When I was young I went to school to become a chemical process technician. This was a very attractive education for women because it allowed them to work in factories and oil rigs without getting their hands dirty. It's mostly just sitting in control rooms and such, taking walks to make sure things are running smoothly.

The companies hiring had gender quotas to meet, so this was one field where they filled a lot of their quota. Our class was exactly 50% men, 50% women. I worked my ass off, we were graded 1-6 where 6 is best and I had all 6es except one 5 in one class.

Everyone applied for apprenticeships to Statoil (now Equinor) and from our class they hired one guy with literally perfect grades, and nearly all the girls. Over 80% of the girls were accepted, girls with a grade average of 4.2 compared to my 5.9 got the job. I didn't and neither did any of the other guys in the class except one.

When I worked at a bank, the DEI initiatives were limited to documenting in my yearly review how many rainbow cakes I ate each year and counting my participation in various celebrations.

But I think I was also a beneficiary of DEI, because my boss once told me I couldn't quit because I was the only representative of my race in our department.

My experience with DEI programs at Fortune 500 companies is as follows. At one, candidates got a special box ticked on the list if they met diversity criteria, where one is considered diverse if they're from what is considered an underrepresented group. HR uses it to pressure interviewers into being more lenient in their evaluations and guilt trip about how it's such a shame we're not be able to advance a diverse candidate. Conversely they love hearing when a diverse candidate does well "That's great they did well, and their diverse too!". It all feeds into this subtle culture shift that tries to encourage discrimination without being overtly illegal. At another they decided that management pay would be tied to advancing diversity in the workplace.

I hear all these arguments about how DEI is misrepresented, it's all about making sure everyone feels welcome at the workplace and people aren't discriminated against for their appearance, name, background, etc. It's about introducing diversity of thought to challenge the status quo and avoid group think (good luck expressing any moderately conservative opinion at any of these places though). It's also marketed as making the workforce better reflect the customer base so as to create better products for all. I am completely supportive of those aspirations and feel that DEI programs have done more harm than good in advancing them.

Many people quietly become upset when they see the comparatively mild practices like I have described. They start to wonder if they're going to be targeted unfairly during the next round of layoffs so some manger can help to improve their team's diversity score. They wonder if it's going to be more difficult for them or their kids to get a job. They don't like how any criticism of these programs is silenced and/or dismissed as racism/sexism/fascism/etc. Resentment builds, our society becomes more polarized, extremist views become more palletable, and they take their frustrations out at the ballot box.

These kind of risible DEI ghost stories are exactly what I'm talking about. Y'all take a toothless, mostly lip-service kind of program and have hysterics about it.

Honestly, probably rightly, because mediocre was previous the acceptable status quo, and now they have talented competition.

> They wonder if it's going to be more difficult for them or their kids to get a job

I see. So....only certain kinds of people are entitled to jobs? Those other kinds of people don't struggle with needing jobs or having kids?

Gosh. Sure can't understand why you immediately followed up that statement with a highly defensive one about being "silenced" by being called racist or sexist lmao.