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:

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.

Or electing someone in decline and then secretly running the country with unelected officials? It’s amazing to hear Biden supporters claiming this is now a problem/coup/dictatorship!!!! If anything, MAGA learns this stuff from you. We just watched it happen for 4 years and now it’s not OK? You just ran this play! Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or electing someone in decline and then secretly running the country with unelected officials? It’s amazing to hear Biden supporters claiming this is now a problem/coup/dictatorship!!!! If anything, MAGA learns this stuff from you. We just watched it happen for 4 years and now it’s not OK? You just ran this play! Ugh.

Please name the unelected officials you’re referencing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I answered the question. I said the one example you came up with is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You can google the definitions of some of these multi-syllabic words since you don’t seem to grok their meaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not remotely MAGA. I voted for Harris, Biden, and Obama but I get frustrated with Democrats not seeing the log in their own eye. Both parties are quite guilty of tossing process out the window and letting ends justify the means. I am hoping the courts keep both parties in line. The fact that Trump is an awful person doesn’t change the fact that he’s right about a few things. There are aspects of DEI that are racist and no greater good makes that ok.

[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.

-Signed the suppressed white male.

Still 100 times better than your racist black as!

Nothing like the confidence of a mediocre white man.

[Anonymous]

It's an incel's wet dream. Limit women's options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I answered the question. I said the one example you came up with is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You can google the definitions of some of these multi-syllabic words since you don’t seem to grok their meaning.

You did not answer the question, but let’s try again. Here is another: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9.13.22-EO-N-16-22-Equity.pdf

From CA state government website, Gavin Newsom’s executive order on DEI and establishing the Racial Equity Commission. Do you think that the EO and/or REC go too far at any point? Any of them? Or do you agree with them? Point out specifically any with which you disagree. If you cannot, why?

(Note the DEI EO references the Reparations Task Force as being under their aegis, so while you may have found it irrelevant, the state of California itself does not.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I answered the question. I said the one example you came up with is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You can google the definitions of some of these multi-syllabic words since you don’t seem to grok their meaning.

You did not answer the question, but let’s try again. Here is another: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9.13.22-EO-N-16-22-Equity.pdf

From CA state government website, Gavin Newsom’s executive order on DEI and establishing the Racial Equity Commission. Do you think that the EO and/or REC go too far at any point? Any of them? Or do you agree with them? Point out specifically any with which you disagree. If you cannot, why?

(Note the DEI EO references the Reparations Task Force as being under their aegis, so while you may have found it irrelevant, the state of California itself does not.)

Bot no quotas, right folks?

Al l agencies and departments subject to my authority sha ll, for any strategic
plans applicable during the 2023-24, 2024-25, and/or 2025-26 fiscal years:
a. develop or update the strategic plan to reflect the use of data analysis
and inclusive practices to more effectively advance equity and to
respond to identified disparities with changes to the organization's
mission, vision, goals, data tools, policies, programs, operations,
community engagement, tribal consultation policies and practices,
and other actions as necessary to serve all Californians; and
b. as part of the development or updating of the strategic plans, engage
and gather input from California communities that have been
historically disadvantaged and underserved within the scope of policies
or programs administered or implemented by the agency or
department, and make the plans publicly available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, no, that's their point.

Women are actually supposed to stay home to take care of their 3-6 children, while men are supposed to go physically into the office to work 10-14 hour days. Of course, women* will be permitted to sell jewelry they design or sell cakes they bake and decorate for birthday parties and straight weddings or tutor little kids in math (up to algebra) or something.

Won't it be nice? A return to the good old times!!

*This is only white women. Black and brown women and single women can remain in service professions.

You are incredibly kind.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand how can these guys support a wife while unemployed and living with their moms.