ThrowAway3456

> Many people deny this Maybe, but nobody brought it up before you did.

>People tend to think luck is heavily about positioning >yourself to succeed.

>I think that's true, but I also believe that the most >important factors to putting you in those lucky positions >are not in your control.

>Someone who is not already born into a lucky position has >to get even more lucky to succeed.

That we all agree on, what we disagree on is you trying to elevate race above all other uncontrollable factors in ones life. I don't know if it's true or not, but you probably don't have the data to back that assertion up.

> You telling me to simply stop talking about something that I believe is an important point to make is very strange.

Because we are trying to have a civil and deep discourse about an important subject . Any social issue under the sun can be related to racial issue, from violence to education level to health; It's doesn't mean that adopting a racial frame is the best way of discussing,reflecting and solving those issues. We aren't even sure to which part race is a causing vs a correlating factor. What we do know however is that race is such a polarizing subject (in the US at least) that trying to shoehorn race into a debate is a sure way to derail it. Not to mentioned the blatant disrespect to all the other type of human experience that somehow you think are worst than being black in america (mental health and devellopmentale issue for example, and yes see we can all play the game of who as it worst...)...

So ultimately it's not that race is not important, it's that it's not a useful frame for every subject.

And yes i am black, and on my wish list of stuff i want to change about myself higher social status, more money, higher overall sexual attractiveness come way before race...

> you just have no idea whatsoever what it takes to be both psychologically and logistically prepared

And you do? Based on which expertise.

> A kinder, gentler SWAT team is one not actually prepared for the serious situations

This is false dichotomy , nobody is asking for 'kinder,gentler' swat team, we are asking for professional who can professionally appraised the situation before using lethal force. It's about precision not about kindness whatever that means in this context.

Again I am not sure that's how social intersectionality is supposed to work. You seems to see it as a relatively simple algebra : women have it worst than men , Immigrant worst than non immigrant so immigrant women have it "super worst". IMHO this is too simplistic, the way social identities blend together can't be predict thsst way. The authors decided to relate her experience as an immigrant, let's just respect that and not try to pull gender into when we d ont have enough information to have a meaningful conclusion

I am not sure where you pulled your definition of intersectionality, but doesn't sound like anything related. I am not sure neithee why you added the fact that she was a woman to the equation when the comment clearly was targeted at her race / culture. It's annoying cause it somewhat implies that the million of immigrant men don't go through so similar if not worst experiences

I think it's not just Chinese, but pretty much most immigrant have a stronger desire to go back home. Speaking as an immigrant myself,i don't think most of us came to the US because we loved american culture, we came for the opportunity, and as more and more opportuinity open up in culture closer to our native cultures, going back make more and more sense.

The other aspect i didn't see mentioned is that dating for an average immigrant man (which are still the majority of the immigration in tech) is a brutal experience; between the skew gender ratio, the ruthlessness of modern/app based dating and increasing intolerance against "conservative values" etc... for anecdotal sample, a large population are just leaving to escape the loneliness and try to start a family

> tend to not engage well in the conversations that facilitates equality by building mutual empathy.

I think you hit the right spot right there. I always baffled me how little empathy hardcore leftist display for other people experience

> violence against black people and not about the idea that black people are uniquely the target of police violence.

I guess we will have to disagree on this. My perspective is that they are. The frequency, the magnitude and ubiquity of said violence makes it a distinct experience than most other racial group.

Another analogy, both I and a poor child in Somalia experience hunger from time to time, but i think his/her experience is distinctively worst than mine.

I like this answer even if i strongly disagree with it. Hopefully we can engage in a polite discussion where i can contribute the male centric counter-part of your perspective.

>That technique may be used for women (and, heck, men too -- I'm the female 'breadwinner' of my household, although I didn't meet my husband at a sex party...)

Yes some men, but those case are very rare and fare in between. I don't have any better analogy than saying that's like talking about female on male rape or white people being also subject to police violence when talking about black life matters.

> to better their lives, but those gains may be sporadic, and they depend on the continued cooperation of the man they're sleeping with.

But isn't that true for 99% of the working population ? My salary depend on my continue cooperation of my company i am working for.

> Having a job, skills are easily transferable between employers, resources in my own name, and a relationship built on mutual respect and kindness, gives me far more freedom and security than sleeping with guys for the lifestyle perks.

Is this true for any jobs ? Or are you describing the reality for you (what i presume being a conventionally beautiful ,upper middle class American woman)?

Is that true for any man ? or just the one you dated ?

> Now, I'm not saying women shouldn't go to these parties or sleep with these men if they want to, or that considering a man's private jet ownership when debating about whether or not you want to sleep with him is an immoral choice.

Yes, but you are implying that having those choices is not a intrinsic privilege mostly associated with being a (conventionally beautiful) woman and that pointing this privilege is something of a simplification. I am born with a relatively high intelligence. It's also usually comes with high propensity to anxiety and depression and social awkwardness and as such my intelligence doesnt by me everything in life, but all in all it's still a nice privilege to have in 2017. I see female beauty the same.

If had to point an overarching theme on you answer, is that you seems to compare the "gains" from the sexual options of being a woman with those of very power man. We can agree on this (although there is something to be said on comparing a man in his late 35 and the fruit of his labor with the life style of a 20-something, but that a discussion for another time). I don't think that's the fair comparison.

What we need to look at : while you were being a "trophy girlfriend" , how did you life compare to you less desirable friends, and to your male friends around you? Beauty, like intelligence or any other intrinsic quality is an asset; It can be used wisely or not, it can be very valuable or not, but it's still an asset...

