Why are white women diversity?
Genuine question here. Can someone please explain why the white girl who grew up in Greenwich and whose parents spent 50-60K/yr on prep schools has a distinct advantage over a middle class indian/middle eastern/white/asian male? I'm genuinely confused as these are quite literally the most privileged people in the United States. Also ironic when most of the time, their only internship was working at a Yacht Club. Regardless of race, I don't comprehend how these people are somehow "disadvantaged." Why isn't everything based on income? Frankly, half of the people in the industry grew up attending prep schools (which make it way easier to get into schools such as Tulane, BC, Wake, etc). Why not just host programs to receive more female applicants? Lowering the bar is just insulting. Imo, if your family makes over say 500k/yr, you should not be able to qualify for diversity programs. Of course, I'm sure if you publicly express this, people will still be sure to label you a bigot.
Because women have been historically marginalized. Colleges only started accepting women students only crazily recently lol. And women still face a lot of shit when climbing these crazy male-dominated industries like IB or HF.
And to be clear, I get your point and I even agree. I'm just sayin' what the conventional narrative believes. It's like a ML/ regression model - discriminating (in the statistical sense) based on well grounded factors such as gender tends to generate the best out-of-sample predictions, on average. In other words, it's the line of best fit. The poor white males from suburbs who are less privileged than the rich black girls are the inevitable mis-predictions of the model. If we tried to model for them, we'd overfit the model and increase our variance error. Firms need a blanket policy that gives them the best predictions on average - they can't account for every small error.
To counter these mis-predictions, firms and universities have already dished out diversity programs based on socioeconomic background, not race or gender.
Ironically the socioeconomic program still lead to the same underrepresented groups— blacks and Latinos. The groups that the incels want to see the least
Maybe, just maybe ... those groups are actually more socioeconomically challenged on average?
Pure socioeconomic AA doesn't work all that well. Black and Latino representation still collapses vs. explicit racial AA because test scores controlling for SES are still far lower than comparably poor whites and Asians. To have anywhere close to US demographic percentages you either need explicit racial AA or you need to cheat by drawing from a global pool. Which is also done - many blacks and hispanics in elite academic institutions and jobs are international.
In theory, to achieve the best outcomes, the policymakers would have to do smtg like 1st degree price discrimination. In this case, 1st degree 'diversity' discrimination. Which means they consider each candidate INDIVIDUALLY and max their producer surplus. But obvs this is impractical
They were...but now now. Whole system benefits them..Men are being marginalized.
Women outnumber men across all universities
Women outnumber men at medical school and law schools
Women score higher on the sat on average/higher gas
Women in 20s on average make more than men in 20s
They are not marginalized anymore. They should get no special benefits
Women were not historically marginalized and never have been. It serves no purpose or benefit for a population group looking to successfully procreate and develop resources (the biological goal of almost any nation , tribe, religion) to 'marginalize' half the population. Humans have evolved to do that as effectively as possible. It's no surprise or coincidence that gender roles are more or less similar across continents that weren't even in communication with one another for thousands of years. This is because up until recently those gender roles were the most efficient at doing the above as possible.
You are looking at human history through a modern lens. If you are going to do that then in fact basically everyone was marginalized.
Lol. Affirmative action has benefitted white women more than any other group
Why do you think they are the loudest proponents of it? It all checks out
They’re not, and they shouldn’t be.
Gabby (who went to Brunswick), Lilly (who went to Culver), Kayla (who went to Pine Crest School), and [insert white woman name] who went to [insanely expensive boarding school] ARE NOT OPPRESSED NOR MARGINALIZED!!!
Women under 30 are making more than men under 30!!!
I don’t hate women (and I love my gf very much), but this shouldn’t be a thing. Everyone should be interviewed fairly and equally, regardless of race, gender, or whatever stupid metric you want to use.
The only women who benefit from these DiVErSiTy programs are RICH WHITE WOMEN, as shown by a McKinsey study.
