I just want to see parity among administrative assistants. The world will be a better place when you are just as likely to find a male in a "helping" job as a female

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was sitting in a management meeting at my company earlier this month.

14 white men. 1 Black man. Two women. It was ridiculous. Those men are not more talented than all the people in the office.

It is like a PP said. Whiny white men who have had every opportunity now don't like it when they have to compete. They always want the finger on the scale in favor of them.

Black males are 6% of the population. One black guy out of 17 people = 6% of the representation. That's exactly on par with the demographics of the country, so what are you complaining about.

I also don't hear you whining about lack representation of women in fields like fishing, logging, oil rig work, etc. You know, the most dangerous and hazardous jobs on the planet. Your beef is that women don't have more representation in cushy white collar jobs with high pay and low risk. It would be better to be honest and admit first you don't want true equality across employment. You just want more female representation in very specific roles and sectors where jobs are easier, safer, and less labor intensive.

This is a really stupid response. Women are well represented in office jobs, there is no inherent reason why men should have every supervisory role. And I’m sure women would love to make the money offered in those more physical positions, but they happen to be dominated by rampant sexists so it’s very hard to break in. There’s also a lot of anecdotal evidence showing how male-dominated fields tend to become less dangerous when women get integrated. Women power line workers, for example. Don’t do as much stupid crap out of machismo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where I work, DEI is a bunch of garbage. They keep hiring and promoting based on identity, most often women, and it leads to completely inexperienced staff with gaping holes in backgrounds managing everything. Lol, they just promoted a woman with only 5 years experience right out of grad school to a director level position. Absolute joke when it usually requires 10-15+ years experience, most of which you've at least had multiple years of managing personnel at a middle management level first. Her resume is nothing astounding, yet she's fast tracked to upper manager level positions for God knows why. 100% DEI wokeism garbage at work.

A bunch of mid, unqualified and mediocre women get to benefit these days. It's also funny, because it is often white women too who get the reap the most benefit - they get their white privilege AND can leverage DEI wokeism in their favor by citing something something something about gender.

This made me laugh because over so many years I have seen so many unqualified, mediocre men rise to the top, get offered opportunities based on "potential" and then just do a terrible job. I know a lot of you women out there know exactly what I'm talking about.

So hey, why not let women get the same chance to prove their mediocrity as men have had forever?

So more bad hiring is the solution for previous bad hiring.


What terribly stupid logic you have.

White men can’t handle true meritocracy. They just aren’t equipped to compete from a level playing field. They’ve been riding the privilege train for too long. Hence the juvenile over reaction now- no one is presuming they are the best candidates anymore, and when you look closely without that presumption, they often fail on their merits.

Anonymous wrote:I was sitting in a management meeting at my company earlier this month.

14 white men. 1 Black man. Two women. It was ridiculous. Those men are not more talented than all the people in the office.

It is like a PP said. Whiny white men who have had every opportunity now don't like it when they have to compete. They always want the finger on the scale in favor of them.

Black males are 6% of the population. One black guy out of 17 people = 6% of the representation. That's exactly on par with the demographics of the country, so what are you complaining about.

I also don't hear you whining about lack representation of women in fields like fishing, logging, oil rig work, etc. You know, the most dangerous and hazardous jobs on the planet. Your beef is that women don't have more representation in cushy white collar jobs with high pay and low risk. It would be better to be honest and admit first you don't want true equality across employment. You just want more female representation in very specific roles and sectors where jobs are easier, safer, and less labor intensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where I work, DEI is a bunch of garbage. They keep hiring and promoting based on identity, most often women, and it leads to completely inexperienced staff with gaping holes in backgrounds managing everything. Lol, they just promoted a woman with only 5 years experience right out of grad school to a director level position. Absolute joke when it usually requires 10-15+ years experience, most of which you've at least had multiple years of managing personnel at a middle management level first. Her resume is nothing astounding, yet she's fast tracked to upper manager level positions for God knows why. 100% DEI wokeism garbage at work.

A bunch of mid, unqualified and mediocre women get to benefit these days. It's also funny, because it is often white women too who get the reap the most benefit - they get their white privilege AND can leverage DEI wokeism in their favor by citing something something something about gender.

If what you say is true, the problem is with the application of DEI, not DEI itself.

The general allegation that unqualified people get elevated is generally unfounded and racist/sexist at its core, however. And, as the NYT proves, that is a core piece of disinformation.

When you hire someone with only 5 years experience and virtually no years of experience in prior management positions to a director level role while everyone else in a similar position at the director level has had 10-15 years of prior experience managing personnel, it is not racist or sexist to point out the absolute farce that DEI has made in hiring and promotions. I can't wait until the disaster of a hire blows up on the company's face because they have a director who's barely over 30 years old and who has hardly any experience managing personnel or dealing with difficult HR and policy issues that impact the department. Absolute farce. And there are literally dozenss of other internal candidates with many more years worth of experience they could have gone with given the size of the organization.

If you think this is bad, wait until you read about the judge candidates that Trump installed. A company can fire bad performers, but we’re stuck with Trump’s unqualified candidates FOR LIFE.

Or are you telling me it’s ok to hire people based solely on how far they are up the butt of Leonard Leo? Just curious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where I work, DEI is a bunch of garbage. They keep hiring and promoting based on identity, most often women, and it leads to completely inexperienced staff with gaping holes in backgrounds managing everything. Lol, they just promoted a woman with only 5 years experience right out of grad school to a director level position. Absolute joke when it usually requires 10-15+ years experience, most of which you've at least had multiple years of managing personnel at a middle management level first. Her resume is nothing astounding, yet she's fast tracked to upper manager level positions for God knows why. 100% DEI wokeism garbage at work.

