DEI is a mens movement

a reply to: Xtrozero

Dude, I lived in Hawaii for 35 years. Raised my kids from pre-school to university there. I worked in the hotel industry. I know that ethnic brown folks were kept in the back of the house and whites and people of color with white features, who sounded white, worked the front of the house.

Affirmative action was a huge deal in Hawaii, HUGE!

Tulsi looks white, sounds white, but is Samoan AND Hindu! She ticks off the affirmative action boxes with ease.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Affirmative action was a huge deal in Hawaii, HUGE!

Tulsi looks white, sounds white, but is Samoan AND Hindu! She ticks off the affirmative action boxes with ease.

You keep missing the point I'm making that everyone you keep naming didn't need DEI, and so the big question is whether DEIU has helped or hurt society as a whole.

Pretty much all the progressive nonsense is being orchestrated by the kind of people they think they hate.

The "trans" agenda is quite obviously misogynistic. The ideology is completely incompatible with real feminism. The only people hurt by it are women (in addition to the trans people who are hurt by having their mental illness indulged into overdrive by "affirmation.")

Modern feminism is staunchly bigoted.

BLM and their other racial movements are all blatantly racist.

Whenever white progressives get control of an area, the first thing they do is bring back segregation. See segregated college commencements and graduations, segregated holiday parties, they even had a segregated garden in that district of Seattle they took over during the 2020 riots.

Socialism itself is founded on bigoted attitudes and stereotypes about an entire class of people (the rich.)

Progressives are extremely bigoted people. Everything they believe is founded on bigoted concepts.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You keep missing the point I'm making that everyone you keep naming didn't need DEI

Yes they did. They are also among the giants on whose shoulders other affirmative action recipients have stood.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

The "trans" agenda is quite obviously misogynistic. The ideology is completely incompatible with real feminism. The only people hurt by it are women (in addition to the trans people who are hurt by having their mental illness indulged into overdrive by "affirmation.")

They deserve an asterisk in individual sports accomplishments compared to the biological field. That's about it. Feminism protected.

Are you familiar with more radical feminism? One gained popularity in the 70s as "Radicalesbian" philosophy. It was built on disrupting the patriarchy through female primacy. The idea of putting matriarchal groups on top, while simultaneously obliterating heteronormative gender roles ingrained into alpha male dominated culture.

A radical feminist society would likely endorse men likewise embracing a transgressive gender role that exalts female primacy by proxy.

I guess my commentary matches the satirical avatar now. But it helps to understand the variations of feminism.

There also what I call "Witch Feminism", where a woman embraces her natural assets to assert her own will and empower herself by using the tendency of a male dominated society to her benefit.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Yes they did. They are also among the giants on whose shoulders other affirmative action recipients have stood.

Well, no they didn't lol... They took advantage of it if they did, but as I showed they didn't really use it, so maybe stick to you liberals that didn't need it but still used it.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

The "trans" agenda is quite obviously misogynistic. The ideology is completely incompatible with real feminism. The only people hurt by it are women (in addition to the trans people who are hurt by having their mental illness indulged into overdrive by "affirmation.")

They deserve an asterisk in sports. That's about it. Feminism protected.

Are you familiar with radical feminism. It gained popularity in the 70s as "Radicalesbian" philosophy. It was built on disrupting the patriarchy through female primacy. The idea of putting matriarchal groups on top, whole simultaneously obliterating heteronormative gender roles.

A radical feminist society would likely endorse men likewise embracing a transgression gender role that exalts female primacy by proxy.

I guess my commentary matches the avatar. But it helps to understand the variations of feminism.

There also a "Witch Feminism", where a woman embraces her natural assets to assert her own will and empower herself by using the tendency of a male dominated society to her benefit.

Sounds like actual feminism accomplished their goals and new nonsense needed to be dreamed up to give "activists" new "oppression" they could use as an excuse for their failures.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
Pretty much all the progressive nonsense is being orchestrated by the kind of people they think they hate.

The "trans" agenda is quite obviously misogynistic. The ideology is completely incompatible with real feminism. The only people hurt by it are women (in addition to the trans people who are hurt by having their mental illness indulged into overdrive by "affirmation.")

