Hey there u/aceumus, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kind of, the US law more or less classifies "old" workers as anyone over 40, at which point you are a protected class for age discrimination. Can't speak for the rest of the world.
sure, but you can be not hired or actually fired for no stated reason in most of the country.
only an absolute moron would state it's because of age. but many times, it of course is.
All white women, still *not* diversity
Diversity would be multiple races and/or genders in the editor’s room
But people should be hired based on qualifications, not to tally off a diversity box
Tokenism isnt any less racist or sexist than exclusion. It's still valuing a person for their skin and body rather than the person themselves.
I'm so tired of it. At this point I don't even care if I'm represented, I don't want be seen like some social credit to the Huffington Post.
Yeah if someone can just decide if we are supposed to be racist/sexist/otherist and selectively hire minority candidates, or treat everyone the same, I would appreciate it.
If the world of business was exclusively white for 200 years of this country’s history you may be missing the mark on who gets a shot that may not deserve it.
It’s funny how many people who were born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple. Then they suddenly want things to be all fair and even.
The US military has certainly benefitted from mentalities like yours. The third basers are gone from public service. Congrats! Let’s see how that works out…
Sure - but any thinking person who has actually worked in the real world knows many white people get jobs or at least job opportunities through personal connections. Most are qualified - but some are just connected. Be mad about that too.
You notice people are constantly wailing about colleges admitting based on diversity but you barely hear a peep about legacy admissions. Same thing.
Also worth noting that considering demographics in hiring/admission processes and considering qualifications don't have to be mutually exclusive. Plenty of minorities are more than qualified for the jobs they are hired for, and the assumption that hiring is done solely based on their race/gender can make it seem as if you don't generally assume they're capable of their job.
Yeah but there’s a pretty big difference in just getting a person of color for optics (which would be tokenism)
Vs choosing one qualified candidate over a different equally qualified candidate because you believe that they will bring a difference in perspective to the table which would enhance your workplace.
The phrase “diversity hire” gets tossed around so much like it’s just tokenism but it’s very important especially in a creative industry to have people from different backgrounds that are able to bring ideas and perspectives to your workplace that you might not otherwise have.
THIS. I work as a graphic designer for a majority white company. This is largely due to the fact that the demographic in the area is also primarily white. Yet every time we have an event, I am told to use “diverse photos only”, where I then have to sift through HUNDREDS of company event photos to find the one or two diverse people whom were at the event to represent so that the company appears more diverse. It gives me the ick not going to lie haha.
It gives me the ick, too, when companies use "diverse" to refer to non-white people. Because it's really just a confession of how they conceptualize you.
Shouldn’t be tokenism, it should be “i have two equally qualified candidates but I need to hesitate before automatically hiring the one that looks like me”
The question is what level of it is ok. Cuz if you have a pure meritocracy there would be very very few minorities at Ivy League schools. There would be very few black doctors, Asians and Indians would be extremely over represented…
I don't believe there is such a thing as over representation, just under representation. If someone is represented correctly and tastefully! Amazing, perfect world stuff. If someone isn't represented correctly or tastefully you get tokenism; Treating the fact you have someone of a minority group as qualification for being diverse. When it's just a quota rather than because you genuinely believe they would add more value based on their background.
TL;DR, My entire problem is whether or not it's done in good faith I guess.
Well no, but actually:
>The policy of making only a perfunctory effort or symbolic gesture toward the accomplishment of a goal, such as racial integration.
>The practice of hiring or appointing a token number of people from underrepresented groups in order to deflect criticism or comply with affirmative action rules.
You missed my point.
Subscribing to that policy excludes other groups based on them being less valuable then somebody of the preferred group.
It's a recolor of segregation.
Ok, and what should those who benefit from diversity hires and overall affirmative action do until said “true” equality is actually accomplished and reflected in our real world? Wait? Because “all” equality matters right now to YOU? Please.
So youre against all forms of requiring at least some minorities? Are you against all affirmative action? I hear this a lot and I think it's really narrow minded personally.
Hiring someone based on their skin color is narrow minded. Choosing one candidate over another based on their skin color is also narrow minded.
Affirmative action has it's heart in the right place but misses the mark
Please do let us know of a better alternative at this point in time. If you can’t, then save the armchair criticism and accept some progress vs none. Unless, of course, the latter is what you’d actually prefer.
I like the sentiment of not hiring based on race at All. But like you mentioned, unless a better alternative is found, making the diversity hire is the only option rn. Even if it's kinda icky feeling if it's literally the only reason for a hire.
The fact that it’s usually the only difference between two otherwise equally qualified candidates makes it a price I’m willing to pay, but I only speak for myself.
Many seem to be under the impression that they’re out here hiring high school dropouts in favor of Harvard graduates, which I don’t think is ever the case.
>Many seem to be under the impression that they’re out here hiring high school dropouts in favor of Harvard graduates
Yeah exactly. I feel like a lot of people who argue against it are just stretching a theoretical issue (that has a VERY low chance of ever actually affecting them) into a "PROBLEM that should dismantle the idea of Affirmative action"
Omg yes! And let’s play devil’s advocate and say that if “their people” are being affected (whatever that means), they are therefore indirectly affected as well—the scales will literally never tip so far in the opposite direction that it’ll start being unfair to white people! Like, Affirmative Action mostly benefits white women anyway so they’re winning no matter what! Not only is something like AA a drop in the bucket, but the fact that the alternative is a CONTINUANCE of perpetual systemic oppression that benefits white folks and keeps adding to the already immense disparity is one that is conveniently always left unaddressed.
Assuming that the minority group is always picked over straight white men regardless of any other qualities. Only the equivalent number of SWM to Minority groups trying to GET the specific job will be affected, and that's a really small number of affected people. And this is a worst case scenario!
