TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/seduction
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

      • Artful Prudence
      • A Voice for Men
      • Alpha Game
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Good Looking Loser
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • In Mala Fide
      • KillToParty
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Married Man Sex Life
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Power Moves
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • The Spearhead
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Study: More Men Hired in Gender-Blind Job Application Process

disgruntled_lawyer

June 30, 2017
1888 upvotes
/r/PussyPassDenied
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/06/30/study-more-men-hired-in-gender-blind-job-application-process/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Study: More Men Hired in Gender-Blind Job Application Process
Author

disgruntled_lawyer

Upvotes 1888
Comments 197
Date June 30, 2017 8:51 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/6kiqkp/study_more_men_hired_in_genderblind_job/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/study-more-men-hired-in-gender-blind-job.919130
https://theredarchive.com/post/919130
Top posts by disgruntled_lawyer

14 yr old revokes __ card of aging hag

170 upvotes
June 22, 2017
/r/PussyPassDenied

"Very Well Educated" Bitch Kicked Off Train

119 upvotes
July 13, 2017
/r/PussyPassDenied

Study: More Men Hired in Gender-Blind Job Application Process

103 upvotes
June 30, 2017
/r/MensRights

College Creates Position to Combat "Aggressive Masculinity"

57 upvotes
July 25, 2017
/r/MensRights

"Very Well Educated Bitch" Kicked off Train

8 upvotes
July 13, 2017
/r/MensRights

Career Wymen Resort to Freezing Eggs B/C No "Good Men"

7 upvotes
July 5, 2017
/r/MensRights

I knew this was coming...stupid Google

4 upvotes
August 11, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]TheAwkwardGuy2000 586 points587 points588 points 9 years ago (96 children) | Copy Link

This is fucking retarded.

Hiscox warned governments and companies to consider the real possibility that gender-blind hiring processes may actually lessen equality in the workplace. “We should hit pause and be very cautious about introducing this as a way of improving diversity, as it can have the opposite effect,” Professor Hiscox claimed.

Um, no. It did not lesson equality. It increased equality in the workplace.

Being chosen for your merit and not your fucking gender is what equality is.

[–]sock_lover points 9 years ago* [recovered] (59 children) | Copy Link

Feminism was never about equal opportunities or rights, it is a female superiority group.

[–]DOCisaPOG 60 points61 points62 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I have to disagree, but it really depends on the time frame you're looking at. Note: I'm going to be talking about the US, so other countries may not be following the same general time line or issues.

First wave feminism [1800-1940s] was definitely about equal rights in terms of legal standing. Suffrage/voting rights and property rights were the main issues that were fought for during this era. I think these are values of equality Western Civilization holds as universal now, and aren't remotely controversial.

Second wave feminism ['50s-'80s] was about unique issues that affected women. Reproductive rights, "legal" marital rape, and genuine workplace/cultural inequality were the main points. Certain aspects of this can still be controversial in the US (specifically reproductive rights), but Western Civilization (especially Europe) seems to have mostly embraced these ideals.

Third wave feminism ['90s-current] has been a smorgasbord of issues that doesn't have real cohesion or a definite endgame. Empowerment, racial inclusion, patriarchy/institutionalized sexism, rape culture, and sexual oppression seem to be the main issues addressed in the third wave. The experiment done in this article shows that diversity just for diversity's sake is inefficient and unfair, and can lead to less qualified canidates getting hired for jobs in the name of "equality". The other issues can be much more controversial and difficult to disprove, and when pushed to the extreme give the appearance of feminism being a "union for women". That alone will turn off many level headed people to feminism.

I'm sorry I got on a long winded ramble there. I'm just trying to say the feminism definitely USED to be about equal rights, but has become a very muddled movement in the last two and a half decades. There are some excellent feminists in the world that are genuinely fighting injustices, but the loudest and most controversial ones that treat feminism as a woman's union are making it very difficult for the layman to find and get behind the rational ones.

[–]StealthSpheesSheip 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

First wave feminists are actually not as good as a lot of people think. For one they only tried to get suffrage for other women, not the thousands of men who didn't have suffrage based on class. Second they started the whole white feather campaign during ww1 where they shamed men into joining up by giving them a white feather. They even gave feathers to soldiers on leave, not knowing who they were. They also tried to have a universal draft instituted where men without suffrage would be pressed into the war. Yes they started the fight for women's rights, but they were no saints.

[–]DOCisaPOG -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My reply to ThatDamnedImp addresses this.

