Because they describe asymmetric power relationships, so you can't meaningfully flip them.
"Workers can sack employers at will, and that causes employers financial hardship, so we need employer protection laws" is a less-charged example of why it doesn't work just to straight flip such types of statement.
Power asymmetry makes sense at higher top to bottom levels, but not at the individual being hired level. There is no power asymmetry between candidates. That is, another interviewee has no power over me, nor I over her. And here we're implying hiring one type displaces one of another type and we're saying that we prefer one type to be displaced rather than another type to be displaced.
Additionally, if we accept that white women are underrepresented then what it's doing is saying that some underrepresentations are better than others.
Re:Who Goes Nazi? (1941)
by bryanrasmussen on Sunday February 07, 2016 @04:33PM
(#11054967)
well in that case you would also have to change the action 'sack' because firing an employer is by definition impossible for an employee of that employer.
The correct text should probably be:
"Workers can quit employers at will, and that causes employers financial hardship, so we need employer protection laws"
Anti-strike legislation exists though.
"This is not work for white folks to lead"
"We need solidarity with our asian friends and colleagues"
"Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women"
(...)