UN Women Organization Clarifies It’s Not Partnering With Uber

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Apparently the United Nations’ UN Women organization is having second thoughts about partnering with Uber on its initiative to hire one million women by 2020.

Following criticism from groups like the International Transport Workers’ Federation, which claims that Uber drivers’ “independent contractor” status means they are exempt from things like minimum wage and health care benefits, UN Women executive director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka announced last week that the organization would not be working with Uber. “I want to assure you that UN Women will not accept an offer to collaborate in job creation with Uber,” she said at the end of a recent speech. “So you can rest assured about that.”
Click to expand...
 
UN Women Organization? That's a real thing? Hmmm, I'm looking for the UN Men organization funded by tax payers, but can't seem to find it. Oh wait, I forgot; you can be proud to be female, gay, black, mexican, etc. and have exclusionary clubs, but if you're a disgusting CIS white male you should feel guilt and the same thing is racist/sexist/*ist. ;)

I just finished setup for a similar Women's only organization at our office that gets an hour off and free lunch every other week (and swag like shirts/cups), and asked HR if I could create a Men's only club too, and she just gave me the look. :D
 
Ducman69 said:
Oh wait, I forgot; you can be proud to be female, gay, black, mexican, etc. and have exclusionary clubs, but if you're a disgusting CIS white male you should feel guilt and the same thing is racist/sexist/*ist. ;)
Click to expand...

I always find these comments interesting, as though "exclusionary clubs" are some recent thing and that the groups you listed here were somehow always free to join existing white and/or male groups.
 
HardUp4HardWare said:
Oh thank God the UNWomen organization "banned" FGM. That will stop it fer sure.
Click to expand...

If you had any good ideas about how to curtail this practice or things like sex trafficking I'm sure there are a lot of people that would love to hear them.
 
heatlesssun said:
I always find these comments interesting, as though "exclusionary clubs" are some recent thing and that the groups you listed here were somehow always free to join existing white and/or male groups.
Click to expand...
The UN has exclusionary groups that only white men can join? This is news to me.
 
Ducman69 said:
The UN has exclusionary groups that only white men can join? This is news to me.
Click to expand...

Many entities comprising the UN have had exclusionary groups for centuries. The Catholic Church as an informal member allows only male priests.
 
Ducman69 said:
The Catholic Church gets funding from the UN? What kind of BS is that! I find that very hard to believe.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have to be a woman to be an employee of UN Women. That they address certain issues that tend to be female specific like gender specific like female genitalia mutilation, sex trafficking, etc. is another matter.
 
Ducman69 said:
UN Women Organization? That's a real thing? Hmmm, I'm looking for the UN Men organization funded by tax payers, but can't seem to find it. Oh wait, I forgot; you can be proud to be female, gay, black, mexican, etc. and have exclusionary clubs, but if you're a disgusting CIS white male you should feel guilt and the same thing is racist/sexist/*ist. ;)

I just finished setup for a similar Women's only organization at our office that gets an hour off and free lunch every other week (and swag like shirts/cups), and asked HR if I could create a Men's only club too, and she just gave me the look. :D
Click to expand...
DISCRIMINATION! Oh wait, that also only works if you're not a white male. :mad:
 
mynamehere said:
DISCRIMINATION! Oh wait, that also only works if you're not a white male. :mad:
Click to expand...

Discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc. can happen to anyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. Legalized, widespread and systemic discrimination is a different matter.
 
heatlesssun said:
Discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc. can happen to anyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. Legalized, widespread and systemic discrimination is a different matter.
Click to expand...
In this instance, I think its obvious we are talking about government endorsed discrimination as a matter of official policy, or "politically-correct discrimination", where its generally perceived as a good thing to discriminate against individuals as long as they are perceived to be classified as a "privileged group". Asian-Americans have to score significantly higher on standardized testing compared to African-Americans to gain acceptance to the same school for example or scholarships that are predominantly exclusively available to those of a certain race, but this discrimination is seen as a good thing as a "means to an end". Likewise, its OK to have a focused exclusionary "black history month" in the public school system which isn't really history but rather a selective positive celebration of black achievements, but no "asian-american history month" in March, and "european-american history month" celebrations of excellence in April. Same thing with getting government subsidies or preferential bid treatment for your business based purely on the color of the owner's skin or gender, even if the person that didn't quality led a difficult challenging life growing up in a trailer park and the person that does qualify was say Will Smith's son growing up with a golden spoon in his mouth.

Cliffs notes: Discrimination is good, as long as its against the right kind of person! :D
 
Ducman69 said:
Cliffs notes: Discrimination is good, as long as its against the right kind of person! :D
Click to expand...