[–]ThatDamnedImp 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So called 'first wave' feminists were not feminists. They never called themselves feminists. Neither the word, nor the movement, even existed at that time.

what happened was, feminists basically retroactively 'baptised' a bunch of church-marm, T-totalling conservatives into their movement in order to make it seem like they had a much larger pedigree than they ever legitimately had.

But those people were NOT feminists. They never called themselves feminists. They were mostly members of church groups and 'concerned women' groups. And even then, many were god-awful people who supported all many of terrible things, such as prohibition, harsh punishment toward prostitutes and anti-miscegenation laws.

Your version of history is very clearly one told by feminists, not a legitimate reading of what actually happened.

[–]DOCisaPOG 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree the the term of feminist for the first wave is a bit revisionist, but it is the easiest way to explain the time line of the movement for women's rights. After all, World War I was called The Great War or The War to End All Wars until World Word II, but that doesn't change what happened. It's just nomenclature used to link two related things.

As for saying the entire movement is invalidated due to their stance taken on other issues at the time is intellectually dishonest. For example, The Framers' major achievements in guiding the path of the nation through The Construction and Bill of Rights isn't made illegitimate because of their (now draconian) stances on slavery. Instead, their movement for civil liberties was extended to all by those who came after them. If we were to view them by today's standards we would be appalled, but for their time they were very forward thinking and the steps they took allowed civil liberties to continue to be extended at a later date towards equality for all.

As a side note, it's worth mentioning that each wave of feminism didn't agree entirely with the last. For example, second wave opposed pornography while third wave pushed for sexual liberties for women.

[–]afiefh 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not sure there is a contradiction between what you are saying and what gp is saying. A union for women would at first tackle the inequality issues (which I whole heatedly support) but as soon as these are gone will try to improve the status of their members in other ways even if it has nothing to to with equality.

[–]snorlax51 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly everyone seems to think feminism is the definition of equality. No that's egalitarianism. Feminism is about promoting women's rights.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It's not even about women at the core. It's a liberal movement at its core. Name one feminist who cares about Ann Coulter.

[–]FlameSpartan 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Feminists hate Ann Coulter, in spite of never bothering to listen to her.

At least I gave her a fair shot, and decided we disagree.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

She's the ideal feminist woman in some ways. She's outspoken, self made wealthy, and men respect her irrespective of anything but her words. Camille Paglia is another good one. But feminists hate both of them because feminism is a complete joke.

[–]Goo-Goo-GJoob 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote … women have no capacity to understand how money is earned." -Ann Coulter

Ideal feminist?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

When you look at female voting patterns and consumerism that quote starts to make some sense

[–]Goo-Goo-GJoob 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Ideal feminist"

[–]snorlax51 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Source? Besides being quoted a bunch on some very biased websites I have yet to see the video

[–]JasonMArcher 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The best I could find is this:

Wikiquote

Remarks on Politically Incorrect (26 February 2001).

[–]SpinningCircIes 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

you make it sound like unions are bad things. Unions are why you weren't working in a sweat shop at 8 years old on a sunday and lost your fingers in a press at 12. Or you know, the whole weekends concept, to name the very least.

[–]Chocolate_Slug 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Some are a bad thing. Nurse unions allow nurses to literally kill a patient and not get fired

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

what the fuck are you talking about

[–]Chocolate_Slug 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Basically even if they are entirely negligent they are kept on staff cuz union prevents or makes firing them nearly impossible.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

i use adverbs alot too if im pulling stories out of my ass

[–]Chocolate_Slug 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hmm. Well I've seen this first hand. So you are either a butt hurt nurse or someone who finds it hard to believe. And you should find to hard to believe ! I'm metropolitan areas in particular. In the Midwest and south it's not as bad.

[–]Chocolate_Slug 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Also, don't cry.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

why would i cry? defensive much? do you have any hard facts to support your accusasions or are you just discriminating?

[–]Chocolate_Slug 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Lol discriminating ?

Let's simplify this because you are clearly a pleb. Unions make it extremely difficult to fire someone. Negligent nurses DO exist. Minority, majority.. who cares. Unions make it very difficult to fire a nurse who is shit at their job. Nurses who are shit at their job inevitably risk a patient's well-being. I don't know what "hard facts" you would expect someone to provide. Ask any resident or doctor in a metropolitan area. But You go on believing what u want little buddy. And please, dont cry... I know good nurses exist... it's unions that allow the toxic ones to stay.

[–]DJMixwell 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Unions were a good thing once upon a time. Now they're corporations, bent on extorting money from businesses under the guise of workers rights. Really they just twist the arms of companies to increase salaries so they can reap more union dues.

