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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m waiting for the list too. Because DEI absolutely does not mean “focusing on and emphasizing race and gender above all else” and you know it. Stop making things up to suit your narrative.

DEI absolutely means: hire people of color over white people. Plain and simple. I have watched it play out actively in my organization for the last four years. If you think that DEI=non-discrimination, you have your head in the sand. It was never that, and it was never intended to be that.

Enough of this now. Even if this were true, it is for a greater good. My white husband has been passed over for promotions in favor of minority candidates and we both think that it’s a great thing. Diverse perspectives and backgrounds are needed in every corner of society to make it the best that it can be. Get over it.

Different poster but I gave an example for you to discuss, since people were asking. Do you support the work of the CA Reparations Committee? It’s right on the state government website so definitely not a Fox News talking point, DEI people wrote it themselves. Is it good?

[Anonymous]

Bye-bye, DEI !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

You don’t get it, do you?
All the female management you have IS because it took decades of pushing DEI agenda.

How old is your company? Look at your management in 70s, 60s.

Corporate America was 90+% white males, the academia was white males, doctors in 50s were 96% male.

And you stand here today and tell me you got your job because you’re the best??

No, you got your job because people fought for your rights to have it for decades through DEI initiatives. The best you would not be hired back then.

Sorry, if the truth hurts. You’re obviously either very young or very gullible.

If you leftists are really worried about colorblind workplaces being rolled back, you will be relieved to see what actually happens so I am not going to waste any more concern on you. If you are OK with people being judged on merit, it’s going to be fine even by your standards. I have no concerns that we are going “back” to a male-dominated workforce.

The moment you type “you leftists,” you out yourself as an imbecile. If that’s your goal, then by all means, continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m waiting for the list too. Because DEI absolutely does not mean “focusing on and emphasizing race and gender above all else” and you know it. Stop making things up to suit your narrative.

DEI absolutely means: hire people of color over white people. Plain and simple. I have watched it play out actively in my organization for the last four years. If you think that DEI=non-discrimination, you have your head in the sand. It was never that, and it was never intended to be that.

Enough of this now. Even if this were true, it is for a greater good. My white husband has been passed over for promotions in favor of minority candidates and we both think that it’s a great thing. Diverse perspectives and backgrounds are needed in every corner of society to make it the best that it can be. Get over it.

If it's a better candidate, sure. If it's a tight race, sure. If the person getting promoted was going to be a minority no matter what, no.

[Anonymous]

Here is the thing, we can argue up in down about what “DEI” is it has an extremely broad meaning. Even if it’s not how you personally see it in practice, It can include a lot of different things. In Trumps executive order, he very deliberately included Accessibility, so clearly he thinks it goes with DEI. The words themselves Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are quite broad. Even if you see it as Racial Preference in practice, that is not what those words mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what will drive emigration and it will be slow moving not just immediate because people don't like Trump.

I have a DD. She'll need to be flexible in planning her career. Plan for work thst will be attractive to other countries (Some csreers work better than others.) The environment that is best for her may not be her in the U.S.

Depends I know, but that possibility is real

Yeah, I’m definitely sending my DD to a college overseas.

But I’m just shocked that MAGA women don’t realize that they voted against themselves and their daughters.

This is where people mess up. Many women like the trad wife lifestyle and want it for their own daughters. The see it as vote for the 1950s traditional lifestyle. They are willing participants.

And yet, when their daughters bring up staying home with their toddler, their future son-in-lawa will balk. “I’d love to stop working too!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Are you insane? I am in my late 40s. I had no trouble getting hired at 21 or since.

Are you insane? Late 40’s? You’re a baby who had the path cleared for you by our mothers and grandmothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m waiting for the list too. Because DEI absolutely does not mean “focusing on and emphasizing race and gender above all else” and you know it. Stop making things up to suit your narrative.

DEI absolutely means: hire people of color over white people. Plain and simple. I have watched it play out actively in my organization for the last four years. If you think that DEI=non-discrimination, you have your head in the sand. It was never that, and it was never intended to be that.

Enough of this now. Even if this were true, it is for a greater good. My white husband has been passed over for promotions in favor of minority candidates and we both think that it’s a great thing. Diverse perspectives and backgrounds are needed in every corner of society to make it the best that it can be. Get over it.

Now this right here is the DEI talking points straight from HR. Good job, PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

List your specific complaints with verifiable examples and we can have an honest discussion.

Until then, keep your Fox News talking points to yourself.

Ok, here is one from the state government website: California’s Reparations Committee and its recommendations. Do you support this?

https://oag.ca.gov/ab3121

Reparations has been a talking point for AT LEAST 30 years, and has nothing to do with DEI. I would say try again, but we all know you don’t have a clue WTF you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a woman. I don't think DEI has anything to do with me. I have been working post-college for 26 years. DEI is not meant to elevate women at all.