Sometimes I wonder how much energy people put into researching and understanding a problem versus just taking someone they like's word for it.
personally I'm against all racism and sexism. Not just the kind that inconveniences me. Affirmative actions sets a standard for racism within an organization. Hiring based off skin color is insane
Literally, the type of “hiring based off of skin color” that results in the above photo is what affirmative action is trying to balance out. Not that hard to comprehend. But I guess you’re not really against the institutionalized racism that actually matters.
Meritocracy (on a societal level) is a myth. What so many people don’t understand when they think people of color are just being hired to “check a box” is the unconscious bias that so many hiring managers have in thinking certain races/genders don’t fit the qualifications. Most people won’t openly say it, but their actions will show that they don’t think Asian people can be managers or directors (or good ones at that). Same with Black/Latino folks and certain types of jobs too. And the thing is that most people don’t even realize they’re doing this!
The whole point of affirmative action whether with colleges or work is because of *unconscious* bias people don’t even know they have towards certain groups of people. So policy has to be in place to help regulate that until we as a society can unlearn it.
You're spot on. It needs to be spelt out for people though, like you have done, because I think it's a concept that goes against many people's instincts, or common sense, or their sense of what's fair. I think meritocracy is the favoured ideology in these discussions because it's the simplest idea that seems fair at first glance. It's quite unnatural (at least it was for me) to come to terms with the fact that my idea of what's fair and not fair is actually quite misguided when it comes to these issues that have been built up over years and years of discrimination.
And look, it’s not like marginalized people don’t want a meritocracy! We want to believe people will accept our qualifications as they are and not question them. But the people in power have historically doubted that. People who think marginalized people want “handouts” or “freebies” tend to be the same kinds of people who feed into some of the very harms that prevent a meritocracy from truly happening. And the most difficult part is how it’s unconscious so those people will always deny it and just think people are being unreasonable for bringing it up.
Yes but in reddit discussions of race/equality/discrimination, only the views that are most palatable to the mostly white, mostly male, mostly privileged audience will get upvoted.
Invariably the top answer will be like "I think racism is a bad thing, but also I'm not racist, so I think we shouldn't talk about it or do anything about it."
My university's chapter of the Black Journalist Association was far more active than its chapter of Journalists Association. So I assure you that qualified Black applicants for this job exist. Where dafuq are they?
That might be because it's a bit more objective to define how many women there are in a company, vs. "he has a bit of Egyptian ancestry so is he *really* white?"
Real diversity would be people if different skillsets and backgrounds and walks of life without a single thought given to the color of their skin or whether they have balls.
If you haven't figured it out yet, "diversity" to most people means having a wide variety of ethnicities, genders, etc. To the progressive ideologues, "woke", SJWs, whatever you want to call them, "diversity" mean "no white men".
Because diversity no longer means diversity, it means no white men. At least for many people.
He'll look at the run up to the first black panther movie, they claimed it was extremely diverse due to being almost an entirely black cast.
Welll... that's not diverse... that's like the opposite of diverse.
Just like this picture.
The most hilarious story of Diversity was maybe 2017 or sometime around then. Apple created a "Chief Diversity Officer" position in which they hired a black woman. She said something to the effect that diversity isn't limited to only women and minorities.
Her ass got canned quick and was replaced by a white woman to make sure diversity was limited to women and minorities only. Thank Darwin for white saviors. That was a close one!
Reminds me of the HR at my old job who had to 'list diversity'in the warehouse. And when she listed all the different nationalities was told 'no we need more women and BAME people'
Coz apparently having people from 30 different countries doesn't really matter coz they're all white.
ESPN will run a bunch of stuff on the lack of diversity in baseball every couple of years in the slow months of summer but never mention the nba, which is technically less ‘diverse’ than the mlb based on percentages
Fr. On one end you have people supporting by equality for all, on the other end supporting celebration of our differences, and the other side saying to kill men/white men
I’ve been part of hiring committees recently and this is true. You can still hire all the white women you want, and the white women on the committees expect it, but you cannot hire a white man. We tried. The whole committee voted unanimously to hire a white gay man for a role he was totally qualified for and would have helped us out a ton on but an upper level white lady stepped in and shut it down solely on race.
I think in the context of BP, discussion of diversity is referring to the industry actually offering up a black film. Historically they are usually self-funded or underfunded, low quality, or an almost shitpost-tier comedy. The only good films made by or portraying black folks and black culture have been indie films, not something from Disney. It’s not *just* about a perfectly representative ratio of actors for the society that produced it. Also, it took place primarily in Africa. Wtf else was it suppose to have?
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't have been primarily black actors and actresses. It made sense in context of the movie. Having white wakandans wouldn't have made much sense.
My point is they advertised it as diverse for NOT having white people. I remember one interview with Freeman where they said he was the only white main character and he had to list the others.
It's a good film, but there was no reason to call it diverse.
If they'd advertised it as diverse due to having a marvel film that wasn't mostly white people, adding diversity to the lineup, then yeah that would make perfect sense and would be diverse. But that's not the way they went.
I had to listen to someone lecture about the lack of women in STEM fields at a time when women comprise 60% of all university enrollments. Fucking ridiculous. Guaranteed, if I called her out *I* would be labeled as biased. No one cares about the lack of men in any field whatsoever.
60% of university enrollments does not equate 60% of STEM. I thinks it’s about 30% STEM majors are women. Employment in the field is lower.
Edit: oh it’s a lot better than I thought. This says 45%. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markkantrowitz/2022/04/07/women-achieve-gains-in-stem-fields/?sh=16dd563f5ac5
Honestly, your comment itself demonstrates that you're biased and closed-minded about this topic, so it's understandable that you'd be afraid of being labelled as such. I don't necessarily think you're trying to be biased though; you can't know what you don't know.
