You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Margaret Pless / idlediletante / Stan - Official Kiwi Farms Advertiser and Enthusiast Who Has Proudly Eaten Ass. Now Posting Her Tits to Own the Troons!
Current Board and C-suite of companies I've worked for:
60/84 male BOD/operating (management) committee members. All of the men but one are white. So, in an American world comprising 30% white men (or about 8% worldwide), 70.2.% (59/84) of the senior seats at these very (very) large companies are white men.
Yes, white men are hurting in corporate America. Absolutely slaughtered, no prospects.
And now we all see the level of the idiot you are. The presence of white men at the top doesn't mean white men at the bottom don't face exclusion. Like 99% of women, you ignore 99% of men for that small 1%.
No, I said assuming those injustices to have existed, they don't justify current ones. It really is no different than a black American crying about slavery as justification for affirmative action. And given the overall decline in the capabilities of universities, corporations, hospitals and government agencies, the exclusion was entirely justified to begin with and not an injustice.
While I was referring to employment there, I'll go alone with your shift to politics: Why do women deserve the right to vote when they've never been expected to fight for the nation? Nor have they campaigned for a chance to do so when the chances do so presented themselves.
No I mean shouldn't. Every woman who've I've ever had this conversation with assumes it is the duty of the man to provide for her the woman when they are in a relationship. If you don't expect your boyfriend/husband to pay the majority of the bills, then good for you, but you are a rare one.
You have nothing to say about women cheering on men for the decisions made? I'm surprised.
How is it a brazen lie? It isn't controversial that whites, men and straights face hiring discrimination. That companies have actively stopped hiring white men or told their hiring departments to ignore qualified white men for under qualified minorities.
Current Board and C-suite of companies I've worked for:
60/84 male BOD/operating (management) committee members. All of the men but one are white. So, in an American world comprising 30% white men (or about 8% worldwide), 70.2.% (59/84) of the senior seats at these very (very) large companies are white men.
Yes, white men are hurting in corporate America. Absolutely slaughtered, no prospects.
How many of those are right wing European males with opinions similar to mine?
Zero, I assume.
How many were fellow white Jewish?
How many were classical libs or outright progressives that we would mercilessly mock here?
Skin color is never enough. I would take a dozen Clarence Thomases, with whom I don't even agree on much, as he's more of a conservative/trad/libertarian, against somebody like Pete Buttigieg or some mayo lib.
These big corpos are happy to integrate whites that are OK with their progressive culture. The problem is with right wing males.
It's intersectional.
You're allowed to hold some conservative views if Muslim brown male. Or if black. But the whiter you go, the more Christian, the harder it is to have public right wing views without severe consequences, unless you're rich like Elol.
But you know all these things. You're just sneakily omitting them.
How many of those are right wing European males with opinions similar to mine?
Zero, I assume.
How many were fellow white Jewish?
How many were classical libs or outright progressives that we would mercilessly mock here?
Skin color is never enough. I would take a dozen Clarence Thomases, with whom I don't even agree on much, as he's more of a conservative/trad/libertarian, against somebody like Pete Buttigieg or some mayo lib.
Since when did DEI cover political beliefs? There's a handful of things that do not put you in a protected class. Being a furry is one of them, and another is noxious political beliefs. HR can totally can you if you keep getting into political slapfights at work, so maybe that is why you don't see your clone represented within the titans of industry. (Although you do, you have Elon, you even mentioned him.)
right wing males can easily pass as normal males if they are able to stop fucking ranting about their political beliefs for like, 10 minutes and leave the MAGA hat at home.
You're allowed to hold some conservative views if Muslim brown male. Or if black. But the whiter you go, the more Christian, the harder it is to have public right wing views without severe consequences, unless you're rich like Elol.
But you know all these things. You're just sneakily omitting them.
??? There are numerous white conservative men in the US. They're pretty out about their political opinions. A bunch of them already hold office. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
I think you might be one of those guys who, if upon entering a ballroom, noticed that 10% of the people inside were women, would complain about the female takeover of the ballroom space and darkly mutter to the other men that the women have taken it too far this time.
I don't know too much about the corporate ladder since I've been in university for the past couple of years. But I think it really is undeniable that things do suck right now for young white people and particularly young white men since they are naturally the lowest in the privilege hierarchy.
Especially with some studies showing you have almost three times as higher chances for university admission with a minority background.
In addition to ESG scores which are directed towards reducing the number of white people and white males, there are also tax incentives for minority owned businesses who can demonstrate they are owned by a woman or minority, and have a certain company makeup of woman and minority board members/workers. Its especially egregious when you hear the consulting firms talk about how there are too much white male representation in a mostly white male hobby, or that Blackrock has to "force behaviors" to get rid of us, as if the congregation of too many of us in one place is offensive to people.
