#dei sexism

[casuallyodd]

The Republican obsession with DEI is now the sexist line that women secret service agents are to blame for the attempt in Butler, PA.

I don't know why this is sticking out to me of the many things wrong with their reactions to this attempt. But honestly, wtf?

I edited this post because I was wrong. Women's history with protecting president's goes back due further than I thought.

I'm only snipping bits about the history generally, but it's a good overview of women's qualifications and that they earn their place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/18/female-secret-service-agents-assassination-lincoln-reagan-trump/

Yes, female agents have been protecting U.S. presidents for years

Women, y’all should know, have been protecting America’s presidents since 1861.

Yes, the guns, the earpieces, the stealth, the shades, even the mad, heroic drive to the hospital that helped save President Ronald Reagan’s life in 1981 and a middle-of-the-night ploy to save President Abraham Lincoln in 1861 have all been done by women.

...

In 1981, Special Agent Gordon was a member of Reagan’s detail, the first woman assigned this job. She wasn’t by his side the day he was shot outside the Washington Hilton, but she led the advance team’s transportation plan.

“Preparing for her assignment, Gordon drove all the possible motorcade routes to the Hilton, the White House, and even to George Washington University Hospital to ensure the streets were clear and free of any obstacles,” the Secret Service wrote, in a tribute to her part that day. “This also allowed her to familiarize herself with the different routes.”

When Gordon heard the shots fired, she abandoned the police cruiser and the motorcade plan and dove into the spare limo, diverting the presidential limo to the fastest route, getting the president to the hospital in just three minutes.

Let’s take it back even further.

In 1861, a widow named Kate Warne was working with Allan Pinkerton as America’s first female private eye. I wrote about her most famous assignment in Baltimore, hobnobbing at galas among Southern secessionists, learning of a plot to kidnap and kill President Abraham Lincoln during a carriage transfer across the city to board his train to D.C.

Warne went undercover as the sister of a really tall and ill man, displacing Lincoln’s usual bodyguard (whose answer to the plot was simply to arm Lincoln) and outmaneuvering the would-be kidnappers as she guided a shawl-draped Lincoln to his sleeping berth.

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

I say, "Ableism is bad." You say, "Ableists all live in their mom's basements and don't contribute anything to society!"

I say, "Misogyny is bad." You say, "Fuck all men."

I say, "Homophobia is bad." You say, "All religious people should be shot in the streets."

I say, "Racism is bad." You say, "White people are the devil."

I say, "Murder is bad." You say, "I hate any idiotic bitch who disagrees with this."

I say, "Body shaming is bad." You say, "Everyone who disagrees is ugly and has small dick energy."

I say, "Fascism is bad." You say, "Yeah, kill all nazis!"

To which I say: you do not know why ableism, misogyny, homophobia, racism, murder, and body shaming, and fascism are wrong.

Go, go and meditate on why these things are wrong and don't come back until you arrive at the answer.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Josephine Harvey at HuffPost:

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) suggested the attempted assassination of Donald Trump was able to occur because the Secret Service is led by a “DEI hire.” “Somebody really dropped the ball. You’ve got ... a DEI initiative person who heads up our Secret Service,” Burchett said Sunday on Fox News. The acronym refers to diversity, equity and inclusion policies, which Republicans have targeted in schools, agencies and organizations across the country. “You know, she was working at Pepsi before this,” he added. “I know she was a former Secret Service agent, but still, this is what happens when you don’t put the best players in.” In an earlier post on social media, Burchett had written, “I can’t imagine that a DEI hire from @pepsi would be a bad choice as the head of the Secret Service.” Kimberly Cheatle, the director of the Secret Service, served in the agency for 27 years in various roles — including on Joe Biden’s detail when he was vice president — before taking a role as senior director managing global security at PepsiCo North America.

She returned to the Secret Service after Biden appointed her director in 2022, making her the second woman ever in the role.

