DNC Data Services Center: Straight white guys need NOT apply for IT position

Article here. Straight white guys invented the Internet. They invented modern computing, too, with a few noteworthy contributions from straight (*gasp*) white females, also (Ada Lovelace, et al.). And yet, there are just too many in this line of work! Time to start excluding straight white guys from even applying for IT jobs. Yep, that's a *sure* way to get the best-quality people and heck, it's also neither racist nor sexist because, well... it's white guys (straight ones, too) we're talking about. If I put on a dress and wig, can I get an interview then?

'The Daily Wire has obtained an internal Democratic National Committee email listing several open IT positions that openly says that it does not want white males. Here’s the email—note the underlined sentence at the end:
The sentence reads: “I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they’re already in the majority.”

So much for being an “equal opportunity employer” I guess. Just curious: what’s it like to be a straight, cis-gendered white male working at the DNC? Do you have to begin every day genuflecting outside the office of the diversity coordinator, and apologizing for your “white privilege”? Do you have to go to regular de-tox sessions to shed your “toxic masculinity”?'

Like0 Dislike0


Looks like the chickens are roosting.

Like0 Dislike0

I worked in a paid technology position for my state's Democratic Party for about 18 months back in 2003-2004. Things were already going that way then, though only a few hardcore feminists would dare say stuff like that out loud.

The whole experience is largely what turned me off of Democrats.

Like0 Dislike0

The Dems used to be fairly marginal in the sense that they were the populist party for the average working class person (back then, neither party addressed "women's issues" directly as they do now and they were focused principally on the basics of civics and policy, and of course the overall economy -- less so on social issues, though those were present). They became the party of union loyalists, and they got popular that way. Then in the '60s and '70s they took a bold gamble: if they played specif. to the particular interests, concerns, or even just the sentiments of women and non-whites while the GOP remained focused on the traditional concerns (law/constitutionality/public safety/overall economic health), they could sew up a majority of voters. Women were half of the voters and non-whites in total were 10-20% of the voters. Thus if they could claim 60% of the voters by appealing directly to their sentiments (not always their interests), this would assure an electoral majority. Brilliant!

At first they did not specifically decry whiteness/maleness because they were happy to have white male working class voters and most of the Dem leadership if not all were themselves white men. But as time has gone on, that has changed.

Now through any number of means, the number of white men in mgt or policy positions in the DNC is as low as it has ever been. Women and non-whites are in most if not all the top positions. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. The issue is what do the people in those positions want to do, or believe in, and how does it affect how they see gov't policy and what the priorities are for their party? If they were ppl who just happened to be women/non-white but had narry a racist/sexist bone in their bodies, no problem. But what happens when the DNC leadership is comprised of people of any ethnicity or sex who are in fact racist and sexist... just happening to be that way against white men... and unapologetically so?

The DNC seems to have forgotten that only through the cooperation and championing of their issues have non-whites and women gotten to the collective point of political and social influence they now hold as citizens and as self-defined interest groups. After all, one does not ascend to the heights of public administration in our country w/o h@ving *public* support. And a fair bit of that has come from *gasp* white men. White men are what, 35% of the US population, maybe more? To be declaring that many people persona non grata in the DNC world of employment because, well, there are just "too many of... THOSE KINDS OF PEOPLE AROUND ALREADY..." sounds more than a bit like a re-cast of Archie Bunker, just in a different body. And the bigotry is just as ugly -- except to more than a few DNC officials who seem to think that it is juuuusssttt fiiinnneee.

If the DNC keeps shedding white male supporters, it can cry racism and/or sexism all it wants, just as The Vile Hildebeast has been doing during and since the 2016 election. But it has only itself to blame. After all, many GOP officials of the bygone era were products of their times and felt women shouldn't be involved "too much" in politics and so lost the support of female voters. Well, that's what happens when you tell your supporters to shove off. The DNC is doing that now but to white male supporters. So, off they are shoving. Cause and effect is what it is.

If during the next general elections the DNC loses people in the Congress and/or loses governors' mansions, they can carry on about -isms all they like, but the reason they are losing white men is found in the DNC's own office mirrors. Those mirrors contain the faces of more than a few intolerant, bigoted fat-heads. And such people may have gotten elected to office in times past, but not now.

The DNC needs to return to its ideological roots of LOOOOVVVIINNGGG EVERRYYYYYBOOODDYYYY. It'll be a lot more successful if it goes back to the big tent approach, versus the "No White Men Allowed" approach it is currently pursuing.

Like0 Dislike0