Do MAGA not realize that cancelling DEI will greatly affect women’s careers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My dad runs a medium sized business.. He no longer hires women under 40. They leave for babies and don't come back. It costs a fortune to train and replace them. Women have screwed themselves.

My god.

While it may be true that many woman over 40 have quit your dad's business and that has been a hardship, it is unfathomable that he would say this outloud, as it's textbook discrimination. He should consider new training and job distrubution procedures; a medium sized business should be able to weather turnover and build in knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really resent the implication that I was hired as a woman because of DEI. I was hired because I was the best at my job.

What WILL hurt women is the lack of telework. DH's job is 100% in person and inflexible due to the career he chose. I chose a fed career that had more work life balance and of course had a lower salary because of it. Nearly every family I know chose similarly and has one spouse in a flexible job. If there are no flexible jobs anymore, we will be back to the 1950s. Even in the 1980s and 90s, my mom couldn't work full time because she couldn't get school schedules to work with work schedules. And schools have gotten worse since covid at being family friendly.

You’re missing the GD point. You weren’t hired because of DEI; you simply weren’t passed over because of DEI (and its predecessors). JFC.

The predecessors have nothing to do with it. Republicans agree with MLK now on race. Can you not admit that some of the “DEI” went too far? If you don’t see what was happening, you are being willfully obtuse. Many people did go that far to make it all about skin color and dozens of genders, and it is too much. We just want equality to be reasonable again.

Blaming a plane crash on DEI, and making stuff up about Haitians eating peoples pets sounds like Martin Luther King’s dream to y’all? Interesting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non discrimination is enough for women. Create a pre employment exam or writing assignment without disclosing gender or race. I am 1000% confident I can compete with a man in my field. If I can't compete in a blind test I don't want the job. I don't need a quota of women or extra points. That's DEI.

You're so close to getting it!

Gender and race-blind applications are a form of DEI. The GOP has been pushing lies that DEI means racial quotas or hiring unqualified minorities over qualified white people, but it's simply not true. DEI literally means nondiscrimination.

NP. It literally does NOT mean that. It means focusing on and emphasizing race and gender above all else. Which is ridiculous. It absolutely doesn’t mean race-blind. That’s a bad word now, remember? And Harvard is mad that they are being forced to go race-blind in applications? Race-blind (& gender-blind) should be society’s ultimate goal, but DEI hurts that goal, along with racists.

No, it doesn’t. It really doesn’t.

Maybe you don’t think it does, but that’s how it’s been implemented in many places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More women go to college. It’s some colleges there are 60% more women than men.

and yet, upper management executives are still mainly white males.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women are competent and good workers and showed that well before DEI became a trend. There are no meaningful IQ differences between men and women.

but do you know how hard it was for women to get hired before DEI or promoted?

or how hard it was for people with dark skin? The civil rights movement didn't get people in to jobs. We could pass laws against discrimination in hiring but that still didn't open doors for people. Most people have an innate preference for people who look like themselves. We are all smart enough to know this.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully, my non-White DD will get employed based on her excellent education, skills and credentials. And she will be supported by her family to remain gainfully employed and be provided childcare. And she can get most of the medical care that she needs as a female by going to doctors in our native country. And she will continue to make her money (both earned and inherited) grow by investing wisely. And she will have money to outsource most of her routine household work.

What else? Nothing much. Being a person with dual citizenship makes it easy for us to not be impacted however much USA is imploding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or do they not care because they want them all to be trad wives?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-scraps-diversity-based-hiring-targets-wsj-reports-2025-02-05

How does a private company like Google follow an executive order without Congress approving it? Or does the Congress silently approve nowadays without an actual session?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really resent the implication that I was hired as a woman because of DEI. I was hired because I was the best at my job.

What WILL hurt women is the lack of telework. DH's job is 100% in person and inflexible due to the career he chose. I chose a fed career that had more work life balance and of course had a lower salary because of it. Nearly every family I know chose similarly and has one spouse in a flexible job. If there are no flexible jobs anymore, we will be back to the 1950s. Even in the 1980s and 90s, my mom couldn't work full time because she couldn't get school schedules to work with work schedules. And schools have gotten worse since covid at being family friendly.

You’re missing the GD point. You weren’t hired because of DEI; you simply weren’t passed over because of DEI (and its predecessors). JFC.

This is the point of “DEI” it may not have been implemented properly every where, but the goal isn’t to just hire a woman or a minority just for the sake of it. It means people aren’t supposed to toss your resume out so they can hire their frat bro from college.

and cheezus did I see so much of this in my stem career in govt and the private sector. Guys still got paid more and got promoted for doing less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, OP. So women are just DEI hires in your view?