[...] A number of conservative figures have since pointed the finger at the Secret Service’s supposed focus on DEI, latching on to comments Cheatle made in 2023 about attracting more female recruits in an effort to diversify the agency. Some right-wing personalities have leveled stunningly sexist criticism questioning why the agency employs female agents at all. Burchett’s “DEI hire” comment attracted swift backlash, including from his Democratic colleague, Rep. Eric Swalwell (Calif.), who asked, “why make this about race/gender?” and told him to “grow up!”

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) crassly blamed “DEI” for the attempted assassination against Donald Trump on Saturday by launching sexist attacks on Secret Service director Kimberly Cheatle.

The right-wing war on DEI is nothing more than a racist and sexist ploy to drive out non-cis white males from public roles.

[humanitys-strongest-bamf]

us politics mention under the cut

love that most of the anti-harris rhetoric i'm seeing from the right mostly just involve them outing themselves as racist and sexist /sar

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Jacob Freedland

Published: Jun 8, 2024

Non-white applicants to the BBC’s flagship journalism training scheme were almost two and a half times more likely to get in than their white counterparts.

Since 2022, an average of 22.5 per cent of applicants were classed as coming from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds (BAME).

However over that same two-year period, BAME individuals made up 41 per cent of participants on the scheme.

In contrast, whites made up an average of 77.5 per cent of applicants but only 59 per cent of participants, since 2022.

This means that non-white applicants were 2.4 times more likely to be given a place on the highly coveted scheme than their white counterparts.

The two-year scheme, referred to as the Journalism Advanced Apprenticeship, provides participants with training and a potentially permanent role at the Corporation.

Females also had stronger chance

The findings were released via the Freedom of Information Act. Female applicants also had a stronger chance of getting in than men, but by a lesser degree.

Since 2022, an average of 60.25 per cent of applicants were women. But in that same period, women made up 71 per cent of participants.

In contrast, men made up an average of 39.75 per cent of applicants but 29 per cent of participants, meaning that womens’ chances of getting onto the scheme were 1.6 times higher than their male counterparts.

Neil O’Brien, who until the election was the Conservative MP for Harborough, said: “Unlike previous BBC schemes which have stated they are BAME-only, this scheme markets itself as open to anyone. But in practice there is discrimination.

“These practices will go into overdrive if Sir Keir Starmer becomes prime minister.

“People are not being treated fairly. We need to get back to hiring the best person for the job rather than basing it on the colour of your skin.”

‘Offer places based on merit’

In April, the Telegraph revealed that one in three participants on the scheme identified as white British.

A BBC spokesman said: “Similarly to The Telegraph’s Newsroom apprenticeship scheme, our apprenticeship courses enable people from a range of backgrounds to enter the media industry. We always offer places based on merit.

“We’re committed to our recruitment processes being fair to everyone, and attracting applicants that represent all parts of the UK, and like the Telegraph Media Group we’re committed to creating a diverse and inclusive culture at the BBC.

“The BBC runs many apprenticeship schemes, so it’s unclear what analysis can be determined from applications made to one course.”

==

DEI is systemic racism and systemic sexism, by definition.

[bulldogblues]

DEI stands for 'diversity, equity and inclusion'. It's intended to promote fair treatment and equal opportunity to participation in society regardless of sex, race, ability etc.

In the last year or so it's been co-opted by the 'anti-woke' crowd to, among other things, complain about female characters they consider insufficiently feminine.

And yes, it's exactly as pathetic as it sounds!

i think men should be locked up and incinerated

[the-cybersmith]

All the wokescold lefty communists (such as @autisticexpression2 and probably @tanadrin) acting offended by this should shut their hypocritical mouths.

This is the world you made.

Or, to be more precise, this is the world you returned us to.

For most of history; stone, bronze, and iron age alike, this was normal and acceptable behaviour.

Until a few hundred years ago, this was the standard all over the planet except for a few places in Europe and Ethiopia.

The victorious warriors of a premodern conflict would select attractive young specimens from amongst the captured fighting men of a defeated enemy tribe and bring them home to be castrated and used for pleasure.

They all had different words for it, "thrall", "slave", etc... but it was essentially the same practice.

