This was from like 50 years ago, right? Right???
awww, shitā¦
Talk about glass ceilings, huh?
That shitās bulletproof.
The reason the glass ceiling hasnāt truly been broken is that many of the examples of women and minorities who ascended above it did so by assimilation into the existing power structure, meaning they looked different but acted the same way as the pale, stale, male elite they were joiningā¦
A really good academic perspective.
The title, despite the onebox, is āI Slept on Legos: Where do I put that on my CV?ā
They want women and minorities to be as much like the male corporate drones as possible. Women who do that very much do better than their counterparts who are less likely to conform. Thatās how corporate America (and many other sectors work) - conformity is still the key, not independent thinking. Corporate bullshit just likes to pretend itās got diversity of thought, when itās just the illusion of diversityā¦
The REAL reason the glass ceiling still exists is for the same reason it existed in the first place - misogyny and racism. That is the explanation. Men, who still dominate much of public life donāt want women (and white people donāt want racial minorities) to ātake their place.ā
Right?
Yes assimilation happens, but itās not on women and minorities to fix systems that are oppressing them.
I think you guys are arguing the same point. At least, thatās what I got from his post.
Are we? I donāt know. @Kilkrazy seems to be arguing that women donāt get far in corporate America because they āassimilateā into corporate culture and Iām arguing that women donāt get far in corporate America because of ingrained misogyny. I mean, think of how much and how far someone like Sheryl Sandberg got by playing by the rules (and being from the elite class in the first place). Or look at how much Elizabeth Holmes āassimilatedā to the tech-dude-bro culture. Both ābroke new groundā by doing exactly what youāre supposed to do in the tech industry.
It seemed to me that he was saying women and minorities who do end up being the token examples got there specifically because they didnāt challenge the norms of the white patriarchy so theyāre considered āsafeā to let slip through, unlike those who actively work to change the system.
But it would be a lot better if heād clarify, instead of me guessing based on whatās been written so far.
Chris Brown was treating a woman like shit (again), Usher stepped in and got jumped
I feel like the concern about that separation has [always] had to do with not interrupting the smooth flow from male artist to male audience, with male critic in between. If you say, āAs a woman,ā or āAs a person of colorā in responding, you disrupt what was formerly an unimpeachableāI use the word āalpineā in the essay, and I think in the bookāand lofty exchange of ideas unmuddied by the mess of history. I feel like even in the time since I wrote the essay, and since Iāve been working on the book, the centrality of separating the art from the artist has started to seem kind of hoary and out of date.
Coinydink-- I just listened to this podcast with her.
Sounds like a good book!
Yeah, itās going on my X-mas list!
Cool.
I didnāt agree with all she said, and I think it would be more something Iād read to get better clarity for myself on that thorny issue.
oh my lordā¦
