[HN Gopher] Turmoil at 'Chief' raises the question: is empowerin...
___________________________________________________________________
Turmoil at 'Chief' raises the question: is empowering corporate
women enough?
Author : tafda
Score : 17 points
Date : 2023-03-28 13:57 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| yieldcrv wrote:
| 501(c)4 and 501(c)5's are the kinds of organizations that anyone
| can form or work for if they want their corporation to "use their
| platform" for social welfare in labor matters and helping
| marginalized people
|
| corporations formed for selling shares are simply not formed for
| these unrelated matters
|
| if you're in a network for becoming executives at share selling
| corporations and want to be in a network for a group that does
| other things, then leave and go to that other network
|
| It seems like people who have tried (and failed) at reshaping the
| for-profit world are unaware of what actually exists to cater to
| their sentiment already, social welfare and labor groups
| InTheArena wrote:
| From the article:
|
| 'The recent turmoil at Chief began on International Women's Day,
| in early March, when a member of the network, Denise Conroy,
| declared on LinkedIn that she was leaving Chief and accused the
| group of sidestepping political issues and ghosting women of
| color who applied for membership. (Ms. Conroy, 51, later
| acknowledged that she had been reprimanded internally for trying
| to sell tickets on Chief's platform to an external workshop she
| was running, which ran counter to the company's policies.) ....
|
| Rachel Hassall, a supply chain executive, is one of the Chief
| members who chose to leave the organization this month. She had
| recently participated in a discussion that Ms. Conroy hosted
| about the book "White Women: Everything You Already Know About
| Your Own Racism and How to Do Better"
|
| Seriously. Who signs up for this? Imagine paying to be called a
| racist all day long, just so you can feel morally superior to
| others.
| bennysonething wrote:
| Same as being a Catholic "sign up to feel guilty for the rest
| of your life". I should know, I was born one !
| JohnDeHope wrote:
| I'm in RCIA classes to convert to Catholicism. I'm skipping
| this Easter's big confirmation event to give it some more
| time. I'm chiming in to reply to this comment. Catholicism is
| a practical way to deal with the guilt you (should?) already
| feel.
| [deleted]
| JPws_Prntr_Fngr wrote:
| > Catholicism is a practical way to deal with the guilt you
| (should?) already feel.
|
| For the low, low price of a few tithes and indulgences*,
| you too can assuage your guilt, you guilty sinful person!
|
| *and a little child abuse. Ok, and a little warmongering
| too
| JPws_Prntr_Fngr wrote:
| > Seriously. Who signs up for this?
|
| Women, specifically the middle-to-upper class ones that take
| the wackiest university courses, outpace men in grades and
| graduation rates, are hired preferentially at large companies,
| completely own the HR departments, and therefore are the ones
| who determine American Corporate Culture.
| TheMoonToMyLeft wrote:
| [dead]
| engineer_22 wrote:
| TL;DR: Self-selecting social club wasn't selective enough.
| malermeister wrote:
| This is the Sheryl Sandberg school of feminism, which is more
| concerned with already privileged, white, rich ladies
| accumulating the same amount of power as their male counterparts
| than helping the struggling single mother working three jobs
| trying to make ends meet.
|
| Class is the true defining factor. Not gender, not race, not
| anything else. If we want to encourage equality, we need to
| address the class issue.
|
| Stuff like this is just more class warfare dressed up as
| empowerment.
| orwin wrote:
| The use of the word 'empowerment' in modern feminism itself,
| even by center-left collective, is the proof that we lost the
| last battle in the class warfare. Goldman, Beauvoir and
| feminists used emancipation. Now I even hear French feminist
| use 'empowerment', and that's just sad.
| Proven wrote:
| [dead]
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| Of course, country clubs for privileged people never refrain from
| eating themselves when they throw politics into the mix.
|
| $7,900 a year and these folks acting like they're the saviours of
| the world, lol. To paraphrase the CEO, "We're a club for rich
| women and will like to remain that way..." which is fine by me.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.ph/CyAMW
| rayiner wrote:
| Not only does an organization aimed at empowering corporate women
| not need to tackle racial issues, they will cause harm by trying.
| Affluent, educated white women have interests that are
| fundamentally in conflict with the interests with those of most
| minorities, who are disproportionately working class. And their
| money and power makes it inevitable that, if they meddle in those
| issues, they will distort and disrupt organic movements by and
| within those minority groups.
|
| For example, black people are the most likely of any racial group
| to express the traditional view that being able to provide for a
| family is very important for a man:
| https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/20/americans-s....
| Among women without a college degree, which disproportionately
| includes racial minorities, fully 44% would prefer a homemaker
| role to working outside the home:
| https://news.gallup.com/poll/267737/record-high-women-prefer....
| There's _lots_ of black women who would prefer the return of good
| union jobs so that they wouldn't have to work outside the home.
| This is not surprising--if a career that confers power and money
| and social status isn't realistically an option for you (and it
| will never be for the majority of people) then your other options
| look much different!
|
| Whenever affluent white people parachute into stuff like this,
| the minorities involved inevitably become a canvas for them to
| project their own interests and motivations. And varying
| interests within those minority groups get swept aside in favor
| of whatever happens to line up with those of the white people
| with money and power. It's bad and wrong.
| bennysonething wrote:
| Or it's a way to increase your status while not doing your
| actual job. "Look at how moral I am!". I'm wondering how long
| this crap will continue. I'm hoping it becomes a cliche and
| embarrassing soon.
| JPws_Prntr_Fngr wrote:
| The elaborate and nonsensical (and costly) virtue/fitness-
| signaling will only continue to escalate, because just like
| with clothing fashions, the difficulty and cost of staying in
| the trendy vanguard is the entire point. Scott Alexander (and
| probably others) had a pretty good analysis of the
| phenomenon.
| riskneutral wrote:
| > For admission to Chief, a women's leadership network, members
| pay up to $7,900. That gets them executive coaching, big-name
| speaker sessions, a Rolodex of female executives and, for an
| extra cost, access to five sleek clubhouses. Chief is essentially
| an "old boys' club" -- for the ladies. The venture capital-backed
| company has grown to over 20,000 members and over $1 billion in
| value since it started in 2019.
|
| So ... can we have the "old boys' clubs" back now, for the other
| half of the species? Somehow I don't think so.
| paxys wrote:
| If you truly think these "old boys' clubs" went anywhere you
| are simply not connected enough to be part of them.
| scarmig wrote:
| But I thought every man is part of the patriarchy and is
| given a free all-access pass to the old boys' club at birth.
| theossuary wrote:
| Patriarchy and old boys clubs are related but separate
| things. One hint they aren't the same is they are different
| words with different definitions.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-28 23:02 UTC)