Triangular_Trees wrote:
Quote:
Have you ever considered that studies were done by these companies that proved men were more cost efficient? Women get pregnant, many companies don't want that... it's not about "male domination" it's about capitalism and the bottom line.
Considering I've researched these companies, I can ensure you thats not the case. Furthermore, its also illegal to discriminate on that basis and these were all companies that had clearly stated anti-discriminatory policies (some even sent their personnel directors to be retrained when they found out how their companies fared in the study). Also, men today are just as likely to take off for their wifes pregnancy, to care for a newborn, as women are. Quite a few major companies guarantee men a 6 month leave of absence in the even of a newbirth.
i do recommend you research this a bit though, since your comments make you appear to be completely clueless about such things. its alwys best to do your homework before putting forth an argument

. Do you have access to any research databases?
I still think your proposition of male domination is highly dubious, job selection bias, is not "male domination". Companies prefer men for certain jobs, just like you wouldn't hire someone without the proper education for a white collar job, and just like you wouldn't hire and ugly person for advertising purposes, so many businesses prefer men... this is not "male domination", this is businesses exercising there right to run their businesses as they see fit so they do not harm the bottom line.
It's no secret in the corporate world that HR (human resources) discriminates, they get more resume's then they know what to do with and it's no surprise some get culled, alot of it is now automated as well, so I really question the viability of such "studies".