The fact that the abstract states there are no precise, objective data seems to be used by him as an opportunity to create his own data.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he doesn't think that there's a big problem with under reporting of "male-on-female" rape or with under prosecution of rape that is reported.
I'd feel safe crawling further out to the branches than that and guess that he thinks that false accusations of rape by women are the real problem.
That he was hired by Eton is not something to which he can proudly point on his résumé; neither, something Eton on its. How in God's name did he get through the vetting process without someone saying, "Erm, could you go over that again, please?"
One thing I've noticed, taking the video as a whole - a number of the illustrations are of the sort of young women you can see walking down the street at any time, the sort of young women that boys in Eton are likely to encounter on a daily basis as adults. However, most of the illustrations are of men, and not the sort of men you encounter in daily life. These men are in army uniforms, or are tribesmen, or are mythological men - Vikings or Spartans. The men have guns, or swords, or bandoliers of bullets.
There's one "relatable" picture of a tall firefighter standing next to a petite nurse (at 1:32) but that's about the only photo of a smiling man. Most of the illustrations show men scowling, or grimacing in pain, or whose faces can't be seen under helmets.
There are tribesmen undergoing initiation ceremonies at 16.10, a Botswanan bushman hunting antelope with a spear at 16.23, an African tribesman hunting with bow and arrow at 17.48, an Ethiopian competing with a stick at 22.04, and tribesmen with white face-paint at 27.58.
It seems an odd way to present idealised masculinity to young men in white bow-ties at Eton.
Illustrations of men:
with guns at 3.41, 4.05, 15.46, 16.50,
with a sword at 6.56, 15.39, 15.46
boxing at 7.46, 7.50,
wrestling an animal at 9.35
in armour at 15:19, 23.25,
clip of Spartans fighting from the film "300" 18.56 - 19.45
This doesn't include the tribesmen with spears etc.
It's an ... interesting ... presentation of masculinity.
No. And indeed there's a warning against that sort of thing. There's the sad tale of a woman (at 28:26) whose husband was a stay-at-home husband. Apparently it "neutralised him as a sexual being." She "wanted to be overwhelmed by the sheer power of his masculinity in the bedroom" but she wasn't.
Because husbands who commute, do a full day in the office and commute home never want to settle down with a good book and a nice cup of tea, but are a seething mass of overwhelming masculinity come bedtime.
I believe in stronger employment protection, do you ?
If by this you mean that it should be harder for schools (staying with this example) to get rid of teachers who won't teach effectively what they're supposed to be teaching, then no.
But if you mean it should be harder for schools to get rid of teachers for doing things in their own time that the school doesn't approve of, then yes.
Employers buy an employee's services during contracted working hours. They don't buy his soul...
That he was hired by Eton is not something to which he can proudly point on his résumé; neither, something Eton on its. How in God's name did he get through the vetting process without someone saying, "Erm, could you go over that again, please?"
Well, he was hired as an English teacher, not for his views on sex and gender. I doubt these were mentioned at interview or on his CV. He may be a pretty good English teacher for all I know. Margaret Court was a pretty good tennis player after all.
Employers buy an employee's services during contracted working hours. They don't buy his soul...
Basically every employer will fire someone for bringing their employer into disrepute. If you decide to be offensively racist / sexist / whatever in public, whist loudly claiming to be an employee of your employer, you'll be given your cards the next morning.
I think there might be room for discussion on some of the cases where people have been videoed being offensive, and the internet has helpfully identified their name and employer, but if it's the employee themselves who makes the link to their employer public, I don't see that they have grounds for complaint.
Even more so when the link is made in a "I'm speaking with an authority because I work for ...." manner. Why does he mention being a teacher at Eton? The only reason is because he thinks his views will be taken more seriously because of that position.
The fact that the abstract states there are no precise, objective data seems to be used by him as an opportunity to create his own data. Alternatively he might be comparing figures from America (population 331 million) with figures from the UK (pop 68 million) But who knows? Interpreting data doesn't appear to be his strong point.
And that doesn't even take into account the American carceral state.
