How does ratios of genders affect work in the workplace?

The following is a paper I wrote for my PUAD 520 Organizational Theory Class.

 

What It Takes To Get Along

            How a manager breaks his/her department into groups/teams can greatly affect the speed and quality of their work. You can have the same 25 people broken up 4 different ways, and you will get 4 variations of their finished product/service. They’re the same people, same work, same environment, the only thing that has changed is how they were organized. Now let’s move to a seemingly unrelated subject, then, tie the two together. The second concept is that the gender dynamics of companies and organizations are drastically changing. What is meant by that is that some sectors of the economy that have been traditionally male dominated are now less male dominated. At the same time, there are other sectors of the economy, such as construction, that has been traditionally male dominated and continues to be male dominated. The point is that every variation of the number of males and females working in every sector of the economy is different. This means from no change to a drastic change, and all in-between, this is what happening. It’s not all one thing or not all one another. So what is the tie between these two concepts? The tie is my main question that I seek to answer in this paper: Does the ratio of male to females in a group/team affect the quality and speed of their work?

            None of the sources solve the question directly. One assumes that no one has asked this question before, because the research and sources touch on the subjects related to the question, but that is the extent. One has to gather all of the conclusions from all of the sources together and then will see the answer, if there even is one. The first journal is “Think Crisis–Think Female: The Glass Cliff and Contextual Variation in the Think Manager–Think Male Stereotype” by Michelle Ryan, Alexander Haslam, Mette Hersby and Renata Bongiorno. The title can be confusing. It is asking that in a time of crisis for a company or organization, is it better to have female or male managers? The study and data showed that managers that showed typical male behavior and managerial traits were better in companies that were successful at the time they became managers. Conversely, managers that showed typical female behavior and managerial traits were better in companies that were not successful at the time they became managers.

            So what does this have to do with my question? It only answers part of the question. No study has asked my exact question; the chances of that happening are very rare for any psychological/behavioral question. The best we can do is piece together conclusions from different studies and come up with a general answer. So this study says that if your company/organization is doing bad, it is better to have female managers. However, what may seem like a proponent of female managing styles is actually something wrong. The “why” question is important. Why are female managers better than male managers in a company/organization that is doing bad? The study found that the answer is “Because it is easier to blame them for the company/organization’s failure.” So the only reason why they are considered better is to be scapegoats. That really doesn’t do anything for women’s rights in the workforce, and definitely doesn’t answer my question.    

            Another problem with this study is that it fails to define what “typical female manager behavior” and “typical male manager behavior” is. It’s open to the reader’s interpretation. What you might think typical behavior is may be totally different than what I think is typical. And even if there is a general agreed upon consensus in a society, I may disagree with the consensus. The fact that I’ve seen men act in every possible manner regarding management leads me to believe that there is no typical male manager behavior, only out-dated stereotypes. Likewise, I’ve seen women act in every possible manner regarding management. That leads me to believe that there is not typical female manager behavior, only what society thinks they are based on archaic cultural bias.   

            The second study is called “Challenging Conventional Wisdom About Who Quits: Revelations From Corporate America” by Peter Hom, Loriann Roberson, and Aimee Ellis. This study found that women quit their jobs/switch jobs more often than men. This is across all other demographical characteristics, such as a race, class, or religion. Why do they do so? There is no one answer; there is a whole bunch of reasons. But most of them do it only a year on the job. We can infer that means that they had wrong expectations about the job, found out it was something different then they thought it would be, and they went on to find something else.

            Unfortunately, this tells us even less about our question than the first study does. As the concept of all these women entering all of these workforces is relatively new in comparison to all of human history that we’ve been working, there are very little answers to be found. It’s not an issue that we have been studying for centuries. The only tie in that I can find is that, as a manager, you may think twice about hiring a lot of women to positions that are critical to your company/organization. Why? Because they quit more often soon after you hire them.

            But do the studies actually justify thinking that way as a manager? People could see that as a sexist attitude towards hiring, even if there is data to back it up. So unfortunately, the findings are too limited to actually base a policy or mindset towards it, in my opinion. As always in Public Administration, there is more research that needs to be done.