There are some studies that also show that women and mothers may also be favored over male applicants. The study even mentions that laws in European countries permit discrimination in certain circumstances. You might say "oh well this is Sweden". I seriously doubt that this is too far off from some of the academic circles in the USA seeing as you can openly talk about shooting white people in the face and still have your job.
Honestly you can only sit through so many mandatory symposiums in college about how the lack of women, LGBT, and other races in stem fields is "an indicator of systemic oppression (from white men)" without thinking the system is out to get you. I have seen so many female and minority professors in stem who simply do not belong, do to a glaring lack of skill. I've heard many minority graduate students who are my age complain about how presenters don't reflect "the global community", like this country somehow owes something to outsiders.
I also really wonder how many of these "white male" board members are Jewish, who by their own words do not consider themselves white.
If I'd had kids with another Jew I'd circumcize, but since I didn't, I probably wouldn't. This hasn't come up as a problem yet because I've yet to have a male baby.
Since when did DEI cover political beliefs? There's a handful of things that do not put you in a protected class. Being a furry is one of them, and another is noxious political beliefs. HR can totally can you if you keep getting into political slapfights at work, so maybe that is why you don't see your clone represented within the titans of industry. (Although you do, you have Elon
DEI creates political slapfights by just existing. I despise Elol. He does NOT represent me in any way. I would likely expropriate Xshitter from him if I could.
Conservatives in the US do NOT represent me either, in fact, they are my political enemies. I don't give 2c at their conserving and cheap traditions, their shilling for corporations, their sabotage of Ukraine, their friendliness towards Israel and more.
When I say right wing, the minimum is openly exclusionary. Orban in Hungary for example. Or PIS in Poland. Or Jewish Zionists. They are like the minimum.
You HAVE to be openly exclusionary of rival groups. "We don't want X here, this land is for US and nobody else. We will militarize borders and put the army on it.".
And you have to be hostile to sexual minorities, preferably without euphemisms, like calling "LGBTQ ideology free zones" or moaning about "groomers". It has to be explicit, no slurs, just clear exclusion and ostracizing, and labeling specific behaviors as abnormal, and others as normal and desirable.
Don't associate me with conservatism ever again, it's insulting. I don't care about traditions, religion, I am quite anti-capitalist too.
I think you might be one of those guys who, if upon entering a ballroom, noticed that 10% of the people inside were women, would complain about the female takeover of the ballroom space and darkly mutter to the other men that the women have taken it too far this time.
If I went to a ballroom and there would be only 10% chicks in there, I would leave.
Ballrooms should be like 75% women, so the 25% men have a choice without needing to compete too hard.
Maggie is incapable of having any kind of discussion in good faith. She will lie when she feels it benefits her. Then she whines that people don’t take her seriously.
Yes, white men are hurting in corporate America. Absolutely slaughtered, no prospects.
I agree with this sentiment. I believe this site is at its heart apolitical—on the surface or in certain forums it can certainly appear that every poster is an amalgamation of “4chan altright nazi shitlord”, if you scratch beneath the surface at all it becomes very clear that isn’t the case.
Stepping an inch outside the progressive consensus is “4chan altright Nazi shitlord” coded now. It’s like Saudi Islam. Even people who are 85% fellow travelers need to be careful.
Lmao Nobert just downloaded this map and is crossreferencing it against Bang:South America by Roosh V and a housing price index normalized for buying power of USD.
I’m sure there are plenty of legacy crackers, or crackers who founded companies and had to be let on the board. But the push at every level underneath is for fewer whites, unless those whites are part of another protected class. This is undeniable. So for everyone under 60, the presence of some old white guy on Exxon’s board means nothing. The NBA is diverse. The NHL isn’t. QED.
Is DEI an immutable fact of the universe? Because the entire concept seems political to me. And many institutions have diversity pledges or policies. DEI is a left-wing political belief. By institutionalizing it you’re implicitly excluding those who disagree.
right wing males can easily pass as normal males if they are able to stop fucking ranting about their political beliefs for like, 10 minutes and leave the MAGA hat at home.
Don’t ask don’t tell is back, baby. (But I can talk about my impassioned progressive beliefs all I want)
Also lol “normal males.” Most men are right of center, and there are reams of evidence showing that progressives have higher rates of neurosis and mental illness. But maybe I should try to be a normal male like Lucas Roberts or Keith Olbermann or Patrick Tomlinson.