Number of people imprisoned in the U.K.: ~83,000
Number of people imprisoned in the U.S.: ~2.3 million (world's highest per capita incarceration rate)
My, how I have enjoyed the postings on this thread! I only went to a grammar school (some 55-60 years ago). I'm reassured that the 'odd and idiosyncratic, not to say toxic' teacher species survives, if only in protected niches like Eton. A fair number of the masters at my school (founded 1614) were as odd, if not as stupid, as this one, and had views on relationships, masculinity (you name it) quite as revolting.
The game we played was to stop them talking about, say 'Tess Of the D'Urbervilles, (I'll leave to to your imagination what this was called out of class) and encourage them go off on one of their rants. One phrase I remember was, "marriage is only licenced prostitution".
I'm only glad these gentlemen had no access to something like Facebook in those far off prelapsarian days, and their only audience was 30 mildly diverted thirteen year olds .
Do you really think that in this video he is putting forward "reasonable and credible arguments." ?
No, I haven't got the time or energy to watch the video! The view that I'd expressed in the OP is that it ought to be a high hurdle for an employer to deprive a person of the livelihood on the basis of something that they've said. Looking at the comments on here it sounds like Eton may well have surmounted the hurdle even if it were to be set at a high level, although elsewhere the view seems to be that this was simply an exercise in critical thinking. In practice I think it is too easy for an employer to dismiss someone because of opinions they've expressed.
In practice I think it is too easy for an employer to dismiss someone because of opinions they've expressed.
In general then you'd have to be in favour of far stronger employment protection than we have at present, and against the kinds of distinctions that Russ makes (which in practice have prove not to exist, or be eminently maleable in favour of the employer -- see the history of The Consulting association and the signal lack of prosecutions on the back of that).
In practice I think it is too easy for an employer to dismiss someone because of opinions they've expressed.
In general then you'd have to be in favour of far stronger employment protection than we have at present, and against the kinds of distinctions that Russ makes (which in practice have prove not to exist, or be eminently maleable in favour of the employer -- see the history of The Consulting association and the signal lack of prosecutions on the back of that).
Yes, I am in favour of stronger employee protection as I've mentioned above. I'd add to what I've already said that I think the "band of reasonable responses" test for unfair dismissal needs to be less favourable to the employer. I don;t think it was ever intended to be a perversity test but in practice that is how many Tribunals deal with them.
In practice I think it is too easy for an employer to dismiss someone because of opinions they've expressed.
In general then you'd have to be in favour of far stronger employment protection than we have at present, and against the kinds of distinctions that Russ makes (which in practice have prove not to exist, or be eminently maleable in favour of the employer -- see the history of The Consulting association and the signal lack of prosecutions on the back of that).
Or Makepeace is arguing for stronger labor unions. Where I live, the dominant practice is "employment at will"--an employer can fire you for any reason or for no reason at all. Oh, if it is a legally improper discriminatory reason, you can sue for damages, but even that will not get you your job back. The way to get around "employment at will" is either to have a written employment contract that sets forth the specific ways it can be terminated, or you can have a labor union. The union then negotiates with the employer for protections against "easy" dismissals of an employee (union member)--through grievance procedures and the like, backed up by the threat of a strike if the employer does not comply.
Do you really think that in this video he is putting forward "reasonable and credible arguments." ?
No, I haven't got the time or energy to watch the video! The view that I'd expressed in the OP is that it ought to be a high hurdle for an employer to deprive a person of the livelihood on the basis of something that they've said.
No, that was not the view you expressed in your OP. The view you expressed in your OP was:
I'm concerned about the fact that an employee can be dismissed by their employer for putting forward reasonable and credible arguments. I appreciate that many people on this forum will disagree with Mr Knowland, but do you really agree that it should be okay to terminate someone's employment because they argue that gender is not socially constructed?
(Emphasis mine.).
So the view you expressed was one of “concern” “about the fact” that an employee was dismissed “for putting forward reasonable and credible arguments” about gender not being socially constructed. Only later in the OP did you say “the hurdle ought to be very high for an employer to terminate someone's employment based on an opinion they've expressed,” with the clear implication that you did not believe that burden had been met here.
Now, in response to the question “Do you really think that in this video he is putting forward ‘reasonable and credible arguments,’” you say that you haven’t even watched the video—a video that you linked to in the OP to support your claim of “reasonable and credible arguments.”
For someone who in two threads you’ve started in the last week claims to set high store on the need for evidence to support news stories or employment decisions, you certainly seem quite indifferent to the need for any evidence to support your own claims and positions.