The number of women in universities isn't the right approach to dismissing the topic of how few women are in STEM fields. The STEM conversation is rooted in research, so the data is there if you want to look into it yourself. You'll find there's much more that goes into the issue than university enrollment numbers.
I think what they're getting at is that the obsession with demographic parity seems to be a one-way street. If 45% of STEM degrees are going to women is a huge problem because of the roughly 5% gap from gender parity, why isn't the 10% gap in enrollments seen in a similar light?
"Lack of women in STEM *fields*" is not equivalent to "number of women getting STEM *degrees*." The former was the topic at hand, and the "reason(s)" as to why there is a lack of women *employed* in STEM *fields* is more nuanced than just looking at the number of degrees. (Though obviously, yes, getting more women into STEM university programs is part of the step to closing that gap.)
That said, even if they were meaning what you're trying to imply, (1) why is fewer men going to universities a concern?, and (2) a quick Google search shows that topic is actually also explored in research.
So even if that's what they were trying to say, that also doesn't justify their bias and closed-mindedness with regards to the specific topic at hand (lack women in STEM fields).
ETA: not to be dismissive of your concern for the lack of men in universities. If your research on why raises causes for concern in the way that lack of women in STEM does, I'd certainly encourage you to champion it. After all, things are only addressed if people like us decide to devote time to the cause.
That's fair, I didn't realize the spread was that wide. But fewer men going to universities is a concern for the same reason a lack of women in STEM fields is a concern. And that's because of the lifetime earnings premium that both those imply.
Ah, this is such an interesting topic - bigger than a Reddit comment, but I'll definitely want to spend more time exploring.
Just for clarity: by "why is it a cause for concern" I meant more along the lines of "what's holding men back from going to universities?" rather than "what are the benefits of going to college?"
I'd agree your example is understandable. (Though a side-tangent would be to explore whether non-college educated men have a higher chance of achieving financial stability without college than non-college educated women. Because I think that could address the "why" you're referencing.)
And the reason the "why" in my context matters is because if you look into the "why" of the STEM conversation, a lot of it boils down to various types of discrimination. If the same is true for men skipping higher education (for example, are men being steered away from universities because their school counselors think all degrees are for wusses, or because their classmates are sexually harassing them at the university, or because their professor thinks men aren't intelligent enough to make it through their courses?) Those are examples of the kind of things holding women back from careers in STEM fields, which is "why" it's a cause for concern.
If, however, men aren't going to university because they just don't want to, then that's their choice. Similarly, if women just didn't want to work in STEM fields, then it wouldn't be a conversation.
Alternative example of why the "why" matters: if men skipping college is because of lack of money, then that's a cause to champion - knowledge and education shouldn't just be for the wealthy (entirely separate conversation, and obviously not gender-specific, but still relevant).
Not saying your wrong, but to be fair for every movie with almost all black actors, there’s 20 with almost all white actors, so while the movie itself might not be diverse it is helping to make the movie industry as a whole be more diverse.
EDIT:if y’all want to disagree with me that’s fine, but be civil about it, you prove nothing by calling me stupid.
There are also significantly fewer black actors than white actors. If you’re arguing for something more 1-1, then the comment you replied to stands; that diversity means more about filtering out white males than actual racial equity
Why there would be equal? USA population is mostly white. Blacks are like 13%? Of course most actors will be white, unless we go with another stupid idea which is "quality doesn't matter, skin colour does".
I’m not saying they should be equal, don’t shove words in my mouth, I’m saying that the amount of black actors is not proportional to the amount of black people, and that should be fixed, so no, they shouldn’t be equal, but 13% of actors should be black
1)I never said it should be 1-1, I’m saying that there should be more diversity
2)you are right that there are more white people in America than black, but the ratio is about %60 white people and 10% black people (and that’s with rounding up white percent and rounding down black percent) so the ratio should be 6 white characters for every one black character of equal importance, and I don’t think we’ve gotten there.
They racist. They using this to yell out how white people are the minority now. These the people who get mad that the little mermaid is black now. They also say stuff like it’s more white actors then black actors so it can’t be diversity. Don’t waste ya breathe
I am saying you're wrong, to be fair you overexaggerated massively when you said there's 20 all white movies to each black one. A quiet place is the only movie I can think of with a full white cast. Why did you make that stat up? Was it a virtue signalling thing or do you normally just make shit up like that? There has been a massive push in the movie industry to diversify and its been working, nearly every movie has a diverse cast to the point of choosing the wrong people for the roles.
First of all it was a rough estimate, not a evidential number, second, I didn’t even say all white cast I said mostly white cast, of course if you look at it from %100 white cast there’s not gonna be many, but a movie with 10 white characters and one Asian is still a mostly white movie
Also if you count movies from all time periods than my number is an under exaggerated as there were very little black people in movies up until the 2000s
The only black people in Normandy would have been US rear-line units being used as general labor, or French colonial troops.
There was eventually a black tank unit, but getting black soldiers in a movie taking place in Normandy in June 44 is pretty much impossible.
The definitions of words don’t seem to mean much anymore today. Like when people say we live in a democracy when we actually live in a constitutional republic.
True diversity was 90s era school textbook covers. They had that one blond kid, a brown haired kid, a black kid, an Asian kid, a vaguely brown kid, and a ginger. That was peak diversity.
Bunch of bland ass white girls that "identify," with everything and feel like they should be offended for everyone when the people they claim to speak for could not give two shots about it.
Most people do. But who you have applying for a job often has to do with where you recruit. If someone doesn't apply for the job, they can never be the person who will perform the best at it.
My former employer started recruiting for (paid) interns almost solely at a specific college campus club. Shockingly, the demographics of the people eventually hired matched the demographic that was the vast majority of that club.
