When "Diversity" and "Inclusion" Mean "Discrimination" And "Exclusion"
I love "woke" buzzwords. They're so convenient when you want to mean something other than what you're saying.
Google had a summit on "diversity and inclusion," which, of course, was on tribalism and leaving certain individuals out, based of course, on skin color and the usual intersectional victim olympiad.
At Quillette, Joseph Klein writes about the summit:
All participants advocated for changing workplace policies to increase the representation of women, people of color, and LGBT communities in the corporate world. There's nothing wrong with increased representation of these groups. The problem is how identity group disparities are measured and which methods are used to correct them.For example, Ms. Dees brought attention to the tired trope of the gender wage gap, saying, "On average, still, a woman only earns 80 cents for every dollar a man makes." Numerous economists and scholars have shown this oft-cited statistic is misleading, at best. But Ms. Dees went on to note that women make up 50 percent of the U.S. workforce, yet less than five percent run Fortune 500 companies. She explained that, "If our goal is 50-50 [gender representation], we all have some serious work to do." But that intention is misplaced. Such disparities don't necessarily indicate prejudice at work, and in the absence of prejudice, forcing 50-50 representation would require prejudice against the majority group.
Up is down, prejudice is good, and screw you -- we're not letting you in if you have the "wrong" skin color for our company's "diversity and inclusion" goals.
Choosing employees by skin color -- by group membership rather than on individual merit -- to me is just a less vocal version of the vile racism that all decent people have found disgusting when it was employed against blacks and others.
Color me confused!
Oh, and while we're on color, try to keep track of when sex trumps color and when color trumps sex -- a quote from Cynthia Garrett from this article:
"I also was alarmed that the black caucus in Congress refused to get involved with the railroading of black and other minority students on campus, because they are aligned with the women's movement. in the U.S today is the abandonment of men and men's issues ..." @saveosons
— Cynthia P Garrett (@cgarrett101) December 13, 2018
That last line in full:
"What I see happening in the U.S today is the abandonment of men and men's issues in general, and black men and minorities in particular."
If Cynthia P. Garrett were truly not racist, then she would be denouncing the very existence of a "black caucus" in Congress.
Patrick at December 14, 2018 12:10 AM
Whoops. My bad. Cynthia P. Garrett is quoting someone else. That isn't her statement.
Patrick at December 14, 2018 1:13 AM
Cynthia Garrett fights for men's rights. I respect her.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2018 5:24 AM
We've gone too far down the rabbit hole of identity politics. We may not be able to get out.
For years commentators talked about education and healthcare as "women's issues" - as if men didn't care if their children had good schools and shots. Crime, defense, and the deficit were described as "men's issues" - as if women didn't care about safe neighborhoods, the country not being invaded, or the country going broke.
That was minor, compared with now, where every identity group has its own set of issues and all must be catered to, to the detriment of society as a whole.
Conan the Grammarian at December 14, 2018 6:31 AM
Seems hard to keep track of whom we're supposed to support and whom we're supposed to despise anymore. It reminds me of Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment, wherein the locals worship a deity called Nuggan. So frequently are new "Abominations Unto Nuggan" identified that their official holy scripture is maintained in a three-ring binder!
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at December 14, 2018 7:21 AM
Glad to see I'm not the only Pratchett fan on this blog.
Conan the Grammarian at December 14, 2018 8:23 AM
Men are reviled and useless, except when women decide they really do want a family and then they insist on a successful man--at which point all the disadvantaging in lower grades of school and the legal points against men suddenly matter. You can't do your best to exclude men and then ask where all the good ones went.
Conservatives have been saying for years that the best thing you could do for minorities is to grow the economic pie (contra zero-sum believers who want to redistribute) and recent events have proven that point.
When everyone was a serf, ability didn't matter much, but to run a high-tech business you better hire the best, whoever they are. Why are so many students in STEM oriental/Indian? Because they can overcome their language issues and prejudice against them in a subject where the right answer matters. But now Indians and Chinese are considered white for purposes of college admissions (or need even higher scores to get in). Excuse me if I can't keep up.
cc at December 14, 2018 9:29 AM
I'm friendly with a couple of guys who work for Google in Mountain View. They've told me that the firing of James Damore really scared the shit out of everyone. He was basically fired because he offended a handful of ideologues who went public with it to embarrass the company.
This then encouraged them to think that they could force their agenda down everyone's throat and lead to the recent strike.
And apparently the reason they were able to get so many people to 'strike' (i.e. walk out for few hours ) was because the men were afraid to be seen not participating - because that could get them fired.
not a great culture to work in I'm told.
epsilonicon at December 14, 2018 11:08 AM
We may not be able to get out.
Oh, we'll get out. The when/where will be unpredictable, and the results are likely to be ugly, which is what usually happens when something is ripped open. What this lot has forgotten is that the pendulum swings both ways.
not a great culture to work in I'm told.
If it is as described, those most nervous probably have an updated resume at hand, and while they may not be actively looking for employment elsewhere - is there any tech work that is not infested with a SJW inspired code of conduct/ethics? - or their department is relatively sane, they still know where the emergency exits are and keep a metaphorical eye on them.
You can't do your best to exclude men and then ask where all the good ones went.
This, so much this. And especially when, at least in the USofA, men discover that marriage is really crappy deal for them.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 14, 2018 12:21 PM
"is there any tech work that is not infested with a SJW inspired code of conduct/ethics?"
There's plenty. Just not in social media.
Cousin Dave at December 14, 2018 12:43 PM
Leave a comment