The fact that banks base recruiting on qualities that humans cannot change or control is outrageous.
Brunswick is an all-boys school, you mean Greenwich Academy but I see your point. .
This guy knows rich white women…
Agreed that wealthy, white women disproportionately benefit from AA. However, women also shouldn’t be underrepresented in the industry (especially in a relationship driven industry where the “merit” of how good you are comes from how liked you are). Instead of giving those spots to middle class Asian men (which I’m not sure if that’s your identity or just what you believe is the most competitive identity for this job), those spots should go to underprivileged women…
Women will inherently be underrepresented statistically in finance and consulting because, when given the option, they disproportionately don't select those career fields. There is no way to close that gap other than to convince women to do something they don't want to do or to hire far less qualified women among the smaller pool of applicants.
One sell side shop I worked with had maybe 2 total women out of 40 employees. 1 was an analyst and 1 was an associate. Most employees were white or Asian (Indian or Chinese) men. Not a single black person working except for maybe admin assistant roles.
This is why people who complain about “tHe WeAltHy bLaCks” getting in through affirmative action have no idea what they’re talking about.
My team of over 10 people has 1 non-admin female. So it applies in that regard. However, on other teams, there are more and pretty soon I don’t think they will be underrepresented.
Don't think it has more to do with the fact that there are less women applicants? I don't think these people are "discriminated against", naturally the applicant pool is just smaller ~ therefore there's not going to be as much talent. Also, shouldn't we have diversity programs in construction? Or does it only apply to prestigious careers?
As a white woman growing up in the poorest shitholes in Eastern Europe I am still waiting for when my white privilege will kick in.
same here
Discussing diversity on the base of sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. it's outdated. The most appropriate discussion for current times is about wealthy background vs. non-wealthy background (because of the ease of accessing opportunities or reducing many challenges in life that may step into one's academic or professional progress). But then, how much can we stretch the diversity quota? We could reach some discussions about people that could prove genetically that they were born with a lower IQ but then raised it through those years to a higher level vs. people that were already born with a high IQ and because of that they "had it easier" in academics. We can also show people who were raised in a family that molded them into being extremely charismatic and good salesmen (a good fit for certain positions) vs. people that were raised in conflictive and anxious families, and we ought to favor the last because they had it harder and it's hard to change traits that you carried almost all your life; etc., etc.
The general critique, thus, isn't on diversity, but about how companies carry out recruiting: Brand names or other superficial things as absolute indicators of competence instead of accomplishments relative to a candidate's background (e.g., it's far more impressive to get into a top 15 university like Georgetown while being raised in Compton vs. getting into Harvard coming from an extremely privileged background). But still, even such an assessment would be flawed: Do we care about relative accomplishments or do we care about certain traits and backgrounds that best fit the expectations of clients when they step inside a bank? The discussion, then, goes further than "how companies carry out recruiting" if we agree that corporations carry out recruitment in a certain way to better fulfill clients' expectations about the organization.
For example, recruiting women, LGBT people, and other races, SOMETIMES it's done purely to portray in their transparency reports that they are not racists even if there are more qualified white men applying for the job. The company may not be racist, but because society as a whole and journalists are ready to shit almost anything that is done by white people as racist or by white men as sexist, companies prefer to play it safe. So, again, companies are just adhering to the expectations that a (dumb) society has about them. They may prefer to lose six figures in lower productivity (because they didn't recruit a more competent candidate) than to face a fictional and misunderstood case of racism or sexism by a "woke" individual and incur 7 figures in unjust fines.
Anyway, there are entire papers about recruitment and diversity. I just gave you some conflicting views on some ideas to understand that it's easy to criticize what diversity means if we don't understand stakeholders' expectations (=society) and organizational development. So there's no secret that the system is flawed, but are you just being a broken disc repeating the same critiques that were first addressed 20/30 years ago or are you coming up with some better solutions? If I were you, I would be more focused on finding solutions because you could make yourself a name in academia or even in the business world. Critics with no solutions remain forgotten.