It never has been and probably never will be that simple. Really, you're going to tell black people that Black History Month is a bad thing? Hell, it used to be only a week.
 
heatlesssun said:
While were at it, let's get rid of the 13th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act and the Confederate battle flag. That would be more impactful in terms of "not talking about race" than a ceremonial month.
Click to expand...
So you think Morgan Freeman is wrong? Racist! ;)

In any case, to steer a little bit more back to topic, kind of crazy that Uber would even want to partner with some UN Women's Organization in the first place. What were they supposed to do with that anyway; give preferential treatment to female applicants?

As far as I know, Uber has never been accused of not allowing female drivers to use its service.
 
Ducman69 said:
So you think Morgan Freeman is wrong? Racist! ;)
Click to expand...

His point is that we should stop talking about race. Why do we need a Black History Month? Why do we need a Constitutional Amendment banning slavery? Or law against racial or gender discrimination?

Freeman is talking about symptoms. I'm talking about the disease.
 
He specifically said that he thinks that black history month is ridiculous and needs to go away and that he doesn't want it, pointing out that there's no white history month, which is exactly my point. Just teach history, including American history and stop reinforcing it and talking about it and dividing everyone into little special interest groups the way the left does and treat people as people. There shouldn't be a UN Women's Organization, as the UN Human Rights organization can surely address both male and female human rights issues.
 
Ducman69 said:
Just teach history, including American history and stop reinforcing it and talking about it and dividing everyone into little special interest groups the way the left does and treat people as people.
Click to expand...

Stop flying the Confederate Battle Flag on the grounds of the South Carolina capital. The right is just as good at dividing up folks.
 
1) I'm from Texas; none of my bidness.

2) That's a ridiculous analogy, as it doesn't relate.

3) It was put in place on the 100th anniversary of the Civil War for a memorial to the war veterans that fought for their state. Those war heroes that seceded from the US government are as much seen as heroes (or at least worth remembering) by their decedents as we remember George Washington and his men for their sacrifices in seceding from the UK government (also done in SC). Had the US revolution failed, I'm sure there would still be a few star spangled banners up near war memorials, even if the British historians declared them traitors and terrorists.

4) Its currently sitting over a confederate monument, and not on the capital building, so I'm not sure how its inappropriate.

http://www.marcandjana.info/events/images/2002/southcarolina/2002_SC_ColumbiaConfederateFlag.JPG

Confederate flag flying by a confederate monument. State Capital building is flying old glory. *scratching head*
 
Good lord, another thread where X race/gender/whatever is trying to help themselves, and the white male expeditionary force has to rally out to defend themselves.

And yes, those brave, brave heroes of the Civil War, fighting the government trying to oppress their right to oppress other people. :rolleyes:
 
Ducman69 said:
3) It was put in place on the 100th anniversary of the Civil War for a memorial to the war veterans that fought for their state.
Click to expand...

And what were they fighting for? Certainly not a color blind society where race was no factor. Personally I have no problem with horning soldiers, even if I could never defend their cause. But if one is going to start talking about the silliness of Black History Month there's a reason why it exists that is in part because of this conflict. And many that followed.
 
heatlesssun said:
And what were they fighting for? Certainly not a color blind society where race was no factor. Personally I have no problem with horning soldiers, even if I could never defend their cause. But if one is going to start talking about the silliness of Black History Month there's a reason why it exists that is in part because of this conflict. And many that followed.
Click to expand...
LOL, what? Ugh, I have to take this so off-topic, but what do you think Abraham Lincoln was fighting for? Pro-Tip: To preserve the union which was constantly troubled by a north/south political division, and to keep the new states white. He was a political moderate that had misgivings about slavery and inhumane treatment, and was against blacks voting, intermarrying, or even being treated as equals. Remember, this was the 1800s... Mr Lincoln was still crazy racist by today's standards.

He repeatedly said in his speeches that he championed white supremacy and wanted to ensure that Western states would only be settled by whites, because he strongly believed that the only true way to preserve segregation was to ensure that blacks and whites did not cohabitate, and following the war personally advocated and opened an unsuccessful campaign to have all blacks shipped back to Africa at great personal expense to himself, and had a speech to black communities in which he tried to guilt them into leaving as the least they could do after so many white lives were lost.
[URL="http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-dred-scott-decision/" said:
Abraham Lincoln[/URL]]A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas .
Click to expand...
Abraham Lincoln said:
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers."
Click to expand...
Abraham Lincoln said:
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
Click to expand...
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/lincoln/
 
HardUp4HardWare said:
Shouldn't these bitches be more concerned about Female genital mutilation?
Click to expand...

exactly...the sheer hypocrisy of the UN and any lemming that thinks the UN is a great thing...the new woman in charge "Under Secretary of Women" is from the continent where FGM is rampant and prevalent...the numbers are staggering...

the ignorant and anti Semitic UN (and that broad) calls Israel the number one violator of women's rights.

leftists are a funny bunch , can't live with them , can't run far enough away from them
 
Ducman69 said:
1) I'm from Texas...
Click to expand...

