~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link
This is easy. Just don't hire any of the female candidates.
Male SJWs are wimpy losers. You can control them and push them around easily. I mean hell, women push them around. You can deal with male pussies if you have to. But odds are that you'll get a decent feel for loser men during the actual interview process. Women are a lot more deceptive.
Just don't hire women. Find token reasons to recommend against them. Women are shit in the workplace anyway.
[–]1oldredder2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
if most of the candidates are women this will be nearly impossible. Nice thought but it's only a partial strategy.
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's the important part of the strategy. Handling feminized manginas is pretty easy. They're pussies. Easy to push around and manipulate. Even threaten. If you end up hiring a pussified man, it's not a huge damage.
But a woman? She'll start crying if you tell her to run spell-check on her documents before sending them to you and tell your supervisor you're picking on her.
[+]xorchids -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
Don't ever be put in a hiring position because this is discrimination and is very illegal so....
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
I've been in hiring positions previously and done exactly that. You don't overtly discriminate against women, silly. You interview them like any other candidate (bonus points if you get them to be very casual and sloppy, or get flustered or emotional with completely innocuous and fair questions that are just hard to answer.) But where possible, you pass their resumes by in favor of others, and you recommend other candidates over them.
The hiring process is very subjective. Interviews are for getting a feel for people and whether they'll be a good fit, and learning extra things about them. Not having them read their resume to you and reiterate why they meet the minimum qualifications you already know they meet because you read their resume.
If you don't get a good feel for a female candidate, it's completely legitimate to recommend against hiring them.
[–]Esjaydoubleyou1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Response made me laugh. In all seriousness about a third of the people I work with are women, no problems so far....I will keep this advice in mind regardless
[–]xorchids -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
If you've been in a hiring position I'm sure you've fired someone.
How did that go?
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
It's actually kind of fun. I get to hide behind other people if shit goes badly.
A couple of jobs ago was one of my favorite experiences. You can't be alone with a woman when you let her go (to avoid false sex claims). I had our (very gay) office manager and one of our senior female attorneys (who sucks at her job and hates other women) in the room with me.
The girl came unhinged. The anit-gay pejoratives that flew out of that woman's mouth almost made me blush. We called security on her, but she stormed off before they got upstairs to the office.
[–]xorchids -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I was talking about the firing of men and only men.
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Men usually take it okay. Way better than women. I've heard stories, but never had a guy yell or get irrational. I'm sure it happens, but I'm a white-collar guy who works with equally white-collar men, so we're not really worried about someone getting stupid and violent or anything like that.
[–]xorchids -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
So what is the point is disqualifying someone from a position if they are a woman if you fire men too? Especially if you fire both in equal rates..
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Did you read the OP or just see my comment and take offense?
[–]xorchids -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I'm not offended in the slightest. This is Reddit.com.
I'm just curious, because I like to view people as rational and profit seeking, which helps their own personal well being. If your applicant pool reflects that of the natural population ~50% or less, or more, you're eliminating a substantial amount of candidates right off the bat.
And I'm just wondering why that is if you fire them in equal rates. To discriminate based on gender doesn't seem very rational in that case. It appears though you don't know how to answer my question.
[–]Archwinger3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's kind of apples and oranges in my specific case. I'm an attorney. 90% the attorney applicants I've dealt with are male. 90% of the paralegal/legal assistant/secretary applicants I've dealt with are female. So who you interview and who you fire depends heavily on the position. It's not really a 50-50 thing.
Every female attorney except for one lucky soul that I've worked with has sucked. And again, with just one lone female exception, every single male paralegal I've worked with has been far superior to any female paralegal, hands down. Men are better in the workplace, even at the traditionally female jobs. Better skilled, quicker to learn, more professional, able to take criticism without fucking crying or making excuses, gets along with everyone.
No woman I've ever worked with has gotten along with other women in the office. Ever. No exceptions on this one. It's like women see all other women in the workplace as competition. Even women who work different jobs -- in fact, women hate the ones that work different jobs even more, above or below, because those other women have skills that they don't.
[–]xorchids1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
90% seems like quite the high if you look at the distribution of lawyers by gender.
So you're saying your firing rate by gender is, equal, not equal? Higher in females? I mean, by what you've said that can't be the case. That all men are better. Because there was the one good female who beats the males you've fired? And this is where you come to the conclusion that discrimination hurts your firm.
