Tag: women

By on 1 Comment

The Conservative Press is agog at Jacob Savage’s the Lost Generation. Savage details the trials and tribulations of White men trying to break into Academia or Cultural positions right now. It is all DEI and racial discrimination. I am afraid they are emphasizing only one aspect of his argument while downplaying and missing some of his more salient points. They are going on about how lesser candidates who are women or people of color are getting the jobs that should rightfully being going to White men. This was not Savage’s point at all.

Savage points out that this problem exists for young white men and not older white men. Older White men already have their jobs in Academia and in Cultural institutions while younger White men are vying for open positions. The problem for younger White men is that these positions, in the past, skewed disproportionately to White men. This past discrimination worked against women and people of color. So if you presently have a staff of 10 and 7 of them are white men, what happens when a position becomes available and your institution is interested in diversity. The young white men are at a disadvantage. Not because of women and people of color but because the institution already has too many white men.

Is this unfair? Yes, absolutely. But how can you achieve two varied goals — a diversified work force and being absolutely fair to everyone. Conservatives say that diversity shouldn’t be considered a factor at all. The only thing that matters is who is the better candidate. Well, that would be nice but how exactly does the best candidate always get the job?

For example, Savage discusses the hiring of television writers. How does one determine who is a better writer? Particularly if one of your goals is to broaden the stories you tell to include more stories about women and people of color. Who better to tell these tales than women and people of color? White men can, of course, write women characters but then I am betting than women can write even better women characters. So, then, who is the best candidate for the job? The man or the woman?

How does one determine the best candidate in Academia? Is it teaching? Is it research? Or is it the old tried and true old boy network where connections with the people who make the decisions help you get the job? Why should groups who have been discriminated in the past, trust that you are hiring the best candidate? The word of the person making the decision? After how many white men are hired does one question the process? Five? Ten? Twenty? Never. And after twenty or so white men are hired and discrimination is determined, what happens to all of those candidates that were overlooked? Tough luck.

By the way, there isn’t only one perfect person for the job. Indeed this is rarely true. The difficult decision comes generally because there are several people who could do the job well. This is particularly true with jobs that everybody wants. Jobs in Academia and Culture have always had stiff competition. They carry salary, prestige, and power. In the past, a lot of white men vied with other white men for these positions. And a lot of white men were disappointed. Now the competition has expanded to include women and people of color. This means that the competition is fierce and there is even a bigger chance of not getting your dream job. Savage writes at the end of his essay: “The truth is, I’m not some extraordinary talent who was passed over; I’m an ordinary talent—and in ordinary times that would have been enough.”

The sad story is that talented White men are used to getting the job and they aren’t anymore. Their expectation did not match the reality of our present world. It is a difficult lesson to learn but life, as we are constantly being reminded, is unfair. Is it fair that some parents can afford private tutors for their children who may have fallen a step behind in class while poor parents with a child in the same situation can not? Is it fair that some schools are direct conduits to Ivy League Universities while other schools are not? Is it fair that some parents make a significant donation to a university which gets their children into an elite university while a poorer parent with an equally gifted child can not? Is it fair that some children are well fed when they arrive at school and poorer children are not?

I could go on but you get the point. Life is unfair in a lot of different ways. Why this particular unfairness is so important while other unfairnesses can be ignored is informative of the motives of the people complaining right now. I mean if the unfairness in the education a person receives throughout their life can be equalized as best we can then we wouldn’t have to discussing the unfair treatment of White men now. It wouldn’t be a problem because everyone would believe that everybody had a fair chance from the start. But we aren’t talking about the differences in education that people receive, are we? I wonder why?

We do not live in a perfect world. There are plenty of bigoted people in important position making employment decisions. Processes devised to protect groups who have suffered discrimination in the past skew the process against the people who did not suffer discrimination in the past. So maybe we look at how to do the process better as we learn more. But, please, please don’t talk to me about the loss of our meritocracy. Because it is bull shit and you know it is bull shit. We never had one and we never will. All we can do is continue to work at making it better. And we will never ever succeed.

