You go...girl?

"

Bars wrote:

If it looks like trolling and the results are people being trolled, it's trolling as far as I'm concerned. Whether or not it's a deliberate effect or it's unintentional and the poster is being perfectly sincere is irrelevant.

You've responded to this thread 14 times already. It's clear someone did get baited.

"

totalbackline wrote:

"

Bars wrote:

If it looks like trolling and the results are people being trolled, it's trolling as far as I'm concerned. Whether or not it's a deliberate effect or it's unintentional and the poster is being perfectly sincere is irrelevant.

You've responded to this thread 14 times already. It's clear someone did get baited.

Spoiler

Hard.

Do I look baited to you?

You actually went ahead and counted my posts here, that's endearing.

"

morbo wrote:

If you need to discriminate men, to push women into certain educational fields or economic sectors, you are trying to achieve "equal social standing" or as SJWs call it: equality of outcome. But the very fact that you need "women quotas" and discriminate men, confirms that women are less capable to enter those fields on their own in a meritocratic way.

It doesn't, really, tradition and lack of women in the workforce in general played a large role in forming the gender profile of many potentially unisex occupations.

Also, I can't really think of a significant advantage in hiring a female worker. You can't count on drafting her into intensely physical labor if need arose, her performance isn't exactly on top level during 'those days in the month' and you'd have to arrange for a maternity leave in case of pregnancy. That's what the female and disability quotas are for, you can't expect businessmen to operate on what's honest and decent, it's the performance that counts.

"

raics wrote:

[ That's what the female and disability quotas are for, you can't expect businessmen to operate on what's honest and decent, it's the performance that counts.

Is it honest and decent to force businessmen to hire people at their own disadvantage?

"

Bars wrote:

"

raics wrote:

[ That's what the female and disability quotas are for, you can't expect businessmen to operate on what's honest and decent, it's the performance that counts.

Is it honest and decent to force businessmen to hire people at their own disadvantage?

Well it's more about Ethics and Equal Opportunity as opposed to a straight up bottom line disadvantage. My company has actively sought to put women in key roles throughout the business and level the playing field so to speak. They've done this in the same vein as promoting sustainability intiatives and being socially responsible. Remember shit like that when you reach for your 100% organic coffee bean Latte.

"

raics wrote:

You can't count on drafting her into intensely physical labor if need arose, her performance isn't exactly on top level during 'those days in the month' and you'd have to arrange for a maternity leave in case of pregnancy.

All those problems you described are due to biological differences. Why then force an "egalitarian" system on the population, if it performs worse than a meritocratic? Women will always be better mothers and housewives, than labourers and business managers.

The only way to achieve "equality" is do downgrade men - that's what all those quotas do - force employ sub-par people, instead of more qualified ones. Just so that we can pretend that we live in an "equal" society.

"

raics wrote:

That's what the female and disability quotas are for, you can't expect businessmen to operate on what's honest and decent, it's the performance that counts.

In modern history there were only two regimes (sharing a similar ideology), which dared to forcefully shape the economy, and bend the companies to the will of the state, gaining full control over them and standing behind rules often unrelated to the basic econonomical laws: Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany.

We know what they were, and how they ended.

Some people just never learn, sooner or later all the quotas and regulations will bite them in the ass. It's certain as death.

I blame on the certain ideology, quotas are just the metastases.

It's plain simple: if you are unable to compete, you are out. Or will get put to a disadvantage in one way or another. That's how the evolution goes. No quota can fight nature, besides the Darwin Award quotas.

"

totalbackline wrote:

"

Bars wrote:

"

raics wrote:

[ That's what the female and disability quotas are for, you can't expect businessmen to operate on what's honest and decent, it's the performance that counts.

Is it honest and decent to force businessmen to hire people at their own disadvantage?

Well it's more about Ethics and Equal Opportunity as opposed to a straight up bottom line disadvantage. My company has actively sought to put women in key roles throughout the business and level the playing field so to speak. They've done this in the same vein as promoting sustainability intiatives and being socially responsible. Remember shit like that when you reach for your 100% organic coffee bean Latte.

That's the thing, the playing field isn't level to begin with. Trying to force the bumps down will only damage the soil. Or, to put it plainly, I think this is an inefficient business model and it's bound to harm the economy and cause a ton of problems on a macro scale. I think it's going to be eaten alive by more robust and competitive business models.

Although I disagree with it, I recognize the good intentions it's grounded on.

Bolded the hilariously wrong assumption about me, which was probably meant as a symbol of a broader set of hilariously wrong assumptions.

"

morbo wrote:

All those problems you described are due to biological differences. Why then force an "egalitarian" system on the population, if it performs worse than a meritocratic? Women will always be better mothers and housewives, than labourers and business managers.

The only way to achieve "equality" is do downgrade men - that's what all those quotas do - force employ sub-par people, instead of more qualified ones. Just so that we can pretend that we live in an "equal" society.

You know, all this crap is happening for one reason, and that's because we can. Methods of producing just about anything got so advanced we don't have enough work for all the workers anymore, that's why we can push less efficient workers and play house.

So, it doesn't matter in the grand scale but on the small scale a business owner will always push for more efficient workers so he can earn more.

Just for comparison, when shit really hits the fan there's no playing fair anymore. Nobody used women as any significant component of a standing army, ever, why would you want an army that performs worse and pretty much has 15% less battle-ready personnel at any time.

he looks a lot like a man to me.