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

[Anonymous]

No need for Dei
—woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP, that's what Republicans and the Heritage Foundation want. And many white women were suckered into voting against themselves.

Some were, but Harris actually gained white women voters (only lost them by 5 points, compared to 11 points in 2020). Harris actually got fewer women over all than Biden had, and yet Trump's white women numbers stayed flat. Trump's gains came from other sources.

AP Vote cast shows that the white vote remained flat across the last elections, but Harris lost significant numbers in all other categories. Her biggest change was in Latina women and, of course, men generally.

https://apnews.com/article/election-harris-trump-women-latinos-black-voters-0f3fbda3362f3dcfe41aa6b858f22d12

"Brown" women do not really like black women actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its well know that women, particularly white women are the most product workers - generally speaking. As a long time corporate manager, I know this to be true from personal experience. I think killing DEI was targeted towards others.

Oh it’s totally targeted at Black people but nobody is will say it out loud.

DEI not targeting any white women, Asians. No impact there. Target is black and hispanic men and women

No, it will also impact white/Asian women in male dominated industries.

-50s Asian woman in high tech industry for the past 20 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I’m sure you make a lot of money (what a great American accomplishment), but you are clearly not very wise, and you are a poor student of history. Why don’t you educate yourself before you mouth off again to people who actually understand WTF they’re talking about…

I’m not the PP but we do have to move on from history. We are not our mothers.

When I was a fed many years ago, the leadership was majority women. Not in a female dominated field either. Not DEI and no thought of any law. They simply were better. That’s similar to my experience in the private sector at several different places.

It’s time to take off the training wheels, ladies.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

You’re correct: we are not our mothers. Our mothers fought for their rights, our rights, and our daughters’ rights. But rather than protect and defend the progress they made, in our hubris we are choosing to throw it all away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forget DEI. It's the strict RTO order that will affect the careers of many more women, especially those who have children.

I know it’s tough. It’s very tough. But we were a dual income household with little kids in DC before telework was prevalent or allowed in DH’a agency and it certainly wasn’t allowed at my job.

I was the breadwinner so it was DH who was impacted more. Now our kids are teens so it’s much easier. Get through these young kids years. It’s temporary.

Its not though. one kid = 10 years, subsequent kids add difference in ages. its 1-2 decades of a 4 decade career (20-60/25-65) sooo 25-50 and thats just little kids.

[Anonymous]

It was so funny to me watching people freak out over all of the White women voting for Trump. It was obvious. Even the babying they are getting on this very thread is funny to me “oh no! Poor things, do they know they voted against their interests?”. They know and are happy and willing participants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a woman in the private sector, I have no problem with it being gone. Not that I want anyone to lose their jobs though. I hope they can be reassigned.

You were probably hired because your company had to have a quota of hires that are not just white males.

This comment is why it’s best to phase out the idea of quotas and DEI. It negatively impacts women and the concept is embarrassing to me, as a woman. Perhaps different categories that fall under DEI have a better experience and they can stay in it. I’d like women out.

Embarrassing?!

Did you think that we went from being housewives in 50s to only be hired as secretaries and support staff to becoming CEOs just naturally, without any forceful policies?

Are you serious?

Do you not know about Equal Pay Act in 1963 or Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978 or Family Leave Act in 93?

Did you know that women were not allowed to legally have a credit card until 1974?

DP: You are correct that much legislative support was needed to change employment opportunity for women.

But, just to correct a common misconception: not all women were housewives in the 50s, between 30- 40% of women were employed. That does not include women who had income from sources other than employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was so funny to me watching people freak out over all of the White women voting for Trump. It was obvious. Even the babying they are getting on this very thread is funny to me “oh no! Poor things, do they know they voted against their interests?”. They know and are happy and willing participants.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I’m sure you make a lot of money (what a great American accomplishment), but you are clearly not very wise, and you are a poor student of history. Why don’t you educate yourself before you mouth off again to people who actually understand WTF they’re talking about…

I’m not the PP but we do have to move on from history. We are not our mothers.

When I was a fed many years ago, the leadership was majority women. Not in a female dominated field either. Not DEI and no thought of any law. They simply were better. That’s similar to my experience in the private sector at several different places.

It’s time to take off the training wheels, ladies.

Before the civil rights act and EEO offices?

Those laws are over 50 years old. They’re still in place. No one is repealing them and no one is arguing against them. Let’s move on and drop the additional crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its well know that women, particularly white women are the most product workers - generally speaking. As a long time corporate manager, I know this to be true from personal experience. I think killing DEI was targeted towards others.

Oh it’s totally targeted at Black people but nobody is will say it out loud.

DEI not targeting any white women, Asians. No impact there. Target is black and hispanic men and women

No, it will also impact white/Asian women in male dominated industries.

-50s Asian woman in high tech industry for the past 20 years

Asiana are behind this new wave anti-DEI movement. They have declared that we are in a post-racial society, race doesn't need to be discussed, and that they are a value-added to society due to their superior intelligence, work ethic, and family-orientedness, and that DEI prevents them from being the ruling class to their full potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No need for Dei
—woman

I don't support DEI for the sake of it, but I do think people who are non white and not male need protecting in the workplace because, as we've seen in the past and to some degree today, discrimination against minorities and women is real.

Discrimination lawsuits are already very difficult to prove. Trump's administration will make it even harder.

I don't want to go back to the "good ol days" when hiring managers could ask if you are married or have kids or planning to have kids. I worry for my 16 yr old DD's future in this country.

-54 yr old Asian woman who is done having kids and works in the tech industry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I’m sure you make a lot of money (what a great American accomplishment), but you are clearly not very wise, and you are a poor student of history. Why don’t you educate yourself before you mouth off again to people who actually understand WTF they’re talking about…

I’m not the PP but we do have to move on from history. We are not our mothers.

When I was a fed many years ago, the leadership was majority women. Not in a female dominated field either. Not DEI and no thought of any law. They simply were better. That’s similar to my experience in the private sector at several different places.

It’s time to take off the training wheels, ladies.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

You’re correct: we are not our mothers. Our mothers fought for their rights, our rights, and our daughters’ rights. But rather than protect and defend the progress they made, in our hubris we are choosing to throw it all away.

We’re talking about DEI stuff that’s been around since 2021 maybe? How is that throwing anything away. It wasn’t law. It wasn’t anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forget DEI. It's the strict RTO order that will affect the careers of many more women, especially those who have children.

I know it’s tough. It’s very tough. But we were a dual income household with little kids in DC before telework was prevalent or allowed in DH’a agency and it certainly wasn’t allowed at my job.

I was the breadwinner so it was DH who was impacted more. Now our kids are teens so it’s much easier. Get through these young kids years. It’s temporary.

Its not though. one kid = 10 years, subsequent kids add difference in ages. its 1-2 decades of a 4 decade career (20-60/25-65) sooo 25-50 and thats just little kids.

That’s a lot of kids with big age differences. I thought only the wealthy could afford more than two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I’m not the PP but we do have to move on from history. We are not our mothers.

When I was a fed many years ago, the leadership was majority women. Not in a female dominated field either. Not DEI and no thought of any law. They simply were better. That’s similar to my experience in the private sector at several different places.

It’s time to take off the training wheels, ladies.

Lols. “No thought of any law”? You don’t know of many laws had to be passed for women to be able to be there? You don’t know that it was pushed onto the corporate America in 90s that they should not promote only white males into management?

Are you a guy?

[Anonymous]

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.