Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are women welcomed in those professions? Be honest.

Oh, because I'm suuuure the primary issue with very tough, labor intensive jobs is that they aren't safe spaces for women. It couldn't possibly be that women don't like to do those jobs *because* they're tough, labor intensive and dangerous.

Just be honest......all of this equity talk is a joke. You okay want equity in the cushy, white collar, high paying jobs, not across fields though that require back breaking work that's dangerous and yet the county still needs to function.

Misogyny at its finest. Why WOULDN'T women also want to do labor-intensive work?

Because it is labor intensive, back breaking work.


Let me know when women makeup 50% of all fatalities on the job. That’s when we will achieve true gender equality in the workplace. Given that men basically makeup 95% (give or take one or two percent) of all workplace deaths, you’ve got a lot of catching up to do in another area of gender equality in the workplace ladies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the NYT brought receipts.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-woke-claremont-institute.html

Why do conservatives hate America and everything it stands for? Why are they so racist?

The next time you get on an airplane do you want the pilot, crew and air traffic controller to have been hired on merit/qualifications or DEI? I’m guessing you’d go with merit/qualifications. Does that make you racist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are women welcomed in those professions? Be honest.

Oh, because I'm suuuure the primary issue with very tough, labor intensive jobs is that they aren't safe spaces for women. It couldn't possibly be that women don't like to do those jobs *because* they're tough, labor intensive and dangerous.

Just be honest......all of this equity talk is a joke. You okay want equity in the cushy, white collar, high paying jobs, not across fields though that require back breaking work that's dangerous and yet the county still needs to function.

Misogyny at its finest. Why WOULDN'T women also want to do labor-intensive work?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are women welcomed in those professions? Be honest.

Oh, because I'm suuuure the primary issue with very tough, labor intensive jobs is that they aren't safe spaces for women. It couldn't possibly be that women don't like to do those jobs *because* they're tough, labor intensive and dangerous.

Just be honest......all of this equity talk is a joke. You okay want equity in the cushy, white collar, high paying jobs, not across fields though that require back breaking work that's dangerous and yet the county still needs to function.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are women welcomed in those professions? Be honest.

Oh, because I'm suuuure the primary issue with very tough, labor intensive jobs is that they aren't safe spaces for women. It couldn't possibly be that women don't like to do those jobs *because* they're tough, labor intensive and dangerous.

Just be honest......all of this equity talk is a joke. You okay want equity in the cushy, white collar, high paying jobs, not across fields though that require back breaking work that's dangerous and yet the county still needs to function.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please. Asian males are on the DEI hit list. One has to look no further than Google.

Go ahead and try to tell me with a straight face you think Asian males aren't up to the challenge of a meritocracy too..

You are full of it.

Anonymous wrote:And the NYT brought receipts.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-woke-claremont-institute.html

Why do conservatives hate America and everything it stands for? Why are they so racist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You know this is false. You know this is mostly about medicine. There are tests that can measure these skills, and right now lower skilled minorities are given jobs over high skilled white males. And instead of fixing K-8 education to make sure they arrive at college with equal skills, you ignore the fact that these skills take decades to aquire and just choose the lesser skilled person.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are women welcomed in those professions? Be honest.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

NP, but so she can work before having kids, after her kids are grown, if her husband dies or leaves her, or wants to homeschool her kids or just be an educated person? Or maybe she’ll never marry or have kids & doesn’t know that yet at 18. I mean, come on.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.