Wow, I'm sorry. You should move north where there are much cooler people (literally even). I've been in Texas before and I think the hot weather really does do bad things for people that sorta adapted to European climates and then came over to North America to live. They just don't take it very well and lots of other people more suited to warmer climates should prolly live there instead since it doesn't really mess up their thinking as much.
 
Ducman69 said:
LOL, what?
Click to expand...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Click to expand...

The reason why we have exclusionary groups, things like Black History Month and so on is because to this day there is still great disagreement as to what words like this truly mean.
 
Killahurtz said:
exactly...the sheer hypocrisy of the UN and any lemming that thinks the UN is a great thing...the new woman in charge "Under Secretary of Women" is from the continent where FGM is rampant and prevalent...the numbers are staggering...

the ignorant and anti Semitic UN (and that broad) calls Israel the number one violator of women's rights.

leftists are a funny bunch , can't live with them , can't run far enough away from them
Click to expand...

So they're "bitches" because...they're women seeking to increase women's employment? And they can only focus on one issue at a time, apparently?

And finally, shouldn't a woman from the country that needs the most progress be leading the effort? I highly doubt she's actually perpetrating FGM. :rolleyes: Can't win...
 
heatlesssun said:
The reason why we have exclusionary groups, things like Black History Month and so on is because to this day there is still great disagreement as to what words like this truly mean.
Click to expand...
Oh, OK, I'll explain that to Morgan Freeman again, he and I that are in full agreement must just be very confused people. And you're right, there is nothing better at bringing people together than to categorize them into different groups and treat them differently. That's how you create harmony, per Al Sharpton. Sarcasm; am I doing it right?
TwistedAegis said:
So they're "bitches" because...they're women seeking to increase women's employment?
Click to expand...
If they believe that women are so uncompetative that they need preferential treatment and communal pressure to be able to essentially drive Taxis in a company that in no shape or form has ever shown bias against female users or drivers, then yes, they are bitches. The real reason is that they have literally run out of things to complain about in Western civilization thanks to women here already receiving preferential treatment, to the point they decided they'll just apply Western union leadership tactics. This is how they bullied Uber into entering that "partnership" with UN Women to hire a million female workers. The idea that UN Women is rejecting it, like it was Uber's idea in the first place, is nonsensical, and is just a matter of going back to using their political influence and trade unions to continue to interfere with Uber's operation because the company did not offer a sweet enough honeypot to end their opposition... the same kind of thing you see from the UAW.

Otherwise, if they really believed in equality, they wouldn't be even trying to pressure equal opportunity businesses like Uber into hiring their members, and would just let the women compete on the open marketplace the same as any man. There is also no reason that real issues like spousal abuse, female genital mutilation, rape and such common in Africa right now wouldn't fall under the existing Human Rights Council, the same as all the other human rights violations occurring to males in the same area.... oh and guess what, that is exactly what was the case before 2010.
 
Ducman69 said:
Oh, OK, I'll explain that to Morgan Freeman again, he and I that are in full agreement must just be very confused people.
Click to expand...

In a society that is relatively free people can disagree without disruptive conflict and that's probably the good sign that the society is relatively free.

Ducman69 said:
And you're right, there is nothing better at bringing people together than to categorize them into different groups and treat them differently. That's how you create harmony, per Al Sharpton. Sarcasm; am I doing it right?
Click to expand...

I never said any such thing. Black History Month was born in a time where Morgan Freeman probably wouldn't be talking to Mike Wallace about matters of race to a national audience not matter what his opinions were. If this is a truly color blind society then we shouldn't need a 13th Amendment or Civil Rights Act. I think these two things are a much more powerful and year long reminder of race in this country than Black History Month. And the divineness surrounding them is a generations long product that wouldn't simply go away because there was no Black History Month.

You can treat the symptoms with all the palliatives available, the disease still remains.
 