Makepeace has admitted he hadn't actually watched the video. This is (nearly) inexcusable. I'm afraid this thread has caused sensible people to waste their time watching rubbish.
... Or Makepeace is arguing for stronger labor unions. Where I live, the dominant practice is "employment at will"--an employer can fire you for any reason or for no reason at all. Oh, if it is a legally improper discriminatory reason, you can sue for damages, but even that will not get you your job back. The way to get around "employment at will" is either to have a written employment contract that sets forth the specific ways it can be terminated, or you can have a labor union. The union then negotiates with the employer for protections against "easy" dismissals of an employee (union member)--through grievance procedures and the like, backed up by the threat of a strike if the employer does not comply.
@Hedgehog possibly I ought to know this, but which jurisdiction are you in? Here (UK, in my case England and Wales), since even quite a long time ago, people have been entitled to demand written contracts which must contain certain basics, it has been normal to have a minimum notice period, which is usually mutual, and contracts of employment are enforceable through the courts like any other contracts. We now have quite a strong system, often under attack, that protects employees against unfair dismissal, which can include a right to be reinstated.
There is credible evidence in favour of the view that gender is not entirely socially constructed. I'm sorry of that offends you but I believe its a reasonable point of view.
No, I haven't got the time or energy to watch the video!
Apparently there is plenty of evidence to back up Mr. Knowland's views, whatever they are. So much that the exact views themselves are irrelevant. You just need to know that a (semi-)prominent white guy is being held accountable for his actions, which is the worst kind of discrimination.
... Or Makepeace is arguing for stronger labor unions. Where I live, the dominant practice is "employment at will"--an employer can fire you for any reason or for no reason at all. Oh, if it is a legally improper discriminatory reason, you can sue for damages, but even that will not get you your job back. The way to get around "employment at will" is either to have a written employment contract that sets forth the specific ways it can be terminated, or you can have a labor union. The union then negotiates with the employer for protections against "easy" dismissals of an employee (union member)--through grievance procedures and the like, backed up by the threat of a strike if the employer does not comply.
@Hedgehog possibly I ought to know this, but which jurisdiction are you in? Here (UK, in my case England and Wales), since even quite a long time ago, people have been entitled to demand written contracts which must contain certain basics, it has been normal to have a minimum notice period, which is usually mutual, and contracts of employment are enforceable through the courts like any other contracts. We now have quite a strong system, often under attack, that protects employees against unfair dismissal, which can include a right to be reinstated.
I am, of course, shocked, SHOCKED! that you haven't printed out my every post for all these years. But getting past that, I am based in the US, specifically the State of Delaware. Employment-at-Will is definitely the law here. While I cannot swear that that applies in every state across the US, my impression is that it is, at the very least, not unusual.
It is also why the conservatives attacks on labor unions is so disturbing. Things like "Right To Work" laws (which allow employees to decline to pay union dues) are not really protecting the employee, but rather are designed to hurt the union so that the employer can more easily exploit the worker.
if it's the employee themselves who makes the link to their employer public, I don't see that they have grounds for complaint.
Agreed. Very hard to make a case that your private life isn't your employer's business if you've brought his name into it.
But that doesn't undermine the principle that employees should be able to have a private life. And choose to spend it in the furtherance of unpopular causes if they so wish.
We should aim to cultivate a wide space for tolerance. Be able to continue relationships with our children, our friends, our employees, without necessarily agreeing with all their views and their actions. Resist the expectation that we will disown them if we do disagree.
Makepeace has admitted he hadn't actually watched the video. This is (nearly) inexcusable. I'm afraid this thread has caused sensible people to waste their time watching rubbish.
Assuming that I'm included in the definition of "sensible people" I don't think that watching the video was a waste of time. Knowland's dismissal is being widely reported, and I'm finding this interesting.
Ironically, my main criticism of the video is that Knowland seems unable to use primary sources, or to evaluate information. And now we have Knowland telling people what his video is about, and generating debate, without the primary source, the video, being watched. Not only that, but he is crowdfunding to raise money. Have the people paying into his crowdfunder seen the video? I suspect not. I'd like to contact those people with an exciting opportunity to buy a bridge from me....