[–]SpinningCircIes 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes, they exist to perpetuate themselves, that's true. But they fight privatization which will almost always hurt the worker.

[–]DJMixwell 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure I see the relationship? There are unions in the private sector?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

i went on strike 3 months ago, i was on strike for 4 days, my union provided me an allowance of roughly 50% of my salary, this was about 300x what i had paid in, how do they profit? unions are workers, for workers

[–]DJMixwell 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Those instances are few and far between. Not to mention the fact that while your union paid the striking workers for one company, often unions represent many different groups. So they're getting their cake for sure.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Unions are generally non profit, yes the guys at the top get paid well, but then so they should, they work hard for it, yes they pay into political parties but thats so they can get their regime through the laws, unions are there to protect workers rights and they do a fucking good job of it

[–]DJMixwell 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"non-profit" doesn't mean a whole lot, essentially it just means they pump their money back to execs instead of paying dividends. They still make a shitload of money. I definitely don't agree that CEOs and upper management should make the money they do, studies have shown time and time again that all you need to be happy is 70k a year. That puts you well beyond a living wage and affords you some luxury. When the people who "represent the working class" and banking mid 6 figures, it's clear they don't care about your interests, just the interests that fatten their wallets.

As far as workers rights, this isn't the great depression, we have laws.

[+]TheAwkwardGuy2000 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

The definition of the word includes equality, so idk what you're talking about. Feminism in "the West" is retarded. Not feminism in "the East".

[–]Xanza 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is inherently anti-equality. No matter how you slice it. The movement is there to ensure that Women are treated equally to Men--but is completely silent for any situation in which Men are unequal to Women.

Saying that Feminism is for equality is the same as saying Stalinism is for freedom. It's empirically not true by any measure other than face value to those who consider themselves apart of that group.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you think it was always that way? I guess Susan b Anthony did great things for women, but it was before 'feminism'

[–]Xanza 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I really don't think so. The woman suffrage movement (and others) had every right to focus solely on women--as they were an oppressed minority. But that's not really the case anymore (IMO, anyways). We have an expectation of diversity even in fields which aren't diverse. Which is...dumb. The Feminist movement these days has devolved from "women deserve equal rights!" to "take rights away from men so women are superior because we, as a gender, haven't always been equal!"

Susan B. Anthony is a really good example here. She's always refereed to as a women's rights activist. Because she was for women's rights. Not the pseudo "equality" that Feminists band behind today.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. Things were different back then.

[–]TheAwkwardGuy2000 points 9 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Alright, fair enough I guess. Although, wouldn't a true feminist be someone with an actual brain in their heads?

[–]Xanza 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean, it's not as if I'm trying to say Feminism is evil, or something. Men and women should be treated equally as people. But if your only attachment to your movement is through its name, then you're movement is of no value.

So I really think a true feminist is someone who realizes that calling yourself a feminist doesn't automatically lend you credibility in the avenue that you believe in equal rights. You have to be cognizant to the fact that if you're entirely for one group to the point where you're basically "against" the other. That's just the way things are.

I think that people who call themselves feminists need to re-brand if they want to be taken seriously on the merits of equality.

[–]DOCisaPOG 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have to agree with you on that point. In the modern political field, on one hand there are third wave feminists that want genuine equality for all. On the other hand, there are post-feminism feminists that are only interested in boosting women's status by corroding the rights of others. (I'm not sure if these are the correct terms, but it seems to be how they're addressed.)

[+]hwf0712 -21 points-20 points-19 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

What do you think unions are. These are the times I think about leaving thus sub. When all of it is just conservitive propaganda like "hurry surrrre unions are bad" or "hurry durr women did something bad"

[–]evesea 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Did he say unions are bad? He said feminism is a union for women, as opposed to a sort of union or movement for equality.

Chill the fuck out.

[–]hwf0712 -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

He insinuated that when he said feminism was a union, describing them as negative

[–]evesea 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He said they were a union for women.. implying it's purpose is strictly to give more benefits to women, not to make things equal.

[–]hwf0712 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You know what, I think I shall fo something rare on the internet. Admit I'm wrong. I misread it and and had wrong ideas

[–]evesea 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It happens to the best of us man.

[–]you_liberal_cuck points 9 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Wrong sub if you're looking for a pussy pass.

[+]hwf0712 -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm not. I'm looking for reasonable, non propaganda posts

[–]whiteonrice69 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure you'll find that on the rest left-leaning reddit. LOL

[–]Jowitness -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Moron

[–]fick_Dich 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I think their idea of equality is more along the lines of the work place should be as close as a representative sample of the population as possible. For example if the population is 50/50 male/female, or 30% black or whatever, then the workplace should also carry these ratios. Of course this is stupid and not possible.