Is DEI an immutable fact of the universe? Because the entire concept seems political to me. And many institutions have diversity pledges or policies. DEI is a left-wing political belief. By institutionalizing it you’re implicitly excluding those who disagree.
Don’t ask don’t tell is back, baby. (But I can talk about my impassioned progressive beliefs all I want)
Also lol “normal males.” Most men are right of center, and there are reams of evidence showing that progressives have higher rates of neurosis and mental illness. But maybe I should try to be a normal male like Lucas Roberts or Keith Olbermann or Patrick Tomlinson.
Regardless of how much we debate this, some things are clear:
- there is a conflict of interests
- the groups with power have a vested interest to depoliticize their opponents and dismiss their concerns
We're now in an intermediary era where males are too retarded to fight back. In general most formerly privileged categories are still dormant.
I am fairly sure the neoliberal system will fail to maintain control though, because the people at the helm are fairly corrupt and quite incompetent, and as we see in these topics, their supporters are generally unable to maintain the appearances and instead gleefully embrace their bashing the chuds.
However, only by clearly recognizing that this is a political struggle for power we will ever change anything. Most men are really uncomfortable taking this step.
No I mean shouldn't. Every woman who've I've ever had this conversation with assumes it is the duty of the man to provide for her the woman when they are in a relationship.
But you said,
"Nor am I aware of a single woman who doesn't think men shouldn't have to provide for them when the two are in a relationship."
That's says you're not aware of a single woman who doesn't think men shouldn't. A woman who doesn't think he shouldn't thinks he should. So you said you aren't aware of any woman who thinks men should provide. That's the opposite of "women think men have a duty to provide." I know what you meant, you just had one too many negatives. Not meaning to pick, or at least not meanly.
Lol, never have. Can't imagine. (On the contrary, I have lost more money covering men than most people earn in multiple years. As I've said, I acknowledge my poor discernment and decisionmaking on that front.)
I've heard the same from men who fought about men who haven't.
A little history? The short answer is that even actually fighting on the front lines is not and has never been a United States requirement for voting status, much less merely being hypothetically conscripted.
*Some post-Colonial-era states tossed out property ownership/taxpaying requirements and swapped in having served in the army or militia; didn't last. And, of course, despite Lincoln's efforts, Black soldiers who actually fought in that terrible war were not permitted to vote.
But let's get right to the origin: there is no Constitutional proscription against women (or non-white people, either) voting. It was simply convention and a big bit of male-centeredness in local/state lawmaking. In fact, in colonial/post- New Jersey women property owners/taxpayers could vote, and in a variety of places "free" Black men could as well (NJ disenfranchised both groups in 1807.).
The Constitution gave states the rights to manage voting. Thus, a hodge-podge varying by place and circumstance until reality reared its head.
Initially, the typical was landowners + eldest son, screw the second-borns and everyone else. Know who agitated for voting expansion in the most? Unpropertied men. Yes, the poor, the young, the ones without a silver spoon. So blame young white men without property if you hate broad voting rights!
Property/tax requirements (and other barriers) slowly and raggedly fell off, and then we realized that adults other than white men were also due the fundamental rights on which the country and government were premised.*. States wouldn't stop being assholes** and swinging between acknowledging and barring voting rights, but one by one they began to acknowledge women's rights to vote, so the Federal government finally said fuck off, you're slow and stupid, we're amending the Constitution, retards. (OK, it took a couple of efforts and a while to get the concept right.)
*property/tax requirements fell away because they were successfully argued as counter to the "government by the people" ethos of this country - i.e., voting is a fundamental right.
**not just with women. The fuckery occurred with Black Americans, Asians, territorial populations, Native Americans, poll taxes against the poors, etc. And of course, even after the 19th, non-white women were still screwed. 50 years later, most of it got finally straightened out. The 2000s were a travesty, with the big news being restoration of voting rights to felons state-by-state. I digress.
But back to this specious business about voting being premised on draft eligibility, do you think women who have actually fought in wars deserve to be able to vote? Or no, because they volunteered and didn't have to? (Considering we have an all-volunteer military now and for the last 50 years, except on paper, that would be a loser thin argument at the very best. )
If you want to move away from associations (limiting voting to mere draft eligibility [yikes what about people with heel spurs?!]) that have never been part of the United States of America, we could go back to property ownership being the primary criterion. I'm covered.
But we've already established that property ownership as the criterion does not mesh with the Constitution or the spirit of the country. So that's out.
