I had an argument with a feminist... My boss.

Well, sure, horny gamer guys. Question is, is there really anything you can do about it, to present some laws that will be equal, but at the same time won't hurt guys who act fair towards women ingame?

It is just that laws are in place to prevent such things. But there will always be people who will simply ignore those and act like asshats. And if you put laws to stop asshats from doing what they are doing (which they shouldn't in the first place), you are very likely to hit good guys.

I have nothing against working towards fair look at both sexes, so that people can expect somewhat the same treatment.

But when I see people proposing safe spaces for women (blacks/gays/your-idea-goes-here) or laws that enforce certain % of men and women I can't help but snap and get fucking angry.
Imagine being a guy/girl who gets reject from collage/anything_else_that_applies, who is outperforming some random slacker girl/guy , because penis/vagina.

The part with quotas has always stunned me. Not made me angry, just... nonplussed. How is it possible for so many people to be so dense?

discrimination: 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Hey, let's hire people not based on their ability to do the job, but their race or sex. In the name of... equality?!

Mindfuck.

"

Bars wrote:

The part with quotas has always stunned me. Not made me angry, just... nonplussed. How is it possible for so many people to be so dense?

discrimination: 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Hey, let's hire people not based on their ability to do the job, but their race or sex. In the name of... equality?!

Mindfuck.

Sexism is a substantial problem in hiring. Just as one example, consider the hiring process for orchestras. Some orchestras have instituted so-called "barefoot interviews", where they choose whether or not to hire someone based solely on how well they can play in a live interview - they never see or speak to the person in question. They're called "barefoot" interviews because they also made the interviews barefoot, to ensure that you couldn't hear, say, high heels on a tile floor. The result: they almost immediately ended up hiring more women. Weird, right?

(Speaking from more personal experience, the day the IT support at my company hires a woman will probably only ever happen after we get a new head of IT.)

Quotas are a naive and basic way to aim for equality. We can probably do better. But in principle? I really don't have much of a problem with them. I have to wonder what it says when people aren't able or willing to meet them. You mean to tell me that when given an entire half of the local population, you couldn't find one or two people in that group who were well-qualified for that position? That all of those most qualified people you found for that post were white men? That is more than a little bizarre, isn't it? Is that really likely?

Man.... I feel so dumb right now...

I read the post like 3 times and still don't know what is going on.

"

solwitch wrote:

"But your the only one that I can trust to not distract her, I'm sure you know why."

When I read that I thought that solwitch's boss was asking him to train her because he knew solwitch was gay or something like that.

Now everyone is saying solwitch is a woman, an that makes the following confusing:

"

solwitch wrote:

"I'm really not liking this conversation."

"I need you to stop being overly sensitive."

She called solwitch overly sensitive over what?


Although I am still confused, it seems that the problem is that solwitch's boss wanted to "shelter" the new employee because she was a beautiful young woman, in fear that having a male employee training her could generate problems. Some people here considered the above as liberalism on this topic, and I'm confused again on what is liberal about it.

It seems to me that solwitch didn't think that it was okay to give special treatment to the young lady just because she was a young an attractive woman, and didn't want to be part of it, so it's like she wanted equality or something. Doesn't that sound more liberal than what the boss wanted?

The boss sure is hypocritical when she said she was a feminist, even thought she didn't act with gender equality in mind before, but damn, I should already expect that every topic here will develop into bashing liberalism '~'

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Sexism is a substantial problem in hiring. Just as one example, consider the hiring process for orchestras. Some orchestras have instituted so-called "barefoot interviews", where they choose whether or not to hire someone based solely on how well they can play in a live interview - they never see or speak to the person in question. They're called "barefoot" interviews because they also made the interviews barefoot, to ensure that you couldn't hear, say, high heels on a tile floor. The result: they almost immediately ended up hiring more women. Weird, right?

Quotas are a naive and basic way to aim for equality. We can probably do better. But in principle? I really don't have much of a problem with them. I have to wonder what it says when people aren't able or willing to meet them. You mean to tell me that when given an entire half of the local population, you couldn't find one or two people in that group who were well-qualified for that position? That all of those most qualified people you found for that post were white men? That is more than a little bizarre, isn't it?

