SGPL Question of the Week (w/o Nov 3, 2014): An unmarried US President.

[Bobby]

A 30-year-old single woman was elected to Congress last night.

Well played, GOP.

 

[Alex]

Senior management positions are primarily caucasian males, because senior managers hire senior managers and they like to clone themselves or have someone similar in the role

Got anything to back this up?

This is the typical hearsay crap that gets repeated by feminists as gospel without any facts or figures backing it up.

But it's a good story, so you keep up the white knight act and keep spouting it to your feminist friends to impress them with how liberal you are.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Most companies are committed to diversity these days, in fact a lot of times you'll see token women on the board so they don't look like the sexist company with no women on their board.

 

[Mus]

Got anything to back this up?

This is the typical hearsay crap that gets repeated by feminists as gospel without any facts or figures backing it up.

But it's a good story, so you keep up the white knight act and keep spouting it to your feminist friends to impress them with how liberal you are.

I have a HR textbook which says it, as fact

I don't see an issue with it though

 

[Alex]

I have a HR textbook which says it, as fact

I don't see an issue with it though

It uses facts and figures to back this up? Or it simply makes a blanket statement and doesn't bother with proof?

It's even worse if that's written down in a HR textbook. It's pure anecdotal evidence and hearsay.

 

[Mus]

It uses facts and figures to back this up? Or it simply makes a blanket statement and doesn't bother with proof?

It's even worse if that's written down in a HR textbook. It's pure anecdotal evidence and hearsay.

It's a textbook not a study

 

[Alex]

It's a textbook not a study

It should still justify any claims it makes. Stating an opinion or theory is one thing, but stating something as a fact without backing it up is fabrication.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Sociological bullshit. Lot of what I learned in sociology courses proved to be unfounded or outright false. Claims to be a social science, but it's not fucking economics; most of the defining works are just people sitting around watching others.

If rhizome ever comes back he may disagree

 

[Mus]

It should still justify any claims it makes. Stating an opinion or theory is one thing, but stating something as a fact without backing it up is fabrication.

Not that I care, or oppose what's happening, but you can't say there isn't facts to back it up. Just the point there's a token woman on a board backs it up, why isn't it 50-50? (IMO they aren't as cut out to be managers)


Overall, 10% of the female workforce worked as Managers compared to 16% of the male workforce. In Australia recently (looked that up on ABS) the fact it is so close is due to the massive proportion of males working in labouring jobs and the likes skewing the data more favourably on diversity

Anyway I'm against equal opportunities and the likes so this isn't really enjoyable

 

[Alex]

Not that I care, or oppose what's happening, but you can't say there isn't facts to back it up. Just the point there's a token woman on a board backs it up, why isn't it 50-50? (IMO they aren't as cut out to be managers)


Overall, 10% of the female workforce worked as Managers compared to 16% of the male workforce. In Australia recently (looked that up on ABS) the fact it is so close is due to the massive proportion of males working in labouring jobs and the likes skewing the data more favourably on diversity

Anyway I'm against equal opportunities and the likes so this isn't really enjoyable

This has already been covered on this thread. Are you ignoring it on purpose or just ignorant?

Most men on boards have been in the workforce a long time, equal work rights are much more recent. You can't expect women with no experience to walk straight into these board positions. That would be sexist.

Most men don't take time off to raise a family. A large proportion of women do - and for a big chunk of the middle of their careers. Again, this means less time working your way up the corporate ladder.

I'm ALL for equal opportunity. But equal opportunity does not mean equal number of board members, equal number of managers, equal number of people in each job etc. That would be sexist in itself. In fact even just keeping the statistics is sexist.

 

[Mandieta6]

There could be many reasons why it's not 50-50. Any explanation should be backed up somehow.

 

[Mus]

Sexism is also descriminating against women for their different roles in raising a family

 

[Mus]

 

[Alex]

Sexism is also descriminating against women for their different roles in raising a family

We're not discriminating against them for raising a family. However the fact is that means they have less professional experience.

 

[Alex]

That may...so essentially they're guessing

 

[Mus]

We're not discriminating against them for raising a family. However the fact is that means they have less professional experience.

But the argument is that it is discriminatory to turn them down on the basis of experience that they haven't been able to acquire because of their differed gender roles in society, its almost punishing them professionally and making it harder for them to get promoted

 

[Alex]

But the argument is that it is discriminatory to turn them down on the basis of experience that they haven't been able to acquire because of their differed gender roles in society, its almost punishing them professionally and making it harder for them to get promoted

That's ridiculous. At the end of the day it's still their choice.

Any promotion should be based on the skills you bring to the position. A huge part of that is gained from experience. You can't give someone a position based on what they might have done had they not taken time out.

 

[Mus]

The whole point of equal opportunities is so that they are not disadvantaged by those decisions (and therein lies my issue)

 

[Alex]

The whole point of equal opportunities is so that they are not disadvantaged by those decisions (and therein lies my issue)

That's not EQUAL opportunity.

Equal means they're treated equally. Anything else is treating people differently which is the whole issue.

What if it's the man that takes time off to raise children?

In any case, you can't possibly think it's fairer to give someone less skilled a job, simply because they took time off to raise children.

Where do you stop? Mothers that have children at a young age being given university degrees, as they couldn't attend university whilst raising their children

 

[Alex]

The whole point of equal opportunities is so that they are not disadvantaged by those decisions (and therein lies my issue)

And I disagree. That's not the point of equal opportunity. The whole feminist movement was founded on then being given the same opportunities and the same chance to make decisions. If they decide to raise a family, that's still their decision.