What put an end to this practice was the advent and spread of Universalist Christian Morality, or UCM. According to UCM, the victor was obliged to be merciful, and moderate, and restrained.

However, you got rid of UCM. You got rid of it because you found its rules inconvenient. Rules like "don't shoot your political opponent in the head whilst he's in the middle of a speech".

Well, congratulations. You have what you wanted. No more UCM. Just old-fashioned might makes right Nietzchean master morality (I think @loving-n0t-heyting can give a better explanation of this than I can) as far as the eye can see.

You openly bragged on X about how you were going to lock people up if you won. You said you would bankrupt Elon Musk, and take away his businesses. Well... you lost!

These soon-to-be catamites are combatants. They admit to being adults, to having voted. They are active participants in a campaign that would see men like Robert J. O'Neil disenfranchised and humiliated. They cannot claim innocence.

They would have sent him and his friends to dei training sessions and sexism awareness lessons. They would have taxed him, and locked up his heroes, and censored him on social media.

If they won.

Instead, they lost.

And now, like many losers throughout history, they shall be subject to the unrestained whims of those who defeated them.

Harry Sisson should take some progesterone, put on a dress, and report for Harem duty.

He's a concubine now.

[murfpersonalblog]

IWTV Musings: Racism & Intersectionality, in Hollywood and in Fandom Spaces (Pt1: The Raceswaps)

This is in response/support of @adamnablelittledevil's post on this very subject:

"Hopefully people would finally understand nobody is making it up or exaggerating and it is indeed real and worse than they probably think."

Folk try to act like certain problems don't exist, especially when it concerns Black & Bipoc people in predominately white spaces with a KNOWN history of racism. People love to gaslight & be dismissive & rewrite history with revisionist narratives--especially to impressionable people & fans who are NEW to certain fandom spaces or racial dynamics/demographics, and DON'T know the history of the spaces they're entering, or the convos taking place--which is PRECISELY how we wound up with non-Black IWTV fans who ended up in the actual NEWS for prancing around an IRL plantation in 2024, acting like they never heard of slavery, ffs.

At some point, the venn diagram of accidental/willful ignorance, careless/irresponsible tone deafness, and active/passive-aggressive racism actually does intersect.

Incidents like this reflect a fandom steeped in problematic behavior that's too-long gone unchecked by the fans & network alike--who are also at fault for constantly mishandling its own project.

Contrary to poorly researched articles like USA today that denied/handwaved racist backlash against IWTV (a MUCH smaller & younger fandom compared to the LOTR & Amazon's Rings of Power adaptation), from its very inception, as early as the cast announcements, TVC's white fans were PISSED about the raceswaps & outright accused AMC of being woke/DEI (a la Bridgerton) when Jacob Anderson was cast as Louis DPDL.

A Quora thread from 2021:

A Reddit thread from July 2022: (Wayback Machine)

A Reddit thread from 2022 (circa Ep5): (Wayback Machine)

And boy oh boy did this one on Facebook in 2021 age poorly: 💀

Book fans constantly treat AMC's IWTV like performative colorblind trash, rather than as color-conscious prestige tv show that treats historical racism, colorism, classism, sexism, & homophobia seriously. They DGAF what showrunner Rolin Jones had to say about perpetuating the glorification of slaveowners, and just want a 1:1 adaptation of the books, when that was NEVER Rolin's intention.

There's fans who to this day refuse to see/accept Delainey!Claudia, and apparently there's colorist trends on Twitter (cuz ofc 🙄😒) about seeing her as Armand's daughter instead of Lestat's, just cuz of her skin color, which WTF??? (x x x):

Book/film fans hypocritically complain constantly about Bailey Bass (18-19) AND Delainey Hayles (25) playing 14y/o Claudia; but then gush about Vampire Diaries & Twilight & other shows on MTV & CW--who have all casted full grown adults as teenagers. Critiques like this are interesting (x x):

Cuz they specifically mention the Romanian kids and how Claudia supposedly "cannot at all pass for a child." However:

Some of those actual children ain't exactly tiny little toddlers & tykes either! 😅 Cuz age is a spectrum, not a monolith, imagine that.

