Great article. I'm a fan. I gave up on being a Dem and even liberal when I found that even questioning the trans Right movement got you canceled and fired and ostracized. They are just as dogmatic as their red "friends across the aisle." I like your work, even when you're being a dick.
I have to disagree that men not wanting to be followed by random men why why everyone is single. I don't know any woman that met her man that way. Men can not be stalkers. It's the lack of face to face interaction and lack of community that is causing that - ladies upping their standards. Also, you are talking about affirmative action, not DEI, which has It's issues but hiring quotas aren't one of them. I am kind of tired of this confusions across the board. DEI is responsible for things like resources for disabled employees.
That being said, the absurdity of people not understanding is absurd and frankly worrying. I can't but can believe that people are mad about this and accusing it of eugenics. Kind of how people throw around white supremacy all the time. Good lord.
I disagree with your take on DEI. It's modern Affirmative Action. To say that DEI is responsible for resources for disabled employees is like saying that breast reduction or enhancement is "gender affirming care" for women. It conflates something that already existed with the woke branding of a maladaptive product.
People calling the AEO ad "eugenics" is akin to saying that we don't have Equal Opportunity laws for employment outside of DEI. The terms "diversity,' "equity," and "inclusion" function to center neo identities and downplay merit, making the term "DEI hire" an insult. As a lesbian, I am not someone's diversity token, I don't want my outcomes "equalized," and don't "include" me. Just don't discriminate against me on the basis of my sex or sexual orientation.
DEI hire is not something DEI professionals came up with. With all due respect, as someone who is in the nonprofit sector and who works along side all-school DEI professionals, I can say this take about affirmative action and DEI being the same is something Trump out out, and people are believing it. DEI is responsible for encouraging people not to discriminate against you in the work place, and made it illegal to do so. Has DEI been coopted by the radical left? Of course. Should we throw out the baby with the bath water? No. DEI absolutely needs to be overhauled, it was originally a very good thing that was indeed responsible for resources for people with disabilities, etc. It was never about quotas, and it was never supposed to be used to spread radical ideology. Affirmative action is the quota system, I don't know how to get people to understand this.
What rights do DEI policies protect that EEO laws and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not cover? DEI can also be at odds with EEO and the CRA in that they discriminate on the basis of characteristics protected in those laws.
Here is a real life example of where DEI could have come in handy. Old-school DEI. I was the grant writer for an organization where a young white woman came in, with an MSW, and fired all the black employees. Not kidding. This was in 2015. She could do this because she claimed they were unqualified for the job. Then she hired only other young, white women like herself with MSWs (master's in social work). Our client based was women generally over 40 and 65% black. DEI, ad traditionally conceived, would have said: is this a good idea? How would you feel if the head you this program that is supposed to help you, an older black woman, fired all the black people and hired young white people? And said hey, maybe a black employee would have an understanding of these women's racial experience, and that is important. We finally convinced her racist ass to hire a couple of black women. And we also talked about how AGE was important. Luckily, she hadn't fired the two older workers, probably because they were white. If that racist social worker had been properly called out from a DEI viewpoint when she started her job, perhaps all those black women wouldn't have lost their jobs. Oh, and her hiring only MSWs bankrupted the organization. And all these girls came from upper middle class backgrounds; the clients did not. So there were class issues too.
I meant old-school professionals. One of whom told me, "why would I hire someone based on race and not competence? I would lose money." DEI made sure that the Civil Rights Act and EEO were upheld. It wasn't like they were passed and everything was rosy. DEI originally helped bridge differences and made sure people weren't discriminated against. Now it is being abused, but it is being unfairly scapegoated for things that frankly aren't even happening on any kind of widescale. And I am still shocked at how many intelligent people are falling for this claim that DEI was ALWAYS this horrible thing that never contributed to society. But that is all I can say at this point besides this: who do you think started addressing sexual harassment in the workplace? Those were DEI trainings. DEI is what had been backing up the civil right act, etc. and the people scapegoating DEI are the people who never wanted the Civil Right Act to pass or don't think it was necessary. Or, like Trump, love sexually harassing women and are pushed DEI has told them they can't.
The problem isn't the very existence of beauty standards (for either sex; both have them). It's the FORM that they take for women.
For women (but not men), looks are paramount. And who defines what those looks are?
Men. Specifically straight ones.
So what does this add up to? Women's value is determined by how attractive men find us. Whether they want to date, marry, or just fuck us.
Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
If not, try this on for size: imagine that male beauty standards worked the same way. They're the most important thing about a man, and they're determined by (straight) women.
So, Matt: you cured cancer! You won the Pulitzer! You took a bullet for a beloved public figure, thereby saving them from certain death!
But... no one cares. Because you aren't a "10". And every woman in the world doesn't want to fuck you. Sure, you're brilliant and brave and all that-- but you aren't DECORATIVE! In THEIR eyes. The eyes of women whom you don't even know, and whose opinion you have zero reason to give the proverbial rat's ass about.
See the problem now?
Look, I'm a bisexual woman. I've seen female beauty standards (to paraphrase Joni Mitchell) from both sides now. I would never fault straight men for being attracted to women, or for wanting to look at comely ones-- I sure do! THAT is not the problem. The problem is treating women as though that's all they are... so the measuring stick for their value as human beings is how many dicks they make hard.
Now, if we still had beauty standards for women, but they worked the same way that the ones for men do? Where it's nice to be considered-- as Derek Zoolander put it-- "really, really, really ridiculously good-looking", but (unless you're an aspiring model or the like), hardly necessary? Even if I myself still didn't qualify? No complaints :)
Great article. I'm a fan. I gave up on being a Dem and even liberal when I found that even questioning the trans Right movement got you canceled and fired and ostracized. They are just as dogmatic as their red "friends across the aisle." I like your work, even when you're being a dick.
