this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
247 points (97.0% liked)
Work Reform
9997 readers
490 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In today's episode of “White male cisgender affluent, mentally disconnected from reality, emotionally immature CEO, has an irrational hissy fit in public over someone or something that doesn't let him be cruel and controlling over other humans”…
What does them being white or cisgender have anything to do with it? An idiot is an idiot regardless of the race or gender of the person.
Unnecessary labels for the subject at hand, imo.
Have you noticed that most (almost all) CEOs are white male cis gendered? I'm sure it's a coincidence though, they definitely deserve their wealth beyond imagination, as they are objectively superior human beings, and I'm 100% sure they didn't do anything unethical to amass their incalculable power and affluent life style.
Other countries exist and have CEOs
What does that have to do with the makeup of CEOs in the US? If you look at the demographics of CEOs here vs the demographics of the population here, the CEO demographics aren't even close to that of the population. They usually aren't even close to the demographics of the companies they head. Doesn't that seem kinda odd?
Just a quick search for the CEO's of the biggest companies provides a nice list. https://ceoworld.biz/2023/03/17/the-worlds-most-influential-ceos-and-business-executives-of-2023/
In the top 10, 7 are cis white men, along with these 3:
Bringing up sexual orientation, gender Identity, and racial identity is what these billionaires want. Plenty of "girl bosses" have shown they are perfectly capable of exploiting labor. Peter Thiel is a perfect example of how you don't have to be straight to oppress people. The CEO of Microsoft isn't white.
UAW just announced a strike against 3 manufacturers today, including GM whose CEO is Mary Teresa Barra.
Then of course there's tons of CEO's and billionaires from Asia, Mexico, and the Middle-East. Calling out Cis White Men does nothing but cause further divisions between members of the working class. There's plenty of CIS straight white men out there laboring and being repressed by a variety of different demographics.
So 7 out of 10 top CEOs are white cis males. But somehow gender and racism has nothing to do with it. Hmm, interesting logic.
Yes I think that's perfectly sound logic.
If 10/10 of the top CEO's were white cis males if say "that's interesting, let's look at a larger sample size". As it stands, it seems there is a statistically significant population of non-white and non-male CEO's. This dataset doesn't include sexual orientation, and even if I cared to look that information up for each individual it's hard to ascertain the accuracy. I would expect most, if not all, CEO's to be cis because... that's the same trend as all of humanity. Approximately 1% of the US population is transgender, and a good portion of those are young people. CEO's tend to be older as the job (in theory) requires experience, so I wouldn't expect to see significant trans representation there for a few more decades.
What are you hoping to accomplish by calling out gender and racism though? Because the only thing you're actually accomplishing is further dividing the working class against each other and playing right into the hands of these people.
As I see it, while not all CEOs are white cisgender. For some strange reason, which I'm completely sure it's totally a coincidence, all the ones spouting this antiwork bile, are always white cis male. I wonder why that might be…
Just because you're focusing on hating a specific race and gender doesn't mean that others aren't alsp spouting the same anti-work bile.
Let's see what Mary Barra has to say about today's strike announcement. https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/15/business/mary-barra-gm-ceo-uaw-strike-interview/index.html
In the US as of 2020 data, there were about 8.5 million black people below the poverty line compared to 15.9 million white people. An individual below the poverty line is almkst twice as likely to be white than black.
That does not mean that systemic racism does not exist: that 8.5 million black people below the poverty line is a much higher percentage of the total number of black Americans than that 15.9 million is of the total number of white Americans. However, there's still 15.9 million white Americans below the poverty line. They don't care how many CEO's in the top 10 are white. They have far more in common with the 8.5 million black people below the poverty line than any of those CEOs.
Stirring racial tensions is an age-old tactic used by the owning class to distract the working class. And you still haven't answered my question: what are you hoping to accomplish by calling out cis white CEO's other than trying to alienate cis white male working class people?
You are a bigot.
Oh my God, give it a rest. If you think white men are the devil just say so.
So if he were a non-white trans CEO, does that suddenly make it ok to do stuff like this?
Being a shitty CEO - nay, a shitty human being - is not mutually exclusive to white people.
No it doesn't, where in my comment did I imply that?
Believe it or not, it can be implied with your original comment. You’re saying “of course it’s a white male cisgender CEO” - but if it were, for example, a black trans person, would you suddenly go “of course it’s a black trans CEO”? By labelling something, you’re suddenly saying that everything that you didn’t explicitly label is somehow different - somehow, a non-white, non-male, non-cis CEO is different than a white male cis CEO.
As another user said, it’s an unnecessary label for the context at hand that serves, at best, to make people go “ok, the labels are unnecessary but go for it”, and at worst it divides people because people are stupid and will get hung up on culture and identity in contexts where neither are needed.
EDIT: Should clarify, I understand you were stereotyping the old rich white man, but adding the “cisgender” bit was unnecessary for that purpose. Most people will get that regardless and it’s ultimately a semantics thing, but it can be dangerous rhetoric if you throw it around willy-nilly. Like I said - everything you didn’t explicitly label is somehow different, even if you just said “old rich white guy”.
Just call a spade a spade, they're a bigot.