Modern feminism is staunchly bigoted.

BLM and their other racial movements are all blatantly racist.

Whenever white progressives get control of an area, the first thing they do is bring back segregation. See segregated college commencements and graduations, segregated holiday parties, they even had a segregated garden in that district of Seattle they took over during the 2020 riots.

Socialism itself is founded on bigoted attitudes and stereotypes about an entire class of people (the rich.)

Progressives are extremely bigoted people. Everything they believe is founded on bigoted concepts.

Well said👌
Hard to believe so many people fall for the bigotry.
They aren’t even hiding it.
The minorities need to stop the madness. It’s hurting them and their kids more than everybody else.
And the feminists…, crickets from them as women’s sports, privacy and respect continues to erode.
When will they finally speak up.
I guess as long as they have their precious abortion who cares right.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
Pretty much all the progressive nonsense is being orchestrated by the kind of people they think they hate.

The "trans" agenda is quite obviously misogynistic. The ideology is completely incompatible with real feminism. The only people hurt by it are women (in addition to the trans people who are hurt by having their mental illness indulged into overdrive by "affirmation.")

Modern feminism is staunchly bigoted.

BLM and their other racial movements are all blatantly racist.

Whenever white progressives get control of an area, the first thing they do is bring back segregation. See segregated college commencements and graduations, segregated holiday parties, they even had a segregated garden in that district of Seattle they took over during the 2020 riots.

Socialism itself is founded on bigoted attitudes and stereotypes about an entire class of people (the rich.)

Progressives are extremely bigoted people. Everything they believe is founded on bigoted concepts.

Well said👌
Hard to believe so many people fall for the bigotry.
They aren’t even hiding it.
The minorities need to stop the madness. It’s hurting them and their kids more than everybody else.

According to the polling, the minorities are waking up to the toxic, racist Democrat party. Democrats never stopped being the party of the KKK and Jim Crow.

Doesn't mean they're gonna become Republicans. That's fine with me. I just hope they realize that dumping the Democrat party doesn't solve the problem. These nutjob, bigoted progressives still control every major institution in the country.

And the feminists…, crickets from them as women’s sports, privacy and respect continues to erode.
When will they finally speak up.
I guess as long as they have their precious abortion who cares right.

Yeah it's funny how so many retired female athletes are perfectly fine with men in women's sports. So brave!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Yes they did. They are also among the giants on whose shoulders other affirmative action recipients have stood.

Well, no they didn't lol... They took advantage of it if they did, but as I showed they didn't really use it, so maybe stick to you liberals that didn't need it but still used it.

It's not them that used it. It was the people (The Bush Dynasty] who hired them that applied it. used it to make themselves look good.

Clarence Thomas believed that he pulled himself up by his bootstraps to get where he was, that he was a self-made man. Yet, George HW Bush hired him because he fit the bill for the qualified black man that he was looking for to replace Thurgood Marshall.

Colin Powell and Condi Rice were more than qualified, but they were put up front for affirmitive action / politically motivated optics to make the Bush Administration look good.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Colin Powell and Condi Rice were more than qualified, but they were put up front for affirmitive action / politically motivated optics to make the Bush Administration look good.

There you go stretching the meaning of something to fit your point when your original point sucked. You said it...more than qualified... A better example is the liberals with Harris, a Black woman who sucks on many levels and even her own constants think she sucks, but she is a Black Female...

Just because someone is Black, or a female doesn't mean DEI was used when they were the best choice to begin with. You can stretch your little point to say any Black person or woman is hired based on DEI that Kennedy frame worked and not their own merits, and this is why the left is so crappy and many are leaving the idiocy of it all.

I see you are now morphing it into some kind of "politically motivated optics" which can mean anything and backing away from college.

originally posted by: Degradation33
But it helps to understand the variations of feminism.

YES!!!!!!

That is so important.

Can't tell you how many times I've been called a "man hater" for supporting ERA.

Individuals are individuals -- women are not a group think. Nor are the women who support ERA.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Sounds like actual feminism accomplished their goals and new nonsense needed to be dreamed up to give "activists" new "oppression" they could use as an excuse for their failures.