But there's a bigger issue here. A disproportionate percentage of our political leaders are Eton-educated. The current crop of Eton pupils are petitioning to keep Knowland; they like his style. Knowland himself seems to value show and bluster over detail and accurate information. We currently have an Eton-educated Prime Minister known to rely on show and bluster, rather than detail and accuracy; do we want more of the same?
I think this is a microcosm of a much bigger issue.
Problem is, with social media, LinkedIn and company websites listing staff it's actually not that easy for people not to know who you work for.
Are you suggesting that tolerating family, friends, and employees whom you disagree with should be conditional on being able to keep the relationship secret ?
Problem is, with social media, LinkedIn and company websites listing staff it's actually not that easy for people not to know who you work for.
Are you suggesting that tolerating family, friends, and employees whom you disagree with should be conditional on being able to keep the relationship secret ?
No, and I'm somewhat bemused how you get to that from what I said.
It's a simple value-free observation that it's easier now for people to know who you work for and associate with and if people deem it appropriate to change their attitudes and relationships towards your employer or associates on that basis, it's now more likely to happen for that reason.
It's a simple value-free observation that it's easier now for people to know who you work for and associate with and if people deem it appropriate to change their attitudes and relationships towards your employer or associates on that basis, it's now more likely to happen for that reason.
As a simple observation, that's true.
But I'd question whether it's entirely value-free.
The clear implication is that if you want to succeed in business you should ruthlessly terminate your connection with anyone who puts forward ideas that you don't want people to associate with you and your product.
You are (deliberately or otherwise) legitimising the belief that association implies agreement, by normalising it.
Maybe the world would be a better place if nobody took such a belief seriously ?
Do you really think that in this video he is putting forward "reasonable and credible arguments." ?
No, I haven't got the time or energy to watch the video! The view that I'd expressed in the OP is that it ought to be a high hurdle for an employer to deprive a person of the livelihood on the basis of something that they've said.
No, that was not the view you expressed in your OP. The view you expressed in your OP was:
I'm concerned about the fact that an employee can be dismissed by their employer for putting forward reasonable and credible arguments. I appreciate that many people on this forum will disagree with Mr Knowland, but do you really agree that it should be okay to terminate someone's employment because they argue that gender is not socially constructed?
(Emphasis mine.).
So the view you expressed was one of “concern” “about the fact” that an employee was dismissed “for putting forward reasonable and credible arguments” about gender not being socially constructed. Only later in the OP did you say “the hurdle ought to be very high for an employer to terminate someone's employment based on an opinion they've expressed,” with the clear implication that you did not believe that burden had been met here.
Are you an Eton teacher? I feel like I've had a clip round the ear from a school master. I do think that it is often lawful for employers to dismiss employees for expressing reasonable views, and I think that's wrong. I did not make any point about Mr Knowland in the OP but rather asked a question: "do you really agree that it should be okay to terminate someone's employment because they argue that gender is not socially constructed?".The answer appears to be that this was wrong the question to ask, because Mr Knowland was not merely arguing that gender is not socially constructed.
I did not make any point about Mr Knowland in the OP but rather asked a question: "do you really agree that it should be okay to terminate someone's employment because they argue that gender is not socially constructed?".The answer appears to be that this was wrong the question to ask, because Mr Knowland was not merely arguing that gender is not socially constructed.
Well, one of the challenges in discussing things like gender is that it usually ends up with some people arguing about what other people are, without reference to the experience of those actual people.
Trans people exist. There are a set of people who were born with the genitals and chromosomes associated with one sex, but think of themselves as members of the other sex. Often what people want to mean when they argue that gender is not socially constructed is really "you've got a penis, so you're a man. You're just a confused man" - and that position isn't supported by the available data.
You can make a case for gender being biologically determined, but not 100% correlated with genitals, but although there's some data that suggests that trans men's brains behave more like cis men's brains than cis women's brains, I don't think we really know what that means. So you end up speculating without data, which usually looks like recycling your prejudice.
ETA: I am not aware of any science looking at people who have a non-binary gender identity.
We're not going to discuss whether trans people do or do not exist on this thread. If you want to do that, please head to the existing thread in Epiphanies. Outside of that, there's still more than plenty to talk about. Apologies, @Leorning Cniht - not a reprimand, just a signpost to the correct place.
