#cancelcolbert #banbossy, sexism, racism and all that juicy stuff.

[Kythia]

Any reason why these changes couldn't be proposed by female (and even male) employees and then enacted by their male boss?

Not saying that doing so renders female bosses unnecessary, just I don't see having a male boss as being a problem for such a thing. I mean, I'm pretty sure there are stay at home fathers and fathers who want to support their stay at home mothers in the work force. The gender of the boss seems completely irrelevant to enacting such policies.

No, you're right.  Such things could (arguably should) be implemented by any gender.  But, to date, they haven't.  Or haven't extensively at least. 

So no, there's no "reason" per se, but the evidence is that they won't be.   

[Avis habilis]

Any reason why these changes couldn't be proposed by female (and even male) employees and then enacted by their male boss?

Any reason that's an argument against trying to increase the number of women in leadership positions?

[Sabby]

I'm confused Avis, did you mean 'any reason why not?'. The sentence doesn't seem to work otherwise.

[Valthazar]

Surely female bosses - understanding that drive - are more likely to arrange worklife so that such family duties are possible?

I don't know if we can say empirically that simply having a female boss is more likely to improve women's issues.  I don't think female CEOs and executives are immune from falling into the same trap as male CEOs in pursuing corporate decisions that maximize efficiency and shareholder wealth.  For example, Marissa Mayer openly rejects being called a feminist, and has made decisions that seem to adversely affect women in many ways.

I think it's interesting you mentioned not confusing women with mothers, because even here with some of the women in my evening classes, I'm noticing many of the unmarried women (without kids) frequently criticize the decisions of married women (with kids).  In a group project, a younger woman is put-off by the fact that another woman who recently had a child isn't able to contribute as much.  Her remark: "If you were going to have a kid, then why did you sign up for a graduate class?"  You'd be surprised how many young, ambitious women without kids seem put off by notions of a work/life balance.

[Kythia]

Sabby - Is there any reason that (that = the quoted sentence) is an argument against more women in leadership positions.

I think it's interesting you mentioned not confusing women with mothers, because even here with some of the women in my evening classes, I'm noticing many of the unmarried women (without kids) frequently criticize the decisions of married women (with kids).  In a group project, a younger woman is put-off by the fact that another woman who recently had a child isn't able to contribute as much.  Her remark: "If you were going to have a kid, then why did you sign up for a graduate class?"  You'd be surprised how many young, ambitious women without kids seem put off by notions of a work/life balance.

No.  I wouldn't.  Hence pointing out that the two groups are not the same.

[Sabby]

As I said, stating that the gender of the boss is irrelevant is not a statement against women in leadership roles. How anyone could deduce such is beyond me.

[Valthazar]

No.  I wouldn't.  Hence pointing out that the two groups are not the same.

That's the point I'm making - there are two directions to the women's rights movement at present - one focusing on single, unmarried women, and another focusing on married women with children.  Often times, they are antagonistic in their missions.

Sheryl Sandberg is managing to dip her feet into both categories.  She's a 44 year old woman, able to hold a marriage, while still having the financial flexibility required to pursue her career to the fullest degree.

[Kythia]

That's the point I'm making - there are two directions to the women's rights movement at present - one focusing on single, unmarried women, and another focusing on married women with children.  Often times, they are antagonistic in their missions.

"Single, unmarried women" and "married women with children".  It's possible to be single and have children, or to be married and not.  It's possible to be a married woman with children whose husband/wife/whatever is the primary caregiver.  It's possible to have a lot of different structures.  Your argument that structure x should be focused on before structure y is inherently limiting to a large number of people.

[Valthazar]

Perhaps I should have worded it as being "having kids" vs. "not having kids" - and this applies for both men and women.

Women's rights issues (and people's rights in general) are both similar and markedly different depending on which category you look at.

[Kythia]

Perhaps I should have worded it as being "having kids" vs. "not having kids" - and this applies for both men and women.

Women's rights issues (and people's rights in general) are both similar and markedly different depending on which category you look at.

Indeed.  Which is why we shouldn't focus on one before another.

[Orval Wintermute]

Women in leadership positions is so incredibly important for the improvement of standards for women in all strata of society I can't believe anyone could say this seriously.

Here's one of the struggles that ordinary women face: nearly all of the people in charge of our lives are men.

It really frustrates me when I see things like this. Having women in leadership positions isn't important, but neither is having men in leadership positions. Surely the only qualifications that matter are the leadership qualities of the individual.
If people are placed in positions not because of who they are but because of what they are (male\female,white\black,tall\short) then doesn't that undermine them and do a disservice to everyone else that follows? I opens the gates to the "They didn't get the job because they were good, they got it because they were [insert defining characteristics here]"
I completely in favour of equality; but equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

[Sabby]

I agree with Orval. Gender shouldn't even be a consideration when hiring.

[Valthazar]

I also agree with Orval, in the sense that one's productivity should be tied to one's earnings.  Part of the reason I brought up the example of those younger women in my class is because they feel they are entitled to better jobs and better pay for voluntarily choosing not to have kids and putting in more hours/productivity in at work (as they rightly should).  Many of them feel offended that concessions should be made for men or women who chose to have children, and thus need a work/life balance (due to having kids).

Not saying that's an ideal perspective, but it's certainly an interesting one.

[Shjade]

Sidetracking from the current conversation to address the original topic for a minute:

I tried dipping into the #cancelcolbert conversation for a day. Not a really concerted effort - I didn't strain myself trying to be heard or anything - just put in a brief, reasonable (I hope) statement here and there to try calming down the outrageous levels of rhetoric and hate exploding on all sides of the thing.