[–]Archwinger4 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's my specialty and my type of practice. Even women who practice in the same area that I do usually end up working on different kinds of cases, or in government/corporate settings instead of firms.
Sure, alright. Seems perfectly reasonable for specialities to differ in distribution.
I edited another question in my former post.
[–]yougonnagetit 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Have fun proving it. I work in a plaintiff side law firm, cases of discrimination are easy to bring, but hard to win without something solid.
First, rarely will someone sue over hiring practices. The damages aren't high enough. Firms won't take low money cases on contingency, it's just not worth it, and most people looking to sue can't afford 300+/hr. I've seen my firm reject many cases on that basis alone, not worth it.
Second, usually in gender discrimination there's going to be comments made regarding the person being a woman, or at least comments that you could make a jury infer some type of sexism was going on. From what I've seen, that happens in 75%+ of the cases that my firm takes on contingency. You won't get those comments in the hiring scenario.
There's also the added benefit of saying you simply didn't like them at the interview. You can't quantify that, and it truly is subjective.
Lastly, it's far cheaper to "discriminate" prior to hiring than after. Once you hire even in "at will" employment scenarios the jury can infer pretextual reasons for firing (or not hiring). A verdict for wrongful termination is going to be far greater.
There's also the added cost of having an SJW types on your payroll aside from lawsuits. The few I know aren't efficient workers. I have no respect for those types so I have no problem making a generalization that they aren't ideal employees.
Not to say all women are SJWs, but in the hypothetical situation where this hiring manager refuses to hire women, he is less likely to get SJWs.
[–]deox1-3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
hahahaha c'mon, really? aren't you generalizing a bit?
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
Nothing wrong with that. Let's say you have an office building with 500 empty offices, you want your business to be as successful and possible, and you only get to fill all 500 of them with just one sex.
Hands down, you go with 500 men. Independent of the field of business.
Men are better than women even at traditionally female jobs. Men are better nurses, teachers, paralegals, secretaries. But jobs like secretaries get paid shit, so men, who need to attract women and support families, don't apply to be secretaries.
Plus they're smarter, learn more quickly, are more professional, get along better in office settings, take instruction better, work independently better, work in teams better, handle criticism better.
Yes, some men suck and some women are probably okay, but when you have 30 seconds with a resume, females get minus points.
[–]deox10 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
Fuck, you are right, can't beat statistics or logic.
At my current job we have pussy women and a couple pussy men. Lol, two of the men (from 10) asked for a raise without improving the slightest at their job and made a drama out of things when it's not given to them...
The women on the other hand sit back and do the minimum required to go home and then complain life is hard... except for one, who busts her ass and is actually really competent.
So, statistics are true :)
[–]xorchids -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
We know that discrimination causes losses in a firm and to society. This is well established, plenty of papers on it. those are the statistics
Discriminating against races probably causes significant amounts of losses, discriminating against an entire gender. Well, I can't imagine the inefficiency that's going on.
[–]deox12 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
Of course it does, but he's talking about local optimization here.
If the entire society didn't give women work, that's one thing. If only one company didn't, that's different.
I still agree that people should be judged on their merits and individually. The problem is, sometimes you can't go one by one and do a deep background check and competency test to assure you have only the best of the best. So you start approximating your goal by eliminating dead weight.
Sure, he talked about women. We could say the same thing about people who went to community colleges or people who took 12 years to get a bachelor's degree... We already discriminate based on what the resume says, he just applied this rule to women ;)
[–]xorchids -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
No. We know that discrimination causes inefficiency at the firm level. In fact, you should care more about what's going on in your firm and the health of the place you work at.
Choosing people based on individuals merits is not discrimination.
[–]deox10 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Once they are in the firm they will be treated according to their merits. While they are outside? It's up to me to choose
[–]juliusstreicher0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Once they are in the firm they will be treated according to their merits.
Unless they are either a woman or a Patriarch.
[–]xorchids -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Wait....what?
Merits are how you hire someone. That's the whole purpose of a resume. scratches head
[–]deox11 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
You didnt read the posts above. They were talking about discriminating against women, not about hiring people that couldnt do the job.
The idea was to discriminate based on statistics, so the woman had to be extra good to get the job. He or she still has to be competent!
So...hiring a woman for a position she's overqualified for? Sounds wonderful for turnover rates.