I have to disagree that men not wanting to be followed by random men why why everyone is single. I don't know any woman that met her man that way. Men can not be stalkers. It's the lack of face to face interaction and lack of community that is causing that - ladies upping their standards. Also, you are talking about affirmative action, not DEI, which has It's issues but hiring quotas aren't one of them. I am kind of tired of this confusions across the board. DEI is responsible for things like resources for disabled employees.
That being said, the absurdity of people not understanding is absurd and frankly worrying. I can't but can believe that people are mad about this and accusing it of eugenics. Kind of how people throw around white supremacy all the time. Good lord.
I disagree with your take on DEI. It's modern Affirmative Action. To say that DEI is responsible for resources for disabled employees is like saying that breast reduction or enhancement is "gender affirming care" for women. It conflates something that already existed with the woke branding of a maladaptive product.
People calling the AEO ad "eugenics" is akin to saying that we don't have Equal Opportunity laws for employment outside of DEI. The terms "diversity,' "equity," and "inclusion" function to center neo identities and downplay merit, making the term "DEI hire" an insult. As a lesbian, I am not someone's diversity token, I don't want my outcomes "equalized," and don't "include" me. Just don't discriminate against me on the basis of my sex or sexual orientation.
DEI hire is not something DEI professionals came up with. With all due respect, as someone who is in the nonprofit sector and who works along side all-school DEI professionals, I can say this take about affirmative action and DEI being the same is something Trump out out, and people are believing it. DEI is responsible for encouraging people not to discriminate against you in the work place, and made it illegal to do so. Has DEI been coopted by the radical left? Of course. Should we throw out the baby with the bath water? No. DEI absolutely needs to be overhauled, it was originally a very good thing that was indeed responsible for resources for people with disabilities, etc. It was never about quotas, and it was never supposed to be used to spread radical ideology. Affirmative action is the quota system, I don't know how to get people to understand this.
What rights do DEI policies protect that EEO laws and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not cover? DEI can also be at odds with EEO and the CRA in that they discriminate on the basis of characteristics protected in those laws.
What are "all-school DEI professionals?"
Here is a real life example of where DEI could have come in handy. Old-school DEI. I was the grant writer for an organization where a young white woman came in, with an MSW, and fired all the black employees. Not kidding. This was in 2015. She could do this because she claimed they were unqualified for the job. Then she hired only other young, white women like herself with MSWs (master's in social work). Our client based was women generally over 40 and 65% black. DEI, ad traditionally conceived, would have said: is this a good idea? How would you feel if the head you this program that is supposed to help you, an older black woman, fired all the black people and hired young white people? And said hey, maybe a black employee would have an understanding of these women's racial experience, and that is important. We finally convinced her racist ass to hire a couple of black women. And we also talked about how AGE was important. Luckily, she hadn't fired the two older workers, probably because they were white. If that racist social worker had been properly called out from a DEI viewpoint when she started her job, perhaps all those black women wouldn't have lost their jobs. Oh, and her hiring only MSWs bankrupted the organization. And all these girls came from upper middle class backgrounds; the clients did not. So there were class issues too.
I meant old-school professionals. One of whom told me, "why would I hire someone based on race and not competence? I would lose money." DEI made sure that the Civil Rights Act and EEO were upheld. It wasn't like they were passed and everything was rosy. DEI originally helped bridge differences and made sure people weren't discriminated against. Now it is being abused, but it is being unfairly scapegoated for things that frankly aren't even happening on any kind of widescale. And I am still shocked at how many intelligent people are falling for this claim that DEI was ALWAYS this horrible thing that never contributed to society. But that is all I can say at this point besides this: who do you think started addressing sexual harassment in the workplace? Those were DEI trainings. DEI is what had been backing up the civil right act, etc. and the people scapegoating DEI are the people who never wanted the Civil Right Act to pass or don't think it was necessary. Or, like Trump, love sexually harassing women and are pushed DEI has told them they can't.
The problem isn't the very existence of beauty standards (for either sex; both have them). It's the FORM that they take for women.
For women (but not men), looks are paramount. And who defines what those looks are?
Men. Specifically straight ones.
So what does this add up to? Women's value is determined by how attractive men find us. Whether they want to date, marry, or just fuck us.
Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
If not, try this on for size: imagine that male beauty standards worked the same way. They're the most important thing about a man, and they're determined by (straight) women.
So, Matt: you cured cancer! You won the Pulitzer! You took a bullet for a beloved public figure, thereby saving them from certain death!
But... no one cares. Because you aren't a "10". And every woman in the world doesn't want to fuck you. Sure, you're brilliant and brave and all that-- but you aren't DECORATIVE! In THEIR eyes. The eyes of women whom you don't even know, and whose opinion you have zero reason to give the proverbial rat's ass about.
See the problem now?
Look, I'm a bisexual woman. I've seen female beauty standards (to paraphrase Joni Mitchell) from both sides now. I would never fault straight men for being attracted to women, or for wanting to look at comely ones-- I sure do! THAT is not the problem. The problem is treating women as though that's all they are... so the measuring stick for their value as human beings is how many dicks they make hard.
Now, if we still had beauty standards for women, but they worked the same way that the ones for men do? Where it's nice to be considered-- as Derek Zoolander put it-- "really, really, really ridiculously good-looking", but (unless you're an aspiring model or the like), hardly necessary? Even if I myself still didn't qualify? No complaints :)