Wow.

Do you not know hard it was for a woman to get hired into a high paying jobs before DEI?

Do you not know that they only promoted white males?

Do you not know that the academia was primarily white males?

I work in tech and in my company I’m the only woman across all the US teams.

In my circle of friends most women are either SAMs ot work low paying jobs. Very few women I know have highly paid jobs.

Perfectly said. These women acting like they find preferential treatment insulting don't get that it's not about that, it's about discrimination. I'm embarrassed for them not knowing this history. As a Gen Xer, my teen daughters certainly know it. I also think that a lot of white women assume minority DEI hires didn't earn it. Pretty disgusting and one of the main reasons why we don't support each other intersectionally as women.


Odd because I know a lot of women with great high-paying jobs. I’ve always out-earned my white male husband. If you really think the only way for a woman to make it is to be prioritized as a woman rather than based on merit, you must view women as fundamentally incapable of competing on their own. On that point, you’re wrong.

Civil rights got them that high paying job. Remove civil rights away and men might just start hiring their dim nephew again .

If you think men don’t just give jobs to their buddies when there is no civil rights office you’re wrong.

If you are standing under ann umbrella you don’t get wet and then you say I don’t need an umbrella see I’m dry.

[Anonymous]

No it won’t. There are more women including college, medical and law school than men. Women have made enough strides to keep up the momentum.

I work for an old fashioned, behind the times company that didn’t jump on the DEI bandwagon. In my department, the VP, Assistant VP and six of the eight directors are women. They are all there because they were the best candidates for the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One purpose of DEI is to stack gov administrations with apparatchicks —compliant women who blindly obey their masters. When their political party the Ds are in power, all manner of stupid and disruptive crap is manifested, such as gov officials refusing to define a woman. “It’s your MAMA” —Pastor Gino Jennings.

When the Ds are not in power, such as now, their unwritten marching orders are to “resist” and undermine the Republican administration.

Trump saw this when he was president the first time but could do very little, so now he is taking measures to remove this subversive, treasonous, anti-American element from the Federal govt.

Orwell was an astute observer of these DEI pests:

“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans (Hope & Change! I’m with her!”, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”

It is time for Trump to clean house as Jesus did driving out the money changers in the temple, getting rid of DEI who are the products of what is described in tbe bible;

“For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with diverse lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Lead is bad for you

[Anonymous]

I think it will depend on the field. Tech seems to be going towards MAGA so that is where the problems will probably come. The male dominated fields might get even more male dominated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non discrimination is enough for women. Create a pre employment exam or writing assignment without disclosing gender or race. I am 1000% confident I can compete with a man in my field. If I can't compete in a blind test I don't want the job. I don't need a quota of women or extra points. That's DEI.

DEI in the Feds was never about quotas--Republicans made up this talking point

This!!! God damn some of you are such sheep. DEI was never about individual hiring or quotes. EVER.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the women who are so adamant that they don’t need any workplace protections because they believe they are smart, capable, and competent are showing just how ignorant and inept they actually are? Women who crow “I have a high paying job, therefore gender discrimination doesn’t exist and will never exist” actually believe that they are intelligent?

Mind-boggling stuff.

Yes, and it just proves the adage that the highly intelligent know what they don't know and are curious, not overly confident and arrogant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really resent the implication that I was hired as a woman because of DEI. I was hired because I was the best at my job.

You better believe it.

If it was in 70s you would not be hired no matter how best you are.

And the reason you are hired now is because all the DEI initiatives that took place between then and now.

You can kiss it goodbye now. Please, do check in after you are rejected for the next job because they don’t feel obligated to hire women anymore. Please, do check in and tell us how best you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non discrimination is enough for women. Create a pre employment exam or writing assignment without disclosing gender or race. I am 1000% confident I can compete with a man in my field. If I can't compete in a blind test I don't want the job. I don't need a quota of women or extra points. That's DEI.

You're so close to getting it!

Gender and race-blind applications are a form of DEI. The GOP has been pushing lies that DEI means racial quotas or hiring unqualified minorities over qualified white people, but it's simply not true. DEI literally means nondiscrimination.

NP. It literally does NOT mean that. It means focusing on and emphasizing race and gender above all else. Which is ridiculous. It absolutely doesn’t mean race-blind. That’s a bad word now, remember? And Harvard is mad that they are being forced to go race-blind in applications? Race-blind (& gender-blind) should be society’s ultimate goal, but DEI hurts that goal, along with racists.

No, it doesn’t. It really doesn’t.

Maybe you don’t think it does, but that’s how it’s been implemented in many places.

Can you list a few of these places? Seriously. Who does this?