Not really.

This is just a single rhetorical example for a type of feminism. Definitely not universal. A single woman might see a man's gender transgression as on par with her same patriarchal indoctrination being overcame, and might accept her to a point. But there might be a greater acknowledgement of biological accomplishment, specific to what ultimately can't be denied. A woman might want the asterisk while still being accepting.

I knew a non-pandering woman that passed so well men were oblivious and she demanded they understand she was transgender first. Hence acknowledgement of biological gender as being ultimately important where relationships are concerned.

That gets overlooked because it undermines the sex v. gender delineation being attempted. The born one no longer has to match the idealized one. I will never have a problem with that.

But my friend would still want people to ultimately know her gender is female but her sex is male. She wants to be called her and she (called preferred pronouns now) only until it gets personal. Then comes in a necessary crying game acknowledgement.

I think there will always be something along those lines. That's just me though.

As far as accomplishing the goals of feminism. While one might appreciate a male version of gender transgression, there is a sociological inequality that remains. That some might argue is trying to be upheld with every speech from the kitchen.

But I'll use a no-longer topical example.

The woman's soccer star Megan Rapinoe is a example of "thanks, but no thanks". She fought tirelessly for equal pay between the USWNT and USMNT and got it, then smiled as she protested the country free enough to change through her activism, that she represented, and happily blew a penalty kick, some might say subconsciously. Meanwhile Julie Ertz had a bit of patriotism. I read it iinserted a political divide into the locker room which ultimately exposed them as human and led to their terrible play. They were too politicized to play.

It had no place. Rapinoe was an amazing player, and was amazing for getting equal pay, and even being an outspoken proud lesbian, but simultaneously made everyone less liberal look bad. Like her teammates that may have been conservative and straight.

Made equal pay for woman woke by association.

That is how I can sort of agree with your point about the downside for actual woman, that may not want an achievement of equality to be synonymous with explicitly liberal values.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Yes they did. They are also among the giants on whose shoulders other affirmative action recipients have stood.

Well, no they didn't lol... They took advantage of it if they did, but as I showed they didn't really use it, so maybe stick to you liberals that didn't need it but still used it.

It's not them that used it. It was the people (The Bush Dynasty] who hired them that applied it. used it to make themselves look good.

Clarence Thomas believed that he pulled himself up by his bootstraps to get where he was, that he was a self-made man. Yet, George HW Bush hired him because he fit the bill for the qualified black man that he was looking for to replace Thurgood Marshall.

Colin Powell and Condi Rice were more than qualified, but they were put up front for affirmitive action / politically motivated optics to make the Bush Administration look good.

a reply to: Degradation33

Rapinoe was the teams cancer.
She set back women’s soccer more than anybody.
Then she sold her fellow women under the bus with the whole tranny thing.

Equal pay for unequal merit.
Is that what the feminists really wanted?
Well they got it. What a joke and everybody knows it.
Same as the WNBA, a subsidized league.

a reply to: Degradation33

The problem is feminism did accomplish its goals. Women have the same rights as men. Feminism has been left with issues that don't exist (the myth of the "gender pay gap" that doesn't exist) or extremely nuanced issues like abortion that they strangely have to lie about to defend their position (like falsely claiming opposition to abortion is based in misogyny, despite the fact that almost half of pro-lifers are women.)

Women are not oppressed in this country and haven't been for decades. The only real issue threatening women's rights these days is the misogynistic "trans" movement being pushed by progressives. And most "feminists" are silent on it.

Feminism is no longer a women's rights movement. Its primary concern is churning out Democrat voters, which is why they will take demonstrably anti-woman positions like supporting the new patriarchy of the trans movement.

The same thing happened to BLM. BLM's roots are in Marxism and their priority is getting Democrats elected, which explains why they will sometimes do things that harm the black community. As long as they're helping Democrats, they couldn't care less about the black community.

Side-bar: and if you wanna talk about the "pay gap": The only place it still exists is in very specific areas, like sports. (And in woke liberal Hollywood--as usual the most progressive people are normally enormous hypocrites.) Let's use your example of soccer. Women straight-up don't deserve the same pay as men in soccer, and I'm not even gonna use the "it's a business" argument, which is a totally valid argument but I"m sure you'd just blow it off.

