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

"

sarahaustin wrote:

LGBT liberal political agenda? Damn you got issues...

Hey, you know, for some people your existence counts as a "political agenda". Thankfully, that particular group is becoming increasingly small and marginalized. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Don't even give it the time of day.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Like, okay, there are a lot less male nurses. Why is that? First culprit in my mind would be the societal perception that the job is "unmanly". It wasn't women who did that.

A better question: why do you even need more male nurses? What's wrong with women being dominant in this field? What "problem" are you trying to solve?

"

sarahaustin wrote:

LGBT liberal political agenda? Damn you got issues...

What about the anti LGBT and anti black and anti immigrant political agenda of the GOP? Oh and their sexism...

It's not my issue. It's the LGBT group's issues. They have an agenda and they push it. It's called activism, and they fight for their own interests such as gay marriage, in which they've won that last round.

Yes, agenda. And yes, political. Are you living under a rock or just blind to it since you're in the thick of it already? https://www.thenation.com/article/whats-next-lgbt-movement/

"

morbo wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Like, okay, there are a lot less male nurses. Why is that? First culprit in my mind would be the societal perception that the job is "unmanly". It wasn't women who did that.

A better question: why do you even need more male nurses? What's wrong with women being dominant in this field? What "problem" are you trying to solve?

Exactly! Only liberals care how many of which race, gender, sexual identity, etc. are in each occupation as it compares to the overall population. It's all a farce. Stroking their own egos to feel less guilty about their own bleeding heart.

"

morbo wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Like, okay, there are a lot less male nurses. Why is that? First culprit in my mind would be the societal perception that the job is "unmanly". It wasn't women who did that.

A better question: why do you even need more male nurses? What's wrong with women being dominant in this field? What "problem" are you trying to solve?

One reason that comes to mind is that when a field limits itself so drastically by gender or race, it tends to miss out on the best talent available, on differing viewpoints, on ways to solve problems approached from different perspectives. I can't speak for nursing; but in STEM fields, diversity can make a huge difference in how effective a team is at solving problems. ScientificAmerican has an excellent blog article on some of the ways diversity matters, at least in STEM.

And as much as we can claim that it's all meritocratic, when so few women are involved in IT, and so few men are involved in nursing, can we really make the claim fairly that we have the best people for the jobs? That almost all of the best programmers or nurses fall along gender lines? Again, this strikes me as odd, and a good way to fix that is to encourage less gendered professions.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

One reason that comes to mind is that when a field limits itself so drastically by gender or race, it tends to miss out on the best talent available, on differing viewpoints, on ways to solve problems approached from different perspectives. I can't speak for nursing;
(...)
so few men are involved in nursing, can we really make the claim fairly that we have the best people for the jobs?

Correct, you have no idea what the medical field is like. I am no expert either, but I do have a wife who's an RN and fills me in on it from time to time. In the US there's a HUGE demand for doctors (any and all) and nurses (RNs) right now. And that demand is also strong for CNAs, LPNs, and NPs. In other words there's a vacuum that's trying to suck in any and all who apply for such jobs. So we're getting the sampling of people who actually want to work in those fields, not just a selection of the best candidates as with most white-collar jobs.

RN, LPN, and CNA positions don't benefit from your utopian view of "different perspectives" (ie: diversity). They're hired to fill a specific role with specific requirements, so there's little room for viewpoints. All diagnosing is done by the doctors, including interns, residents, and NPs, not an RN, LPN, or CNA.

Diversity in a more creative career is far more useful, but in day-to-day careers such as nursing, it's trivial at best and downright dangerous at worst (eg: providing alternative medication to a patient instead of what a doctor prescribed).

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

And as much as we can claim that it's all meritocratic, when so few women are involved in IT, and so few men are involved in nursing, can we really make the claim fairly that we have the best people for the jobs?

Yes? What if women are naturally better at nursing (their "biological role") and men are better at coding (logical thinking)? Maybe the current distribution already offers the best people for the job? A token % of the opposite sex in those fields, is enough to offer a different perspective.

The left wants to completely ignore millenia of evolution and forcefully "equalize" men and women through social engineering. It ain't gonna happen, sorry. Women, even tho they are big consumers of technology, aren't really interested in coding, as much as men are.

People like Budget_player_cadet are thinking from a utopian viewpoint, where society benefits from a dynamic, diverse workforce that speeds up the pace of innovation and scientific discovery. The problem is that capitalism isn't prioritized in that manner. First the bottom line is resolved, then growth, and finally research. Only the largest and most successful companies can afford to throw money at their research teams and hire a diverse selection of people to secure their long-term growth and innovation. And those businesses are not owned or run by the public or public interest. They're under the care and control of individuals, with their own say in how they function.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

People like Budget_player_cadet are thinking from a utopian viewpoint, where society benefits from a dynamic, diverse workforce that speeds up the pace of innovation and scientific discovery. The problem is that capitalism isn't prioritized in that manner. First the bottom line is resolved, then growth, and finally research. Only the largest and most successful companies can afford to throw money at their research teams and hire a diverse selection of people to secure their long-term growth and innovation. And those businesses are not owned or run by the public or public interest. They're under the care and control of individuals, with their own say in how they function.

I kinda disagree. It's not utopian to desire a dynamic and diverse workforce for society. Everybody should inherently want that, because then we open our potential to 100% of our people. Not like horseshit Saudi Arabia with its restrictions against women. Research and progress does gain from diversity. The 20th century evolution in the philosophy of science rolls right through the US feminist movement of the 1960s. It has to, by default, when you open up a field to an entire group of people previously not taken seriously.

Universities benefit from diversity. STEM research department, whose grants are funded by the public, is stronger when the research team has a widespread and disparate knowledge base from which to draw upon, doesn't matter if qualitative or quantitative venture. And companies, small to large, are always at university career fairs.

It might be utopian to forcibly include diversity, via arbitrary quota, so that we can feel better about ourselves, but it's really not a throwaway position, in the abstract, for our society that we default to inclusivity.