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

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#61

Post by lexcorvus »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #59
lexcorvus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not need anyone to defend me from activists seeking equality. You really need to study the French Revolution. You think that because you're part of the current revolution that it won't eventually consume you as well? Consider Danton and Robespierre, a couple of the original "activists seeking equality" (or, rather, égalité ). Danton once thought as you do; on his way to the guillotine he shouted at his former al…

Far more worried about an asteroid wiping out life on the planet than I am worried about women and minorities guillotining me.

Don't be so literal. Social Justice Warriors won't guillotine you, but give them half a chance and they will destroy your job and ruin your reputation.

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#62

Post by jamesaguilar »

lexcorvus wrote: post #61
jamesaguilar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far more worried about an asteroid wiping out life on the planet than I am worried about women and minorities guillotining me.

Don't be so literal. Social Justice Warriors won't guillotine you, but give them half a chance and they will destroy your job and ruin your reputation.

Examples of non-sexist, non-racist people who have lost their jobs due to civil rights activists?

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#63

Post by wismer »

verroq wrote: post #47
cortesoft wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a white man, I agree that I can't REALLY understand what it is like to live in a society hostile to my sex and race. I can try to empathize, but I can't understand it in the same way. I don't understand what you mean about the NYT. I have never seen a single article that is 'hostile' to white men. Pointing out that white men are in a position of privilege is NOT hostility, it is observation.

>white men are in a position of privilege It's a statement that undermines everything the person have ever achieved. You only got here not because of hard work, but because of your `white privilege`. It implies a person's success is undeserved. Yes there's probably is an advantage, but the exact how much is highly debatable.

I think you might be taking the concept of 'white privilege' too personally.

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#64

Post by [deleted] »

wismer wrote: post #63
verroq wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>white men are in a position of privilege It's a statement that undermines everything the person have ever achieved. You only got here not because of hard work, but because of your `white privilege`. It implies a person's success is undeserved. Yes there's probably is an advantage, but the exact how much is highly debatable.

I think you might be taking the concept of 'white privilege' too personally.

[deleted]

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#65

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

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?

"Diversity" is code for anti white discrimination. Whenever you hear the word "diversity" know that it very much means deliberate anti white racism. We destroy over 4% of GDP every year on "diversity."

http://vimeo.com/16078350

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#66

Post by lexcorvus »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #62
lexcorvus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be so literal. Social Justice Warriors won't guillotine you, but give them half a chance and they will destroy your job and ruin your reputation.

Examples of non-sexist, non-racist people who have lost their jobs due to civil rights activists?

Don't be so naïve—you're a white man. Don't you realize that automatically makes you sexist and racist in many people's eyes?

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#67

Post by vacri »

mynameishere wrote: post #49
jamesaguilar wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

You don't really need to keep repeating the propaganda from those diversity seminars. We've heard it. And most of us who pay attention know it's all bull. As an example: disproportionate victimization with sexual violence Well, look at who is committing all that sexual violence and then talk about how white people are at fault: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0842.pdf Most of your other comments are sim…

Black people in America are Americans, not Africans. They're not 'Africans who came to America'. They're Americans. Their parents were Americans, as were their parents' parents, for a few generations back. At this point, they're no more African than the white people of America are. It's a pointless comparison.

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#68

Post by cortesoft »

verroq wrote: post #47
cortesoft wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a white man, I agree that I can't REALLY understand what it is like to live in a society hostile to my sex and race. I can try to empathize, but I can't understand it in the same way. I don't understand what you mean about the NYT. I have never seen a single article that is 'hostile' to white men. Pointing out that white men are in a position of privilege is NOT hostility, it is observation.

>white men are in a position of privilege It's a statement that undermines everything the person have ever achieved. You only got here not because of hard work, but because of your `white privilege`. It implies a person's success is undeserved. Yes there's probably is an advantage, but the exact how much is highly debatable.

Being in a position of privilege does not imply that everything you have earned you got because of that privilege. You can start off in an advantageous position and still fail or succeed.... and still be worthy of praise for when you do succeed.

Just like in anything else in life... for example, in Basketball it is a 'position of privilege' to be tall. It is objectively easier to succeed in basketball if you are tall, but that doesn't mean that those that DO succeed at the highest levels aren't worthy of praise or somehow did not 'earn' their success. LeBron James has HUGE advantages to being good at basketball, but that just set him up to be in a position where he CAN succeed.. the success itself is still all his achievement.

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#69

Post by cortesoft »

lexcorvus wrote: post #50
cortesoft wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a white man, I agree that I can't REALLY understand what it is like to live in a society hostile to my sex and race. I can try to empathize, but I can't understand it in the same way. I don't understand what you mean about the NYT. I have never seen a single article that is 'hostile' to white men. Pointing out that white men are in a position of privilege is NOT hostility, it is observation.

Google around and you'll find a zillion examples like this one: Twitter, Like Other Big Tech Companies, Comes Up Short on Diversity http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/twitter-like-other-... Once you realize that words and phrases like "diversity" and "person of color" are attacks , you'll see the hostility everywhere. For example, when you tell a white man that your company, conference, meetup, etc., is trying…

"Once you realize that words and phrases like 'diversity' and 'person of color' are attack"

Wait, what? No, they aren't saying 'we need fewer people like you', and saying we want diversity is NOT an attack. You have a twisted view of fairness if you feel that wanting to be more inclusive is somehow unfair to the people who were already included.

Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley

#70

Post by lexcorvus »

cortesoft wrote: post #69
lexcorvus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google around and you'll find a zillion examples like this one: Twitter, Like Other Big Tech Companies, Comes Up Short on Diversity http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/twitter-like-other-... Once you realize that words and phrases like "diversity" and "person of color" are attacks , you'll see the hostility everywhere. For example, when you tell a white man that your company, conference, meetup, etc., is trying…

"Once you realize that words and phrases like 'diversity' and 'person of color' are attack" Wait, what? No, they aren't saying 'we need fewer people like you', and saying we want diversity is NOT an attack. You have a twisted view of fairness if you feel that wanting to be more inclusive is somehow unfair to the people who were already included.

No, they aren't saying 'we need fewer people like you'

Suppose a conference has 50 speaking slots, 40 of which last year went to white men and 10 of which went to women and "people of color". This year, the organizers are working hard to increase "diversity". For a fixed number of speaking slots, the only way to do this is to decrease the number of white men, since white men—no matter their beliefs, background, hobbies, interests, etc.—don't count as "diverse". Thus, while the organizers' intent is probably not to tell white men that "we need fewer people like you", that message is an inevitable result of efforts to increase "diversity". (Of course, the organizers could also expand the number of speaking slots, but this only works for so long; eventually you'll hit a ceiling, at which point the game again becomes zero-sum.)

I know it's difficult to reconcile these results with the warm & fuzzy feelings you've been taught to associate with "diversity", but it's a mathematical fact: in most of the fields where it's applied, increasing "diversity" means decreasing the number of white men.

Post reply on HN