Men will have to lose jobs to make way for gender equality

Post Reply New Topic

It strikes me how many of today's mainstream news stories try to make me hate people. Blacks, whites; but mostly women; such as this one.

Having said that, I know, if I was running a corporate tyranny, I would want want a lot of women administering it. Women are by and large easier to physically intimidate, much more susceptible to social manipulation, they're apt at diffusing dissent with an emasculating barb or two along with the ever present threat of harassment suits, and it's easier to disappear them if they spill the beans.

Last edited by Nebogipfel on 17 Oct 2015, 1:40 am, edited 9 times in total.

Please reflect that even in this forum, the rules apply. This thread is contaminated by sexist generalisations, incitements, personal slurs, all of which are against the rules, and there is more than one perpetrator. If the infringements continue it will be locked.

IMHO the work world, employment practices, etc. are just dirty and cynical.

I often think about the wage gap, ie. the figure often cited that women get paid on average 80% of what men are and from a small slice of experience in seeing temps get rehired it seemed like the girls were already reassigned before the contract ended while the guys always had some hang time. The irony I think is that when they do fix the wage gap guys will find themselves employed more and women will find themselves facing more unemployment. The business world is just run by the kinds of people who will make these decisions and shield accountability for it - same with disability discrimination.

One of the things I loved was a Time magazine article I read in a doctor's office recently - that Jet Blue is really big on psycho-analyzing new applicants with these pop-psychology tests, that it'll keep growing until perception of who you might be based on how you answer will keep you unemployed. It's one thing if we say had a central employment bureau testing people and sending them off to their perfect fit job but that's not where we're at - we're still in a pretty barbaric place where we haven't figured out that human beings aren't machine parts to be rode hard and put away wet and to the extent that we do that we create a lot of our own problems societally (for example what kind of parenting does an over-stressed person who can't trust their employer and the longevity of their paycheck give?).

Sorry if that went off topic a little. I do agree that affirmative action measures that start pushing up to 50% are overdone. To even go for 40% mandatory there are fields that you'd just have to cut out of consideration for that, like engineering, when you consider how many women are going for engineering degrees. Similarly you couldn't do mandatory 40% males in the field of social work, for similar reasons. There are also certain jobs that take certain amounts of physical strength like firefighting where guys will excel and areas where multi-tasking and manual dexterity will prevail which is something women have an advantage at.

Hello all thread participants -- the year 1450 just called, and they want you all to calmly climb back in the time machine and return home. Oh wait -- 1950 is also requesting the same thing. Run along now! Mind the step.

I'm assuming you exaggerated this on purpose? It's not nearly that bad. The gender war culture sucks, but I think if you just follow the golden rule you'll be fine. Unless your company has a bad HR department, if you're not genuinely harassing someone there will never be a problem, especially because any smart HR department would know how to sniff out what you call "Crying wolf"

Do you have an issue with my post?

I hate it when people whine about a thread but do not specifically call out what bothers them. Would you like to argue about affirmative action? I don't understand.

In my very basic IT class we have 3 women out of 20 and 1 won't be continuing on to the next class which starts mid-semester, you can't fix this with affirmative action. Simply put, there are not a lot of women in these fields because it seems they are not interested in them because it is a very diverse class other than gender. It would be crazy to mandate that any percentage of positions go to women given the ratio, someone qualified I don't believe needs any help.

Social work is a field dominated by women that is desperate for male workers but its problem is that it is a completely thankless job and probably the worst paying professional degree you can get. The state can't even fill all its social worker positions, it can't maintain workers, it's problem is that the job sucks. Either lower expectations or raise pay in order to attract a more diverse workforce, the state usually likes it the other way tho with impossible expectations and take it or leave it pay. Most people would be better off not even going to college than pursuing a social work career and they'd likely still end up with a higher pay, more benefits, and less stress.

How about a sense of balance? Few of the posts on this thread are misogynist. We're just saying that Affirmative Action is a flawed program.

Earlier this year, 37 people were granted interviews for an entry-level engineering position at one of the companies I consult for. I interviewed each one (along with a woman from HR and a woman from production management), and then administered a job-skills test. Of the four women who had applied for the position, one indicated that she thought it was inappropriate to be interviewed by a man, and declined to take the treat as well; another indicated that she thought that it was rude to test her job-skills when she had an engineering degree; one was in tears because she could answer only half of the questions, even though she had also earned an engineering degree; and the last one passed the test and was offered the job. She declined because she didn't like the neighborhood the company was in.