Sorry Doc - I was trying to address Mr Knowland's lack of standing or data to even address the subject in the first place, and ended up focusing on the substantive issue instead. So I apologise for straying out of bounds. I won't be taking Mr Knowland's viewpoint to the Epiphanies thread, because it's an unsupported pile of assertions and prejudice without any actual support in reality.
It's a bit difficult to get through the guff to what this man was actually sacked for. Nobody seems to be reporting anything other than his protestations. He's bound to present himself as being a campaigner for freedom of speech, sacked for having unapproved opinions. It would be interesting to get the school's version of the story.
Trying to read between the lines it rather looks as though the real reason he's been sacked isn't a matter of freedom of speech but because he refused to take down his tendentious talk after his boss had told him to do so several times, i.e. insubordination.
A robust takedown of Knowland by Kristina Murkett in The Spectator, and on conservativehome Charlotte Gill enumerates the stages leading to his dismissal. As far as I can see it is only right wing media which is taking an interest.
A robust takedown of Knowland by Kristina Murkett in The Spectator, and on conservativehome Charlotte Gill enumerates the stages leading to his dismissal. As far as I can see it is only right wing media which is taking an interest.
When the Spectator thinks you're too reactionary then you really have passed the Röhm line into Goebbels territory.
When hundreds of current and past Etonians petition for the re-instatement of a teacher whose ability to critically evaluate sources seems to be non-existent, you have to wonder about the quality of education at Eton.
I have wondered before why Prince William had so much money spent on his education at Eton and ended up with less than stellar A level results (A in Geography, B in Art, C in Biology). Prince Harry ended up with a B in Art and a D in Geography.
If Knowland's video represents the quality of teachers at Eton, all is explained!
Front page of the Times today (according to the Guardian summary of the newspapers), also Guardian coverage yesterday here, which is now covering the story as the head of Eton has made a public statement. That article states the story was broken by the Daily Telegraph (that article is dated 26/11/2020 and is linked in the Guardian link). The Times or Telegraph are behind paywalls so no links.
*NB interesting difference in titles between internet link to article, they normally match
NEQ: with due respect the A-level results of Charlie’s Boys suggests that ( like their parents) they just ain’t very bright. They might have done worse in the local comprehensive.
I'm not familiar with A levels, but English isn't included here - did no-one from Eton sit A level English? Also, there are only four passes at A level in Modern Languages - one in Japanese and three in Portugese. No French, no German, no Mandarin?
Nine pupils took Ancient History, but History isn't listed as a subject.
They do seem much stronger in sciences, though - Maths, physics, chemistry and biology.
Not sure I'd reckon anything on the 2020 results of A levels, there were no exams. Wasn't there a huge scandal about the way private schools benefited from an acceptance of teacher assessments being regarded as good or below the capabilities of their students?
Comments
I'd feel safe crawling further out to the branches than that and guess that he thinks that false accusations of rape by women are the real problem.
There's one "relatable" picture of a tall firefighter standing next to a petite nurse (at 1:32) but that's about the only photo of a smiling man. Most of the illustrations show men scowling, or grimacing in pain, or whose faces can't be seen under helmets.
There are tribesmen undergoing initiation ceremonies at 16.10, a Botswanan bushman hunting antelope with a spear at 16.23, an African tribesman hunting with bow and arrow at 17.48, an Ethiopian competing with a stick at 22.04, and tribesmen with white face-paint at 27.58.
It seems an odd way to present idealised masculinity to young men in white bow-ties at Eton.
with guns at 3.41, 4.05, 15.46, 16.50,
with a sword at 6.56, 15.39, 15.46
boxing at 7.46, 7.50,
wrestling an animal at 9.35
in armour at 15:19, 23.25,
clip of Spartans fighting from the film "300" 18.56 - 19.45
This doesn't include the tribesmen with spears etc.
It's an ... interesting ... presentation of masculinity.
Because husbands who commute, do a full day in the office and commute home never want to settle down with a good book and a nice cup of tea, but are a seething mass of overwhelming masculinity come bedtime.
If by this you mean that it should be harder for schools (staying with this example) to get rid of teachers who won't teach effectively what they're supposed to be teaching, then no.
But if you mean it should be harder for schools to get rid of teachers for doing things in their own time that the school doesn't approve of, then yes.