I didn't get a single direct response. Anywhere. From anyone. At least not as far as I could see; being relatively unfamiliar with Twitter, I'm sure it's possible I overlooked something, but I'm 90% sure no one even tried addressing what I brought up.

What was I bringing up? That all sides were incendiary without cause. Not "you should stop talking" or "your voice shouldn't be heard" or etc., just pointing out that responding to a situation you describe as racist by telling entire racial groups they have no right to speak on the subject is not an effective way to reach the moral high ground or begin a productive discussion on any topic. That decrying death threats sent to Suey on the one hand is considerably undermined by turning around and telling people to kill themselves for disagreeing with you on the other. It's possible no one responded to these observations because they felt it was unproductive, or they didn't want to allow any space for arguments that broach the possibility their methods were ineffective or unreasonable. Maybe they didn't see a point in responding to a twitter account with such minimal history and activity on it, or they just thought I wasn't contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion. These are all plausible causes for the total lack of reply.

Personally, though, I think it's because these statements were coming from a handle that was neither gender or ethnicity-specific, not readily identifiable to easily categorize or stereotype, and as such was anathema to their bite-size, snap judgment methodology. They didn't want to deal with someone they'd have to address purely on their stated position rather than by racial or gender characteristics they could promptly use to denigrate or entirely ignore this new person outright rather than consider what they were saying. It was easier to act like I wasn't there.

Frankly, if that's not the most hilarious hypocrisy in the context of their stated goals, I don't know what is.

The topic brought up by #cancelcolbert is a real and serious issue that needs to be addressed. #cancelcolbert itself, and the way people rallying around it behave, is a farce.

[Oniya]

Honestly? 140 characters is a bit hard at times to use as a medium for commentary at all.

Especially when half of it gets eaten up by those ubiquitous hashtags.

[Shjade]

Even more annoying, replying to someone eats up characters. Since it has to include their handle. :|

[Kythia]

I guess its fair enough in a way.  It wasn't designed for conversations after all.

[Neysha]

So, two things here, both have happened in the last couple months, i will begin with the "cancel Colbert" thing.

Suey Park, a young Asian woman (trust me, the race thing is important here) has recently started her own little campaign to take down "the white man" after Steven Colbert, popular American political pundit made a tweet saying he would open the "Ching chong ding dong agency of sensitivity to Asians" as a parody of something said on a news network that he critiqued. well, Suey Park sees this as a sign of the "white heteropatriarchy" at work and wanted to start her own movement to remove white men from being able to say anything about non-whites... obviously she did this by broadcasting her own barrages of racial taunts and racist accusations at any white man she came across, including in this video below where she is being interviewed by the Huffington Post where she states quite openly that she doesn't think white men have the right to have opinions on this matter unless they are in blind support of her (and that her feelings have an effect on her argument)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNK-e6nnFGY

I'm not sure how to post videos on this forum so you'll have to follow this.

Here also is an article written on the TIME magazine website about "the white male hetero-patriarchy oppressing me" I WISH I was being sarcastic there.

http://time.com/58743/cancelcolbert-activists-we-will-protest-this-until-it-ends/

Tell me, what do you think? another nutcase doomed to fail the moment she vocalized her "case"? or do you think she raises a valid point and deserves respect? Is she anti-racist or just plan racist against white people?

I won't say she's a nutcase, just another pathetic Race masterbaiter. I'd be annoyed if I didn't find her seriousness to have an almost satirical quality to it. The amount of persecution she feels from inoffensive satire and almost compels me to advance her condition by wishing more inoffensive satire can be directed towards her in order to increase her feelings of hopeless dejection, not out of any feeling of schadenfreude, but because the thought an adult can dedicate so much time and effort in propagating misery upon others because they intentionally choose to not process humor like a normal people as well as finding themselves unable to ignore it when it can be easily ignored, makes me hope the cure at least for their race masterbaiting can be found via deluging them in more of it. It might not change their minds, but at least their pathetic voices will be drowned out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeErTVCqV6I

I find this far more offensive, because Dat Phan isn't fucking funny... at all.

As for bossy, it sounds like a stupid word to ban, much less waste time for a PSA on. But in danger of being sucked into a conversation about gender issues and historical issues pertaining to equality, I'll just say that's my own personal opinion and I'm sure it's not based in fact or something.

[meikle]

It really frustrates me when I see things like this. Having women in leadership positions isn't important, but neither is having men in leadership positions. Surely the only qualifications that matter are the leadership qualities of the individual.

Having women in leadership positions:

*provides women with role models that aren't models or mothers
*shows young women that entering a career (or any other organization) does not have to mean stopping at the bottom rung
*encourages women (in the work place, for example) to bring problems that they face (especially, eg, sexual harassment issues) to authority figures (when they may not, otherwise, eg when all of their bosses are men)
*overall encourages safety and comfort for women within an organization by providing them with authority figures who are familiar with struggles that women face

At no fucking point did I say anything about "Women should be given special privileges and jobs they haven't earned" so get over yourself.

[Sabby]

Calm down Meikle, if you feel Orval misunderstood you, you can say so without flinging insults. This topic is incendiary enough as it is.

[Neysha]

Choke on it Sabby.

(note not the original quote, meikle deleted her initial post I was replying to so I'm basing this one off of memory)

Anyone remember that discussion we had a while back about getting sick of toxic stuff on the forums? Just suddenly seeing some parallels in that discussion and this one. And familiar faces...

[meikle]

Calm down Meikle, if you feel Orval misunderstood you, you can say so without flinging insults. This topic is incendiary enough as it is.

I didn't insult anyone.  Learn to fucking read, Sabby.

[Nadir]

Let's calm this down, please.

[Avis habilis]

Thread locked.