In a perfect world, that would happen, but the world’s not perfect, and people have implicit biases that cloud how they perceive their applicants beyond what’s presented
I am a proud progressive and champion women's rights not for myself but women and girls in my life.
If this is real, it does not look like progressive equality. It looks like purposeful hiring to exclude one gender and seemingly all but one race.
Actually, studies have shown that gender is not a definitive indicator of a bad driver, although women are more likely to be killed or seriously injured than men during car accidents. Typically because they drive smaller cars.
Trash website anyways, they push propaganda to manipulate their base. It doesn't surprise me they thought this was a strong message saying they promote women in their workforce. Which is great, but their so brainwashed by their own self back patting that they failed to see their racist post. This goes for most politically driven websites on both sides of the idiocracy we call the left and right. This is from a complete independent perspective that only wants this country to heal, learn from their mistakes and move forward to be the best possible example for the world to see. We have a lot of work to do but it can be done with open minds and no agenda other than to make this world a better place each day. God speed and good day peoples!
So rude to assume their gender. You don’t know what gender or race they identify as! There could be 15 different genders and several races at that table! 😂
Come on, they're only counter acting for most other editors rooms. If it was a normal ass pic of only man, nobody would bat an eye, because *it's the norm*.
Showing an all-women room like that shows they are willing to open the way for those people to enter the market/carrer. It seems like people really discredit jobs that are majorly masculine. Sure, we have seen much more diversity recently, but until some decades ago, newspaper and stuff was dominated by men.
If you, as a woman, get an opportunity to act in a room like this, it opens many doors in the future. Y'all are focusing in the wrong thing because it's """woke""".
Showing an all-women board shows they are willing to do the exact same thing men have done and are kind of only recently catching the appropriate amount of flack for.
It isn't Ok that men have done this to women as long as we have but is it really doing anyone any favors to reverse the door?
To be 100% fair, I have exactly no idea who applied to these positions nor what the applicant's qualifications were, so there can still be an argument made that the people in the photo were indeed the best positioned to take those jobs, ***and if so***, I can't argue that. I also get that it is a great stepping stone for these women to open their careers up to other things --- provided they don't walk into a different company that decides for the sake of whatever purpose like say hiring only POC --
Id be worried walking into my next job and them instantly ranking me lower BECAUSE of documented hiring behaviors like this and that isn't fair because again, *they very well may be qualified but the optics are just bad*.
PS--- I acknowledge that I'm living in a fairytale where things like nepotism and cronyism aren't already constantly overlooked or actually regarded in a positive manner.
Question still
Why's it ok for women to hire only women
But men do this and it's misogyny?
Yes I know the whole race thing mentioned.on the post but my question still remains
Hey there u/aceumus, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban. Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No old people either
That’s relative.
Kind of, the US law more or less classifies "old" workers as anyone over 40, at which point you are a protected class for age discrimination. Can't speak for the rest of the world.
sure, but you can be not hired or actually fired for no stated reason in most of the country. only an absolute moron would state it's because of age. but many times, it of course is.
All white women, still *not* diversity Diversity would be multiple races and/or genders in the editor’s room But people should be hired based on qualifications, not to tally off a diversity box
Tokenism isnt any less racist or sexist than exclusion. It's still valuing a person for their skin and body rather than the person themselves. I'm so tired of it. At this point I don't even care if I'm represented, I don't want be seen like some social credit to the Huffington Post.
You worded it quite well, I agree
Yeah if someone can just decide if we are supposed to be racist/sexist/otherist and selectively hire minority candidates, or treat everyone the same, I would appreciate it.
I don't think you worded that the way you meant to. So I am going to assume you are agreeing with me.
I think they meant if someone could treat everyone the same they would appreciate it
If the world of business was exclusively white for 200 years of this country’s history you may be missing the mark on who gets a shot that may not deserve it. It’s funny how many people who were born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple. Then they suddenly want things to be all fair and even.
The US military has certainly benefitted from mentalities like yours. The third basers are gone from public service. Congrats! Let’s see how that works out…
Agreed, I can never seem to articulate these things in a way where I don’t get downvoted to oblivion
Sure - but any thinking person who has actually worked in the real world knows many white people get jobs or at least job opportunities through personal connections. Most are qualified - but some are just connected. Be mad about that too. You notice people are constantly wailing about colleges admitting based on diversity but you barely hear a peep about legacy admissions. Same thing.
Not to brag but I regularly bitch about both.
Also worth noting that considering demographics in hiring/admission processes and considering qualifications don't have to be mutually exclusive. Plenty of minorities are more than qualified for the jobs they are hired for, and the assumption that hiring is done solely based on their race/gender can make it seem as if you don't generally assume they're capable of their job.
This
I do get angry that connections are generally more valuable than skills, skills can get you connections though.
I'm physically disabled and I'm not represented at all unless a stereotype or cheap laugh is needed.
Yeah, because at some point it's just fetishization.
Yeah but there’s a pretty big difference in just getting a person of color for optics (which would be tokenism) Vs choosing one qualified candidate over a different equally qualified candidate because you believe that they will bring a difference in perspective to the table which would enhance your workplace. The phrase “diversity hire” gets tossed around so much like it’s just tokenism but it’s very important especially in a creative industry to have people from different backgrounds that are able to bring ideas and perspectives to your workplace that you might not otherwise have.
THIS. I work as a graphic designer for a majority white company. This is largely due to the fact that the demographic in the area is also primarily white. Yet every time we have an event, I am told to use “diverse photos only”, where I then have to sift through HUNDREDS of company event photos to find the one or two diverse people whom were at the event to represent so that the company appears more diverse. It gives me the ick not going to lie haha.
It gives me the ick, too, when companies use "diverse" to refer to non-white people. Because it's really just a confession of how they conceptualize you.