            Peter Blau had hypothesizes on macrosocial theories, which this issue falls under. He published his findings in an article called “A Macrosociological Theory of Social Structure.” Amongst his various conclusions is one that is pertinent to my question. He found that social groups had less interaction with other social groups that were radically different than they were. So, Protestants and Catholics had a lot of interaction. Their religious differences are slight, and they share many demographical characteristics in common such as race, income, etc. Overall, Blacks and Jews did not have a lot of interaction because things like their religion and income were often very different.        

            So what does this mean for our question? More interaction between people usually means they get along more. People don’t interact with other people that they hate unless they have to. So it’s logical to assume that a lot of voluntary interaction means that person A and person B like each other. This means that woman A in a company will, more likely than not, work well with woman B if some of their other factors, like religion, lifestyle, personal networks, etc, are similar. Their gender has little or nothing to do with it. This study is suggesting that the ratio of men and women doesn’t mean a lot when it comes to performance, because it is only one of many factors that play into how well people work together and their performance levels.

            This runs in line with what we learned in class about diversity. Skin deep aspects, such as gender, race, etc, are less important than deeper aspects of a person. That’s where true diversity lies. So if you want your workers to work well together, don’t focus on the ratio of men and women. Get a group of like-minded people who have some things in common and they’ll most likely work great together.  

            Rosabeth Kanter did research pertaining to my exact question, in her article “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women.” In short, she studied groups of workers with different ratios of men and women: sometimes it was 9/1 male to female, 7/3 male to female, or 5/5 male to female ratios. After she observed them working for a while, she found that in the groups with the fewest amount of women, the 9/1 ratio group, the women were mostly excluded socially from the men. Their input wasn’t taken into consideration, the men just cared about their looks, they had to work twice as hard for the same amount of credit, etc, all negative consequences of the 9/1 ratio. The “logic” behind the men’s behavior, that Kanter goes on to explain, is that since the women were such a small minority in the company that the men did not need them as allies to get their work done, so they didn’t even try to be nice to them. In ratios like 7/3 or 5/5, women consisted enough of the company that they were needed quite often to get any work done, so men included them in projects, valued their input, treated them like the normal human beings that they are, credited their work duly, etc, all opposite of when the ratio was 9/1.

            Kanter’s explanations seem to say that if, the roles were reverse, and women had the majority in the company, that they would do the same thing to men. Neither gender is more “mean” or self-centered than the other; what only matters is the ratio between men and women. This makes sense because in companies that I’ve worked for where there are very few males or my age is significantly higher or lower than the medium age of most of the other employees, my input was not taken, my achievements weren’t taken as seriously, etc. You can substitute gender for age, race, religion, etc, any identifiable trait a person can have can potentially be inserted into this ratio explanation that Kanter figured out through her studies.

            This data paints a dismal picture of human behavior. It suggests that people are only nice to other people when they see something that they can gain from that friendship. So, the men aren’t nice and fair to the women because they possess good human qualities, they’re only doing that because they see some benefit for themselves. I can’t think of any other explanation because between all the groups, the only thing that changed was the ratio between men and women.

            Kanter has some suggestions for managers who want to minimize this problem potentially happening in their office/organization. The first one is to have a “sponsor.” A sponsor is a person who represents the majority group. The sponsor maintains dialogue to the minority group and works out any problems that the minority group has in working. I would suggest having a higher requirements in the ethics of the people you hire. It’s despicable that people will turn on one another simply because of a numbers game. I treat people with respect, value their work and input no matter how many people of the same gender work in my company. It’s not that hard, and not too much to expect from your employees. I wouldn’t care how good of an employee you were, if you started being unfair towards a person just because of their gender/race, etc, then I wouldn’t want you to work for me.

            A solution that seems obvious but actually doesn’t work is to simply hire more of the minority group so that their proportion is better, so the majority group will treat them nicer. The reason why that doesn’t work even though it does solve the proportion problem is explained in Gillian Ranson’s “Gender, Earnings, And Proportions of Women.” Her study is about organizations that sought out to hire more women, for diversity purposes. However, she found that the companies hired less educated and less experienced women, compared to their male co-workers, in order to meet these diversity purposes.