A bunch of mid, unqualified and mediocre women get to benefit these days. It's also funny, because it is often white women too who get the reap the most benefit - they get their white privilege AND can leverage DEI wokeism in their favor by citing something something something about gender.

This made me laugh because over so many years I have seen so many unqualified, mediocre men rise to the top, get offered opportunities based on "potential" and then just do a terrible job. I know a lot of you women out there know exactly what I'm talking about.

So hey, why not let women get the same chance to prove their mediocrity as men have had forever?

So more bad hiring is the solution for previous bad hiring.


What terribly stupid logic you have.

Anonymous wrote:I was sitting in a management meeting at my company earlier this month.

14 white men. 1 Black man. Two women. It was ridiculous. Those men are not more talented than all the people in the office.

It is like a PP said. Whiny white men who have had every opportunity now don't like it when they have to compete. They always want the finger on the scale in favor of them.

And taking that finger OFF the scale is .... DEI! In a nutshell.

I was sitting in a management meeting at my company earlier this month.

14 white men. 1 Black man. Two women. It was ridiculous. Those men are not more talented than all the people in the office.

It is like a PP said. Whiny white men who have had every opportunity now don't like it when they have to compete. They always want the finger on the scale in favor of them.

NP. DEI is a corporatist anti-labor movement. It is meant to and very successfully divides people who would otherwise be aligned in their financial interests, thus preventing the rise of organized labor. I think that DEI has very deliberately arisen as a concept during a time when the gap between the richest and the poorest has become even shockingly wider — it’s intended to provide a mild outlet for anger and some bandaid fixes while still keeping labor weak. Meanwhile DEI itself has become a significant wealth generator for some. So, there are a lot of corporate interests that keep it going.

You know what all these identity-based groups at colleges and corporations never seem to have? A class-based affinity group. Why? Because that would be called “a labor union.” And none of the organizers, not universities or corporations, want a strong labor movement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where I work, DEI is a bunch of garbage. They keep hiring and promoting based on identity, most often women, and it leads to completely inexperienced staff with gaping holes in backgrounds managing everything. Lol, they just promoted a woman with only 5 years experience right out of grad school to a director level position. Absolute joke when it usually requires 10-15+ years experience, most of which you've at least had multiple years of managing personnel at a middle management level first. Her resume is nothing astounding, yet she's fast tracked to upper manager level positions for God knows why. 100% DEI wokeism garbage at work.

A bunch of mid, unqualified and mediocre women get to benefit these days. It's also funny, because it is often white women too who get the reap the most benefit - they get their white privilege AND can leverage DEI wokeism in their favor by citing something something something about gender.

This made me laugh because over so many years I have seen so many unqualified, mediocre men rise to the top, get offered opportunities based on "potential" and then just do a terrible job. I know a lot of you women out there know exactly what I'm talking about.

So hey, why not let women get the same chance to prove their mediocrity as men have had forever?

The entire country was built on this principle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is not wrong about the nannies raising the kids…

Why encourage your daughter to go to college then? You don’t need a college degree to be a SAHM.

Thank God that in my family, women for generations have been encouraged to go to college and earn a degree. I think it's appalling that you think the only reason a woman should go to college is if she's going to work outside the home.

What about men?

Anonymous wrote:Where I work, DEI is a bunch of garbage. They keep hiring and promoting based on identity, most often women, and it leads to completely inexperienced staff with gaping holes in backgrounds managing everything. Lol, they just promoted a woman with only 5 years experience right out of grad school to a director level position. Absolute joke when it usually requires 10-15+ years experience, most of which you've at least had multiple years of managing personnel at a middle management level first. Her resume is nothing astounding, yet she's fast tracked to upper manager level positions for God knows why. 100% DEI wokeism garbage at work.

A bunch of mid, unqualified and mediocre women get to benefit these days. It's also funny, because it is often white women too who get the reap the most benefit - they get their white privilege AND can leverage DEI wokeism in their favor by citing something something something about gender.

This made me laugh because over so many years I have seen so many unqualified, mediocre men rise to the top, get offered opportunities based on "potential" and then just do a terrible job. I know a lot of you women out there know exactly what I'm talking about.

So hey, why not let women get the same chance to prove their mediocrity as men have had forever?

I find these conversations difficult to have, especially when people are operating in bad faith. But that being said, a lot of DEI initiatives are not well executed.

White men specifically are simply now feeling what it's like to not be the default hire for every position. As they were for so darn long for any position that came with power. So cry me a river with that crap. DEI initiatives are about tilting things to a place where that default doesn't automatically occur, but there's a learning curve of sorts.

Because of course we don't want an incompetent pilot hired to fly a plane, but the question then becomes why are pilots almost always white men? Let's rectify *that* by resourcing up POC who want to become pilots, money, scholarships, mentorship, etc. whatever it takes. THEN, when they are ready to take on those jobs, you hire them because you've created equitable access to what it takes to become a pilot to begin with. And it's not a sea of only white men to choose from.

The problem, in my opinion, is that people are skipping that necessary step of figuring out why certain positions are so white and male to begin with and fix that from the foundational level, and instead go straight to hiring so that they can feel good about themselves. And then it's a $h!t show and it just bolsters the idea that POC and women are incompetent, when many times they've just been set up to fail.

I've seen this in my place of work and it's hard to watch. Just my two cents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is not wrong about the nannies raising the kids…

Why encourage your daughter to go to college then? You don’t need a college degree to be a SAHM.

Thank God that in my family, women for generations have been encouraged to go to college and earn a degree. I think it's appalling that you think the only reason a woman should go to college is if she's going to work outside the home.

With Hillary in semi-retirement the vast right wing conspiracy had to find something else to focus on.