Oh the gross amount of inefficiency that must be going on in the places y'all work at..discrimination and hatred is taxing to your emotional well being and also your wallet apparently.
[–]Esjaydoubleyou1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You seem like a concern troll, it's fine to disagree but I don't see you proposing any constructive solution
My proposed solution has been not to discriminate because it's been proven inefficient aka fucking retarded to do?
Been proven? Citation fucking needed
I'm not google scholar. You could keyword discrimination in the workplace and it's costs to society/firm and find plenty of papers on it.
It's flat out inefficient. No ifs ands or buts about it.
K, no evidence just as I thought....you keep trying to save the world with your dogma, you special little snowflake
I don't provide evidence to people online, you're not paying me to enlighten you. This is simply conversation that I enjoy. If you would like to pay me for my research and time I will be happy to give you an extensive outline of why discrimination is bad. If you run a business and would like it to perform as well as it possibly can (i.e maximizing profits), it might be in your personal best interest (and anyone here) to get some schooling in to what they can do better.
Presenting your opinion as if it were fact is fundamentally retarded
blinks rapdily
That's all this sub does dude. Where have you been?
I will stop feeding you troll, good day
No. We know that discrimination causes inefficiency at the firm level.
No, we don't. "Efficiency" isn't how well a company avoids Title IX lawsuits, efficiency is measured in the free market.
[–]juliusstreicher0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
plenty of papers on it. those are the statistics
Have you ever read the book "How to Lie With Statistics"?
[–]Esjaydoubleyou0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
He's a troll
Thanks. I thought it was a woman, but, here, that's the same thing!
[–]fnordsnord 9 points9 points9 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Never hire on the initial interview. Always go for call-backs. In between interviews with likely candidates, google and facebook stalk them.
[–]thepitman 1 points1 points1 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I've got a question. What if you try to look up a potential candidate online but all you find is an empty linkedin account and a mention in a non-profit org(I helped them raise some money and in return they put me in one of their ebooks to thank me).
What if you can't find anything on them? Do you really care for that, or are you just stalking to see if they are crazy?
[–]Endorsed Contributorfnordsnord0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago [recovered] [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link
Me? I'm just looking for Crazy. And in candidates over 35, it's still possible to have next to no online-presence. If you have a candidate that's as thin as that, I'd start looking for a reason to recommend against them. They're hiding something.
[–][deleted] 11 points11 points11 points 10 years ago | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]nyyankees1237 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Best answer in this thread. OP you're thinking about this the wrong way.
[–]Esjaydoubleyou0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Maybe, but sjws are annoying and can be a huge liability
[–]1oldredder-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
that "challenge" has ended work-places.
[–]FakeGuru2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Your have normal interviews and then check up on the candidate by references and social media.
To do otherwise, and use the interview as a screen for sjws, is not a good idea.
That way you do not expose yourself to any criticism from the way you handled the interview.
You will need to do be careful so that you don't express to strong an opinion on a candidate before you have done the background checks.
Otherwise, you may find it difficult to backtrack.
[–]Endorsed ContributorUEMcGill2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I've hired a few people in my life, so this is a pretty easy task.
Look at there resume, specifically the non-work related info. A SJW is above all a validation whore. They want to talk about how they are going to save the world. So look at the bottom where it says "other interests and hobbies" and ask leading questions.
Someone who has "rock polishing and cooking" is not a big indicator, but someone who has "Works at the womenz health clinic" or "2 years of Peace corp" is a strong indicator.
So feign interest, "Wow, that's great that you worked on the Bernie campaign. Tell me how your hobbies make you a better candidate" and they will spill their guts. Then look for the talking points that all SJW use.
[–]Esjaydoubleyou2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is the best answer so far I think. Leading questions work wonders when dealing with people who crave external validation
[–]Apexk91 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Social media stalk.
Or find a question that can be kind of work / interview related but can bring up their political beliefs.
[–]xorchids 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Political beliefs are also illegal to bring up..
[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 10 years ago | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
"there's no clear positive correlation between political beliefs and 'sjw'-ness"
Not sure if serious....it is anecdotal but I have yet to meet a sjw who wasn't a cultural Marxist/feminist/'progressive'
I have also yet to meet one who supports trump. I'm not saying I will only want to hire fellow trump supporters, but it would be a great litmus test to mention him and see if they get uncomfortable or emotionally start calling him a rascist.