I don't know what to tell you. If you don't know the history of the women's movement in the US and the fight for equal rights, your education has been sorely lacking. Women still make on average 82% of what men make and that has been the case for two decades.

This is 100% true. But there is zero indication that under Trump's EOs that it's going to get worse for women. Because he is not rolling back the Civil Rights Act. It is still illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex. The elimination of DEI is better for women.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m waiting for the list too. Because DEI absolutely does not mean “focusing on and emphasizing race and gender above all else” and you know it. Stop making things up to suit your narrative.

DEI absolutely means: hire people of color over white people. Plain and simple. I have watched it play out actively in my organization for the last four years. If you think that DEI=non-discrimination, you have your head in the sand. It was never that, and it was never intended to be that.

Enough of this now. Even if this were true, it is for a greater good[b]. My white husband has been passed over for promotions in favor of minority candidates and we both think that it’s a great thing. Diverse perspectives and backgrounds are needed in every corner of society to make it the best that it can be. Get over it.

This is where this philosophy goes wrong. The way you get to the greater good matters. Racism to combat racism is fundamentally problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m waiting for the list too. Because DEI absolutely does not mean “focusing on and emphasizing race and gender above all else” and you know it. Stop making things up to suit your narrative.

DEI absolutely means: hire people of color over white people. Plain and simple. I have watched it play out actively in my organization for the last four years. If you think that DEI=non-discrimination, you have your head in the sand. It was never that, and it was never intended to be that.

Enough of this now. Even if this were true, it is for a greater good[b]. My white husband has been passed over for promotions in favor of minority candidates and we both think that it’s a great thing. Diverse perspectives and backgrounds are needed in every corner of society to make it the best that it can be. Get over it.

This is where this philosophy goes wrong. The way you get to the greater good matters. Racism to combat racism is fundamentally problematic.

Strange take, as you MAGA folks think that the end always justifies the means, see, e.g., reducing the size of the federal government by breaking numerous laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

List your specific complaints with verifiable examples and we can have an honest discussion.

Until then, keep your Fox News talking points to yourself.

Ok, here is one from the state government website: California’s Reparations Committee and its recommendations. Do you support this?

https://oag.ca.gov/ab3121

Reparations has been a talking point for AT LEAST 30 years, and has nothing to do with DEI. I would say try again, but we all know you don’t have a clue WTF you’re talking about.

What is AT?

Of course reparations have to do with equity, it is one of the big changes between equality moving to equity (moving us all to the same starting line). Goodness knows I’ve been trained on it in DEI presentations enough. “Take three steps forward if you………”

You didn’t answer the question. Do you agree with the committee’s recommendations? Yes or no? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what will drive emigration and it will be slow moving not just immediate because people don't like Trump.

I have a DD. She'll need to be flexible in planning her career. Plan for work thst will be attractive to other countries (Some csreers work better than others.) The environment that is best for her may not be her in the U.S.

Depends I know, but that possibility is real

Yeah, I’m definitely sending my DD to a college overseas.

But I’m just shocked that MAGA women don’t realize that they voted against themselves and their daughters.

A lot of them didn't vote against themselves though - many of my neighbors don't really want to work, they'd much rather stay home and take care of their husbands kids and homes. The 1950's nostalgia is real among those born 1990-. This of course does not apply to women of color who should continue to be our nurses and nannies and work in fast food and retail. [NOTE this is not how I think but we're blind if we don't see this in suburbia every day]

I take issue with the conflation of SAHMs and not caring about women’s rights.

I can CHOOSE to stay home and take care of my family while being cognizant of and grateful for the fact that it is a CHOICE. There are undoubtedly more highly paid working women than housewives who voted for this BS administration because 1) their husbands make even more than they do so they defer to them, and/or 2) they hate paying taxes as much as your average man.

Agreed! I was a SAHM by choice but I’m also highly educated and believe every woman should have the right to work and rise through the ranks and be equally compensated. I am also a supporter of women’s reproductive rights. I have a daughter who I hope will have a successful career. I’m a huge believer in DEI. There’s too much prejudice in the world as I see it whether against minorities or LGBTQ or disabilities. I did not vote MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m waiting for the list too. Because DEI absolutely does not mean “focusing on and emphasizing race and gender above all else” and you know it. Stop making things up to suit your narrative.

DEI absolutely means: hire people of color over white people. Plain and simple. I have watched it play out actively in my organization for the last four years. If you think that DEI=non-discrimination, you have your head in the sand. It was never that, and it was never intended to be that.

Enough of this now. Even if this were true, it is for a greater good. My white husband has been passed over for promotions in favor of minority candidates and we both think that it’s a great thing. Diverse perspectives and backgrounds are needed in every corner of society to make it the best that it can be. Get over it.

Now this right here is the DEI talking points straight from HR. Good job, PP!

Make fun all you want, but this is how I feel. If other intelligent, thoughtful HR folks do too, then good on them.