(What's wrong with Laguna Beach?)

The job was offered to the second choice - a man who was not only willing to start the following Monday, but who volunteered to be "on call" at any time of the day.

(The fourth woman called back after a few weeks and said that she'd changed her mind. Too late!)

It is not so much that we did not hire any women; but that not many women apply for engineering positions, and those who do are either unable or unwilling to go through the hiring and vetting process, or they give some excuse as to why they don't want the job.

Is there any chance of this bill doing anything other than get laughed out of wherever it will be attempted to be pushed through? Unless there is, then there's nothing needs to be done here, just let the system take care of it.

EDIT: They certainly picked a maniacal looking picture of her in that article.

Sexist/hate posts should be deleted and their authors should be warned in my opinion.


I wouldn't have a problem with such a law - if - women start socially and largely accept men to fill the stay-at-home husband role and largely accept to date unemployed men on this basis, without leering comments, without putting them down and without expecting a sudden change- and when society largely stops shaming men filling this role. There simply no enough jobs for 100% of men + 100% of women.

In my country, this would be very unfair for single men though if other laws aren't adjusted, the law here makes unemployed and unmarried daughters eligible (but not unemployed and unmarried sons, married or employed daughters are also not eligible) to take the highest parent's retiring monthly salary from social security (or one big sum) and inherits all the social security benefits after the parent's death for the entire daughter's lifetime as long she is not employed or married; sometimes daughters choose to quit a low paid job because the parent's retirement salary is much higher.

My sister is eligible for that if she loses her job; I am not even if I lose my job, so if we both lose our jobs then I should become dependent on her to survive lol.

So if they wanna apply a quota enforcement law for employment, they should adjust the other law to be extended to unemployed and unmarried sons - otherwise more homeless men.

In regard to the OP: I do not have the time to read the articles, but I wanted to comment, and give my opinion, on the overall topic:

I agree with whomever said that no one is being a misogynist, on this thread. WP rules say:

"Unacceptable content includes..... sexist... language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members....."

and.....

"Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not."

I feel confident that I could defend ANY male's post, on this thread, that they did NOT "belittle other members", and were attacking "an opinion, belief or philosophy", instead.

NOW, as for the member who laughed at Nambo's post: Just because you may not have experienced what Nambo posted, doesn't mean what he posted doesn't exist----I'm hear to tell ya, that those things DO exist, as I have experienced them, as well. I knew EXACTLY what he was talking about, for instance, when he said, something like: "anyone who's ever worked for a woman", because *I* don't like working for most women, EITHER. The reason being because they're, GENERALLY SPEAKING, too emotional. I rarely get along with women, because of that----I'm more "logical", AND I will NOT support a woman JUST BECAUSE she's a woman! I think that's total HORSE-HOCKEY!!

This ties-in to the OP. I am sick-to-DEATH of women, blacks, and other minorities crying "I didn't get picked, cuz I'm a __________" (fill-in the blank). I DON'T agree with Affirmative Action for the same reason as OTHERS have said----that people who don't have the education / experience are getting put into jobs they don't deserve, because they haven't earned them. There ARE women / black CEOs, for instance, because they WORKED their way there----no white man has just been HANDED a CEO job, IMO, JUST BECAUSE he was a white man; it's quite possible he started-out in the mailroom, for instance, just like everybody else.

Everybody wants a freebie, nowadays----and, IMO, people are MUCH TOO litigious, nowadays (it's just like rearing spoiled-rotten BRATS - the more you give 'em, the more they want, REGARDLESS of whether they've EARNED it)----AND, I feel that that's the reason people like Trump, are leading in the polls, because the majority of people have seen these things as the downfall of our country's morals / values / etc., and they DO want to "Make America Great Again", by NOT pandering to the WHINERS!!

^^ camping cat,

You remind me of this thread: viewtopic.php?t=294708

Why many of you women don't like to work for women? Is this a woman-to-woman common phenomenon?

I worked for two females bosses, and they were fine, one of them was the best boss ever (and she was very rational, not emotional).

Too bad, so sad. Next thing you know women will even get the right to vote.

That's it for this thread folks (not because of the post immediately preceding this).