That aside, and back to what the country's about: voting has never been dependent (minor example above notwithstanding) on draft eligibility, or even participation. In fact, the association is the opposite: the voting age was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam War because people who could join the military and potentially die for the country had no say at the polls. Instead of limiting voting by association with war, the United States considers voting so fundamental that it was determined that it needed to be expanded to people old enough to join the service (voluntarily or otherwise). It's a nuanced difference, maybe, but it is utterly key.
...
As for women cheering men who were against (or in Congress voting against it/working against) the 19th Amendment/its purpose, I am not sure what you're wanting me to object to.
Most are American; most are very conservative. As for aligning to your specific opinions, I couldn't say. They are likely (I speculate) more pragmatic in their day-to-day views/life than what you've expressed here. In their hearts-of-hearts, who knows.
My large companies have all been very conservative. The current - being the most recent - has more of the DEI stuff, because it's 2024, not 2004 or even 2014. That said, there's not too much DEI in effect where the power sits or rises from, not to worry.
I'm not being sneaky; I just did a quick lookup and the facts were what they were. However, I went the simpler route today of looking up data for F100 and F500 boards (bods tend to be a bit more diverse than senior leadership within orgs).
And yes "women/poc" (lumped together as a headline data point, which says something) are making gains. But not to worry: model projections indicate it will be 2060 before white men are only represented at their population percentage (well, their population percentage today, which will also be lower then, so still ahead of the game). In one sense, that makes some sense; on the other hand, the rapidity of the shift is somewhat startling.
I'm not cheering harm to men in general, or white men in general. It sucks to experience both casual and formal sexism (or some other -ism) - especially when it messes with coin or means objective merit isn't recognized or is assumed away. I haven't particularly enjoyed those experiences. The people who will do well are the people who work hard as fuck and stand out for it. Yeah, it's hard. And yes, it feels unfair when there is or seems to be a cap on how many people who look like you get picked. But 1) there will still be more white men hired and promoted than there were women and minorities of both sexes hired 50, or even 30, years ago; and 2) the vituperative anger when it hasn't even impacted 90% of the angries, and the nasty "you fucking bubble-headed gold-digger cunts (who are paradoxically after my job (odd)) are totally incompetent and don't even deserve to participate in something so basic that it only [in some countries, or at least in cartoons] required a man be able to sign with an X, and everyone but white men deserves enslavement" garbage is just...sad. I don't think it serves well as a life philosophy, nor gives a positive path ahead, but that's just, like, my opinion man.
Lol. I'll allow that time has passed since I was in school or of baby-bearing age, so might be different now (I think it is), but my personal experience was the opposite. Some for hiring, but more for significant advancement (and some of the conversations were everything short of "she's marriageable/not marriageable so she will/won't be a good bet to promote"; no lie, I've been there for those convos). But I'm going to go back and look at your link bc I know things can change.
As I mentioned above, for the companies I looked at, few (I know/knew some of them, and though you never know, I feel OK guessing a "Briley O'Meara*" with ginger hair and freckles or a blond "Titus Von Helden*" as white guys.)
It's a casual point about power and opportunity. Would you like it if men were hired solely for low-level, no-advancement jobs, and all of the top dogs were women? How would that be good?
If you keep hammering someone, at a certain point they might not have that extra slice of cake, or that glass of wine. It's sort of a shitty thing to do, sure, it's even worse for folks to act like they are doing a service, but just calling a fat person a fat person adds to the chorus really. Now the qualifier of "acceptable" is something else entirely. I think it should be okay to do a bit more shaming, but that's an entirely different discussion.
Now, I'll openly admit no one here is doing it to help you, they are mostly mocking you, sort of like you are openly trying to mock us. I think that's why most folks are pushing back on you claiming you are above us, you are down here in the dirt with us. Personally, I have tried to keep myself from being an asshole to you, that doesn't serve my purpose anymore.
And yes "women/poc" (lumped together as a headline data point, which says something) are making gains. But not to worry: model projections indicate it will be 2060 before white men are only represented at their population percentage
For most people its really about being fair. Even the vast majority of right wingers (save the far right, or like backwoods hicks) just want the system to be merit based instead of affirmative action trash where certain applicants are not held to the same standards of others. It just makes people resentful and doubt the whole system. Controlling for the invisible variable of systematized oppression (or past oppression) isn't helping anyone, and its not going to lead anywhere good.
On the contrary, I have lost more money covering men than most people earn in multiple years. As I've said, I acknowledge my poor discernment and decisionmaking on that front.
And now we all see the level of the idiot you are. The presence of white men at the top doesn't mean white men at the bottom don't face exclusion. Like 99% of women, you ignore 99% of men for that small 1%.
"Six of the ten people who decided white males will no longer be considered for promotion are themselves white males, that means no white male is actually affected by this policy."