[–]TheAwkwardGuy2000 50 points51 points52 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not only is it stupid, but it's sexist, racist, and has nothing to do with equality.

If you pick a black woman for a job just because she's a black woman then you are being sexist, racist, and definitely not showing any signs of equality for the better person that could've had the job.

If you pick a black woman for a job because she's skilled at the job, then you are perfect.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That gender representation is what the NCAA uses for Title IX regulations on athletics at universities in America. Go to almost any big school and you will find approx. 50/50 male/female (give or take a bit) in the university and more along the lines of 65/35 male/female athletes on campus. Just goes to show it doesn't work

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's closer to 40/60 M/F for university enrollment in the US.

[–]Invalid_Targetthe most famous fag on reddit 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

you're asking people to choose.

1) diversity for the sake of diversity at the cost of skill

or

2) the proper worker for the job based on skill

you're trying to force the former, when the latter is the more fair option to both the employer, and the skilled worker.

you want to hamstring people's business just for a warm fuzzy.

[–]fick_Dich 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm not asking anyone to do anything.

[–]Invalid_Targetthe most famous fag on reddit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

you are, by encouraging that shit practice.

[–]fick_Dich 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You didn't read the last sentence where I said it was stupid.

[–]connecteduser 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They want equality of outcome and not of opertunity.

It is quite sad.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No we want against letting society play out as it should, based on actual merit, and to do so you have to enforce preference for females and bigotry against males.

[–]-The-Pussy-Whisperer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can this mean anything more? Right on!

[–]GrandpaLeiho 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

increased equality of opportunity, decreased equality of outcome. MAGA Amigo!

[–]yes-im-stoned 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Isn't it possible that the women were only less qualified because their previous work experiences were limited because of discrimination against their gender? Just an idea.

[–]TheAwkwardGuy2000 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Err idk what your previous work experience has to do with it. If there was a problem however, then these women do actually need to be helped.

Since I don't have enough info, I really can't say anything.

[–]yes-im-stoned -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Well usually a big part of your qualifications for a new job are based on previous experience. So I was just thinking if that was the problem then the authors were right in saying the blind hirings weren't helping with equality.

[–]TheAwkwardGuy2000 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Err I don't wanna argue, but what exactly do you put in your "previous experiences"? Like, even if you get harassed at work, idk how much that would affect your "experience in your previous work". Not saying that harassment is ok, but idk what it has to do with experience.

[–]yes-im-stoned -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Previous work experiences as in what were your responsibilities at your previous job, what have you accomplished at work, etc. Pretty much every job application asks for these things. If they were limited at their previous job because they were women (given less responsibilities, not given promotions), that would affect their future job prospects even if the person hiring didn't know their gender.

[–]TheAwkwardGuy2000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well I guess the promotions one is a bit biased so yeah I guess it is possible for a woman to have that problem. Once again though, we don't really know.

[–]yes-im-stoned 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, we don't. I'm just saying it's something to consider.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wish somebody would sit these people down and explain the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. If the results of this study are problematic for you, look into seeing if women have the equal opportunity to the education or work experience required for the job. Don't expect the jobs to hire people just because they're women, not if you actually care about equality.

[–]Luklear 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Except it isn't equal for them, because they care about equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

[+]akjoltoy -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

That line bothered me for the same reason.

Not being hired for having a whorish gash between your legs is true equality.

We all know women have massive advantages in the hiring market.

And then when they invariably fail at everything and deconstruct due to emotionality and lower intelligence, men dominate.

The way the world reacted by punishing men is the reason why studies like these need to be more common and more shared but instead are stifled and squelched.

[–]TheAwkwardGuy2000 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Yo shut the fuck up. This is pussypassdenied not let'sbebigotsagainstpussy

[–]akjoltoy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

nah. I'm about reality, child.

[–]TheAwkwardGuy2000 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Alright, show us your "higher intelligence" then.

[–]akjoltoy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

show you my intelligence..?

do you have any idea how stupid what you just said was?

[–]TheAwkwardGuy2000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I obviously mean "tell us your job" or something. I guess you're too stupid to understand that though.

Not that your job matters though. I've met/heard of countless retarded doctors.