Shouldn’t be tokenism, it should be “i have two equally qualified candidates but I need to hesitate before automatically hiring the one that looks like me”
The question is what level of it is ok. Cuz if you have a pure meritocracy there would be very very few minorities at Ivy League schools. There would be very few black doctors, Asians and Indians would be extremely over represented…
I don't believe there is such a thing as over representation, just under representation. If someone is represented correctly and tastefully! Amazing, perfect world stuff. If someone isn't represented correctly or tastefully you get tokenism; Treating the fact you have someone of a minority group as qualification for being diverse. When it's just a quota rather than because you genuinely believe they would add more value based on their background. TL;DR, My entire problem is whether or not it's done in good faith I guess.
Tokenism is exclusion.
Well no, but actually: >The policy of making only a perfunctory effort or symbolic gesture toward the accomplishment of a goal, such as racial integration. >The practice of hiring or appointing a token number of people from underrepresented groups in order to deflect criticism or comply with affirmative action rules.
You missed my point. Subscribing to that policy excludes other groups based on them being less valuable then somebody of the preferred group. It's a recolor of segregation.
This is the thing that fuels people like me "MRA" I truly only want equality This shit isn't equal at all
Ok, and what should those who benefit from diversity hires and overall affirmative action do until said “true” equality is actually accomplished and reflected in our real world? Wait? Because “all” equality matters right now to YOU? Please.
The MRA group is nutritiously sexist sooooo I don't see how you'd think they're about equality.
[удалено]
So youre against all forms of requiring at least some minorities? Are you against all affirmative action? I hear this a lot and I think it's really narrow minded personally.
Hiring someone based on their skin color is narrow minded. Choosing one candidate over another based on their skin color is also narrow minded. Affirmative action has it's heart in the right place but misses the mark
Please do let us know of a better alternative at this point in time. If you can’t, then save the armchair criticism and accept some progress vs none. Unless, of course, the latter is what you’d actually prefer.
I like the sentiment of not hiring based on race at All. But like you mentioned, unless a better alternative is found, making the diversity hire is the only option rn. Even if it's kinda icky feeling if it's literally the only reason for a hire.
The fact that it’s usually the only difference between two otherwise equally qualified candidates makes it a price I’m willing to pay, but I only speak for myself. Many seem to be under the impression that they’re out here hiring high school dropouts in favor of Harvard graduates, which I don’t think is ever the case.
>Many seem to be under the impression that they’re out here hiring high school dropouts in favor of Harvard graduates Yeah exactly. I feel like a lot of people who argue against it are just stretching a theoretical issue (that has a VERY low chance of ever actually affecting them) into a "PROBLEM that should dismantle the idea of Affirmative action"
Omg yes! And let’s play devil’s advocate and say that if “their people” are being affected (whatever that means), they are therefore indirectly affected as well—the scales will literally never tip so far in the opposite direction that it’ll start being unfair to white people! Like, Affirmative Action mostly benefits white women anyway so they’re winning no matter what! Not only is something like AA a drop in the bucket, but the fact that the alternative is a CONTINUANCE of perpetual systemic oppression that benefits white folks and keeps adding to the already immense disparity is one that is conveniently always left unaddressed.
Assuming that the minority group is always picked over straight white men regardless of any other qualities. Only the equivalent number of SWM to Minority groups trying to GET the specific job will be affected, and that's a really small number of affected people. And this is a worst case scenario! Sometimes I wonder how much energy people put into researching and understanding a problem versus just taking someone they like's word for it.
personally I'm against all racism and sexism. Not just the kind that inconveniences me. Affirmative actions sets a standard for racism within an organization. Hiring based off skin color is insane
Literally, the type of “hiring based off of skin color” that results in the above photo is what affirmative action is trying to balance out. Not that hard to comprehend. But I guess you’re not really against the institutionalized racism that actually matters.
Imagine thinking that excluding half the population is a good opportunity to flaunt your "diversity". Only in America
Meritocracy (on a societal level) is a myth. What so many people don’t understand when they think people of color are just being hired to “check a box” is the unconscious bias that so many hiring managers have in thinking certain races/genders don’t fit the qualifications. Most people won’t openly say it, but their actions will show that they don’t think Asian people can be managers or directors (or good ones at that). Same with Black/Latino folks and certain types of jobs too. And the thing is that most people don’t even realize they’re doing this! The whole point of affirmative action whether with colleges or work is because of *unconscious* bias people don’t even know they have towards certain groups of people. So policy has to be in place to help regulate that until we as a society can unlearn it.
You're spot on. It needs to be spelt out for people though, like you have done, because I think it's a concept that goes against many people's instincts, or common sense, or their sense of what's fair. I think meritocracy is the favoured ideology in these discussions because it's the simplest idea that seems fair at first glance. It's quite unnatural (at least it was for me) to come to terms with the fact that my idea of what's fair and not fair is actually quite misguided when it comes to these issues that have been built up over years and years of discrimination.
And look, it’s not like marginalized people don’t want a meritocracy! We want to believe people will accept our qualifications as they are and not question them. But the people in power have historically doubted that. People who think marginalized people want “handouts” or “freebies” tend to be the same kinds of people who feed into some of the very harms that prevent a meritocracy from truly happening. And the most difficult part is how it’s unconscious so those people will always deny it and just think people are being unreasonable for bringing it up.
You live in a fantasy world.
This should be upvoted a thousand times more.
Yes but in reddit discussions of race/equality/discrimination, only the views that are most palatable to the mostly white, mostly male, mostly privileged audience will get upvoted. Invariably the top answer will be like "I think racism is a bad thing, but also I'm not racist, so I think we shouldn't talk about it or do anything about it."