Employers buy an employee's services during contracted working hours. They don't buy his soul...
Well, he was hired as an English teacher, not for his views on sex and gender. I doubt these were mentioned at interview or on his CV. He may be a pretty good English teacher for all I know. Margaret Court was a pretty good tennis player after all.
My favorite part was where the main Spartan guy mocks his wannabe allies as "Athenian boy-lovers".
Kinda like a Frenchman mocking the Italians for their love of wine.
Basically every employer will fire someone for bringing their employer into disrepute. If you decide to be offensively racist / sexist / whatever in public, whist loudly claiming to be an employee of your employer, you'll be given your cards the next morning.
I think there might be room for discussion on some of the cases where people have been videoed being offensive, and the internet has helpfully identified their name and employer, but if it's the employee themselves who makes the link to their employer public, I don't see that they have grounds for complaint.
And that doesn't even take into account the American carceral state.
Number of people imprisoned in the U.K.: ~83,000
Number of people imprisoned in the U.S.: ~2.3 million (world's highest per capita incarceration rate)
The game we played was to stop them talking about, say 'Tess Of the D'Urbervilles, (I'll leave to to your imagination what this was called out of class) and encourage them go off on one of their rants. One phrase I remember was, "marriage is only licenced prostitution".
I'm only glad these gentlemen had no access to something like Facebook in those far off prelapsarian days, and their only audience was 30 mildly diverted thirteen year olds .
No, I haven't got the time or energy to watch the video! The view that I'd expressed in the OP is that it ought to be a high hurdle for an employer to deprive a person of the livelihood on the basis of something that they've said. Looking at the comments on here it sounds like Eton may well have surmounted the hurdle even if it were to be set at a high level, although elsewhere the view seems to be that this was simply an exercise in critical thinking. In practice I think it is too easy for an employer to dismiss someone because of opinions they've expressed.
In general then you'd have to be in favour of far stronger employment protection than we have at present, and against the kinds of distinctions that Russ makes (which in practice have prove not to exist, or be eminently maleable in favour of the employer -- see the history of The Consulting association and the signal lack of prosecutions on the back of that).
Yes, I am in favour of stronger employee protection as I've mentioned above. I'd add to what I've already said that I think the "band of reasonable responses" test for unfair dismissal needs to be less favourable to the employer. I don;t think it was ever intended to be a perversity test but in practice that is how many Tribunals deal with them.
So the view you expressed was one of “concern” “about the fact” that an employee was dismissed “for putting forward reasonable and credible arguments” about gender not being socially constructed. Only later in the OP did you say “the hurdle ought to be very high for an employer to terminate someone's employment based on an opinion they've expressed,” with the clear implication that you did not believe that burden had been met here.
Now, in response to the question “Do you really think that in this video he is putting forward ‘reasonable and credible arguments,’” you say that you haven’t even watched the video—a video that you linked to in the OP to support your claim of “reasonable and credible arguments.”
For someone who in two threads you’ve started in the last week claims to set high store on the need for evidence to support news stories or employment decisions, you certainly seem quite indifferent to the need for any evidence to support your own claims and positions.
Act I, the expression of outrage!
Act II, the requisite JAQing off.
Act III, the profession of ignorance.
Apparently there is plenty of evidence to back up Mr. Knowland's views, whatever they are. So much that the exact views themselves are irrelevant. You just need to know that a (semi-)prominent white guy is being held accountable for his actions, which is the worst kind of discrimination.
It is also why the conservatives attacks on labor unions is so disturbing. Things like "Right To Work" laws (which allow employees to decline to pay union dues) are not really protecting the employee, but rather are designed to hurt the union so that the employer can more easily exploit the worker.
But I may be biased in that opinion.
"Zero hours contracts" and designating employees as self-employed contractors are the way employers regularly get around their obligations here.
Agreed. Very hard to make a case that your private life isn't your employer's business if you've brought his name into it.
But that doesn't undermine the principle that employees should be able to have a private life. And choose to spend it in the furtherance of unpopular causes if they so wish.
We should aim to cultivate a wide space for tolerance. Be able to continue relationships with our children, our friends, our employees, without necessarily agreeing with all their views and their actions. Resist the expectation that we will disown them if we do disagree.