[–]akjoltoy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

you're hideously retarded lol.

if I'd said my job you would attack that means of demonstrating intelligence. but you're too stupid to realize that.

i guarantee you that what i do for a living would be out of real for someone of your meager intellectual reach

[–]TheAwkwardGuy2000 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

"Attack"

If anyone's attacking it's you. If you told me your job, I wouldn't have said anything. I've already said "even if you are a doctor, it doesn't mean much". Your job does not define who you are. However, since you insist on going full-on /r/iamverysmart , then I guess you're really never gonna tell me your job.

Just be more humble ffs.

[–]akjoltoy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

retard. going iamverysmart would be dropping my career or credentials. you utter moron.

this isn't about me being smart. entirely about you being really fucken dumb

[–]WindMoose 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

4% exists, but it isn't massive.

[–]samsc2Cooking up a batch of MRE denials 427 points428 points429 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

This same study caused all the users of the gender blind application process to end it's use immediately as they realized the implications of only going off of merit and skill level. Obviously it's racist to hire the best regardless of race, sex, creed, etc... and so it's totally NOT racist to then prevent hiring of someone of a certain race, sex, creed, etc.... because they don't fit the mandated diversity requirement. I mean obviously...

[–][deleted] 181 points182 points183 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Same reason they had to abandon language proficiency tests for English teachers in new jersey.

[–]tlahwm1 51 points52 points53 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm from NJ and never knew about this. I knew about the firefighter exam bullshit, but this is just as stupid.

[–]birthofaturtle 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Eli5?

[–]Kingofthegnome 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The test was too hard for females so they let them pass even if they fail or don't need to take it the test. The biggest issue is women couldn't move a heavy object meant to represent a limp body through obstacles.

[–]birthofaturtle 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well that's dangerous af

[–]Kingofthegnome 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/

[–]LieutSerge 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Not racism is the new racism Sargon of Akkad

[+]SharkGlue -87 points-86 points-85 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Where are you pulling that from? The article only cites another news source, which sources the original study. There is no mention of changes made by other users of the blind application method.

[–]samsc2Cooking up a batch of MRE denials 93 points94 points95 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You just love to go around and not actually read things huh? So...if you were to do this crazy thing like read the post you'd have seen this crazy thing called a link to the trial which has these crazy words on it that says

Leaders of the Australian public service will today be told to "hit pause" on blind recruitment trials, which many believed would increase the number of women in senior positions.

and if you were to do this crazy thing called read the rest of the post you'd have learned quite a lot but of course as I've come to know from you, you're completely incapable of doing anything what so ever yourself.

[+]SharkGlue -80 points-79 points-78 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

This same study caused all the users of the gender blind application process to end it's use

will today be told to "hit pause" on blind recruitment trials

These two are not the same. I think you're warping the article.

Overall, the results indicate the need for caution when moving towards ’blind’ recruitment processes in the APS,

The article is warping the author of the study. As news blogs tend to do.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He's right. You're wrong.

[–]samsc2Cooking up a batch of MRE denials 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

weird because even though you're saying they aren't the same and the article is being warped, the words just aren't making sense because of how you're wrong.

[+]SharkGlue -55 points-54 points-53 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

the words just aren't making sense because of how you're wrong

Nice to know I can change your perception with my mere exsitence.

[–]samsc2Cooking up a batch of MRE denials 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well you can attempt to manipulate things and lie to others in order to try to control what people think but you fail pretty spectacularly with it so....there's that.

[+]SharkGlue -25 points-24 points-23 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, you can attempt to manipulate things and lie to others in order to try to control what people think but you fail pretty spectacularly with it so.

Don't even need to try to make it work for you. Just fix some grammar.

[–]odaal 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Youre hella dumb.

[–][deleted] 208 points209 points210 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

It's almost as if most women don't try hard enough but still expect to get what those who are working harder have.

[–]dukunt 119 points120 points121 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

B-b-but the patriarchy! Im just a girl! I can't be expected to do it on my own! I just want preferential treatment! Thats all.

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, yes of course. Artificially slanting things in women's favor is the only answer.

[–]dukunt 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Top jobs to the least qualified...thats the way things should be! If im ever trapped in a buring building dont send a bloke to carry me out..send a girl. Before i die I can listen to her blame the patriarchy for why I'm about to die in a fire. I might as die hearing the truth. Women can do anything a man can do. We are equal in every way. Its just that women are a little bit more equal than men.

[–]KevyB -24 points-23 points-22 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Just provide your god damn cunt and be happy you're needed at all.

[–]Mahtomic_Gandhi 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ok you can fuck right off. You are the reason that normal people in this sub get labeled misogynistic by others.

We don't hate women here. We hate when women get better treatment than men just because they are females.

When you say stupid shit like this, not only are you being really fucking disrespectful of women as a whole (who can do things, but are fundamentally different from men), but you give SJWs shitty ammunition against us by being able to cite us as sexist assholes.