            This is problematic for several reasons. One, it means, in the name of diversity, companies hired less educated and less experienced people on purpose, passing up a person who would be a better employee. This means the quality and speed of the company’s work will diminish. This is the case against hiring for skin level diversity, a.k.a. race, gender, age, etc. A better hiring practice, for example, would be to hire people based on their diversity of outlooks on life, which would lead to different ways of thinking to solve problems. Diversity under the skin, such as emotions, personal networks, attitudes on life, etc, we learned in class, is what matter more than skin level diversity. This claim has been backed up by the studies we read in class pertaining to diversity.

            Secondly, hiring less competent females to these positions will only reinforce the male bias in the workers that are already there. They’ll think “Geez, every woman they’ve hired in this department doesn’t know how to do her job well.” This will reinforce their belief that woman don’t know how to do this particular job, because he’ll point to the facts to back up his claim. A better practice would to only hire competent females, to disprove their bias. A man might think a woman can’t possibly know how to do his job, but once a woman is hired in his office and does a good job, that will break and disprove his mental bias.

            An article published by several authors, titled “Exploring the Asymmetrical Effects of Gender Tokenism on Supervisor–Subordinate Relationships,” explores further into the concept of how “token” people work in an office. Token meaning you are the only one of a certain category, either your race, gender, religion, etc. The authors conducted surveys on a number of people. They found that when women were proportionally underrepresented, they reported feeling less supported by female supervisors than male supervisors. This seems to run contrary to normal human behavior, as one would think that since women were fewer in number than men in these organizations, that the women would look out for each other more. But the opposite happens. Maybe that’s because humans are rarely ever rational. Maybe it’s because the female supervisors were so busy looking after themselves, trying to survive as a minority, that they honestly didn’t have time to properly support the female workers. As with much of human behavior, unless we asked every single female manager in the study specifically why they didn’t do xyz, we simply won’t know the reason why.

            Being a token seemed to hurt women more in other ways as well. The article continues with a second study, and found that showed that women who perceived they were gender tokens in their organization were less likely to support an outstanding female subordinate than an identical male. Again, another instance of a perceived minority shooting themselves in the foot. The study showed no reason as to why this has to be a female only problem; then one would logically assume that if men were the minority in an organization, then they would do the same thing too, unfortunately.    

            Amanda Koch, Susan D. Mello, and Paul Sackett talked about gender bias in what is to be considered “male dominated jobs” and “female dominated jobs.” Their study was titled “A Meta-Analysis of Gender Stereotypes and Bias in Experimental Simulations of Employment Decision Making.” In English, that meant they looked at who had more “bias”: females in majority male job positions or males in majority female job positions. They found that the latter had more bias than the former.

            But what do they mean by bias? Unfortunately, the authors were not clear on that, and that is a major problem with this study. “Bias” is a non-tangible concept that is abstract and is not quantifiable. Therefore, it up to the opinion of what the authors think is a bias, based off of, their words,: “the effects of decision-maker gender, amount and content of information available to the decision maker, type of evaluation, and motivation to make careful decisions on gender bias in organizational decision.” That means gibberish to the average person, so when the average person doesn’t understand your terms, it is easy to manipulate findings to suit what you want those findings to say.

            What does this mean for the average manager? Let’s say the authors were right. That means you, as a manager, have to be extra careful and be on the lookout for these bias if you run an organization/department that is majority female, and then, you hire some males to come and work there. That, the authors say, is the instance where there is the most potential for gender bias that negatively affects everyone. You have to be vigilant to snuff it out before it causes a real loss in productivity or some other negative aspect is affecting your department/organization.

            In the article titled “Who Gives? Multilevel Effects of Gender and Ethnicity on Workplace Charitable Giving,” authors Lisa Leslie, Mark Snyder, and Theresa Ghomb look at the effects that gender have on how much a worker donates to “work related charity.” They talk about ethnicity too, but that is not related to the topic, so we’ll just focus on the findings related to gender. They find that women usually give more than men. That means that if you’re a manager and you want workplace charity to increase, then you’ll hire more woman.

            A rather interesting study was done about apologizing in the workplace. This may seem trivial at first glance, but apologizing has a great influence on how well people can work together, i.e. productivity. In “Do you really expect me to apologize? The impact of status and gender on the effectiveness of an apology in the workplace,” the study finds that an

apology is most effective when the apologizer is a male, a manager, or is a male apologizing to a female.

