhaps, but I can't think of any stereotypes being created.
     
  13. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    Keep struggling and the answer will occur to you (start with 'Indian/Hindu background').
    And I suspect you wouldn't have had to struggle at all if someone had published a cartoon of, say, Diane Abbott with a ring through her nose.
     
    Kandahar likes this.
  14. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    And here's the other side of the story, neatly ignored by the majority of the mainstream media. A leftist, politically correct, establishment figure typical of so many of our senior civil "servants", doing his best to frustrate and defy an elected Minister because he doesn't agree with her policies on preventing illegal immigration. Exactly as I expected.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...m-declared-war-priti-patel-says-senior-civil/
     
    Kandahar and alex_teccy like this.
  15. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    It is not evidence of anything of the sort. It is simply evidence that she failed to tell the then PM all the relevant details of some meetings that she probably should have disclosed.

    I once fell foul of something like this in the job I had before I entered teaching. My reasoning was that I thought it largely irrelevant that my boss needed to know and that I wanted to get on with it myself without having to write even more reports, but I was nonetheless in breach of a disclosure rule I should have obeyed and had to accept that. I was told off, but in no way did it affect, or reflect on, the way I was doing my job, and indeed I was promoted quite soon after the event because my work was considered good and I was bringing success to the company.
    We all make misjudgements: I think we should just accept, apologise and learn from them as I hope Ms Patel did.
     
    alex_teccy likes this.
  16. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    In that case- shouldn't a particular stereotype be the same for all other groups?

    So the stereotypical Brit as seen by the Germans would be exactly the same as that seen by the Chinese, Australians and Easter Islanders- I don't think that's the case.
     
    ajrowing likes this.
  17. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    I think I know the answer to that...

    You edit out the Johnson bit and pretend it never existed.

    I'm sure that @artboyusa was unaware of the whole picture and will apologise for mistakenly accusing the Guardian of being misogynistic or racist as soon as he realises how he was taken in by what he must have seen cropped down elsewhere.
     
  18. alex_teccy

    alex_teccy Star commenter

    Maybe, maybe not...

    hardwork europe.jpg
     
  19. CheeseMongler

    CheeseMongler Lead commenter

    I just wanted to point out that that Johsnon's face is just a big bum.
     
  20. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    You can't see why portraying a Hindu as a bull is racist?

    So you'd be fine with a cartoon of Sadiq Khan as a pig?

    I get it... you don't like Patel... but pretending to not see the blatant racism... why do that? It just makes it look like the word "racist" is a political slur to you instead of a genuine thing.
     

Share This Page