@TwistedAegis

"bitches"...your words...didn't use that word once

there is an old adage "clean up your own doorstep first"...she should start there...and calling out Israel as the "worst" offender is just plain "ignant"...you seem to fit in there as well

anything else?
 
heatlesssun said:
Personally I have no problem with horning soldiers, even if I could never defend their cause.
Click to expand...
BTW, I just noticed that... horning? I assume that's some kind of sex act? :D

Just out of curiosity, what do you think their cause was? Please don't tell me you think the civil war was about slavery, lol! That's like saying that the American revolution was about tea. Yes, the tea tax was one hotpoint, as was the slavery issue in the new states, but it had nothing to do with tea or slaves in and of itself. For the revolutionary war, tea was just one example of a multitude of trade restrictions placed on the colonies, preventing them from trading with other European partners, high tariffs, and various other regulations limiting their freedom. For the civil war, it was the same thing, and the slave-state issue in the West was about voting power in Washington. For some time the South wasn't well represented in Washington (hence the 3/5ths compromise to try and restore some semblance of it), and federal policies were almost always at the expense of the South in Northern interests. As an example, the South had lucrative trade routes with Europe for top quality manufactured goods (manufacturing industry was VERY low quality domestically) that they brought to the colonies which again brought in additional revenues for the states. The Northern states then forced the South to trade with them by placing ridiculously high tariffs on trade (just like the British did), where Southern goods were now selling for less than half the price they were fetching in Europe, cutting off their import of quality manufactured goods they could resell, and leaving them with very poor quality undesirable goods to really only sell themselves in the Southern states. Having the new states as "slave states" would have restored the balance in the North vs South representation in government, and so it was that which was a key issue, not slavery in and of itself. After all, the vast majority of whites in the South did not own slaves, and many poorer whites especially actually found that slaves (like illegal aliens today) took away their jobs, and whites in the North back in the 1800s were also very much racist and would absolutely NOT be willing to sometimes kill their own family members living in the South for the sake of blacks... doesn't make any sense in that context. What makes sense is that the same sentiment that motivated the states to rebel against the UK government is the one that motivated them to secede from the US government, for very similar reasons of free trade and representation.
 
Ducman69 said:
BTW, I just noticed that... horning? I assume that's some kind of sex act? :D

Just out of curiosity, what do you think their cause was? Please don't tell me you think the civil war was about slavery, lol! That's like saying that the American revolution was about tea. Yes, the tea tax was one hotpoint, as was the slavery issue in the new states, but it had nothing to do with tea or slaves in and of itself.
Click to expand...

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Click to expand...

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

So yea, it had a lot to do with slavery. A lot more than the Revolution had to do with tea.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Good lord, another thread where X race/gender/whatever is trying to help themselves, and the white male expeditionary force has to rally out to defend themselves.

And yes, those brave, brave heroes of the Civil War, fighting the government trying to oppress their right to oppress other people. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Many people seem to get this issue confused. The Civil War was not fought over slavery. Slavery was an issue that needed to be addressed, but was not even a focal point for the Union Army/North until well after the war had started.

I suspect that modern revisionist history, combined with the increased desire for political correctness both play heavily into this distorted view of events.

There is nothing wrong with celebrating the positive aspects of one's culture. The Confederate flag represents a number of different things, both positive and negative. The same can be said of the American flag.

This is not to say that we should ignore the negative facets, but if we focus exclusively on the negative, we omit the positive. Both are equally relevant to the human experience. Collectively, human society is a definite mixed bag of good and bad characteristics. History should tell the whole story, for better or worse, lest we fall prey to the doom of repeating our tragedies, instead of learning from them.
 
MrCaffeineX said:
I suspect that modern revisionist history, combined with the increased desire for political correctness both play heavily into this distorted view of events.
Click to expand...

So the State Of Mississippi in 1861 stating that slavery was indeed the primary reason for their leaving the Union in 1861 is modern revisionist history?:confused:
 
heatlesssun said:
So the State Of Mississippi in 1861 stating that slavery was indeed the primary reason for their leaving the Union in 1861 is modern revisionist history?:confused:
Click to expand...
The Southern states were never forced to end slavery and Lincoln repeatedly reassured the Southern states of this, the question was only whether or not slavery would be legal in the new states, which would represent a tipping point in the balance of power.
Lincoln said:
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, abolitionism was not prevalent in the North (they never won major political power since they were considered extremists) nor was ending confederate slavery an aim of Union military leadership, and if you care I can show you numerous examples of extreme racism prevalent in the North. White union soldiers simply would not have been willing to kill other whites, some of whom were relatives living in neighboring states for the welfare of blacks, that doesn't make any sense in context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top