Steve Sailer writes: “When I was at UCLA’s MBA school in the early 1980s, a retailing professor had to warn female gentile students that they’d never get promoted beyond Buyer at any of Los Angeles’s major department store chains. Funny how you never hear that kind of discrimination mentioned. Of course, we don’t even have a word for it, so it’s hard to remember.”
Comments to Steve Sailer:
* She was born in the US yet still insists on wearing a headscarf? So much for the idea of assimilation or becoming Americanized. Watch, in time there’ll be demands that all publicly served meat be halal, there’ll be no-go areas for women not dressed in approved attire, and so on. Giving in one inch would be a huge mistake, there’ll never be an end to it. Their culture has a strange fixation on women’s hair where showing it is immodest, a bizarre concept to western people who think nothing of the sort.
* Officially Approved American culture: the lowest common denominator of everyone who happens to have a piece of paper saying they’re American.
* The last bit reminds me of some good advice given by an adjunct professor while I was a student at a prominent film school in LA. He said that gentiles should feel free to begin working at an agency (in the mail-room or as an assistant) as the first step to getting a job in development at a production company, but that they should never expect to actually become an agent.
* How far are we from the time when all these brands with a ‘preppy’ – read ‘white’ – image are compelled to abandon it in their advertising?
Brands like A&F, Ralph Lauren, Armani, Boss etc etc are overtly appealing to a white audience.
Under disparate outcome laws, it doesn’t matter what their motivation was for hiring each individual worker, or casting each individual model, its the effect in the aggregate that matters. If their stores rarely hire certain type of workers, or rarely cast certain types of models, and that can be proven statistically, they are prima facie guilty of discrimination in the aggregate and are culpable under disparate outcome laws.
So what’s the next step after that? How do they keep on cultivating an image, and appealing to target demographics if their in-store staff and their advertising campaigns are forced to run counter to that desired image? Will free speech prevail against disparate outcome? Given who’s getting their hands of the wheels of power, I’d very much doubt it.
* @Anonymous said:
“Have women completely taken over American diplomatic leadership?”
They have taken over the government. Today I spoke with someone from my state dept of agriculture, a country office for economic development, and an agricultural extension to the major state university. All were women. When I go to the VA hospital, almost all employees are women. I have yet, in the past couple of years not encountered government employees that were not women.
My belief is that they can afford to work for the wages the government pays because their sexual and social standing is not derived from their income like it is for males. So males have to seek the work that pays the most and hope it is interesting. Women seek work that is interesting to them and hope it pays OK or at least OK in benefits and security. Women find “things” or concepts boring and prefer the interacting with people that government work often provides. In addition they like the officious nature of cheap authority it gives them.
Can you imagine how female noses would turn up if a man disclosed he worked as a bureaucrat? I have yet to see some RomDramCom where the leading man was a government employee even though on paper, the guy would make a pretty good husband.
