The shifting meaning of 'discrimination'

An army of union equality officers will be let loose in companies throughout England to crack down on discrimination against women, it was announced yesterday.

Of course, this is just the Labour government giving taxpayers money to the Unions, to give them more power so in return they will donate funding money to Labour!

So basically, Labour are (a) getting the taxpayer to indirectly fund them, and (b) making life harder for those who run businesses, and for many of those who work in them, ESPECIALLY men.

These days we have a weird reversal of language. Language gets manipulated in ways that shift the responsibility away from those who would rather appear passive victims. For example, the term 'discrimination' to me implies some kind of active stance on behalf of one person or group against another which is different from how they are treating everyone else. But what feminist and politically correct groups have managed to do is hoodwink the public into accepting a different meaning to the word. It now seems to mean anything which offends them or goes against their political aims. For example, lets say a company pays £10 per hour to all its employees and gives them all 4 weeks holiday per year. Now, the feminists would claim that this discriminates against women because some women need more time off. So what they are saying is that unless companies give ACTIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT to women, then by default they are discriminating against them.

Note that giving women the same treatment as men is no longer enough. Unless you give them special treatment, then you are discriminating.

The absurdity of this position was highlighted recently by a woman who worked as a prison officer who sued the prison service because her job involved conducting physical searches of the prisoners. Apparently this was 'discrimination' against women. But several years before, a woman's group had successfully forced the prison service to allow women to perform this task. Why? Yes, you've guessed it, because to not have them performing this task was... discrimination.

We've gone from the taxpayer having to fund single mothers (i.e. the women who choose not to work and instead make their living from having babies), to a situation where companies are now increasingly expected to fund women even when they are not working.

Only a mentally deranged or pathologically egotistical person would walk into a situation and say "I'm so special that I require special treatment. Better treatment than all you others get. And if I DON'T get this pampering, and if I get treated just the same as all the rest of you, then that means you are discriminating against me!"

Yet the men just look on in amazement as this happens with women in their workforce, they tut and briefly shake their heads before getting on with their work. After all, theres now more workload for them to cope with, as 20% of the female staff are off.