            So do any of the findings from these studies have any specific actions that a manager can take to make sure his/her workers get along? Technically, yes they do, but the problem is, which ones do you pay attention to and which ones do you ignore? If you pay attention to all of the findings, it’ll be impossible because they clash with each other. One study tells you to not have tokens, because that will cause problems. But then you also can’t just hire people based on their race/gender/religion, etc, to avoid tokens, because then you might get incompetent employees. And it goes on and on like this. All of the studies looked just as valid as the others. How could you choose which ones to follow and which ones not to?

            My takeaway from all of these studies are that the findings are interesting, and should be kept in the back of one’s mind as a manager to help and avoid conflicts in the workplace. But none of them are definite enough to shape behavior. There are so many other factors at work at all aspects of work. That is the problem I have with organization theory, and social science on the whole. What findings people find rarely can translate into actual actionable steps in the real world because the real world has too many other factors to consider when making managerial decisions. To hire or not hire someone because their gender is better/not better at apologizing to managers is bizarre and will get you laughed at by any co-worker that you tell. That’s because you’re taking one factor and putting it above all other factors when making a hiring decision. So to answer the original question: “Does the ratio of male to females in a group/team affect the quality and speed of their work?” the answer is: Yes, it does, but none of the studies show what ratio will eliminate all potential problems.

            A better hiring practice would be to have the employees conducting the interviews be a very good judge of character. You want employees who honestly want to do a good job, are flexible, tolerant, not bigots, respectful, don’t freak out at little things, etc. These may seem like no brainers, but yet so many companies have employees who are none of the above. That is because the hiring interviewer was not a good enough judge of character in the interview. They thought the candidate had these certain qualities, but they didn’t. I would much rather work with a person who has these qualities, no matter their race, religion, gender, etc. Like previously mentioned, these qualities in a person would make them respectful and thoughtful to another employee who is a token in the organization. There, you just solved the “token problem” that the studies talked about, without having to follow all of these complicated suggestions from the findings of the studied. You just hired good people, and the rest just followed naturally.

Sources

            Blau, Peter. “A Macrosociological Theory of Social Structure.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 83, No. 1 (Jul., 1977), pp. 26-54.

            Hom, Peter. “Challenging Conventional Wisdom About Who Quits: Revelations From

Corporate America.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008, Vol. 93, No. 1, 1–34.

            Kanter, Rosabeth. “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 82, No. 5 (Mar., 1977), pp. 965-990Published

            Koch, Amanda. “A Meta-Analysis of Gender Stereotypes and Bias in

Experimental Simulations of Employment Decision Making.” Online First Publication, May 26, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036734

            Leslie, Lisa. “Who Gives? Multilevel Effects of Gender and Ethnicity on Workplace

Charitable Giving.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 2013, Vol. 98, No. 1, 49–62.

            Ranson, Gillian. “Gender, Earnings, and Proportions of Women: Lessons from a High-Tech Occupation.” Gender and Society. Vol. 10, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 168-184.

            Ryan, Katherine. “Exploring the Asymmetrical Effects of Gender Tokenism

on Supervisor–Subordinate Relationships.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 2012, 42, S1, pp. E56–E102. 

            Ryan, Michelle. “Think Crisis–Think Female: The Glass Cliff and Contextual Variation in the Think Manager–Think Male Stereotype.”  Journal of Applied Psychology. 2011, Vol. 96, No. 3, 470–484.

            Walfisch, Tamar. “Do You Really Expect Me To Apologize? The Impact of Status and Gender on the Effectiveness of an Apology in the Workplace.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Volume 43, Issue 7, pages 1446–1458, July 2013. 

                         