[–]KevyB -13 points-12 points-11 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Mate, i don't give a fuck, i'm merely resounding what nature has always echoed.

It's cute that you want to resist and act "above" that, but that's all just a lie.

Men just happen to be on the enjoyable side of life, while women are the losers - that's all.

[–]noplanesnogains 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Catch yourself on its you who is now making divisions between the sexes, the exact opposite of the point of this sub. There are no universals between men, and none between women. Men can be miserable fucks and women can be happy as anybody, same as the other way round

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He's just an idiot. Ignore it and it'll wander off. The majority of this sub does not think that way and never will.

[–]Retromind 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Really activates one's neurons

[–]multiamory 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

One salient point, IF there has been discrimination in the past the discriminated may not have been able to build as strong a resume. That's an if not represented in the study though.

EDIT: I got auto-banned from r/TwoXChromosomes for putting forth an idea that previous discrimination might lead to an inability for women to put forth equitable resumes.... like what!?

[–]ScullyNess 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was thinking this same thing.

[+]albaniax points 9 years ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

The founder of Alibaba said hire more woman

[–]phantasy_pron_star 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably due to the greater ambition of men. Plus their resumes are better so it's easier to find better jobs.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like your company is mediocre at best. Most men won't put up with that, because they're trying to push ahead, be better, and build a name for themselves so they can afford to raise a family and all that.

[–]-The-Pussy-Whisperer -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You know alibaba is bigger than amazon, right?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Excuse me. I mean that the JOBS are probably mediocre. Which is quite likely in many large corporations, including Amazon.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

How many people actually stay on at amazon?

I cant imagine its a nice place to work

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yep. Apparently the dev work is better than the shipping/warehouse work, but yeah. I can't believe they even attempt to hire me sometimes, with their reputation for abusing employees.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You a dev/picker by trade?

If the moneys high enough hell ill be spat on by the manager, but thats a different thing all together.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dev. I get what you mean, but I have my limits. Sometimes it's genuinely not worth it at any price, as long as you can make ends meet some other way. The money isn't that great at Amazon anyway, from what I recall.

[–]Boonaki 84 points85 points86 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I posted about this before this post.

Honestly the best non-discriminatory hiring practices are at my current job. There are two panels, the first conduct live or over the phone interviews. All candidates are asked the same exact questions. The answers are handed over to a second panel that won't see names, addresses, race, etc. Those that pick the candidate do so based off the qualifications.

We have hired 9 people this way, 7 were men. On one of the female hires she was our second choice.

[–]Mike12344321 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Wow it's almost like when entitled bitch tells entitled bitch 2.0 that she can coast through life on her vagina, she believes it and doesn't try as hard, expecting to be able to coast.

[–]Fus_Roh_Potato 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This experiment basically proves that women and minorities are privileged. People who are privileged don't work or prep as hard because they don't have to, and the study shows they are not prepping enough.

What's concerning is that our modern attitude is to keep pretending that's not the problem. We try to equate outcomes by means that require discrimination against whichever race or gender is most successful through the extra hard work they have to endure from not being privileged. They end up getting more oppressed while the women and minorities get more preferential treatment, which in turn causes the oppressed to work even harder. The merit earned by women and those minorities then continues to fall and now we see companies taking extreme action like gender quotas.

Nothing they try to increase diversity is actually working. I know from experience in my field that this is becoming an increasing problem with engineering. The harder they try to buy in women for the sake of public image, the more the ratio of women to men continues to fall. It's at a point now where women don't even feel like they belong in the field because it becomes evident to them that they are nowhere near equipped enough to work competitively. They got 16x more funding with scholarships so they could coast through college unemployed in related fields, then got preferential hiring to end up with positions they didn't work hard for.

This is a cultural problem. If a particular kind of person is not doing well, then they need to suffer the appropriate consequences or they will never have a reason to rise up. However, this is like trying to convince drug addicts that their ways are self destructive, while half the country make up these addicts. They have he power right now to perpetuate this nonsense.

[–]deadfallpro 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a real bitch, when you have to hire people for their acquired skills and not based solely on what the pee from.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea man. skills mean nothing, I dont want any penises in my workplace!

[–]jelbert6969 54 points55 points56 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm gonna call bullshit. My sandwich always tastes better when made by my wife. She says it because it's made with love but I think she makes sure miracle whip is all the way to the corners.

We have agreed to disagree on the exact reasons.

[–]apatheorist points 9 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

She only make sure the miracle whip is all the way to the corners because she's covering up the poison.