The argument is women should be paid for the same work. But that's not what you get paid for in sports. You get paid for your performance (minus things like endorsements and other ways players leverage their popularity to make money, and in this area women actually have an advantage.) So yes the women's team plays the same game, but could they produce the performance the men do? Can they run as fast, are they as strong, etc. etc., and can produce a performance capable of beating the same teams the men do?

No, of course not. They simply can't perform to that level because of biology, which is why women's sports is separate in the first place. You can complain all day that they still won championships so they're better. That's not what draws people to sports. People watch sports to see people performing feats at the edge of human ability. Men are just more impressive to watch than women. That's why they draw bigger audiences, even among women. It's not rocket science.

It's fundamentally no different than if you were hired to work some type of production job and you got paid by the number of items that you complete every day. You might bust your ass all day, but a person working just as hard but who is just a little faster or more coordinated than you will produce better results and EARN more pay, even though they're doing the same job as you and you're working just as hard as they are. They're producing better results. You can cry all day that that's "not fair," although it is perfectly fair and isn't some form of oppression.

This difference isn't apparent in women's sports because for the most part they're not performing on the same field during the same game at the same time as the men. The difference is still there, it's just detached so you don't see it.

That's all the "pay gap" in women's sports is. They play the same game, work just as hard, but in most sports they can't do it as well as men can. That difference in performance is what justifies the additional money that the men make. That and the very valid and irrefutable business/supply and demand argument that progressives only hate because it's based in capitalism.

Other than outlier cases like sports (where it's justified) or acting (where women literally just take less money and then whine about it), it's a non-issue. Go on a job site and find a job listing where the starting pay section says "Men: $20/hr, women: $16/hr" or something like that. Good luck finding an example of that, because in 99% of circumstances that's illegal.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Sure....
You go ahead and keep thinking that affirmative action was never needed and never had anything to do with the strategic placement of people of color in high government positions for political optics.

People of color always had a fair shake when it came to jobs, education, housing and credit. The people of color who claimed they had to work 10 times harder than their white peers for the jobs/money were delusional.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Last time I checked it was still an 18% disparity.

If you can't acknowledge that, the rest of my argument would be pointless.

I will say that even an environment you think would be liberal undervalues female contribution because several industries are ultimately still a man's world.

Like Hollywood might be portraying woke values on screen, but it's still very much this behind the scenes.



But that's my opinion, and you can toss it the trash if you want.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Last time I checked it was still an 18% disparity.

We're talking about 2 different things then.

You're talking about a number with no context.

I'm talking about what the number means.

Edit: As for you contention that women are still disadvantaged in some areas. Okay, and? Men are disadvantaged in other areas, as I pointed out. You will never get it to the point where everyone has exactly the same experience out of life.

Christ, maybe be happy you got equality and have the same opportunities that we do and start taking advantage of it? Lots of women do it and they're killin it. Nothing is holding you back but your own mindset. Same goes for men. Not sure what else you could ask for.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I agreed with the National Team salaries being equal. Woman are just as big, if not bigger than the men.

Of course her former NWSL pro salary would never equal even an MLS salary. Just like a WNBA will never make NBA money. It's a 62k league minimum vs 1.1 million dollar league minimum. That's insurmountable, but there's no reason FIBA team USA counterparts can't adopt this standard and pay out equal.

It takes specific endorsements. And it is so awesome the highest earning NIL players during march madness of ALL TIME is Kaitlin Clark at 3.1 million. Whose team is in a struggle with WVU right now, but still. Looks like they'll win. This year's top two are both woman. Kaitlin Clark and Angel Reese. 4 or top 5 march earners though NIL are woman actually.

That was changed in part to these progressive woke values. The emphasis Clark receives is for being the best female basketball player ever. And her status and draw could change things down the road.

Especially the explosion in Woman's sports attendance.

And maybe in 5 years the CBA for the WNBA can negotiate for something with 6 or maybe approaching 7 figures.