Radical Feminists are attacking every aspect of white male culture

     Every week or so I see a new news article or blog, or something on the Internet, in which thoroughly pissed off women, claiming that they are feminists, are attacking something that white people, usually males, do. They are attacking a certain action because they view it to be "racist," or "misogynistic." They conclude that in order for white people to not be racist, they have to stop doing this certain action, or at least, do it differently.
     The problem is that these feminists or "social justice bloggers," (which basically means complaining and bitching about some mystical problem that white men make, and the bloggers write these posts while sipping a $6 coffee while in bed in their mansion, or in college, paid by someone else, usuallly *gasp* a male), have gone overboard. They've gone completely apeshit. They're now labeling dozens and dozens of cultural activities that white people, and everyone for that matter, do as racist or sexist. It seems they don't want white people doing anything except to be submissive and not challenge the feminists and people of color on anything that they do.
      White people don't deserve a voice, apparently. We don't deserve to have an opinion on things. We don't deserve to be able to create things of our imagination as we would like to, like books, movies, T.V. shows, etc.We can only do these things if the feminists and PoCs approve, and we can do them only how they say we can. Otherwise, we're racist and sexist.
      The social justice bloggers are not criticizing actions that are truly racist, like calling black people the N word, or seeing a woman in an office building and assuming she is the receptionist and not the CEO. Those actions should be condemned, and I'll be the first to stand with anyone else on calling people out on that.
     But instead, here are all of the actions that now are apparently racist and sexist, that us white people can't do anymore, or at least, we have to do differently to escape the wrath of feminists and social justice bloggers:

     1. Having any organization be majority white, and majority female. If you are a HR manager, you hire on the principle of hiring the best person for the job, regardless of sex, race, or religion, or by any other aspect other than how well a person can do this job. That is the rational, logical thing to do, because if you exclude people based on these aspects, you're potentially excluding the person who is best for the job.
     But the social justice bloggers are saying that's racist and/or sexist. If an organization is majority white or majority male, before they even can determine if the hiring decisions were done based on race or gender, they automatically and without question, condemn the organization as racist and/or sexist. For them, equal results is the answer, not an even playing field. They want it to be diverse, no matter of the qualification of any of the workers involved. I illustrated why this is a problem in my January 30th 2014 post: "People are obsessing over the wrong type of diversity": http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/01/people-are-obsessing-over-wrong-type-of.html
     Here is the part:
     "Let's say 2 grocery stores wants to hire 6 cashiers. 10 people apply to it, and the business ranks them by how good cashiers they are. 1 being the best cashier out of the 10, and 10 being the worst. Next to each number is the race of the person. For the simplicity of the argument, out of the 10 people, all of them are either Black, White, or Hispanic.
     1. Black
     2. White
     3. Hispanic
     4. White
     5. White
     6. White
     7. Black
     8. White
     9. Hispanic
     10. White

      Grocery store #1 has been brainwashed by liberal media. They think having a diverse staff is more important than being a good cashier. So they hire 2 people of every race, being "fair." So they hire numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9.
     Grocery store #2 respects all races, and doesn't give a flying shit what race you are. They want good cashiers, so they do the logical thing and hire numbers 1-6.
      Now compare the two stores. Grocery store #1 skipped persons 5 and 6, even though they were better cashiers than 7 and 9. They passed up better applicants to be more diverse. So they end up with a worse workforce vs grocery store #2.
     Worse workforce=less work=less products/services= crappier products/services=worse company."
     So this is what the social justice bullshitters want companies to do, and with Affirmative Action, they already are. They want companies to sacrifice getting the best employee in the name of diversity. But they only hold that white people do this. Every other race is exempt from having to have a diverse workforce. For example, there are many organizations and companies throughout the U.S., that, for various reasons, have a majority black or Hispanic workforce. Reasons could be because the organization has a cultural mission that pertains to a certain culture, or because of demographics. These organizations are not racist even though they have a majority workforce of one race, according to the feminists and social justice bloggers. But if an organization is majority white, then obviously it is racist, and must hire minorities to not be considered racist.

