Topic: Gender-Equality: 2021 (Read 262 times)
I dont count myself as very openminded person because i believe in the natural order of the world . Gender Equality is not for me .I think i will never get used to not being a problem man with man or woman with a woman. Im sorry for sharing an opinion like that in this post but everyone have the right to see the things in his own way.
Nobody can even find equality from one person to the next. Why would anyone think there could be gender equality?
Plenty of people are willing to do whatever it takes to create gender equality. Just give them control over your personal and professional life and they'll turn the world into their vision of a utopia.
If my company has all white men employees, I'd fire my HR manager since he/she clearly doesn't do the job. IQ-wise, at least there must be a bunch of Asian in my company.
You want someone who can do the job at a minimum of '100%' ability level. The best white male candidate can do 105%. The black female candidate can do the job at 108%. The HR manager has hired the white male at 105%, he's hired someone who is more than qualified to do the job well... he can't really be fired for that.I agree, but I'd take it a step further: If you fire your HR manager because of that, you should really be firing yourself, as you don't have any respect for your HR manager, and you're trying to do his job without knowing the first thing about why he decided to do what he did.
If you suspect an employee of yours might not be doing his/her job properly (or at least according to your guidelines), the least you can do is investigate the issue, before taking action against anybody.
In any case, hiring an employee on the sole basis of their gender, skin color, origin, or whatever other "politically correct" reason, is as insulting (or it should be) to the employee as it would be to discriminate them for the same reasons.
The example is not about hiring a black female candidate on the sole basis of gender and ethnicity, it's about hiring the black female candidate because she is better at the job.
If there are obstacles and biases that prevent the best person from getting the job, "on the sole basis of their gender, skin color, origin, or whatever other "politically correct" reason", then this needs to be addressed.
If my company has all white men employees, I'd fire my HR manager since he/she clearly doesn't do the job. IQ-wise, at least there must be a bunch of Asian in my company.
You want someone who can do the job at a minimum of '100%' ability level. The best white male candidate can do 105%. The black female candidate can do the job at 108%. The HR manager has hired the white male at 105%, he's hired someone who is more than qualified to do the job well... he can't really be fired for that.I agree, but I'd take it a step further: If you fire your HR manager because of that, you should really be firing yourself, as you don't have any respect for your HR manager, and you're trying to do his job without knowing the first thing about why he decided to do what he did.
If you suspect an employee of yours might not be doing his/her job properly (or at least according to your guidelines), the least you can do is investigate the issue, before taking action against anybody.
In any case, hiring an employee on the sole basis of their gender, skin color, origin, or whatever other "politically correct" reason, is as insulting (or it should be) to the employee as it would be to discriminate them for the same reasons.
In case of some insist not implementing the idea, the natural selection will make the firm less competitive.
If 'some' is a minority, then maybe. But what if 'some' is all? If we are talking about an inequality of opportunity that is embedded within society, then 'some' is likely to be either all or very nearly all.If the most talented football player in the country is black, but every football team only hires white players, then no team is at a disadvantage.
If my company has all white men employees, I'd fire my HR manager since he/she clearly doesn't do the job. IQ-wise, at least there must be a bunch of Asian in my company.
You want someone who can do the job at a minimum of '100%' ability level. The best white male candidate can do 105%. The black female candidate can do the job at 108%. The HR manager has hired the white male at 105%, he's hired someone who is more than qualified to do the job well... he can't really be fired for that.Gender Equality is as stupìd as the people pushing it. You can't achieve equality through agitation and intimidation. Throughout history, people strive hard, through hard work, to become equal with whom they want. It is never handed down through legislations.
But why is there inequality at first. Why not be equal from the beginning?
Why does it seems female are weaker, why not the reverse?
Maybe we should be saying of gender justice and not gender equality.
The truth is that you can't change nature, no matter what you believe, females were created as the weaker human beings. It's absurd trying to enforce equality between weaker and stronger human. Both were made that way for a purpose, and changing that balance has result in family disintegrations.
I'd certainly agree that equality of opportunity is the aim. The issue is that in certain situations, you can't have that without forcing (or encouraging) some outcomes, at least initially, in order to address historic inequality of outcome.
Say you have a company with 100 employees, all white men. You have a job vacancy. The interview panel will be comprised of 5 white men. Two people show up for interview, a white man and a black woman. You can't argue that both have been invited for interview, therefore there is equality. The situation clearly favours the white male candidate, based on ethnicity and gender rather than ability to do the job. Say both candidates are good, perfectly capable, but the black woman would be 3% better at the job... do you really think they wouldn't hire the white male?
Then, the problem is not in the conceptual/design, but in the implementation or more practical domain. The solution shouldn't rework the design aka equality of opportunity (which is a sound idea IMO), but to make sure the design is correctly implemented. In case of some insist not implementing the idea, the natural selection will make the firm less competitive.Say you have a company with 100 employees, all white men. You have a job vacancy. The interview panel will be comprised of 5 white men. Two people show up for interview, a white man and a black woman. You can't argue that both have been invited for interview, therefore there is equality. The situation clearly favours the white male candidate, based on ethnicity and gender rather than ability to do the job. Say both candidates are good, perfectly capable, but the black woman would be 3% better at the job... do you really think they wouldn't hire the white male?
If my company has all white men employees, I'd fire my HR manager since he/she clearly doesn't do the job. IQ-wise, at least there must be a bunch of Asian in my company.
I sincerely believe that some cultures "should" transform and over time adapt to new times rather than disappear, because a culture is not only nourished by rights towards individuals from a social or behavioral point of view according to their beliefs, there is music, food, religions, culture is a complex pattern that concerns us but without doubt some aspects should be transformed.
No matter how you spin it, the "female genital mutilation" culture and "beat your wife" culture should be banished. 