And laaaawd don't get me started on Armand, and the BS that was happening on Reddit a few years ago (x x):

THIS is the kind of fandom we've been dealing with since DAY ONE.

And yet white fans have the nerve to whine about how tired and pissed they are whenever Bipoc fans call out the racism in the fandom/network, or god forbid look too-deep in the actual racially sensitive/relevant context of the show itself.

But I'll save my thoughts on all that for another post.

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

This is fantastic news: I don't particularly like Farage, but the Tories and Labour are both nearly as bad and ineffectual as each other, and a genuine third party alternative that can bring back sanity in regard to immigration, censorship, DEI racism and sexism and the transing of kids would have massive support if they can only get the word out to enough people, and Musk's finances would be able to do that.

[secreteviltwin]

i went to a DEI thing last week and it was almost entirely white women who showed up but it was lead by a racialized man and whenever any of the women brought up sexism he would immediately shut it down and redirect the conversation to race with a comment about how sexism isn't a problem anymore. and i think this is the reality of where we're at now where the idea behind combining these conversations to encourage intersectionality is really good but in practice it means women's issues are belittled or outright ignored because men will only ever care about things that affect them

[catboybiologist]

you're only pretending to be a girl because DEI means white men can't get jobs in accedmia anymore </parody> I am pretty sure I have actually heard this take before but hope I am wrong cause I can't remember where I heard it

yknow, this is a joke ask, but its actually a wildly fascinating topic. I could actually talk about this at length, but this is another one of those "this is extremely interesting but its easy to misspeak and I don't have the spoons or time to handle this with the attention and care this deserves" topics

tldr is that I've been thinking a lot about how I've dodged sexism up until this point by not transitioning, but also had a couple of major instances in my life where my queerness or transness specifically were used to hurt my career

But yeah this is a subject that requires a lot of thought and care and I don't have the spoons for that right now lol. Plus I would probably want to add my experience after dropping boymode in the lab, and also finish reading Whipping Girl.

[drdemonprince]

Re: the op-ed about individual problems for structural oppression

The first thing that popped into my head was experiences at my current job. I work as a therapist and have been very frustrated with how team leads and directors have a handled a colleague’s (woman of color) experience of racism and sexism from a client (cishet white male) by consulting to the therapist with various ways to continue working with the client and focusing on the therapy process, instead of finding solutions to balance supporting the clinician and also providing competent care. Further, the therapist’s request for structural changes to support therapists have gone unanswered. She is now leaving, because of unaddressed structural racism, and has shared with me the shame that has been stoked at various stages of the experience.

I am also leaving, because of structural ableism (I have physical disabilities and am autistic, though my employer doesn’t know the latter). The casual ableism (���have you tried caffeine?’ for chronic fatigue, ‘client’s dad is autistic, so he can’t understand her feelings,’ ‘client doesn’t need a wheelchair’ who was later diagnosed with POTS) has been so exhausting, both in navigating them as they come and doing the personal work necessary to continue dismantling my own internalized ableism.

Focusing on individual solutions to structural problems feeds the individual shame, which upholds the oppressive status quo, even though individual shame is unjustified when the problem is structural.

It reminded me of this article, that you may have seen: https://apple.news/AyvsxLiQGS56ajZ5U3YJhWA

These are disparate thoughts, rather than a clear, cohesive suggestion, and I offer them in the hopes they provide some sparks.

Wow! Thank you for this message. I really feel like you *get* exactly what Systemic Shame is and why it's so politically effective and damaging. I wrote about some phenomena similar to what you are describing in the book! But particularly with regard to academic and professional DEI initiatives -- always focused on individual-scale changes the employee can make and feel-good personal exploration exercises, nothing that will materially help the people who are marginalized or upend the structures of power. Lots of obsfucating liberal talk. Sorry to hear you have also had to deal with so much of it.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Li Zhou at Vox:

In their opening wave of attacks on the Democrats’ likely presidential nominee, some Republicans are homing in on Vice President Kamala Harris’s race and gender — despite certain party leaders’ pleas for them to steer clear. Members of the religious right have dubbed her a “jezebel,” while other conservative activists suggested that she’s slept her way to the top by citing past romantic relationships she’s had. GOP commentators have also echoed many of the same “birtherism” attacks that were once used against former President Barack Obama, falsely claiming that her candidacy isn’t viable because her parents were Jamaican and Indian immigrants. (Harris is a US citizen who was born in California.) And they’ve tapped into common GOP talking points about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), implying that Harris isn’t up for the job and was selected for VP solely because of her identity.