     2. Make a movie or a T.V. show with majority white actors/actresses or characters. Social justice bloggers complained that the Disney movie Frozen was "racist" because all of the characters in the movie are white: http://www.reflector-online.com/opinion/article_b54cd090-a319-11e3-89e8-0017a43b2370.html
     That's right, a movie that is set in medieval Scandinavia is racist for having all white characters. No matter that medieval Scandinavia had little to no minorities in many places, and certainly not amongst the ruling classes. So what does Disney get for making this movie realistic in this regard? Oh, it's obviously racist. The social justice bloggers think they have the right to tell Disney directors what they can't and cannot do in their own creative productions. The main point of this is: Random people, who are not in the Disney company at all, have no right to tell Disney directors what they can or cannot do when creating a work of their own imagination.
     If I were a Disney director, here is how I would respond: "This is my money, my time, and my effort that I put into this movie. This movie is a product of my imagination and creativity, and I can make it however I want. It is a free country. I have the right to do this. I don't tell you what you cannot and can write about. I do not tell you how and how you cannot write. Leave me alone, and I'll continue to leave you alone."
     If you want to see a movie with the majority of characters being from minority races, then go ahead and make one yourself. Odds are, you can't do that, so you can support directors that make movies like that. You can exercise consumer choice, and go see movies that you support and like their aspects. But don't go around telling people how and how they can't make their own movies. That's fascist, that's being a tyrant, that's being a whiny sissy brat. So now, according to the social justice blogger Nazis, white people can only make movies if 1. The majority of their staff is non-white, and 2. If the majority of the characters in the movie are non-white.
     They don't hold this standard to any other ethnic group, only whites. Did any of them call Aladdin racist because every single character in that movie was Arab? No, of course not, because it makes sense to have Arabs in that movie, because it takes place in the Middle East in medieval times. But as soon as Disney does the same thing with another movie, they're racist.
      Do the social justice bloggers apply this ridiculous rule to movies coming from, let's say, Africa? Do they see a film out of Liberia, for example, and say "Oh this movie is racist because all of the actors/actresses are black?" Of course they fucking don't, because that would be fucking ridiculous.
     Not only does this apply to movies, but any other form of entertainment and creative productions, such as books or T.V. shows: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/25/minorities-in-movies-and-television. You wanna write a book with the majority of characters being white? Oh, you're racist. You wanna make a T.V. show with the majority of actors/actresses being white? Oh, you're racist. You wanna make a T.V. show that has majority black characters? Oh, you're not racist at all, you're a good white person, we don't have a problem with you!

     3. Stand up for people/issues that don't pertain to you. This only applies to white males. A white female social justice blogger can write all she wants about defending minorities and people of faiths that she is not a part of. She is commended for doing so, as she should be. Anyone, regardless of race or creed, when they stand up for someone else, should be commended. But the social justice bloggers don't want white males, particularly rich white males or male celebrities, to do so. Doing so would be exploiting their "privilege," and therefore, they should just sit down, shut up, and let the wonderful liberal female social justice bloggers and minorities do all the defending.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/08/afflect-dicaprio-white-male-celebrity-activist
     This defies all logic. One would think that the social justice bloggers would love white males defending other people. After all, that means they aren't racist. But no. We aren't allowed to do that either. I guess that makes me a "privileged white male" because I've defended minorities on this blog before. But yet they still condemn us if we don't stand up for other people. So we're racist no matter what we do. It's like they're assuming all white males are racist and sexist no matter what we do to prove the contrary.  

     4. Make video games with majority male or majority female characters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/11087308/Women-strike-back-in-the-video-games-sex-war.html#comment-1584308521
     That's right, the feminists and social justice fascists are even stooping down to the lowest of the low to attack white males in their leisure and art activities, (yes, video games are a work of art, at least...the good ones are). The rules of #2 also pertain to video games as well. So if a white person makes a video game with majority white characters, then he's racist. If he makes a video game with little to no female roles, then he's obviously sexist.
     If I was a game developer, I'd reply "It's my money and my time I've invested into making this game. This game is a product of my imagination and creativity, and I can make it however I want. I don't tell you what you can and cannot write about. I do not tell you how and how you can't write." If a feminist or social justice blogger doesn't agree with the morales and values a game puts out, don't buy it. Don't play it. If she wants a game where she can play as a female, then make a game like so, or at least support game developers that do so. But don't go around saying "Oh this video game is sexist because you can't play as a female." Half of gamers may be female but the majority of game developers, you know, the ones who actually make the games, are male, and are free to make them however they want to.