Wealth as a measure will still favor blacks and Hispanics. Lol
The same people Incels hate
Most incels are non-white minorities you idiot. You ever see how well an average black, hispanic, or asian guy does on tinder lmao
HR is predominantly white sorority, upper middle class women.
They are the ones who set up and design the programs.
It is not too difficult to connect the dots here.
While we’re at it — annoying how white people mask as Hispanic, while the indigenous (aka most oppressed Hispanics) rarely get into these programs
Because there have been relentless campaigns beginning in the last decade and supported from academia, political special interest groups, and the media to create a narrative that all women are victims, and it's been effective enough to make absolute inroads in the last 10 years when previously was just scoffed at (75%+ of women in 2005 would say they are not a feminist compared to 25% that would. Take that poll now and it's likely flipped). Can likely blame smart phones/social media and academic bloat funded by taxpayers for this indoctrination.
So instead of a population group (western college educated women, especially white women) that is in the top .0001% of privilege in human history, and the top .1% percent of privilege on this planet today, being grateful / appreciative / understanding aka traits that lead to happiness - you have convinced them to be unsatisfied, unhappy, miserable, angry, etc. Is it good for women? Idk cant answer that one. It certainly is good for corporations looking to reduce labor costs as well as pharma companies looking to pump out anti-depressants though
Another byproduct of this movement is the complete retroactive damnation of human history. A perspective that only makes sense if you consider yourself at the end of human history and have the hubris to believe you've reached the final stage of enlightenment, all on your own, completely detached from the beliefs of the world around you. Your great grand parents who raised 6 kids through the depression together and adhered to strict gender roles? Patriarchal brainwashing and he's a sexist. His male sons who worked back breaking physical labor jobs sun up to sun down, waiting for a piece of mail to send them to another country to go die in a trench? Privileged ass holes. His father who was statistically likely to be illiterate his entire life and got his perspective on life from either people he worked with or going to church every Sunday because opportunity to learn about the world was basically non-existent? Irredeemable bigot.
But the above thought exercise is generally too time consuming, introspective, and frankly requires a degree of intelligence that most in this crowd isn't capable of. Easier to pull open your phone, see a tweet saying 'women get called bossy when men get called assertive for giving commands', close your phone, and thus blame the world for your problems. It's easy to be a victim, there is equity in it. And the best part is it strips you of agency. Change is difficult. Woe is me is not.
(1) Because women are a marginalized group and having a separate privilege doesn’t negate the marginalization.
(2) Peer pressure
Rerum minima eos rerum dolorum blanditiis eos. Officiis hic tenetur et est ducimus numquam illum. Tenetur vel itaque architecto qui vitae. Ut quasi ullam eaque quia quia dolorum nostrum. Dicta eum ea illo nobis maxime.
Perferendis rerum placeat ea voluptas ratione rerum neque. Et est ducimus fuga rerum odio. Voluptas incidunt tempore odio sapiente. Non dolores saepe delectus est harum.
Inventore ea nam qui. Ipsum voluptates consectetur aut occaecati explicabo. Et quia eos molestiae occaecati quod molestias nihil voluptas. Quibusdam ea neque velit et optio.
Qui blanditiis iste dolor veniam sunt. Impedit recusandae et quisquam error. Omnis totam sint mollitia et inventore praesentium. Enim suscipit rem id ipsam eos. Est rem dolores tempore. Nesciunt cumque voluptas deleniti qui in labore.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Ipsum quia vitae suscipit nam quia. Blanditiis temporibus sunt eum expedita. Aut reprehenderit sint ipsam cumque.
Tempora recusandae quia quibusdam quos. Consequatur in corrupti exercitationem cumque adipisci dolorem. Placeat architecto blanditiis unde occaecati laboriosam minima. Molestiae distinctio autem similique. Autem amet illum voluptates nisi sed. Sunt odit itaque natus. Nihil corporis non nihil minus aut.