I mean, because she loves you.

[–]WilNotJr 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Twist - miracle whip is the poison (at least, it tastes like poison).

[–]viper12a1a 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Miracle whip is just what they do with mayonnaise once it goes bad

[–]Yuo_cna_Raed_Tihs 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Here's a link to a website that is not breitbart if anyone wants it.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888?pfmredir=sm

[–]ladiesmanlawrence -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They don't want it, they just want to gloat.

[–]TheBlueEdition 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/domestic-policy/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-services-shortlisting-processes

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

[–]its_the_future 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Professor Hiscox said he discussed the trial with the ABS and did not consider it a rigorous or randomised control trial"

[–]Zerocyde 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Telepathic sexism. Disgusting.

[–]samsc2Cooking up a batch of MRE denials[M] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's an awful lot of reports for this being on breitbart and i'm just confused why that matters at all. It's still a news story regardless of where it's hosted and at least it isn't the clinton news network where everything is fake or one of the numerous other crap news orgs.

[–]Robbie1985 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think this is quite the win people think it is. Cordelia Fine talks at length in her book about how women have a natural tendency to talk themselves down in applications, where men generally exaggerate their achievements. A more valid test would be to remove the gender, but then have a mix of genders write each others applications as if it were their own. Then see if a woman's application written by a man did any better than if she wrote it herself?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, the solution is everybody be accountable to their choices. It's your role in a job interview to sell yourself, that's why they literally ask you, "Why should I hire you?".

Women aren't biologically limited to shitty interview skills, if they do in fact have that issue they need to either grow up or accept the consequences.

[–]holy_black_on_a_popo 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men are superior workers. Who knew?

[–]ThatDamnedImp 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or, the panel was biased toward women, and by blinding it, they removed the bias.

[–]obstinatebeagle 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Relevant:

https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/

[–]Kuftubby 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Breitbart

People still take them serious?

[–]ST07153902935 41 points42 points43 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think Breitbart is in the take cautiously category. If you see shit there and it is interesting, then cautiously take it is a plausible and research it somewhere else.

[–]jsdgjkl 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

this is their source: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888?pfmredir=sm

[–]Charcoa1 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That has a link to the actual publication: https://pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/domestic-policy/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-services-shortlisting-processes

[–]MrBubles01 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

If you'd look it up a bit more, you'd see that BBC UK ABC AU has the same article

[–]Volvo_240 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Link? I can't seem to find it.

[–]MrBubles01 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My bad it wasn't the BBC it was ABC AU

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points47 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

What is factually incorrect in the article?

[+][deleted] -30 points-29 points-28 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That website is known to spew biased bullshit and lots of it too. It's like going to a barbershop for your news and conspiracies. Sure some of it might be true and correct, but I wouldn't take a word of what is said seriously until more news sources pick it up, are listed and cite sources.

What's even more important to me, is that I won't partake in giving their page a view for ad money.

I don't click on tabloid pages like the daily mail, the sun or other stuff and I definitely won't click on breitbart articles.

[–]jsdgjkl 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

click on the source then: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888?pfmredir=sm

[+][deleted] -24 points-23 points-22 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You could've posted that instead of the breitbart site. Since I don't go on breitbart I couldn't have seen the source.

[–]Narvster 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Oh gosh, if only OP had known how you felt about it before posting I'm sure they'd have changed it.

Get over yourself, Breitbart, DM, The Sun are often shit but so is every other news outlet at the moment. Grow a fucking spine and stop moaning about pointless shit and address the arguments presented, not its source.

The genetic fallacy pisses me off as I see it used everywhere and people seem to expect when they use it they'll win the argument or just discredit it.

[+][deleted] -30 points-29 points-28 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hit a nerve, did we?

Are you seriously claiming where people get their news from is unimportant? It doesn't take much to verify a news sources like Breitbart and decide if one wants to support them with page views and thus ad money.

It's not a big secret that Breitbart peddles fake news. Just read the wikipedia page on it, which has links to quite a few of its falsehoods, NPR on kellogs pulling their ads from the site, the verge (which although owned by VoxMedia doesn't peddle nearly as much horse crap as Breitbart), the accepted answer on quora, the independent on the investigation on breitbart news and mediamatters does a pretty good job at providing a bigger list with sources.

Grow a fucking spine and stop moaning about pointless shit

As eloquently as you put it, I disagree that a source of information is unimportant. It's no wonder sites like Breitbart and those other rags make money.