“The media propped up this president, lied to the American people for three years, and then dumped him for our DEI vice president,” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) said in a post on X. (Burchett has since said he wishes he hadn’t said this, while adding that it’s the “truth.”) There is a common thread in all these attacks: They take aim at Harris’s identity, rather than her agenda or experience. And they come despite the fact that last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson implored his party to focus their criticisms on policy and politics. “This is not personal with regard to Kamala Harris, and her ethnicity or her gender have nothing to do with this whatsoever,” Johnson said. Many of these remarks are simply hateful and examples of misogynoir, a compounded form of sexism and racism directed at Harris, a Black and South Asian woman. But there’s a sinister political calculus to them as well. Collectively, they aim to undercut Harris’s legitimacy as a candidate and are one prong of sweeping critiques Republicans have made about her eligibility. Plus, they strive to leverage existing racism and sexism against Harris, activating voters who share those biases.

“They hope to taint her with the suspicion of not having earned the positions she has achieved and harness the fears of those who resent seeing women and people of color in elite spaces,” says Juliet Hooker, a Brown University political scientist and author of Black Grief/White Grievance, a book on race and politics.

[...] These statements include implications that Harris is promiscuous and that she’s weaponized her sexuality to get to where she is — a misogynistic claim that’s often used against successful women to question whether they deserve the position that they’re in. Such attacks have manifested in conservative references to her past relationship with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and repeated offensive taglines like “Joe and the Ho.” That’s often paired with questions about why Harris hasn’t had any biological children, and how that discredits her from being a leader due to claims that she’s not sufficiently invested in the country’s future. Beyond the fact that this line of attack is incredibly dismissive of the role of stepparents in America (Harris is the stepmother to a son and daughter), these sexist statements both superimpose traditional expectations on women and seek to undermine the VP by arguing that she doesn’t conform to those standards.

Racist narratives, including “birtherism” style attacks that question Harris’s citizenship status, similarly seek to cast doubt on whether she’s eligible for office. It’s part of a long tradition of conservatives portraying nonwhite politicians as short of “real Americans” and therefore not fit to hold these positions. And statements referring to Harris as a “DEI candidate” also intend to poke at her qualifications and ignore the significant experience she’d bring as a nominee.

Those remarks stem from Biden’s statement committing to selecting a woman as his number two when he ran for office in 2020. He then narrowed his final list of contenders to include four Black women. Those choices were intended to improve representation and diversity at the highest levels of the party, which had never previously had a Black woman as president or vice president. Republicans, however, have seized on his decision to suggest that Harris was picked only for this reason, and not because she also brought significant qualifications including decades of experience as a legislator and prosecutor. Such monikers are so demeaning because they suggest that people of color are undeserving of the roles they get, and “implies that [they] can only succeed when we are needed to fill quotas, and not because of merit, hard work or talent,” writes Variety’s Clayton Davis. The misogynoir directed at Harris aims to suggest that she’s somehow illegitimate as a candidate, and signals to people who hold these biases that the GOP is a home for them. 

The MAGA cult’s sexist and racist attacks against Kamala Harris are about fears and anxieties of a woman of color potentially leading the nation.

