Quoting from the movie "Goldfinger" - “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”. At some point, you don't even have to guess at the motivations of some people of the political persuasion because they announce themselves by their actions.
I think it has a lot to do with the post. Any time you apply a “selection process” to a group of people, it sort of assumes some commonality among them, when in fact each individual may have very different capabilities. Once they are assessed, folks move up in part due to the jobs they hold. If leaders make assumptions that prevent someone from taking certain jobs, they put that person at a disadvantage. To use your analogy, if you never detail Sailors from one state to career enhancing billets, they will likely select at lower rates and this could be used to “prove” that they are not good performers.
You are referencing individualized subjective discrimination by an individual, this entire post is about generalized objective discriminations by an organization against select groups of people. These are completely different issues.
John - while we welcome links in comments, we prefer that they are germane to the subject at hand in the specific post the comment is placed in.
This post has nothing to do with "affinity groups" and as such your link is not germane to the topic at hand and falls under the "advertising" category which is outside proper comment section manners - not unlike threadjacking.
Quoting from the movie "Goldfinger" - “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”. At some point, you don't even have to guess at the motivations of some people of the political persuasion because they announce themselves by their actions.
True - across the board!
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/august/dont-assume-women-dont-want-hard-jobs?mc_cid=b537dcb84f&mc_eid=b6ce54c639
I’m not sure what that has to do with the post, but OK.
I think it has a lot to do with the post. Any time you apply a “selection process” to a group of people, it sort of assumes some commonality among them, when in fact each individual may have very different capabilities. Once they are assessed, folks move up in part due to the jobs they hold. If leaders make assumptions that prevent someone from taking certain jobs, they put that person at a disadvantage. To use your analogy, if you never detail Sailors from one state to career enhancing billets, they will likely select at lower rates and this could be used to “prove” that they are not good performers.
You are referencing individualized subjective discrimination by an individual, this entire post is about generalized objective discriminations by an organization against select groups of people. These are completely different issues.
That’s where you and I differ. The institution is the sum of the individuals. They are inextricably linked - in my experience and opinion’
For a different view, I hope you and your readers will join this discussion next week and catch up on what these “affinity groups” are working on: https://scontent-frt3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/300156716_5403439676391010_5028899954186002949_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=QlM08Jw2EpMAX8HtxFy&_nc_ht=scontent-frt3-2.xx&oh=00_AT_54C_KTFDFsrp11F-RwuBS5ubF160z2X2ibJIZZ4pCBg&oe=63041BD5
John - while we welcome links in comments, we prefer that they are germane to the subject at hand in the specific post the comment is placed in.
This post has nothing to do with "affinity groups" and as such your link is not germane to the topic at hand and falls under the "advertising" category which is outside proper comment section manners - not unlike threadjacking.
Sorry, That was not my intent, was looking at the overall theme of diversity. It was not intended as advertising but sharing. Feel free to delete it.
Just for future reference.
Just one word - Amen.