Your comment is spergy. You sound like a Bernie supporter, most of his supporters in my experience are sjws who can't handle real world responsibility or people disagreeing with them. The ones that aren't seem to be in denial about the large percentage that are.
I am aware being directly political is illegal and would get me in hot water
[–]1oldredder-2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
very serious. There's no clear correlation.
I have also yet to meet one who supports trump.
Trump's a blow-hard idiot. Only blow-hard idiots support Trump. If he mouthed off some blow-hard nonsense supporting even ONE SJW cause they'd all flock to him. Knowing his attitude he'd do it just to entertain himself.
You sound like a Bernie supporter, most of his supporters in my experience are sjws who can't handle real world responsibility or people disagreeing with them.
That is absurd considering he's the one with the most real-world perspective on how to actually run things that won't go bankrupt (Trump) or require crime (Clinton). Doesn't mean he'd handle the whole presidential job but he's the least offensive / least criminal in every rational sense.
[–]Esjaydoubleyou1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
"Only blow hard idiots support trump"
Simply not true. The man has created tens of thousands of jobs and is the anti sjw when it comes to their goal of restricting free speech. Tons of American SJW fascists violently protest his rallys because they support a bigger government and welfare state and support sanders or hillary.
Sanders probably genuinely means well, but he is a neo-Marxist who insights class warfare and is sympathetic to sjw causes (BLM, fake gender wage gap)
He does not understand the economy and will bankrupt us with his " free college free healthcare" Bullshit.
He genuinely believes all rich people are thieves and the government should steal more from them to give to lazy people via the welfare state.
Trump isn't perfect but he is the free speech warrior we need, he will likely strike deals to bring jobs back and help the economy. I also don't see him pandering to sjws or feminists like Clinton or sanders.
Communism is the worst thing we can arrive at and sanders is going full speed ahead in that direction.
Dig up one example of an sjw supporting trump or him supporting an sjw (cultural marxist) cause, I'll be waiting.
The fact that the mainstream media has had hundreds of millions of dollars given to them for anti-trump propaganda should be a sign the establishment is afraid of someone they can not control. This is a very good thing as we are 20 trillion dollars in debt thanks to the establishment on both sides of the aisle, the welfare state being the biggest most expensive problem by far.
[–]1oldredder0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
make up any reason at all and disclose nothing if you can get away with it, or no reason and file away their papers to the trash. If you're stuck, you're stuck. There's a TON of SJWs so it will be hard to detect & filter them.
Ten feet taller
[–]TheWallGrows0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Trump's wall just got 10 feet higher! High Energy
We are 92.637% of the distance of the combined height of 2500 Donald Trumps! (185000ft)! 13620ft remaining.
Bot by /u/TonySesek556 - About Page - TAKING SUGGESTIONS - /r/Mr_Trump
If you don't want this bot on your subreddit or to reply to you, please send me a PM to my main account so I can add you to the blacklist!
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger16 points17 points18 points (45 children) | Copy Link
[–]1oldredder2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]xorchids -8 points-7 points-6 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger3 points4 points5 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xorchids -1 points0 points1 point (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger3 points4 points5 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]xorchids -4 points-3 points-2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger3 points4 points5 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]xorchids -5 points-4 points-3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger3 points4 points5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]xorchids -4 points-3 points-2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Archwinger3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]xorchids1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Archwinger4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]xorchids1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]yougonnagetit 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]deox1-3 points-2 points-1 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger1 point2 points3 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]deox10 points1 point2 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]xorchids -3 points-2 points-1 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]deox12 points3 points4 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]xorchids -2 points-1 points0 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]deox10 points1 point2 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]juliusstreicher0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xorchids -1 points0 points1 point (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]deox11 point2 points3 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]xorchids1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]xorchids1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]xorchids1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]xorchids1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]xorchids1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]juliusstreicher0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]juliusstreicher0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]juliusstreicher0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fnordsnord 9 points9 points9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thepitman 1 points1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed Contributorfnordsnord0 points1 point2 points [recovered] [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points11 points11 points | Copy Link
[–]nyyankees1237 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]1oldredder-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FakeGuru2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorUEMcGill2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Apexk91 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]xorchids 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]1oldredder-2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]1oldredder0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Esjaydoubleyou0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TheWallGrows0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link