It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: mobiusmale
The Democrat Party keeps sliding farther and farther Left...
White men need not apply.
That’s the message out of the Democratic National Committee’s hiring team, currently on the hunt to filll multiple vacancies in their tech department.
The political organization, which routinely makes grand statements about inclusion, recently sent an email to its employees looking to recruit people for eight open spots including IT Systems Administrator, Product Manager and Chief Security Officer.
But it is not only "white men" who are encouraged to not apply...it is anybody who still identifies with the gender they were born with!
DNC’s Data Service Manager Madeleine Leader purportedly wrote in an email that the desire for diversity excludes “cisgender straight white males.”
Leader adds, “I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, as they are already in the majority.” Cisgender is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned to at birth.
I am trying to wrap my mind around the combination term "cisgender straight males". So if you are a male at birth, who still identifies as a male, and is sexually oriented toward females...don't apply. But if you now identify as a female, do you have to be attracted to other "females", or is it okay to prefer males (as a "now identified as" female)?
The entire thing is absurd. Here's a crazy idea...how about hiring the most qualified candidates for each position, without regard for their skin tone, gender identification or sexual orientation?
If the Dems keep on this path, it will be a wonder that they get any votes from anybody in the future - because the vast majority of people in the U.S. will get tripped up on one of their identity-politic guideposts.
Need not apply if a:
Hispanic straight woman
Black gay man who still identifies as a male
White female who identifies as a male (making her now a "white male")
Dems have officially gone full retard
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: seagull
There is no problem hiring the right person. "Right person" can be a subjective term though.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko
I once had two people up for the same job. They were both equally qualified. One was not more qualified than the other. One was a white male and one was a black female. I hired the black female because I wanted more diversity. I didn't hire her just because she was a black female. I hired her because she was perfectly qualified for the job AND she was a black female. Another manager might have picked the guy because he was perfectly qualified and that manager felt more comfortable working with a man. I don't think either of us would be considered discriminatory, as long as our first criteria was the qualifications needed to do the job.
This is what I mean about the right person for the job being subjective.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kaylaluv
So you agree that the DNC should be allowed to just tell white males not even to bother applying?