[–]Narvster 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As I said all news sites at the moment are shite I don't trust any of them, but your argument is inane.

if you want to make the argument about not giving them money then your attack should have been archive that shit, but you just wanted to hand wave it away as a "bad source".

[–]Birdfanguy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It was originally on the Australian ABC website. The ABC leans so far left that our Liberal (right wing) party waged war against them and cut their funding.

[–]taint_a_chode -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There aren't many worse "news" sites than Brietbart. I don't care about leanings as much as just outright lies. A broken clock is correct twice a day, as the old saying goes, but that doesn't mean it's doing a good job of telling time.

[–]MrBubles01 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't matter who reports it. The fact is they got their story from the people who run those blind recruitments.

[+]Greg_McTim -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If a story only turns up on sites like that and the Daily Mail though, theres generally a reason why, which gets conveniently omitted.

[–]KevyB 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, the reason being it's an uncomfortable truth.

[–]maximun_vader 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

People will take seriously anything that aligns with their beliefs

[–]Birdfanguy 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's true, but in this case it's backed up by evidence. It was originally on the left leaning Australian ABC website.

[–]Vrixithalis 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

More seriously than CNN.

[–]taint_a_chode 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

deleted What is this?

[–]DarkCircle -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

3.2% whoop de doo.

If you want to discredit Breitbart, just read the comments.

[+]moose0511 points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Nope

[–]Birdfanguy 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What's nope? Did you investigate?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What a nonsense. The factor is the field of work in which you put the application. When you look for the best icehockey trainers you will presumably get more men because there are more men with certain qualifications in that field.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The entire concept of making a "Gender-Blind" application process is flawed. How is someone supposed to hire the best and most qualified candidate without conducting an interview? I am pretty confident I can tell the gender of a person in an interview....

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pussy pass completely obliterated.

[–]American_potatoe 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I give zero fucks about diversity and inclusion. This study proves that merit trumps everything else. Why on earth would you want to hire someone LESS qualified for a senior position in a large company? I actually work at a large bank and the leaders are the leaders because they are good leaders. Simple as that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

aannnnnd im applying for jobs as a chick now

[–]constantly-sick 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's Breitbart. LOL

[–]apatheticyeti0117 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Breitbart is not a reputable news source.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What is factually incorrect? It links to study. Same story has been in several outlets. Are you dusputing the authenticity of the study?

[–]BrightandPsyched -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We're using Breitbart as sources now?

[–]jubbergun 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We figured this would have to do until Mother Jones decided to cover the story. /s

Or maybe you'd prefer we take a page from /r/politics and get a ShareBlue link?

[+]LackingTact19 -13 points-12 points-11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Breitbart, sigh

[–]jsdgjkl 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888?pfmredir=sm

[+]drfarren -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry, can't up vote anything from that website. Hit me up when a reputable news group reports on it.

[–]nonamenumber3 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888?pfmredir=sm

[+]chambertlo -30 points-29 points-28 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This proves what everyone but feminists already knew to be true; MEN ARE BETTER.

[–]bitchyeah 39 points40 points41 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

...at certain things, of course. And women are better at others.

[–]touchet29 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's comments like these that make me almost understand why we're autobanned from 2XC.

[–]MiyegomboBayartsogt 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No XTC without 2XC approval.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Implying 2XC wouldn't ban us regardless.

[–]charlsey2309 -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Skeptical of anything made by Breitbart.

[–]incorporatedprojects -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Breitbart?

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck breitbart. Downvote.

[+]Electricpants -18 points-17 points-16 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Breitbart? Really?

[–]nonamenumber3 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888?pfmredir=sm

[–]farkenell -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Just saying it could be related to historical employment opportunities for women not giving them the experience that push them over other candidates. Or that they are less likely to pursue those opportunities for other reasons, family etc.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Who cares? Whomever is best qualified should get the job. Businesses exist to make money......not cater to female family preferences

[–]farkenell 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That wasn't my point. Just explaining why this may happen. I think females could do just as good a job. I don't think there's anything different between the two sexes. Or do you think females are just plain dumb dumbs.

[–]Poonough 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not that they're dumb dumbs as you say. It's more the law of averages. Sure there will be a few outlying extremes in both genders but on average more men are career focused and more women are home focused. The article actually mentions this.

Say you take 100 people, 50 men 50 women. On average the men will have spent more time building the job skills and business connections to move higher in their respective fields. Also on average the women will have spent more time tending to their children and their household.

[–]farkenell 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah and I do believe this is the case and believe in merit for a job before"equality". I'm just giving possible reasons why females would generally be less favored for the position in a blind test.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just saying that the economy doesn't exist just to pander to lazy women...

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter