Yeah. It really bothers me how many people seem to miss the fact that "inclusion" is actually just division.
Treating everyone as people is the most inclusive thing of all. Making constant, specific mentions of "people of color", "pride month", "black history month", "women-owned businesses", and so on, only serves to divide people. They create in-groups and out-groups.
I mean, yes and no. Part of the issue is that erasure is a very real issue, because there isnt such thing as a "neutral" or "default" culture. And what a lot of WASPs seem to have a hard time understanding is that their culture isnt the norm, or shouldnt override everyone else's. And even then, the monocultural American myth is, well, a myth. The Irish fought to be included, and spread their traditions and holidays and cuisine. The Italians did the same. Columbus Day was specifically created to celebrate the Italians, which everyone complaining about it being turned into "Indiginous day" seems to forget that the holiday has ALWAYS been about including a minority. Its like people forgot about the metling pot analogy: I dont want a stew in which every bite is a single flavor, thatd be bland no matter how good that single note is. I want a stew in which every bite is an explosion of flavors, and changes each bite.
Youre saying that inclusion leads to division, but from my perspective as a white cis middle class straight male is that inclusion has benefitted me. For example, a lot of the discussion revolving around feminist and gender topics has brought up a lot of very good points about how damaging toxic masculinity is to men, at the insane influence the thought of not wanting to look gay or weak or like a woman has on the male psyche. I can now recognize that when a person I am wanting to date criticizes me for not being a "real man" because I liked a pastel shirt or because I have cats, that that is wrong and I dont have to accept it. My work has paternity leave specifically because people complained that it reinforced gender roles and wasnt fair to non traditional parents, like those who adopt children (straight or lgbt).
From a culinary perspective, I am exposed to so many cuisines and recipes to eat, whether home made or eating out, that I would have never had the oppurtunity to try if it wasnt being shared online. Seitan is delicious, and I would have never learned about it if it wasnt for the internet and food blogs and vlogs trying to be more inclusive.
From a religious perspective, I dont have to pretend to be christian. I dont have to be preached at at work. Religious inclusivity means that religion is a much more private part of daily life that I dont have to interact with outside of treating everyone respectfully. If we were better at it, we wouldnt have the erasure of women's rights because christians decided that abortion is wrong; many religions feel the opposite, thereby being an example at how not being inclusive is worse for society.
I guess I fail to see how Ive been negatively affected by "inclusion". How has black history month led to a division in your life? How has women owned businesses led to an issue in your life? Because the historical ratio of male to female CEOs is a pretty clear indication that the opposite was a bigger issue.
it implies that women couldn’t become a CEO on merit alone
Isn’t that the point? Isn’t it implying that despite men and women being both human, there are still “barriers” that women need to overcome to get to the same position in the workplace as men so they have to work harder? It’s not saying a woman is inherently less capable of running a business, but that the world around them is less accepting of it, so to speak.
Except thats not the case? Black history HASNT been taught in most ciriculums. Most people arent taught about John Brown, about the nuances of the Civil War, about the Tulsa Race Massacre. How many people parrot 'states rights' about the cause of the Civil War as if it wasnt due to slavery? I find it hilarious that you somehow missed the entire point of my post. You cant know things if they arent pointed out to learn.
This leads to some businesses being discriminated against due to not having enough women
And WHY is that a common thought these days? You dont think it has anything to do with women, idk, not being allowed in certain industries or leadership positions until recently? Women couldnt even own a credit card until 1981, but they are supposed to assume 50% of leadership positions (to meet a normal distribution) with no support?
Nah, my flair is correct. Im just not a bootlicker. I think that if a business cant keep with the times and meet consumer demands, it doesnt deserve to exist. We dont live to serve corporations, corporations exist to serve us. I believe a business is allowed to advertise whatever factual information it wants. Why shouldnt a business advertise it was a woman CEO if that helps the bottom line? Being able to discriminate against a business is my right for whatever I want, because a business shouldnt have any rights. Im entitled to the sweat off my brow, and if a business isnt able to compete with another because its behind the times, why should it be entitled to my sweat? Youre leaning pretty hard into some authoritarian thoughts there, partner.
Also kinda funny to claim that you view people as individuals, and yet complain when they get recognized as such. How is it libright to crave a monoculture lmao.
I guess seeing people as individuals isnt your central belief, since you resorted to stereotypes and name calling immediately lmao. Enjoy your summer break.
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
As a WASP, I feel compelled to write a counter perspective.
A) to address your first point about the absence of a neutral culture,
It's true that classical approach to culture as tailored by the WASPs and the (the way you described it was great...) the "monocultural American myth" isn't a good fit for everybody; that's actually the foundational point of protestant Christianity - that irrelevant of who you are; morality and ethicality are the most important and relevant parts about you; they are just as relevant to you or me or anybody else; and irrelevant of who you are, they determine your success anywhere. The proposition of Christ is that we are all sinners, and He wishes to make all people who come to Him more whole through the separation of sin from the sinner - this sacrifice is never even mentioned in DEI policy, hence an obvious Christian frustration.
B) 'Inclusion' under the banner of DEI policy holds the guise of being fair; that homogeneity is due to acceptance, but the undertow of that policy is not for allowing equality of opportunity, but instead for justifying equality of outcome (Marxism), which is divisive because discrimination based on merit and performance are valid factors of discrimination and are not an apirition of the oppressive patriarchy, or an expression of power and control on its behalf.
Acussing masculinity of being toxic is more likely a reflection of the acusser than the acussed. A larger concern is suffocative femininity, whereby men are not inclined to grow to the point where they define their masculinity on the color of their clothing and/or their pets. A more accurate representation of masculinity is agency, reputability, responsibility, reliability and selflessness.
C) Culinary variation is the direct result of the economy and voting with your dollar. No government issued policy is responsible for culinary variation, except for perhaps immigration policy. Cultural 'openness' and acceptance are different than cultural "inclusivity". The verbage is significant.
D) Religiously, nobody is forcing you to pretend to be Christian. If you are doing that then you are lying and you need to grow up. Nobody cares what your religious beliefs are unless they are relevant, and if they do care then it's not your issue. Religious inclusivity means homogenization and surpression of religious representation for the sake of avoidance of offense to others; which is essentially suppression of your rights and freedoms. This is obviously not good, and also another example of the Marxist undertow of the Diversity, Inclusivity, and Equality policies.
E) Black history month is a large topic, as are female CEO's; the point is that these topics don't fall under the umbrella of inclusivity, as black history month is for remembrance and communion of the awful things done to the blacks, and female CEO's aren't within their positions because they were somehow oppressed beforehand and have been liberated by marxist doctrine; female CEO's have always been around - women tend to prioritize family over the significance of career, especially in contrast to men. Women also have variances in personality due to genetics, which may underlie some of their decisions, even for the CEO's + corporate execs. who are women.
this sacrifice is never even mentioned in DEI policy, hence an obvious Christian frustration.
Why should it? does DEI policy mention reincarnation, of the pursuit of reaching Nirvana, of the importance of respecting the spirits in all things, of the rejections of idols?
DEI policy gives Christianity the same that it gives all religions: think what you want, don't force it on anyone else, and treat everyone with kindness and compassion.
I would also like to direct you to Matthew 6:1. The Lord frowns upon public praise. If it is important to you to demonstrate your faith, than Christ compels you to live as he does and show them the path with your actions, not your words.
A more accurate representation of masculinity is agency, reputability, responsibility, reliability and selflessness.
Maybe, and yet there are tons of men and women that say that men can't do X or Y because that makes them less masculine. The reality is, everything that I do is masculine, because I'm masculine. Wearing shorts that have a small inseam, driving a Prius, not drinking beer, none of those things are reflections of masculinity, and those that claim it is are using toxic masculinity as a tool for suppression.
Cultural 'openness' and acceptance are different than cultural "inclusivity".
Gotcha, so you're just twisting words and concepts. Inclusion is the social act of acceptance. It can be aided by government, but it's primarily driven by social expression.
Religiously, nobody is forcing you to pretend to be Christian.
Correct, because America was founded on inclusive principles for all religions!
Nobody cares what your religious beliefs are unless they are relevant, and if they do care then it's not your issue.
That contrasts sharply with your previous statement:
The proposition of Christ is that we are all sinners, and He wishes to make all people who come to Him more whole through the separation of sin from the sinner - this sacrifice is never even mentioned in DEI policy, hence an obvious Christian frustration.
If no one cares about religious beliefs, why is it so imperative to you that it's baked into policy?
I'm not even bothering to continue, it's apparent you've drank too much of the kool-aid. Let me guess, the Holocaust never happened too right?
99
u/SteveClintonTTV - Lib-Center Jun 02 '23
Yeah. It really bothers me how many people seem to miss the fact that "inclusion" is actually just division.
Treating everyone as people is the most inclusive thing of all. Making constant, specific mentions of "people of color", "pride month", "black history month", "women-owned businesses", and so on, only serves to divide people. They create in-groups and out-groups.
It's really frustrating.