If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools

This stuff is pretty easy to look up. There are books, blogs, studies, and memoirs that I found very useful. If you actually care, you could find things, too. That's how I went from ignorant to having basic knowledge. Maybe you could try that.

Your insistence that the only way that sexism and racism work is through the law is ignorant and ahistorical. They preceded the laws that expressed them; they also survived the demise of those laws. I've told you repeatedly that you are harming people through your ignorance. You don't care, and have never cared enough about this topic to actually learn about it. There is no point to arguing the minutiae of your weird little self-constructed justifications. My extensive experience with MRAs, etc, is that when proven wrong on point A will just drag out points B-Z. Or they'll go quiet. Or start introducing irrelevancies, like exactly how many young kids I've tutored in STEM this week. I've got better things to do.

If you're serious about helping women, you'll go take a women's studies class and learn something about this. Either way, I'm done.

Secretary Clinton fainted on 9/11 after a long and coordinated media campaign effort to suggest she was in perfect health.

The Wikileaks emails of John Podesta (I have read them individually) show clear evidence of the relationship between the campaign and the press, and that the press routinely sought vetos and approvals on stories they were going to run. I'll be happy to share links to the individual emails.

The Trump campaign has very little access to reach me - I don't get to watch their ads on TV or receive any of their messaging because I live in Mumbai. My knowledge of the details of the election is from the data I have been motivated to find on the basis of my own interest in this subject during 2016.

Me:

> This privilege certainly exists in several contexts,

You:

> You seem to be suggesting that because some white people have struggles, there must be no white privilege. Which is bollocks as you well know.

I think we should re-evaluate what I am suggesting because perhaps I have not articulated other parts of my comment properly, but I am confident in the part quoted above which is fairly explicit.

> Check any analysis of the coverage - Trump's was overwhelmingly "oh, this guy!" whilst ignoring his racism, sexism, misogyny, etc.

This is 100% true of the Republican Primary, but not true of the General Election campaign that followed thereafter. During the Republican Primary - in early 2015, Marissa Astor (Hillary for America) emailed the DNC with the following quote:

"We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to take them seriously"

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC believed the best way to strategize was to legitimize these candidates, as indicated below:

"The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party."

Here's a link to the PDF https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/fileid/1120/251

During the final stages general election, coverage of both candidates was overwhelmingly negative as per an analysis conducted by the Harvard Kennedy Center for Media, Politics and Public Policy.

The biggest victim of the media was Senator Bernie Sanders, who received virtually no coverage during the Primary season, which was largely the result of an orchestrated effort on the part of the DNC under Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, to favour coverage of Secretary Clinton over Senator Sanders. This is a view shared by former senate minority leader Harry Reid, as well as Senator Sanders himself. This view was further the subject of a court proceeding wherein the court dismissed the matter as the question of its legality did not arise since the DNC was entitled to name its own candidate if it wanted to.

Aside from the Harvard Kennedy research, there is ample evidence to disprove the claim that media "ignored" candidate Trump's racism, misogyny, sexism, etc. Here are a few:

- Online outlets like Vox had articles that outright declared in the first sentence "Donald Trump is a bigot".

- A CNN headline from August 2016: "We're Shocked, Donald Trump is a sexist"

- Another CNN headline from August 2016: "Paul Ryan rips Donald Trump remarks as 'textbook definition of a racist comment'". Note that this includes the speaker of the house attacking his own party candidate - at this point the media, the DNC and the speaker of the house are condemning him for racism.

- MSNBC June 2016: "Donald Trump’s overt racism takes 2016 race in a new direction"

- Fox News' Shepard Smith in August 2016: "Donald Trump ‘Trades in Racism’"

To suggest that this was downplayed in any way would also be a bit misleading, since the language here is fairly strong and explicit. There are no subtle allusions to racism, bigotry or sexism of any kind. The media is not using soft language or tip-toeing around these claims in the slightest.

Even if one were to concede that the media was ruthless in its persecution of Hillary Clinton over the private email server, it would simply even up their existing persecution of Candidate Trump as a liar, which was a regular feature of media coverage, particularly surrounding the debates. To the public, the choice would then be two liar candidates, of which one is a sexist, racist, misogynist - as per the media's coverage.