By on

The right wing media is spreading pernicious lies about DEI being a factor in the Los Angeles fires now burning. Forbes magazine, hardly a left wing source, found that there is absolutely no evidence that this is true. Some of this is based on speculation offered by Adam Carolla who when trying to apply to be a fire fighter many years agos was told that he wouldn’t be considered for 7 years because he was white man. Carolla also admits to having a 1.7 GPA which, and I am just speculating on this now, might have something to do with his long wait and the discouraging words he received at the fire house when asking for a job.

Anyway, a quick glance at the graduating class of 2024 proves Carolla wrong. There are a good number of white men in the group. In fact, if you look at the racial breakdown of Los Angeles Fire Department in 2018, Whites are a much larger portion of the fire department than their percentage in Los Angeles population — 49% Whites in Fire Department, 29% whites in Los Angeles and women make up barely 3% of the department with minority women making up less than 1%. So a department made up of 97% men which is important because one of the chief problems conservative critics have is the physical strength needed to fight fire. Men have more than women. There seems to be more than enough men out there working on the fire.

The unspoken subtext here is that somehow non-whites and women aren’t up to the job. Based on what evidence? Is there data that minorities and women are not performing their job? And if so, what are the problems and how do white men doing the same job compare? If someone graduates from the Fire Academy, doesn’t it mean they past the tests required by the LAFD to adequately perform their job? The critics keep returning to the lesbian women who lead the department. Where exactly have these women failed? Somehow the implication is that since DEI has been considered as a part of the hiring process that standards have somehow diminished. It isn’t like the good old days when only white men were running the LAFD.

But, of course, the good old days were not getting the best people available. They were limiting their search to white men and discriminated against people of color and women. How is this better? It is only when discrimination became an issue that women and people of color got a chance to become a fireman. The good old days. You know when Blacks need not apply for jobs they wanted. You didn’t have to consider women at all because they were the weaker sex. You know those good old days when discrimination was OK.

No one wants to hear about past discrimination when DEI is making it impossible for white men to advance now. Right. The thing is if Blacks and Latinos were given a chance 50 or so years ago to join the force DEI wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. The problem is they were discriminated against and, because of that past discrimination, women and people of color are rightfully suspicious of their ability to be treated fairly. So ultimately DEI is the direct result of bad faith hiring from white men in the first place.

By all means, blame the Los Angeles Fires on DEI putting incompetents on the front line. I am sure it will encourage those brave people fighting the fires to give their all to put them out. Really, it is shitty way, particularly in the absence of evidence, to treat people who are putting their lives on the line.

By on

In an incredibly weird tirade, Charlie Kirk, conservative political activist, spoke strongly against the Birth Control Pill. The pill is horrible for single women. It makes them unhappy and unmarriageable. The single woman who uses birth control pill will die lonely and childless. Worst of all, she will be ugly too. He skips trying to persuade young women, I guess they are too frivolous to understand the horrors of the Pill, and goes directly to their parents who should stop their daughters from making this terrible mistake.

Aside from a decidedly low opinion of women’s intelligence and their right to manage their own bodies, I am not sure what Kirk is prattling on about. His focus is single women but married women use birth control as well. Does the Pill make married women the ugly unhappy mess that it does to single women? He seems to be talking just about the Pill, are other means of contraception acceptable or do they have the same terrifying results? What is his endgame here? Does he want to make Birth Control illegal? He never says so but it seems to be the subtext here.

This antagonism towards birth control marries well with another increasingly heard concern for conservatives — the declining birth rate among women. Glenn Reynolds worries that the earth is depopulating because women all over the world are no longer giving birth at replacement levels. This is particularly irksome as these same conservatives oppose pro-environment actions that are based on scientific data that suggests environmental doom in the future. They claim that these scientists are often wrong, that human beings will discover some scientific feat that will address these worries and to far into the future to demand sacrifices based on data that may never come into play.

Well, all right then, why should I worry about scientific speculations about a declining population particularly since the world’s population will still continue to grow and an actual decline in population won’t occur until the end of this century. Just like the scientists predicting environmental disaster, could these baby bust scientists be wrong about their interpretation of the data? Could people decide to have more children as the population declines and this problem will solve itself? But, no, this is an urgent matter for Reynolds and needs to be addressed now before it is too late and no human being is left alive.

