this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
795 points (96.7% liked)
Bluesky
351 readers
584 users here now
People skeeting stuff.
Bluesky Social is a microblogging social platform being developed in conjunction with the decentralized AT Protocol. Previously invite-only, the flagship Beta app went public in February 2024. All are welcome!
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Of course, DEI does not mean hiring unqualified or incompetent people, it's about finding accommodations to get people into jobs they can do, often very well, once you get past the idea that every worker has to look a certain way. Equating DEI with incompetence is a tired right wing strawman.
Except it does mean hiring unqualified or incompetent employees. I have seen it happen multiple times. Skip over properly qualified people who know the job and instead pick a minority to fill a quota.
I lost a job because my job hired a minority to replace our manager and because she had absolutely no clue what she was doing I needed to train her on everything her job entailed while also still doing my own job. They straight up told me to my face I was the most qualified person for the job but because I am a white guy and upper management already had too many white guys so they hired a completely fresh young Indian woman to be our manager and then forced me to train her. And to be very clear I have nothing against her. I actually liked her a lot. But in trying to do her whole job for her while she learned literally everything about having a job at all let alone being our manager AND learning our field of work my own work started to suffer. I got burned out trying to keep my own tickets in check and help her learn the absolute basics of her job. So I quit after 6 months.
They should have promoted me or any one of the other white male nerds who already knew everything they needed to know for that job, but nope. Find someone who has literally never had a job before in their lives and train them up from nothing instead. She should have been hired at the bottom like the rest of us so she could have learned the ropes and the basics like all of us did years before. Instead she got to skip years of lower level work and go straight to management level pay at a big tech company simply because of the color of her skin and the fact that she was a woman.
And before anyone says anything I know that historically that's exactly what companies did. Hire any white guy to do whatever he wanted while keeping the minorities at minimum pay as long as possible. I don't think two wrongs make a right. It was wrong for them to hire and promote based on whiteness in the past and now it's wrong for them to promote or hire based on non-whiteness. Both versions are wrong. Plain and simple.
"It was wrong for them to hire and promote based on whiteness in the past and now it's wrong for them to promote or hire based on non-whiteness. Both versions are wrong. Plain and simple."
Except one of things is the norm and the other is not and never has been.
In 2022, 88.1% of CEOs were men, and 88.8% were Caucasian.
For management in general 70% is made up of men and the other 30% consists of women. It has traditionally been seen as a male-dominated profession – and frequent studies show that even with the inclusion of more women, it's still more masculine-orientated.
You entire rant boils down to one bad experience. Guess fucking what? They hired a white kid at my past job who had no clue how to be a manager and we all had to train his incompetent ass. This is a very common story in management and it does not require a minority to make it happen.
I would seriously start reflecting on your racists attitudes. You are literally one Fox News segment away from being a full on bigot.
And what percentage of women want/try to be CEOs, compared to men?
That's an important piece of the puzzle that gets ignored far too often. If, for example, one half of the population is 10x more likely to desire/pursue a particular job than the other, a 10 to 1 difference among those who end up in that job is not only not evidence of any sort of bias, but it's exactly the outcome one should expect in the absence of such bias.
Librarians are ~83% women, but it's not because those who are hiring librarians are massively sexist against men.
I guess we will never know because we live in a extremely sexist society who views a woman in a business suit as a bitch but a man as a leader.
https://hbr.org/2018/05/the-different-words-we-use-to-describe-male-and-female-leaders
This is the real puzzle not the belief that women simply don't want high paying leadership positions.
How many men are supportive of male librarians or male grade school educators. This cuts both ways preventing good men from being part of professions they could add a lot to.
We can't fix this by ignoring it.
99% of them don't give a shit, at all, either way. Same for women, as well.
It was found that in areas of the world that have made much more progress than the US in the are of overall sex equality, that the skews in professional positions are HIGHER, not lower (e.g. engineers are even more male-skewed, nurses are even more female-skewed, etc.). Men and women, when given the free choice to pursue whatever they want professionally, do not make the same choices in aggregate. That is the fact of the matter.
It's literally called the "gender equality paradox" because so many people naively assumed that men and women are exactly the same, blank slates that only differ in any way because of societal pressures, and that only sexism (e.g. society telling men to do job X and women job Y) could be the reason that it's not an exact 50/50 sex split across all jobs/careers. The research that discovered the exact opposite was true flabbergasted them, but the facts are what they are, like it or not.
The fact that those skews become MORE pronounced in societies with MORE equality completely obliterates that assumption.
Everything you said was pretty much nonsense. Societies that have tackled gender inequality see much better representation of women in leadership roles as well as jobs that have traditionally been seen as male dominated.
"In dismantling historically male domains in the state and military, Norway ranks among the world’s trendsetters. Women have served as the head of state for more than 40 percent of the years since 1981"
"In Norway the national average for women working in the construction industry is 35%"
"According to recently released data from the U.S. Census Bureau, only 11.5% of payroll employees in the construction industry are women"
You have no facts to speak of and it is clear you think sexism is status quo. Ignoring the problem is not a solution and is directly responsible for the attacks on woman's rights in the US.
There is a reason women make less in comparable private sector jobs, have their bodily autonomy violated, and don't have basic necessities taken care of like maternal leave.
I quoted "gender equality paradox" for a reason. It is a real thing, not some concept I conceived of--It has a Wikipedia entry, for fuck's sake. I'll quote the first paragraph, but please stop being so intellectually lazy and actually look up the whole thing yourself, instead of wallowing in your haughty condescension:
No facts you're willing to admit exist, despite being both present and easily-accessible, you mean. You can't will them out of existence, no matter how much you wish you could.
No, what's clear is that you assume any sex disparity is caused by sexism, the sociological version of the creationist's 'god of the gaps' argument, where God is similarly conveniently spackled into any crevice not already filled.
Listen, citing a theory on Wikipedia which was disproven by the statistics I shared is not proof of anything. Your thought pattern is eerily similar to the justifications used against suffrage and women's right to vote.
The paradox is not a paradox at all. Cultural indoctrination explains why this happens. It is clear that you are using this theory to justify sexism in your mind. This is the only lazy thinking that is happening here.
I will reiterate you have no facts only an easily disproven theory. A theory that cites pseudo-science like personality types. While entertaining it is no different than other asinine postulations like astrology.
I won't even entertain how stupid you get with the gods of gap nonsense. You have no foundation in understanding sexism which is painfully obvious. I would highly suggest reading up on sexism so you can have a real discussion about this in the future.
https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/toolkits-guides/sexism-at-work-handbook/part-1-understand/where-does-sexism-come?language_content_entity=en
https://www.bu.edu/antiracism-center/files/2022/06/Sexism.pdf
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-oppression/
It's not a "theory", it was what the research found. It just doesn't confirm your biases, so you strain your wrist with how hard you desperately try to handwave it out of existence. Ironically another similarity to the young earth creationist playbook: "evolution is just a theory", lol.
LMAO, better let Nature know you know better what real science is. What a hack journal, right?
Incredible.
Facts:
Explain how, if sexism is the reason for the skew in the first place, it can be that less sexism widens the gap. Be specific.
You don't even know it is a theory... I am dumbfounded.
"The construction industry continues to be predominately male with structures and norms that impede women from pursuing careers within the industry. As mentioned above, the SCB (2019) report showed that the construction industry in Sweden consists of only 11 per cent women."
You are so full of shit it is not even funny.
I think we are done pretending you know anything.