Few days ago I saw a comment on a tweet about Mahershala Ali being the first muslim to win the oscar.
The tweet said something like: "Oscars should be about your skill as actor not about your religion".

And I thought: Isn't that the proof that oscars are about the skill? If you have different kinds of groups winning the oscars then it's a proof that the deciding factor is something else than skin color and religion. But now if you only have one kind of group winning oscars even though there are other groups also competing, how is that a proof that it's all about the skill?

If one group wins more than other you could say that it's a coincidence and it is still about the skill, but if the other group never wins, and when it does it is discredited, how the hell is that about skill?

@budget_player - about quotas: I'm not going to go into an argument about them. One evil does not justify another, period. Nothing else to say.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Quotas are a naive and basic way to aim for equality.

Why do you even need equality? What bonuses does equal 50/50 distribution in the workplace bring?

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

That is more than a little bizarre, isn't it? Is that really likely?

Personal preferences are bizzare? Why are women not interested in IT & engineering as much as men? Why are women a lot more interested in biology than physics? Etc..

What SJW-s see as a "patriarchal conspiracy & sexism" is simply a consequence of different general preferences genders have. One of the stupidest ideas leftist liberals push in the west is 50/50 distribution in jobs like police, firefighters, etc., where the government has to discriminate vs qualified men, to employ quotas of barely qualified women. And if the quotas cant be met, then just lower the bar for psycho-physical requirements, so that women can pass the tests.

All in the name of dogmatic egalitarian ideology.

"

morbo wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Quotas are a naive and basic way to aim for equality.

Why do you even need equality? What bonuses does equal 50/50 distribution in the workplace bring?

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

That is more than a little bizarre, isn't it? Is that really likely?

Personal preferences are bizzare? Why are women not interested in IT & engineering as much as men? Why are women a lot more interested in biology than physics? Etc..

What SJW-s see as a "patriarchal conspiracy & sexism" is simply a consequence of different general preferences genders have. One of the stupidest ideas leftist liberals push in the west is 50/50 distribution in jobs like police, firefighters, etc., where the government has to discriminate vs qualified men, to employ quotas of barely qualified women. And if the quotas cant be met, then just lower the bar for psycho-physical requirements, so that women can pass the tests.

All in the name of dogmatic egalitarian ideology.

Newsflash, women are, on average, quite different from men. Gasp! Sexism!

Me: facepalms

(I know you know, I'm not being ironic at you)

"

Bars wrote:

Newsflash, women are, on average, quite different from men. Gasp! Sexism!

Na'ah!! I've heard that once a woman beat a guy in arms wrestling, therefore women are just as good Navy Seals as men. It's the patriarchy who plots behind the scenes and doesn't want women to be empowered!

Also, did you know that women are paid less for the same work, but for some reason dirty capitalist pig-dogs don't want to employ obviously cheaper labor, so we need quotas for women?

"

morbo wrote:

"

Bars wrote:

Newsflash, women are, on average, quite different from men. Gasp! Sexism!

Na'ah!! I've heard that once a woman beat a guy in arms wrestling, therefore women are just as good Navy Seals as men. It's the patriarchy who plots behind the scenes and doesn't want women to be empowered!

Also, did you know that women are paid less for the same work, but for some reason dirty capitalist pig-dogs don't want to employ obviously cheaper labor, so we need quotas for women?

Tell me about it.

When I was twenty-something, at some point I was looking for a job and there was this spot behind the counter of a relatively expensive fast food place. Bagels, freshly squeezed juice, everything grossly overpriced because "healthy", this type of thing. The owner told me, "Look, I'll be honest: I'm looking for a friendly-looking girl. Nothing wrong with you, it's just that I want someone to put my clients at ease and you aren't this someone."

I said, "All right, fair enough. I can see what you mean." He wasn't looking for a reserved and not exactly friendly-looking male, which I was. Can't fault him for that.

I guess I should've started a meninist movement instead!