[ramshacklefey]

Not to be outdone by Florida for long, the Ohio State Senate just passed this monstrosity of a bill to assure "intellectual freedom and diversity" in state universities. Among other things, it suggests:

Forbidding any kind of required DEI training;

Forbidding any form of affirmative action or scholarships based on race, gender, sexuality, etc (the official wording is that no one is to be "advantaged or disadvantaged" based on these things, but I'm sure you can see that this is the logical fallout from that);

Forbidding "training" about any kind of systemic oppression or privilege;

Forbidding anything in the university that would group students by sex, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender presentation. This includes extracurricular activities. The intention is pretty obviously to get rid of clubs, fraternities, and sororities for queer students or students of color, or events like Queer Proms, or graduation ceremonies for students of color. (Somewhat hilariously, it would also require co-ed dorms, and I sincerely hope that if this passes someone has the balls to turn all restrooms on a campus gender-neutral);

Requiring that all course syllabi be made publicly available on the University website, including a description of every single lecture or discussion, to be made available by the first day of the term;

Requiring that all faculty allow students to draw their own conclusions about "controversial matters" and not attempt to inculcate any particular belief about them in students. Controversial matters, btw, explicitly includes climate change. But this also means that an instructor is not allowed to tell students that systemic racism or sexism is real or a problem, and could easily be stretched to include things like vaccines or conspiracy theories. Additionally, considering the fact that many people consider any discussion of LGBT topics to be "indoctrination"... I'm sure you can see where this might go;

Requiring that all student evals for courses include the question, "Does the faculty member create a classroom atmosphere free of political, racial, gender, and religious bias?" Honestly, this could go a number of ways, but given the rest of the bill, it's pretty clear why they included it;

Requiring all students to take a course in American history. Seems legit, but combine that with the fact that we're not allowed to talk about any kind of systemic oppression;

Forbidding any state university employees from striking;

Requiring post-tenure reviews for faculty every three years, submitted to the university chancellor. At least 50% of faculty members' teaching evaluation is to be based on student evals; and

Forbidding any relationships with the Chinese government or Chinese universities (including exchange or study abroad programs).

If you live, teach, or attend a university in Ohio, please contact your state house rep.

[beardedmrbean]

https://x.com/btzpaper/status/1767666356101566740?s=46

>Hired on a ip that pointed out that racism and isolation is bad

>Refuse to hire white people

This is the bitch that boondocks was making fun off

>Hired on a ip that pointed out that racism and isolation is bad

>That was created by 2 Jewish men as well, which if the current system is running that means they're white too, (handy when it's not flip flopping every other day, someone puts a horn in a game they're an oppressed minority.

Libs should have tagged U.S. EEOC (@USEEOC) / X find out if openly admitting to not hiring people based on race falls under their umbrella or if they should just file a civil rights lawsuit.

Might be a unpopular position with some of my moots and followers but one of the biggest tragedies of the massive DEI push is things like this

Programs that have been in place for 50-60 years or more to help minority owned businesses get started on their feet, buy a home, go to college, you name it there was probably a program to help people out with it.

People pushed and shoved and screamed racism/sexism and told every white person they were the devil and finally some of them took a look at the wording of the civil rights act and realized it protects them too, which I'm sure some people had complained about these programs before but not enough to fuss with.

But now, there's a cadre of people that are pissed off about the way they're being treated and figure if you're going to act like I'm the devil I may as well play the part.

Which from a legal, letter of the law standpoint, there's not really any way to defend against these lawsuits that I can think of, you can't exclude on any of the things covered by the civil rights act.

And it sucks because this is going to hurt minority communities and I wish there were a way to dial back time and slide some of these programs under the radar again, the problem is we'd still have people like the woman in the video openly bragging about it.

Granted that's easier to deal with and doesn't actually damage minority communities, at least not till people get fed up enough to sue a federal agency that exists to help black farmers pay the bills, because it's illegal to discriminate based on race, in retaliation.

But ya, this woman is in for a bad time I think, stupid to brag about that with all the stuff I'm talking about here going on.

[o0katiekins0o]

The same dudes picking apart female video game protagonists right down to the shape of their zygomatic bones to prove they're being "uglified" because of some secret DEI agenda that they can't prove exists but just *feel* like it does; will ABSOLUTELY scoff and say "its not that deep" when you suggest their constant consumption of media centering masculine power fantasies and gratuitous fan service perpetuate the institutional sexism that blatantly already exists.