Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Women Become Men at Wellesley

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 70 posts

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#21

Post by heygiraffe »

jcrites wrote: post #5

> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man. > “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.” I find this concept both…

> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man.

I don't know about the "white" part, but putting a man in such a seat would seem to be more appropriate than putting a woman in it.

Doesn't anyone else remember what "diversity" means?

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#22

Post by agilebyte »

jcrites wrote: post #5

> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man. > “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.” I find this concept both…

> rather than his character or qualifications

The idea is that those two (meritocracy) are not the only criteria used when we select our leaders, employees etc. so they resort to saying:

> It’s not just about that position either.

What I think they are saying is that it is not just about the job, which he would do fine, but also about the job of being a woman so that other women can aspire to be like that, feel motivated that people with less privilege than white men can be leaders too. That way you are more qualified for the job.

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#23

Post by chillingeffect »

heygiraffe wrote: post #21
jcrites wrote: post #5

> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man. > “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.” I find this concept both…

> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man. I don't know about the "white" part, but putting a man in such a seat would seem to be more appropriate than putting a woman in it. Doesn't anyone else remember what "diversity" means?

You and the parent are both absolutely correct, in real life.

It's just that iiuc, Wellesley doesn't sell "diversity," but "women."

Wellesley's failure to take a stance on having transmen around indicates hesitation and fear on their part (understandably so, imho) b/c who really knows - at this time - what is fair and just for their product case.

Do they count women who became men as women, b/c that's part of the female experience? Or do they count them as men, b/c they're not women? Who knows.

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#24

Post by delecti »

matteotom wrote: post #17
erceciooir wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a look at stats and laws. It is the senate and judges who has this view of society. I am not complaining about women having it better (good for them), I am just complaining men have it worse. I am saying that in most states being over 18, with clean record and mentally capable, does not automatically mean someone can vote (as women can). EDIT: there were questions about voting right. I can no longer answer since…

> I am saying that in most states being over 18, with clean record and mentally capable, does not automatically mean someone can vote (as women can). What are the situations in which men cannot vote if they are over 18, with a clean record and mentally capable?

My best guess it that they're talking about selective service, but that's really a very minor formality.

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#25

Post by jessaustin »

matteotom wrote: post #17
erceciooir wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a look at stats and laws. It is the senate and judges who has this view of society. I am not complaining about women having it better (good for them), I am just complaining men have it worse. I am saying that in most states being over 18, with clean record and mentally capable, does not automatically mean someone can vote (as women can). EDIT: there were questions about voting right. I can no longer answer since…

> I am saying that in most states being over 18, with clean record and mentally capable, does not automatically mean someone can vote (as women can). What are the situations in which men cannot vote if they are over 18, with a clean record and mentally capable?

I'm guessing the unpopular poster is referring to selective service, for which men (and, TBH, trans women) must register, or forfeit numerous "rights". Because war. I hesitate to articulate this, being cis and all, but the strenuous denunciations of this greenbean seem to hint of something ugly in one's opinions of the whole notion of trans.

As far as I know, I'm no relation to the Jesse Austin interviewed in TFA.

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#26

Post by verroq »

dcre wrote: post #19
jcrites wrote: post #5

> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man. > “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.” I find this concept both…

It is important to note that they are not being discriminatory without realizing it. On the contrary, they actively disagree with you that the best way to end discrimination is to simply ignore it. This is a deliberate double standard meant to counteract the opposing one women are subjected to by society at large.

The KKK are not being discriminatory without realising it. How do we stop discrimination? By being discriminatory.

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#27

Post by throwaway234 »

matteotom wrote: post #17
erceciooir wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a look at stats and laws. It is the senate and judges who has this view of society. I am not complaining about women having it better (good for them), I am just complaining men have it worse. I am saying that in most states being over 18, with clean record and mentally capable, does not automatically mean someone can vote (as women can). EDIT: there were questions about voting right. I can no longer answer since…

> I am saying that in most states being over 18, with clean record and mentally capable, does not automatically mean someone can vote (as women can). What are the situations in which men cannot vote if they are over 18, with a clean record and mentally capable?

I think he's talking about the Selective Service System aka the draft.

If you're male and haven't signed the document saying you will die for your country at the whim of a random number generator, you cannot apply for federal student loans.

Also In 40 states (+DC) it is a prerequisite for men to sign up for the draft before getting/renewing a driver's license (maybe any gov ID?). I suppose if that is combined with voter ID laws, yes there could be a subset of men in the US who match the clean description and are still unable to vote. That situation does not apply to women.

That's also assuming not registering for the draft (a max sentence of $250,000 / 5 years in prison) still can be called a 'clean record'. I think so.

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#28

Post by emcarey »

jcrites wrote: post #5

> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man. > “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.” I find this concept both…

sorry you have faced so much discrimination as a white man. I hope one day that changes.

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#29

Post by zdean »

lexcorvus wrote: post #13
jcrites wrote: post #5

> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man. > “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.” I find this concept both…

It is a fascinating double-standard. Compare to a similar sentiment someone might express: “I thought Obama would do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a black man as President of the United States.” Such a person would be pilloried as a racist. It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their ra…

Why is this astonishing?

"It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their race and sex."

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#30

Post by jamesaguilar »

lexcorvus wrote: post #13
jcrites wrote: post #5

> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man. > “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.” I find this concept both…

It is a fascinating double-standard. Compare to a similar sentiment someone might express: “I thought Obama would do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a black man as President of the United States.” Such a person would be pilloried as a racist. It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their ra…

White men do not understand, any more than I understand what it feels like to be a rabbit. Your comment is a clear example of that failure -- actually, it's worse, because you don't even understand the problem intellectually. Some white men do acknowledge their privilege, but even for them, it will never be possible to experience true systemic hostility based on their gender or race.

"Occasionally my gender-race is criticized for the oppression it, as a whole, has and continues to heap on other groups" cries the white man. "Hostility! I understand it!" he says.

Meanwhile, all the other groups deal with actual adversity. I mean things worse than newspaper articles pointing out how you start with advantage. Things like disproportionate violence at the hands of the police and the state, disproportionate victimization with sexual violence, inability to move forward in the corporate world, imbalanced expectations regarding family life, dress, body shape, etc. Even things like being less likely to be called back for a job interview because of your name.

Yeah, white men, including you, really do not get it.

Post reply on HN