> the two choices sound like equivalent things, when they're absolutely not.

Which two choices ?

> On a side note: The presence of these particular sex parties, and the fact that they're so closely intertwined with business in Silicon Valley, I think is an problem. As the article paints it, there's sort of a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" issue that they're introducing for women working in certain companies or who are seeking VC funding.

I guess i can try to share the male perspective on this. It seems that there is wide belief that male sexuality is by nature predatory. Might be some truth to that and the news these days don't really help. But from anecdotal experience, and for having been to those type of parties. Trying to coerce women into coming to those type of party is always plan B. Plan A is always to find open minded women with common interest. And much in the same way that height and muscular bodies are attractive to certain women, money,weath and power is attractive to enough women that plan A i usually all one needs...

are some comments being removed?

Same minority men here, chiming in again... I thing we need to dig into this kind of perspective since i really beleive this does more arm to the diversity fight than help.

> She should not have said "65-year old", as that is blatant age discrimination. And she should not have brought in the terms "white guy", as it is racist stereotyping. It seems like that recruiter is really out of touch with what promoting diversity in the workplace is about.

I am glad we can agree on this

> That recruiter you were speaking of probably meant that they were looking to hire a diverse set of people, as opposed to primarily just 65-year old white guys (which she probably believes to be the majority demographic that you'll see in a stuffy corporate environment).

I am not sure what warrant this generous interpretation. All we have to go with is a a "Derogatory" sentence from someone not in the group (young vs old). She is supposed to be train to speak publicly on behalf of a big company. She is supposed to understand diversity a litle deeper than the average joe. I am not sure what she meant, but to me the "way" she spoke speaks also volume on our industry ageism. I don't think we would have heard this about either hispanics/blacks or women.

> However, despite this, you cannot deny that the majority of people working in the tech sector are white or asian and male. That's just a fact. I feel like you are demonizing diversification efforts in the work place just because of one experience you had.

OP is not denying anything, he did not even mentioned diversity efforts or anything of that sort. The article was about ageism, and his comment was related a story where is people supposed to be trained to look for diversity make "bad" comments on old people. He probably feels concern about it because he can see him self in the old guy in a couple of year, or simply the proximity with the guy in his story make him feel some sympathy for him.

"Straw Maning" "look at this old white guy suffering" into "you are denying the struggle of of all this other people" is bizarre and from my perspective show a lack of empathy. Then going on a lecture on diversity is not helping.

> I feel like you are demonizing diversification efforts in the work place just because of one experience you had.

He is not, he is showing a deficiency in our inclusiveness.

> That old white guy you worked with will not have a problem getting a job in the future, eventually, unless he has some sort of character flaw that renders him absolutely unemployable.

Doesn't this article prove otherwise ? You saying this is essentially denying ageism.

> Hell, he already has a job right now, though on contract basis.

Discrimination is more nuance than getting or not getting a job. It's about being pass for certain possition, it's about having to work harder for the same reward, or working the same for less reward. It's about like in this case someone having the capacities to be a fully employ but having to settle for contract work.

> You are acting like old white men are the victims here. They are victims, but only because of their age.

I am not sure the point of this is on a thread on ageism. there is so many thing wrong with this statement..

> I feel like you are demonizing diversification efforts in the work place just because of one experience you had.

Since we are sharing feelings. I feel like you trivializing other people experiences and trying to create a hierarchy of protected classes. We don't go around telling cancer patient about the pains of poverty or vice versa. We don't go around telling white women complaining about sexual harassment about black men being killed by the police or vice versa. We don't feel the need to compare and judge and contrast those experiences. We just accept them as the general suckiness and unfairness of life, offer help when we can, sympathy when we can't;

When we do so, we are alienating people without good reasons. People will naturally fell more empathy toward certain groups either by identification or by just shared experience, and that's okay. We don't need to lecture them just because they aren't focusing on the group we want to focus on. Ageism is a problem, if you don't feel strongly about it that's okay, but please stop telling people who do , that they should be focusing on something else...

Visible Minority men here chiming in; I find this type of perspective (and the lack of empathy that underlines it) kinda saddening. Most of the argument you are saying are the same we used to make to other minority, "No i didn't mean all of them", "Understand the context in which i make a wide generalization etc..."

> assumed the speaker meant... I am guessing you are not an old person being subject to ageism...

> Context matters a lot

Yes it does, the context in which the statement is made, the person who made it and the context in which the statement is receive. Asking us to only consider on side of the communication ,and making excuse because in certain context the statement is not offensive doesn't seem fair to me.

> such quotes are usually said in reference to a company's leadership team, and there's quite a bit of truth to them

There is truth in any stereotype, that's why they exist. The usual issue is that they are alienating and non inclusive to some people.

> it's overwhelmingly middle-aged/old white men

And the prisons in America are filled with poeple who look like me, should i be okay with generalization on me about that. One thing that it seems that most leftist like me forget is that most CEOs are white , but most white are not CEOs...

> I would consider that just as problematic as the age-discrimination that the article was referring to.

Yes and the first step is adopt an inclusive language, and not make excuse we wouldn't accept on any other protected classes. The fight for diversity is won we get everybody on board. When we start to have a hierarchy of protected classes, some classes where it's kind of okay to discriminate against because X,Y,Z reasons then it starts to look like the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve

And i guess the most interesting thing is the amount the mental gymnastic we have to do to find this statement okay, instead of just taking the most plausible explanation... It simply reflect the latent ageism in our industry, and the fact that it is still okay to be ageist so long as it's directed at white men...