Assuming that I'm included in the definition of "sensible people" I don't think that watching the video was a waste of time. Knowland's dismissal is being widely reported, and I'm finding this interesting.
Ironically, my main criticism of the video is that Knowland seems unable to use primary sources, or to evaluate information. And now we have Knowland telling people what his video is about, and generating debate, without the primary source, the video, being watched. Not only that, but he is crowdfunding to raise money. Have the people paying into his crowdfunder seen the video? I suspect not. I'd like to contact those people with an exciting opportunity to buy a bridge from me....
But there's a bigger issue here. A disproportionate percentage of our political leaders are Eton-educated. The current crop of Eton pupils are petitioning to keep Knowland; they like his style. Knowland himself seems to value show and bluster over detail and accurate information. We currently have an Eton-educated Prime Minister known to rely on show and bluster, rather than detail and accuracy; do we want more of the same?
I think this is a microcosm of a much bigger issue.
Are you suggesting that tolerating family, friends, and employees whom you disagree with should be conditional on being able to keep the relationship secret ?
The statements and opinions in this video are not necessarily agreed or authorised by Eton College or its subsidiary companies.
No checking of social media / LinkedIn etc required.
No, and I'm somewhat bemused how you get to that from what I said.
It's a simple value-free observation that it's easier now for people to know who you work for and associate with and if people deem it appropriate to change their attitudes and relationships towards your employer or associates on that basis, it's now more likely to happen for that reason.
As a simple observation, that's true.
But I'd question whether it's entirely value-free.
The clear implication is that if you want to succeed in business you should ruthlessly terminate your connection with anyone who puts forward ideas that you don't want people to associate with you and your product.
You are (deliberately or otherwise) legitimising the belief that association implies agreement, by normalising it.
Maybe the world would be a better place if nobody took such a belief seriously ?
Are you an Eton teacher? I feel like I've had a clip round the ear from a school master. I do think that it is often lawful for employers to dismiss employees for expressing reasonable views, and I think that's wrong. I did not make any point about Mr Knowland in the OP but rather asked a question: "do you really agree that it should be okay to terminate someone's employment because they argue that gender is not socially constructed?".The answer appears to be that this was wrong the question to ask, because Mr Knowland was not merely arguing that gender is not socially constructed.
Well, one of the challenges in discussing things like gender is that it usually ends up with some people arguing about what other people are, without reference to the experience of those actual people.
Trans people exist. There are a set of people who were born with the genitals and chromosomes associated with one sex, but think of themselves as members of the other sex. Often what people want to mean when they argue that gender is not socially constructed is really "you've got a penis, so you're a man. You're just a confused man" - and that position isn't supported by the available data.
You can make a case for gender being biologically determined, but not 100% correlated with genitals, but although there's some data that suggests that trans men's brains behave more like cis men's brains than cis women's brains, I don't think we really know what that means. So you end up speculating without data, which usually looks like recycling your prejudice.
ETA: I am not aware of any science looking at people who have a non-binary gender identity.
We're not going to discuss whether trans people do or do not exist on this thread. If you want to do that, please head to the existing thread in Epiphanies. Outside of that, there's still more than plenty to talk about. Apologies, @Leorning Cniht - not a reprimand, just a signpost to the correct place.
DT
Admin
Trying to read between the lines it rather looks as though the real reason he's been sacked isn't a matter of freedom of speech but because he refused to take down his tendentious talk after his boss had told him to do so several times, i.e. insubordination.
When the Spectator thinks you're too reactionary then you really have passed the Röhm line into Goebbels territory.
I have wondered before why Prince William had so much money spent on his education at Eton and ended up with less than stellar A level results (A in Geography, B in Art, C in Biology). Prince Harry ended up with a B in Art and a D in Geography.
If Knowland's video represents the quality of teachers at Eton, all is explained!
*NB interesting difference in titles between internet link to article, they normally match
Can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.....
https://www.etoncollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/GCEStatistics2020.pdf
I'm not familiar with A levels, but English isn't included here - did no-one from Eton sit A level English? Also, there are only four passes at A level in Modern Languages - one in Japanese and three in Portugese. No French, no German, no Mandarin?
Nine pupils took Ancient History, but History isn't listed as a subject.
They do seem much stronger in sciences, though - Maths, physics, chemistry and biology.