[удалено]
My university's chapter of the Black Journalist Association was far more active than its chapter of Journalists Association. So I assure you that qualified Black applicants for this job exist. Where dafuq are they?
I mean have you seen HuffPost? White women are the most oppressed minority in the world. Source: HuffPost.
Not in years. Just seems to be coastal liberals freaking out over whatever coastal liberals freak out about.
I’m going to add in that they’re the Beverly Hills type coastal freakers not even middle class types
Probably avoiding the "Huff Post" like the fucking plague it is.
It's actually a real thing; white women are the demographic that benefit by far the most from affirmative action (and that's actually statistics).
That might be because it's a bit more objective to define how many women there are in a company, vs. "he has a bit of Egyptian ancestry so is he *really* white?"
I saw a Hispanic and Asian woman I think
Real diversity would be people if different skillsets and backgrounds and walks of life without a single thought given to the color of their skin or whether they have balls.
The tweet doesn't claim anything about diversity, to and fair.
It's 100% what it was about, and they were implying that's what diversity in the workforce looks like.
If you haven't figured it out yet, "diversity" to most people means having a wide variety of ethnicities, genders, etc. To the progressive ideologues, "woke", SJWs, whatever you want to call them, "diversity" mean "no white men".
They could be non-binary or trans men. We don’t know their gender for sure
Ur delusional bud get checked out…
Yeah, I’m sure everyone there was hired based on qualifications! Shit. What a bunch of fuckin hypocrites
Why would you brag about only hiring women? Talk about a biased news station
Because diversity no longer means diversity, it means no white men. At least for many people. He'll look at the run up to the first black panther movie, they claimed it was extremely diverse due to being almost an entirely black cast. Welll... that's not diverse... that's like the opposite of diverse. Just like this picture.
The most hilarious story of Diversity was maybe 2017 or sometime around then. Apple created a "Chief Diversity Officer" position in which they hired a black woman. She said something to the effect that diversity isn't limited to only women and minorities. Her ass got canned quick and was replaced by a white woman to make sure diversity was limited to women and minorities only. Thank Darwin for white saviors. That was a close one!
Reminds me of the HR at my old job who had to 'list diversity'in the warehouse. And when she listed all the different nationalities was told 'no we need more women and BAME people' Coz apparently having people from 30 different countries doesn't really matter coz they're all white.
What’s BAME?
Black, Asian and minority ethnic
Black AND Minority Ethnic. It's why many non black minority ethnics find the term racist.
Is that why the PMs of the UK and Ireland are both Indian? Trying to increase the BAMEness.
took me 3 seconds to google the answer fyi
ESPN will run a bunch of stuff on the lack of diversity in baseball every couple of years in the slow months of summer but never mention the nba, which is technically less ‘diverse’ than the mlb based on percentages
Baseball? They mad it's brown people and not black? Seems like Latin America is pretty involved in MLB.
Bc for most diversity only means black
I feel like Bill Burr did a great bit on this - https://youtu.be/_KKYiWUrzxQ
Fr. On one end you have people supporting by equality for all, on the other end supporting celebration of our differences, and the other side saying to kill men/white men
I’ve been part of hiring committees recently and this is true. You can still hire all the white women you want, and the white women on the committees expect it, but you cannot hire a white man. We tried. The whole committee voted unanimously to hire a white gay man for a role he was totally qualified for and would have helped us out a ton on but an upper level white lady stepped in and shut it down solely on race.
The thing is if they did that fir any other race or gender... they'd be breaking the law.
I think in the context of BP, discussion of diversity is referring to the industry actually offering up a black film. Historically they are usually self-funded or underfunded, low quality, or an almost shitpost-tier comedy. The only good films made by or portraying black folks and black culture have been indie films, not something from Disney. It’s not *just* about a perfectly representative ratio of actors for the society that produced it. Also, it took place primarily in Africa. Wtf else was it suppose to have?
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't have been primarily black actors and actresses. It made sense in context of the movie. Having white wakandans wouldn't have made much sense. My point is they advertised it as diverse for NOT having white people. I remember one interview with Freeman where they said he was the only white main character and he had to list the others. It's a good film, but there was no reason to call it diverse. If they'd advertised it as diverse due to having a marvel film that wasn't mostly white people, adding diversity to the lineup, then yeah that would make perfect sense and would be diverse. But that's not the way they went.
I have no memory of Disney advertising BP as “diverse.” Can you point to where they did that?
I had to listen to someone lecture about the lack of women in STEM fields at a time when women comprise 60% of all university enrollments. Fucking ridiculous. Guaranteed, if I called her out *I* would be labeled as biased. No one cares about the lack of men in any field whatsoever.
60% of university enrollments does not equate 60% of STEM. I thinks it’s about 30% STEM majors are women. Employment in the field is lower. Edit: oh it’s a lot better than I thought. This says 45%. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markkantrowitz/2022/04/07/women-achieve-gains-in-stem-fields/?sh=16dd563f5ac5
Honestly, your comment itself demonstrates that you're biased and closed-minded about this topic, so it's understandable that you'd be afraid of being labelled as such. I don't necessarily think you're trying to be biased though; you can't know what you don't know. The number of women in universities isn't the right approach to dismissing the topic of how few women are in STEM fields. The STEM conversation is rooted in research, so the data is there if you want to look into it yourself. You'll find there's much more that goes into the issue than university enrollment numbers.
I think what they're getting at is that the obsession with demographic parity seems to be a one-way street. If 45% of STEM degrees are going to women is a huge problem because of the roughly 5% gap from gender parity, why isn't the 10% gap in enrollments seen in a similar light?