What is worrisome about these opinions is that this manufactured crisis is giving some religious zealots a reason to make birth control illegal. Which is all rather perplexing. Women make up over half of the voting population. Most of these women want to have some control over how often they get pregnant. Not to mention their husbands and boyfriends who want to continue having sex without the worry of new children to support. Forcing people to have more children now to prevent a crisis in the 22nd Century seems like political suicide. Why anyone would think this is an attractive political is beyond me.

But it will be fun to watch.

By on 1 Comment

The recent high profile of the MeToo movement and the effect it has had on the careers of certain high profile men is a subject I have wanted to write about for a long time. The problem was that I had difficulty finding the correct words to express what I wanted to say.

After reading Andrew Sullivan article in New York Magazine, I now have the words I want. Sullivan’s point is that men and women have different attitudes about sex. Men are more horny, more handsy, take more chances regarding sex and that heterosexual women need to understand this. It’s just man’s nature. Men have more testosterone that creates a greater sex drive. He then points out that gay men fuck often and indiscriminately because they don’t have the restraining factor of a woman’s sexual drive.

So how should society deal with these different sexual natures? Sullivan thinks nothing, at least, nothing that would change men’s behavior. Sullivan argues, by and large, women understand man’s sexual nature and are OK with a it. Indeed women would become antagonistic to the MeToo movement if it continued their campaign to make men more accountable for their sexual harassment. He also thinks that nature is more important than patriarchal institutions in how sexual relationships proceed. The horny man is always going to be chasing after the less horny woman. Women would just have to learn how to put with the big lugs and there is nothing that society can do about it.

The very problem with Sullivan’s argument is his argument. He thinks men are different than females. If this is true, then might women take another view of men’s groping hands? Might women become irritated with men who make sexual innuendos in the office, particularly if she isn’t interested in the man and the man blissfully disregards her feelings regarding his innuendos? Might it be frustrating that in order to stop these harassments, the woman has to go to Human Resources and files a complaint about the man’s behavior. Wouldn’t it be easier for men to just behave appropriately? Take a slower path with his flirtation?

And this is where the patriarchy comes in. In Sullivan’s world, women should just understand a man’s nature. He doesn’t mention a reciprocal responsibility for man to understand a woman’s nature. Why is the woman stuck with tolerating the bores? Wouldn’t it be just as easy for men to behave appropriately at work. Oh that’s right because men will be men. Their bodies are full of testosterone, they just can’t think straight when a woman is around. It’s there nature.

What about women being women? What happens if the man happens to be the woman’s boss? In the past, the woman could complain to Human Resources but what would HR do? Would they listen to a low level employee over the word of an executive? The power is with the man. He controls her livelihood. He has the power to make the woman’s life miserable. So her choice is to live with the harasser or quit. How does Sullivan propose women deal with this difference in power? Particularly in the very awkward situation of a horny boss chasing his woman employee. Who wins this showdown?

Then Sullivan goes after the feminists who are leading the charge to change the argument. They are trying to give more power to the women. Sullivan finds their arguments alienating, that they are making men the enemy and regular middle class people will be alienated by their arguments. To a degree, he is correct. The vast majority of people won’t agree with Feminist ideology. Sullivan thinks this will drive these people into the Republicans/Right Wing. Why is Feminist ideology more alienating than Right Wing ideology? Finally, who usually fights the battles in these struggles? It would be nice to think that nice middle class people will start the battle. But usually they don’t. Who fought the opening battles for Women’s right? I believe it was the hated and alienating Suffragettes.

These battles have to be fought. More importantly, these battles require us to look at all types of harassment – from annoying to egregious. Al Franken’s boorish behavior is not the same as Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment. But how do we know until someone brings it up? Yes, it is messy. Yes sometimes it will be unfair. And we will only get better at dealing with these situations and distinguishing between behaviors as we look at them.

Requiring perfection stifles change. Sullivan thinks men and women have different sexual natures. Since better than 90 percent of the population are committed heterosexuals, how do we move forward recognizing these differences. To stop talking about sexual harassment because some men might be hurt only means women will keep their mouths shut. Women will put up with the roaming hands and sex jokes in order to keep their jobs. Not talking about sexual harassment doesn’t solve the problem, it just moves the pain to a different gender. Then you must ask are men’s lives more important than women’s lives?