     5. Making any type of media, be it movie, show, or book, that has a minority as the villain. That's right, we're no longer allowed to show that there are good and bad people of every race, because that would be racist. We have to show minorities, and women, in a positive role 100% of the time. 

      http://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/01/arts/minority-villains-are-touchy-network-topics.html

     So if you want to be certain that your media is not labeled racist, better make a white guy the bad guy. After all, white men are the only bigoted group around here, (as so the social justice bloggers say). Now, if a piece of media had a minority as the villain, and the reason why he was the villain was because of his race, then THAT would be racist. But if there is a villain, who just so happens to be a minority, that is not racist. But the social justice bloggers are saying it is. http://www.racebending.com/v4/blog/olympus-fallen-white-nativism/
      The above blog link is so, so wrong. The movies "Olympus has Fallen" and "Red Dawn" is not saying that, because the villains are Asian, that makes them non-American. The movie does not say nor hint anything remotely at all. I have no idea where the blog writer is getting this idea from. Oh wait, yes I do, out of her own asshole. It's complete fucking bullshit. In "Olympus has Fallen," the reason why the villain is not American is not because he is Asian, but because the character, the villain, is a North Korean Spy. You can be Korean and be an American, but you can't be a Korean who only has North Korean citizenship and be a North Korean spy. That's not racist, it's just his character. Same thing with "Red Dawn." The villain's ethnicity is not what makes him non-American, it's the fact that his character does not have American citizenship: he is a North Korean military officer with North Korean citizenship only. Duh. Fucking duh.
     So villains can no longer be women or minorities, because that would be racist or sexist.

     6. (Updated 2/2/2015)
     Apparently there's something ELSE us racist white people can't do anymore. We can't nominate people for Academy Awards solely based on their talent and the movie they were in. No, now we got to give a certain amount of nominations to minorities, otherwise, we're racist.
     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-b-wilkinson/oscars-2015-so-hollywood-_b_6550568.html
     The author is bitching that no actor or actress in "Selma" got an Academy Award nomination. Not satisfied that the film itself got a nomination, no, that's not enough to satisfy the social justice bloggers who demand that every single damn thing in existence follow their specific rules in regards to race and sex. The author loved the actors and actresses in this movie, fine, that's her opinion. But she's so intolerant that she can't possibly comprehend how anyone could not love them as much as she does. If they don't like them enough to give it a nomination, then they must be racist!
      This is another example of an extremist racist liberal who wants everyone to have the exact same opinion on everything that she does. So now we have to take into account the ethnicity of people getting nominated for Academy Awards, making sure that every ethnicity is accounted for, otherwise, we're racist. No longer is the Academy Awards about the honest opinions that the people have for movies, no, now good actors and actresses will be ignored for others who may/may not be as good, but for their race.
     I don't even like the Academy Awards. I think they're a bunch of rich snobs giving awards to God awful movies while ignoring really good movies. But just because I disagree with them doesn't mean that I don't think they don't have the right to voice their opinion. See, that's the difference between me and the radical liberals. If someone says something I don't agree with, I say "Okay, I don't agree with that, but I do agree with your right to say it. As long as its not infringing on someone's human rights, then I don't care what you say." A radical liberal would say "Oh, you don't agree with me on mundane and unimportant issues, (as such the Academy Awards,)? Well, I'm just going to do everything in my legal power, use the media, etc, to make it impossible for everyone to have any other opinion other than my own!"

 

     In conclusion, these points may not seem as significant by themselves. One of these in isolation is not limiting one's creative practices or hiring practices that much. But combined together, they reveal the feminist and social justice blogger's world view: They don't want white males, particularly masculine white males, to do able to do anything. We can't hire employees how we see fit. We can't produce any work of culture, unless it meets their stringent rules that they feel that they are able to shove down on us. In essence, they want us to sit down, don't move, and shut up when it comes to doing things our way, which ironically, is the exact same thing they accuse masculine white males of doing to everyone else. I'm an author, yet to be published. I'll be damned if someone tells me I can't write my book the way I want to. My first book, the majority of the characters are Arab, and the main character is a woman: http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/04/an-excerpt-from-my-book-battalions-of.html. But my second book, the book I'm writing right now, the main characters are white. Does that make me a racist for doing so?
     News flash, you stupid social justice blogger brats: People tend to produce works of art and culture about the culture they're a part of. It isn't racist or sexist to do so. Africans tend to write books and make movies about Africans. Asians tend to make T.V. shows about Asians. Are they racist for doing so? Of course not. White people are no different. Are there some racist white people? Of course, there's racist white people out there in the world. There are racists of every race out there in the world. We shouldn't have a set of standards for whites to follow, and then a set of standards that everyone else follows. Cuz you know why? Because that's racist and bigoted, the very crimes that social justice bloggers claim to be fighting, when in fact, they're perpetuating.