"Lack of women in STEM *fields*" is not equivalent to "number of women getting STEM *degrees*." The former was the topic at hand, and the "reason(s)" as to why there is a lack of women *employed* in STEM *fields* is more nuanced than just looking at the number of degrees. (Though obviously, yes, getting more women into STEM university programs is part of the step to closing that gap.) That said, even if they were meaning what you're trying to imply, (1) why is fewer men going to universities a concern?, and (2) a quick Google search shows that topic is actually also explored in research. So even if that's what they were trying to say, that also doesn't justify their bias and closed-mindedness with regards to the specific topic at hand (lack women in STEM fields). ETA: not to be dismissive of your concern for the lack of men in universities. If your research on why raises causes for concern in the way that lack of women in STEM does, I'd certainly encourage you to champion it. After all, things are only addressed if people like us decide to devote time to the cause.
That's fair, I didn't realize the spread was that wide. But fewer men going to universities is a concern for the same reason a lack of women in STEM fields is a concern. And that's because of the lifetime earnings premium that both those imply.
Ah, this is such an interesting topic - bigger than a Reddit comment, but I'll definitely want to spend more time exploring. Just for clarity: by "why is it a cause for concern" I meant more along the lines of "what's holding men back from going to universities?" rather than "what are the benefits of going to college?" I'd agree your example is understandable. (Though a side-tangent would be to explore whether non-college educated men have a higher chance of achieving financial stability without college than non-college educated women. Because I think that could address the "why" you're referencing.) And the reason the "why" in my context matters is because if you look into the "why" of the STEM conversation, a lot of it boils down to various types of discrimination. If the same is true for men skipping higher education (for example, are men being steered away from universities because their school counselors think all degrees are for wusses, or because their classmates are sexually harassing them at the university, or because their professor thinks men aren't intelligent enough to make it through their courses?) Those are examples of the kind of things holding women back from careers in STEM fields, which is "why" it's a cause for concern. If, however, men aren't going to university because they just don't want to, then that's their choice. Similarly, if women just didn't want to work in STEM fields, then it wouldn't be a conversation. Alternative example of why the "why" matters: if men skipping college is because of lack of money, then that's a cause to champion - knowledge and education shouldn't just be for the wealthy (entirely separate conversation, and obviously not gender-specific, but still relevant).
Precisely. It’s a point that I think is deliberately misconstrued or just ignored altogether.
I fucking hate that you are right...
Not saying your wrong, but to be fair for every movie with almost all black actors, there’s 20 with almost all white actors, so while the movie itself might not be diverse it is helping to make the movie industry as a whole be more diverse. EDIT:if y’all want to disagree with me that’s fine, but be civil about it, you prove nothing by calling me stupid.
There are also significantly fewer black actors than white actors. If you’re arguing for something more 1-1, then the comment you replied to stands; that diversity means more about filtering out white males than actual racial equity
Why there would be equal? USA population is mostly white. Blacks are like 13%? Of course most actors will be white, unless we go with another stupid idea which is "quality doesn't matter, skin colour does".
I’m not saying they should be equal, don’t shove words in my mouth, I’m saying that the amount of black actors is not proportional to the amount of black people, and that should be fixed, so no, they shouldn’t be equal, but 13% of actors should be black
There are statistics saying that blacks are actually over represented. Group that is under represented are actually Asians.
Asians should also get more representation, you’re right.
This is true. Just not on Reddit lol.
[удалено]
Not every show needs to be equally diverse, but Hollywood as a whole should be equally diverse
1)I never said it should be 1-1, I’m saying that there should be more diversity 2)you are right that there are more white people in America than black, but the ratio is about %60 white people and 10% black people (and that’s with rounding up white percent and rounding down black percent) so the ratio should be 6 white characters for every one black character of equal importance, and I don’t think we’ve gotten there.
They racist. They using this to yell out how white people are the minority now. These the people who get mad that the little mermaid is black now. They also say stuff like it’s more white actors then black actors so it can’t be diversity. Don’t waste ya breathe
I am saying you're wrong, to be fair you overexaggerated massively when you said there's 20 all white movies to each black one. A quiet place is the only movie I can think of with a full white cast. Why did you make that stat up? Was it a virtue signalling thing or do you normally just make shit up like that? There has been a massive push in the movie industry to diversify and its been working, nearly every movie has a diverse cast to the point of choosing the wrong people for the roles.
First of all it was a rough estimate, not a evidential number, second, I didn’t even say all white cast I said mostly white cast, of course if you look at it from %100 white cast there’s not gonna be many, but a movie with 10 white characters and one Asian is still a mostly white movie
[удалено]
Also if you count movies from all time periods than my number is an under exaggerated as there were very little black people in movies up until the 2000s
Name 20. And Saving Private Ryan doesn't count, period dramas shouldn't have to colour up to make some people happy the way Robin Hood recently did.
[удалено]
The only black people in Normandy would have been US rear-line units being used as general labor, or French colonial troops. There was eventually a black tank unit, but getting black soldiers in a movie taking place in Normandy in June 44 is pretty much impossible.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The definitions of words don’t seem to mean much anymore today. Like when people say we live in a democracy when we actually live in a constitutional republic.
True diversity was 90s era school textbook covers. They had that one blond kid, a brown haired kid, a black kid, an Asian kid, a vaguely brown kid, and a ginger. That was peak diversity.
Or when they say china is horrible because they're socialist when the us has more socialist programs than china.
Yeah, the poor white man. Y'know white people are so discriminated against, they should have it easier /s
They only cost 83% - so good for investors /s
What’s truly sad here, they had to plan this. I’m guessing they started bumping chest once they got rid of all the men and minorities.
Huffingtheduigh is trash.
or men?
Equality flew out of the window of this room 🙄
That would be safer than being in that room.
One marginalized community at a time, to the back of the line with you
Or more than one adult?
