~ archived since 2018 ~

The Real Reasons Diversity Programs Don't Work

Tedesche

August 18, 2016

0 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	The Real Reasons Diversity Programs Don't Work
Author	Tedesche
Upvotes	0
Comments	11
Date	August 18, 2016 3:46 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4ya4l5/the_real_reasons_diversity_programs_dont_work/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-real-reasons-diversity-programs-dont-work.943487 https://theredarchive.com/post/943487

Comments

[–]BDMR_lurker 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BDMR_lurker 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Recruitment based on ideology and not (expected) results is an opportunity cost for the employer. Unless the person does perform well, but it's chance, not strategy.

The payroll is usually finite. Recruiting for political correctness's sake may lead to not filling the needed role. As in: you asked for a project manager, say hello to your new HR manager in charge of equality.

In small teams, it fosters a "why bother" approach. If X got the job / company car / year-end bonuses only for being the right colour / gender / whatever, which you are not, well, why bother?

Worst of all is of course the 'social activist', who will repeatedly complain to HR and get other people side-lined or fired. Then you either lose qualified people to the SJW's entitlement, or pony up for a gilded cage where he can't do any harm, except to your payroll.

Also, these programs are often a down-payment on a public image blackmail. As in: do you want it known that your firm looks down on gender / colour / whatever?

Blackmailers never stop. Paying is a losing move.

Examples taken from personal experience. Positive discrimination / affirmative action or whatever they'll call it next year is usually a sign that I should look for a pay raise, ie: find another job.

[–]ThanosisKing -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThanosisKing 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

With respect to Roberts, even if his comments were an accurate description of the present state of things and some of the reasons behind the earnings gap, he made the mistake of saying the earnings gap wasn't a "problem." Regardless of what you think the reasons for the gap are, most people do see it as a problem that women aren't earning as much money as men are. Most people want to see equality of outcome in areas wherein they don't see any compelling biological reason for there to be differences in outcome. That is to say, they see said differences being explained either by direct discrimination or differences in how men and women are socialized (i.e. gender roles). The goal is to erode gender roles to the point where the only gender differences left are ones necessitated by biology.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of that—my point is simply that I think the reason Roberts got lambasted for his comments was because the majority of people see things that way, and his assertion that the earnings gap wasn't a "problem" was effectively him going against the idea that we should be striving to close it as a society, regardless of what's causing it.

As for quotas, not every diversity initiative involves them. In competitive companies, they need the best and the brightest, and they're not going to let something as silly as a quota system mess that up. The problem for companies like this is people from minority demographics leaving the company, and stating that the reason they're leaving has to do with feeling like they're either being discriminated against or feel unwelcome there. If talented women are leaving a company, because there's a "boy's club" atmosphere there, and those women are replaced with less talented men, that hurts the company's bottom line. When the goal is to retain the most talented employees, you want to recruit talent from every sector of society in which talent exists, regardless of irrelevant factors like race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The article is about how to make minority demographics feel welcome, fairly treated, etc, in order to keep talented workers from leaving.

What I find interesting about it is that it suggests people's perceptions of company prejudice change, based on how well their demographic is represented. If it's well-represented, the article seems to imply that they leave when they feel their demographic's "unique" contributions aren't being appreciated. It makes me wonder if this is a consequence of those well-represented groups occupying middle-to-low positions in the company, but not experiencing any blatant examples of prejudice in their day-to-day life there. Without the threat of discrimination to blame, I can see how people might feel that the reason they aren't doing as well as their majority peers is because upper management—being of the majority—doesn't appreciate the ways in which the minority group's methods, backgrounds, culture, etc, can benefit the company. In other words, it might be women chalking it up to gender differences like women being less directly confrontational than their male peers, but more cooperative/inclusive.

Similarly, it makes sense to me that an under-represented minority would be more concerned with outright discrimination, since they likely feel very out of place, and may in fact be facing greater degrees of discrimination in the form of misunderstandings, prejudice, culture clash, etc. Such populations likely feel they don't have a voice and thus can't combat systemic discrimination within the company as a group, so reassurances that the company doesn't engage in discriminatory promotion practices may help to alleviate those fears.

I think, however, that for diversity initiatives to work, this has to be more than just PR. These are good observations the article is making, but I think they're more useful as guides for which problems well- vs. under-represented minorities may actually be facing. In other words, it should be used as a guide to action, not just which motivational posters to hang around the office.

Being a guy in the field of psychology, I definitely sometimes feel like my more direct approach to problem solving and willingness to be confrontational in staff meetings sometimes works against me, for no other reason than that a majority of my peers are female, and aren't as comfortable with those methods. I can't say I've ever really experienced actual discrimination within the field though. That's in line with what this article's observations are, so I personally see some validity in what it's claiming.

[–]ThanosisKing 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah no. Equality of outcome is a pipe dream. Equality of outcome invariably discriminates against SOMEBODY, and not everyone will be made happy no matter what you do. Take this for example: A start-up is employing 50 people. Should the company be forced to take in 50 different people? So they obviously employ men and women. What about gays? Trannys? Otherkin? Blacks? Muslims? Hindus? Latinos? Spaniards? Greeks? Jews? Hare Krishnas? Rastafarians? Japanese? Koreans? And on, and on, and on...

Also, the only people who are causing the earnings gap are women themselves. They can make a conscious choice right now to close that gap: work more hours. Don't take as much vacation. Don't start a family. Devote your whole life to your career. The earnings gap falls ONLY on the choices that women make, and they have all the power to close it. That is something that you fail to address in that long word vomit. If the earnings gap is a problem it's only because women make it so.

[–]Tedesche[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Your example is moot, since we agree quotas aren't the answer and I already pointed out that a lot of diversity programs don't employ them. Quotas tend to be used by organizations that receive government funding, because politicians vote in regulations that require them to be met in order to retain that funding. Private companies—like the ones the Forbes article is talking about—don't.

And while I would agree that the earnings gap is due to individual choices, you act like it's only women's choices that create that gap. But men are creating it too, by choosing to work longer hours, take less vacation, pursue higher-paying jobs, etc. This is one of those gender issues in which men's and women's actions reflect and affect each other. If men started deciding they wanted a better work/life balance, the gap would close as well, because men would starting earning less. And that would require women to take up some of the responsibility of for providing for their households, which would mean they'd likely start making the opposite decisions. Change can come from either end, but whatever the case, the gap (or lack thereof) is reflective of both men's and women's choices, not just one or the other.

[–]ThanosisKing 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link