NSFW Warning! SJW triggers inside

[Zeph]

Agreed. Leadership does not equal oppression, but I'm quoting the complainants stated issues with the symbolism of a white male identified individual at the head of the diversity committee. They feel that is not in the spirit of the objectives of the group nor of their expectations upon enrolling at Wellesley. I think it's an interesting grey issue and not as clear cut as transphobia or discrimination per se.

An analogue would be a popular longtime worker who becomes a successful entrepreneur with their own 100 employee company campaigning for the presidency of a labor union in their former industry. There's a perceived change of roles and privileges that comes with a change of status.

The argument of the women in this case is a bit troubling and possibly dubious along ethical grounds, but more complex than what was being propounded in the original post.

If the entrepreneur wins the election then his perceived change of roles is moot, since a majority would have considered him best for the position. In this case it is slightly different, but if no one else is willing to fill the position and the candidate wins by default, I don't think it changes it, since the best candidate has been chosen - I.E. a willing one.

 

[Deleted member 1]

I can see their logic in terms of the symbolism of the post.

The symbolism of the post apparently views white as a psuedo-pejorative, as they specifically mention his race as a problem.

This reeks of yesteryears feminism that defined a woman as only "woman enough" if she did X, Y, Z. Ironically.


Why is 'white' highlighted as a confounding issue in a college that is greater than 1:5 Asian -- Asian being a group that is socioeconomically better off than whites, has integrated in American society greater than any other minority, a group that's entire stereotypes are built on the same obnoxious "positive" stereotypes as white people -- good at math, plays music, expects kids to strive for success in a single generation, etc.

Following the simple minded and antiquated thinking going on here, I have to consider that an Asian Woman should not be in that post since surely she can't imagine the role of a diversity officer and is lesser equipped for said role than her Black sisters. Maybe the can all argue over who is the most diverse and female.


I find this line of thinking tiring and divisive.

“I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there,

Clearly states that skills and content of character are not enough.
Even the NAACP allows white men to hold leadership positions. The only requirement? Convince your constituents, that despite your lack of like-experience as a black person, you can relate and promote goals adequately.
Your oncologist doesn't have to experienced cancer and your diversity officer shouldn't have to be a non-white female (gender, not sex).

These women have decided, and publicly stated, you are judged by your birthright. Hilarious.

 

[Deleted member 1]

They feel that is not in the spirit of the objectives of the group

Isn't that up to the individual to convince the voters? Rather than a en bloc boycott because you are so fearful this person could win?
And then to organize others to subvert the election process?

but more complex than what was being propounded in the original post.

Help me here. What are you getting at?

 

[Wild]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXewOCzfdZM

 

[kneeblock]

The symbolism of the post apparently views white as a psuedo-pejorative, as they specifically mention his race as a problem.
.

No, they mention both his race and his gender identification, which taken together put him symbolically at the top of the patriarchal pyramid in our society. At no point is there a sole focus on his race as their basis for advocating for his disqualification. It's to be taken as a unit as I read it, which it seems some felt was not in the spirit of the committee.

Isn't that up to the individual to convince the voters? Rather than a en bloc boycott because you are so fearful this person could win?
And then to organize others to subvert the election process?

And this is the part I agree is problematic and possibly unethical. But it's an interesting philosophical argument. Do you surrender the rights to inhabit and lead in all female spaces when you identify as male?

To me this is a largely philosophical question and one several single gender universities have apparently been struggling with.

One of my very best friends is a trans male and in conversation just two days ago he intimated to me that when he is in female dominated spaces discussing topics of feminism, he feels he has valuable contributions to add on the experience of being a woman because of his past life, but is careful how he addresses them because he knows he is viewed as a man. Since he acknowledges this lack of simplicity based on his lived experience, I think it would be naive for the cisgendered males who have mostly posted on this thread thus far to paint the issue as black and white (if you'll pardon the pun).

 

[kneeblock]

If the entrepreneur wins the election then his perceived change of roles is moot, since a majority would have considered him best for the position. In this case it is slightly different, but if no one else is willing to fill the position and the candidate wins by default, I don't think it changes it, since the best candidate has been chosen - I.E. a willing one.

Agreed, but unions do not allow people outside the bargaining unit to hold office anyway and managers are prohibited from organizing under labor law except in very specific circumstances.

 

[Leigh]

No, they mention both his race and his gender identification, which taken together put him symbolically at the top of the patriarchal pyramid in our society.

Isn't the top of the patriarchal pyramid currently occupied by a black man in the US?

 

[ThatOneDude]

When did Emmery become a mod?
☺

 

[kneeblock]

Isn't the top of the patriarchal pyramid currently occupied by a black man in the US?

No

 

[Zeph]

Agreed, but unions do not allow people outside the bargaining unit to hold office anyway and managers are prohibited from organizing under labor law except in very specific circumstances.

He was allowed to go to this school, therefore, he is part of the 'union' in question.

 

[ThatOneDude]

No

Wait what?

 

[Zeph]

Wait what?

The patriarchal pyramid is more than just one man. It would be the academic, business and political elite collectively, which is predominately white males. Maybe the very tip of the spear is a black man, but he has got a white shaft(lol).

 

[Leigh]

The patriarchal pyramid is more than just one man. It would be the business, academic and political elite collectively, which is predominately white males. Maybe the very tip of the spear is a black man, but he has got a white shaft(lol).

In a country that, by numbers, is predominantly white, the group of people with the most power are predominantly white. That's not really indicative of an oppressive system, especially when the most powerful man in America is black.

 

[Zeph]

In a country that, by numbers, is predominantly white, the group of people with the most power are predominantly white. That's not really indicative of an oppressive system, especially when the most powerful man in America is black.

It depends how they exercise that power.

 

[kneeblock]

It depends how they exercise that power.

Yes, also the notion of the POTUS as the most powerful man is really just an expression. The idea of republican democracy is that the President is representative of the public will and a public servant not arbitrary or autocratic in their decision making. Having the nuclear codes does not make you the leader of the patriarchy unless we are arguing that the American political system is structurally mysoginist and therefore whoever is leading it is somehow the figurehead of that mysoginy. Even along that line of argument, a figurehead does not equal the top of the pyramid in terms of statistical or actual empowerment, particularly when he at least in part belongs to a disadvantaged group.

Interestingly, this is the identical quibble I have with the girls at Wellesley's argument. Allowing the election of a figurehead of their diversity group who is likewise a part of an oppressed class actually has value on the whole as it seems representative of the ideals of inclusion, but their argument that the symbolism of white maleness overrides any claim to identification with persecution is an interesting philosophical argument. Does it? I'm not sure. I think the vote should have been carried out to let the girls collectively decide, but their attempt to disqualify kicked off the argument, which seems worth having.