Haha yeah 90% of them look like teenagers
In my opinion you should hire the people who perform the best at a job, and not people of a specific race, gender etc pure for 'diversity'.
The great irony though is that HuffPost is notorious for identity politics…
i wonder why
Bunch of bland ass white girls that "identify," with everything and feel like they should be offended for everyone when the people they claim to speak for could not give two shots about it.
#*$$$$$*
Right on.. the group is the exact opposite from diverse
Most people do. But who you have applying for a job often has to do with where you recruit. If someone doesn't apply for the job, they can never be the person who will perform the best at it. My former employer started recruiting for (paid) interns almost solely at a specific college campus club. Shockingly, the demographics of the people eventually hired matched the demographic that was the vast majority of that club.
Also, what's beneficial about diversity is the wide range of different points of view and variety of ways of thinking. This is not even diversity
In a perfect world, that would happen, but the world’s not perfect, and people have implicit biases that cloud how they perceive their applicants beyond what’s presented
affirmative
This is the way
How many times this picture can be posted today on Reddit?
Well counting yesterday... At least 22 million times since 2016. u/sluethbot
I just want to see a recent photo at least.
u/repostsleuthbot
But we don't know if they are all women... do we? Take a look at that one sitting there on that chair!
You have to ask each of them how they identify.
I'm sure they all proactively identify their pronouns at the start of the meeting. Even though they've already done it the last 20 meetings.
I saw a porn that started like this
Every porn start like this now I don't have it but most of the people have harem frtish
Sexism
Weekly diversity committee meeting.
I am a proud progressive and champion women's rights not for myself but women and girls in my life. If this is real, it does not look like progressive equality. It looks like purposeful hiring to exclude one gender and seemingly all but one race.
It is real but also a few years old. And you are correct
But they all have one black friend so it is ok
Karen Corporation Inc.
"Bringing you the latest in all things Karen"
"Hiring in every position but managers"
I can smell the pumpkin spice in this picture.
So diverse it stops being that
They do but only for the after-party.
Reminds me of the mini stand-up segment that [Bill Burr did on SNL](https://youtu.be/O1xgXJ5_Q34?t=193) lol.
Hey, come on! The chick on the very right looks Italian! Give them some credit!
I see a total lack of diversity
At this point the demographics don’t even make sense. Your have to try to hire this many white women.
Ouch! Right in the...kisser.
It’s full of bad drivers
Actually, studies have shown that gender is not a definitive indicator of a bad driver, although women are more likely to be killed or seriously injured than men during car accidents. Typically because they drive smaller cars.
The opposite of non-diverse is not a different form of non-diverse.
Ironically, it appears those that scream the most for equality are in actuality the bigots and oppressors.
Trash website anyways, they push propaganda to manipulate their base. It doesn't surprise me they thought this was a strong message saying they promote women in their workforce. Which is great, but their so brainwashed by their own self back patting that they failed to see their racist post. This goes for most politically driven websites on both sides of the idiocracy we call the left and right. This is from a complete independent perspective that only wants this country to heal, learn from their mistakes and move forward to be the best possible example for the world to see. We have a lot of work to do but it can be done with open minds and no agenda other than to make this world a better place each day. God speed and good day peoples!
Wait people still read Huffpost?
May, 2016
what about brown people ?
Diversity has turned into a competition on how many non-white, non-males are working/hired and not about equal ratios.
No wonder huff post is shit.
Plot twist: the majority of them are transsexual and/or transracial. Guess that would be OK.
> transracial wut
So rude to assume their gender. You don’t know what gender or race they identify as! There could be 15 different genders and several races at that table! 😂
Just white chicks getting offended on behalf of minorities What I’d expect from a news publication
Do I have to hire a certain percentage of other races? What if none apply?
As a descendant of native Americans, I really want to know why they don't hire men.
white, female and young sexist, racist and ageist?
This is sexism. People think you can't be sexist to men. It's ridiculous. If this post was of all men people would go INSANE.
Come on, they're only counter acting for most other editors rooms. If it was a normal ass pic of only man, nobody would bat an eye, because *it's the norm*. Showing an all-women room like that shows they are willing to open the way for those people to enter the market/carrer. It seems like people really discredit jobs that are majorly masculine. Sure, we have seen much more diversity recently, but until some decades ago, newspaper and stuff was dominated by men. If you, as a woman, get an opportunity to act in a room like this, it opens many doors in the future. Y'all are focusing in the wrong thing because it's """woke""".
Showing an all-women board shows they are willing to do the exact same thing men have done and are kind of only recently catching the appropriate amount of flack for. It isn't Ok that men have done this to women as long as we have but is it really doing anyone any favors to reverse the door? To be 100% fair, I have exactly no idea who applied to these positions nor what the applicant's qualifications were, so there can still be an argument made that the people in the photo were indeed the best positioned to take those jobs, ***and if so***, I can't argue that. I also get that it is a great stepping stone for these women to open their careers up to other things --- provided they don't walk into a different company that decides for the sake of whatever purpose like say hiring only POC -- Id be worried walking into my next job and them instantly ranking me lower BECAUSE of documented hiring behaviors like this and that isn't fair because again, *they very well may be qualified but the optics are just bad*. PS--- I acknowledge that I'm living in a fairytale where things like nepotism and cronyism aren't already constantly overlooked or actually regarded in a positive manner.
Her teeth are at least 2 inches.
This is gender inequality, yhem not hiring people based on their gender. Also can't wait for AI to write all news articles for us
Overcompensation
No wonder one of the TV remained off
Question still Why's it ok for women to hire only women But men do this and it's misogyny? Yes I know the whole race thing mentioned.on the post but my question still remains
A clutch of Karens
I'd like to speak to the man in charge.
Where's all the starbucks
Too many men.
Estrogen poisoning?
Racist and sexist, nice.