this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
801 points (96.6% liked)
Bluesky
359 readers
7 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 2 months 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.
Yeah we’re gonna need a cite for that. And no, not an anecdotal story your friend from high school told you. Show us real, printed words that mean DEI says hire unqualified or incompetent employees.
Spoiler: there is none. This is the racist or bigoted line for the history of equitable hiring efforts. People who don’t know that take it on, but it’s not true. Same as it ever was.
But you’re just multiplying the wrongs here. What you’re describing is not necessarily a consequence of DEI policies, but your company’s approach. It didn’t have to be that way.
The worst manager I ever had to train was a white guy. He knew nothing about what we did and should not have been hired. I wasted so much time trying to train him, to the detriment of my work
Best dei hire: my coworker. She was always a great person but just didn’t cut it as an engineer. However someone recognized people skills, plucked her out of engineering to be a manager, as a woman and minority. They gave her training and mentoring, connected her with peers …. And she kicks ass. My last two job transfers were to follow her because that’s the kind of manager, now executive, I want. Great talent, who previously may have been overlooked, not had an opportunity to show her talent
My experience with DEI at several companies has included a focus on finding talent in more places, mentoring and peer support, long term human development, and lots of success in developing more diverse and open workforces, more inclusive of everyone. The goal is not to hire someone because they’re whatever demographic, but to find and develop talent from a variety of demographics
They are supporting wide scale loss of employment opportunities as retribution for one job that they felt had an unfair result. This logic is inherently selfish. But it will be difficult to change anyone's mind that thinks this way if they are unable to empathize.
Sounds like your job shouldn't have hired or promoted that white guy who didn't know what he was doing. Just like my old company shouldn't have hired that new chick who had zero work experience for an upper management position.
I don't give a shit about inclusion or diversity. If someone is the best person for that job they should get that job. I don't understand what is so complicated about this concept. If I only had one arm you wouldn't fucking hire me to do your underwater welding.
Life isn't fair. I do not care to force fairness. Everyone should have equal opportunity to do what they want, but nobody should be forced to make exceptions for special situations.
Equality of opportunity: Yes.
Equality of outcome: No.
Right, so where’s that equality of opportunity? So many people won’t have that opportunity due to accident of birth or upbringing, class structure or demographic favoritism. Maybe it’s as simple as never seeing a good example to follow. We all lose out when they never have the opportunity.
In my example, my manager would typically not have that opportunity, and I would have lost out.
DEI was putting effort into looking for those situations, finding ways to identify or develop talent that would never have that opportunity. No one should get a pass or automatic favoritism, but it’s naive to believe we start from the same place with the same doors open in front of us
"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.
lol...do you sink in mercury?
Meanwhile, in the US:
Oh, look at that, it's exactly what I just said: the country with MORE gender equality overall, Sweden, has the LARGER gender skew. Construction is MORE male-dominated in Sweden than in the US.
So, once more:
Explain how, if sexism is the reason for the gap in the first place, it can be that less sexism leads to a wider gap (which you just unwittingly proved is the case). Be specific.
Sweden is still a sexist society that is not attempting to deal with that issue just like the US. Although their laws are way better, culturally they still have a long way to go. Please see Norway for a country actually trying to dismantle sexism.
So once more you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Hell, you probably can't even define sexism.
"* Although Sweden is considered progressive, some argue that subtle forms of sexism can still exist in workplaces or social interactions, like gender stereotypes about appearance or leadership roles.
Representation in certain fields:
While overall gender equality is high, some industries might still show imbalances in gender representation, particularly in leadership positions."
Nobody said there was zero sexism in Sweden. I'm talking in relative terms. All that's needed to make my point is for Sweden to be less sexist than the US. And it is--in fact, it's top 4 in the world on gender equality indexes.
The fact, again, is that countries that are more egalitarian re sex have been found to exhibit, as was just evidenced, steeper sex skews in the workforce, than less egalitarian countries.
This roundly refutes the assumption that sexism is the primary cause of the skew's existence. If it was, reducing sexism would narrow the gap, not widen it.
I realize this fact doesn't confirm your biases, but it is the fact of the matter nonetheless.
Culturally Sweden may be more or less sexist than the US. As you demonstrated apparently when it comes to the construction field the US is less sexist than Sweden.
I have already provided evidence in the form of Norway that disputes your pet theory. So it is clear it is not universal and certainly not the law you think it is.
You really don't understand sexism or the cultural indoctrination that causes it. You conflate progressive laws with sexism itself which, I have already said, is nonsensical. Having progressive laws does not suddenly end sexism.
I realize that you have probably never confronted your bias and recognized you are a sexist human being like I have.
Nah, the research has been done, the data is in. There is no "may".
But why don't we push my argument as far as it can go and look at the country rated literally #1 in the world for gender equality, Iceland? It's had that distinction for well over a decade, so it's no flash in the pan you can accuse of being cherry-picked.
Well, it turns out that according to Iceland's most recent national census, the percentage of women in construction in the most gender equal country on the planet is SIX.
You cherry picked a country that has had national gender quotas since 2003--what, think I wouldn't notice your sneaky little maneuver? You're not going to get good information about what men and women freely choose to do for a living in a country that literally directly manipulates the sex ratio in the workforce.
No, you're the one who does that, because you're the one that assumes that the gap is in and of itself evidence of sexism. In reality, the evidence clearly shows that with less sexism, which translates to men and women being more empowered to make their own free choice about what they want to do for a living, men and women's average differences in preference of career manifests more strongly.
Your insistence that there is zero difference of preference between the sexes, and that therefore anything but a 50/50 ratio in an industry is indicative of sexism, is complete bunk.
Men and women are not identical, no matter how much of a tantrum you throw. In the country consistently regarded as being the most gender equal, construction is dramatically more male-dominated than in the average country.
No one said it did. But you're arguing that progressive laws INCREASE sexism! lmao
Your goofball 'logic' would place Iceland among the LEAST gender equal countries, closer to Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia than the US! Do you really not understand how you are literally arguing that up is down?
You produced no research. In fact you just make up a lot of nonsense. God of gaps, oh lord help me you are stupid.
Turns out you didn't read up at all. You can't tell there difference between a law and sexism. Conflating the two shows once again you don't even understand what sexism is.
There is no sneaky maneuver, just your attempt at regurgitating your sexists attitudes.
The end where you are "no you did that" is hilarious. It is like I am talking with a twelve year old.
"Iceland is considered one of the most gender-equal countries in the world. It has consistently ranked at the top of gender parity rankings for many years. However, Iceland also has high rates of gender-based violence.,"
Even in one of the least sexist places sexism still abounds. I do applaud the work they have done and likely it will continue to get better due to some of the best representation of women leadership in the world.
The coup de grace has to be you comparing Iceland to Saudi Arabia. Truly your stupidity knows no bounds. We are done here, cheers!
Okay I guess you're just illiterate. YOU are the one that asserts that a bigger man/woman gap means there is more sexism. Therefore, YOU consider Iceland one of the MOST sexist countries, because it has a HUGE man/woman gap in construction, MUCH wider and further away from 50/50 than in the vast majority of countries.
That is the conclusion YOUR logic produces, not mine.
Therefore, the obvious conclusion, for any rational thinking person, is that it is clearly incorrect to equate the size of that gap to the level of gender equality.
You still can't contend with the simple burning question that arises from the two simple facts above, so until you address it, the following is all you're going to get from me as a response from now on:
If sexism is the cause of that gap, how is it that the gap is larger in less sexist countries, than it is in more sexist countries?
This ^^^