This is a subject that requires tacit way of thinking and not expositional reflections. COVID-19 pandemic and the aforementioned study. O_T (On topic)
That same source provides the following information:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/E_Infographic_05.pdf
This is not a personal matter or a study that seeks to give as a talk of reality that may even be worse than the data that is reflected, it is even to reflect on these data, it is to debate rather than confront thoughts that require critical relevance in knowledge of cause.
The form of equality that is desirable is equality of opportunity.
It means doesn't matter if you are men or women, as long as you are the most capable, you will get the job.Undoubtedly, in that type of thinking that you propose I can feel identified but it is not the whole, the job offers are only part of the problem, the general of the article to which I refer includes 17 global objectives, but I have not mentioned them, because the OP is referred to the subject in question; COVID-19 pandemic.
There are some cultures that should better be gone than be preserved.
Well, that is an opinion to be debated, I sincerely believe that some cultures "should" transform and over time adapt to new times rather than disappear, because a culture is not only nourished by rights towards individuals from a social or behavioral point of view according to their beliefs, there is music, food, religions, culture is a complex pattern that concerns us but without doubt some aspects should be transformed.
The study itself reflects how the statistics have changed in terms of violence, psychological abuse, job opportunities, etc. in fact has been seen a new setback.
That same source provides the following information:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/E_Infographic_05.pdf
This is not a personal matter or a study that seeks to give as a talk of reality that may even be worse than the data that is reflected, it is even to reflect on these data, it is to debate rather than confront thoughts that require critical relevance in knowledge of cause.
"scam" without doubt a criterion that is very typical of the same adjective you use in your post.
It's a scam in the sense of "equality of outcome" scam.The form of equality that is desirable is equality of opportunity.
It means doesn't matter if you are men or women, as long as you are the most capable, you will get the job.
On the other hand, it is not necessary to go anywhere, it is something individual, respect for others should not involve countries and fewer cultures is something universal.
Shit cultures don't deserve respect. Not all cultures are equal.There are some cultures that should better be gone than be preserved.
Well, that is an opinion to be debated, I sincerely believe that some cultures "should" transform and over time adapt to new times rather than disappear, because a culture is not only nourished by rights towards individuals from a social or behavioral point of view according to their beliefs, there is music, food, religions, culture is a complex pattern that concerns us but without doubt some aspects should be transformed.
The study itself reflects how the statistics have changed in terms of violence, psychological abuse, job opportunities, etc. in fact has been seen a new setback.
gender equality most certainly DOESN'T exist, and will never do. Why?
Because we're NOT EQUAL, period.
Because we're NOT EQUAL, period.
Your statement contradicts the evidence. A huge meta-analysis has demonstrated quite conclusively that "The truth is that there are no universal, species-wide brain features that differ between the sexes".
Any differences in behaviour, inferred capability, etc. between men and women are based entirely on societal factors. The biological difference is effectively zero.
Yeah.
I see 2 problems with that line of reasoning:
1. We are not brains. And plenty of meta-analyses throughout the history of the human species show there are plenty of differences between the sexes.
2. Society has changed substantially through time, and the differences in behavior, capabilities, etc, have stayed largely the same. The biological difference is effectively (and thankfully) enormous.
gender equality most certainly DOESN'T exist, and will never do. Why?
Because we're NOT EQUAL, period.
Because we're NOT EQUAL, period.
Your statement contradicts the evidence. A huge meta-analysis has demonstrated quite conclusively that "The truth is that there are no universal, species-wide brain features that differ between the sexes".
Any differences in behaviour, inferred capability, etc. between men and women are based entirely on societal factors. The biological difference is effectively zero.
Now I answer you, gender equality exists, just in case you did not know, but there is an imbalance in opportunities and that is what the issue is about.
And now I answer you: gender equality most certainly DOESN'T exist, and will never do. Why?
Because we're NOT EQUAL, period.
In fact, you are contradicting your own statement. You don't seem to understand what "equality" means. You're saying equality exists, "but there is an imbalance". Well, guess what? If there is an "imbalance", equality sure as hell does not exist. The whole concept is ridiculous.
I do agree that women deserve respect, but men do also. It's actually women that minimize the importance they naturally have, by trying to compete with men. If they had a bit more pride on what they are and do, we wouldn't be needing to hear this BS.
And no, I did not read the article.
It's a scam in the sense of "equality of outcome" scam.
The form of equality that is desirable is equality of opportunity.
The form of equality that is desirable is equality of opportunity.
I'd certainly agree that equality of opportunity is the aim. The issue is that in certain situations, you can't have that without forcing (or encouraging) some outcomes, at least initially, in order to address historic inequality of outcome.
Say you have a company with 100 employees, all white men. You have a job vacancy. The interview panel will be comprised of 5 white men. Two people show up for interview, a white man and a black woman. You can't argue that both have been invited for interview, therefore there is equality. The situation clearly favours the white male candidate, based on ethnicity and gender rather than ability to do the job. Say both candidates are good, perfectly capable, but the black woman would be 3% better at the job... do you really think they wouldn't hire the white male?
It means doesn't matter if you are men or women, as long as you are the most capable, you will get the job.
In an ideal world, yes. In the real world, no.
"scam" without doubt a criterion that is very typical of the same adjective you use in your post.
It's a scam in the sense of "equality of outcome" scam.The form of equality that is desirable is equality of opportunity.
It means doesn't matter if you are men or women, as long as you are the most capable, you will get the job.
On the other hand, it is not necessary to go anywhere, it is something individual, respect for others should not involve countries and fewer cultures is something universal.
Shit cultures don't deserve respect. Not all cultures are equal.There are some cultures that should better be gone than be preserved.
Human beings are very dangerous!!!!! We struggle to except each other cultures and Race. Women are also born leaders and they need chances in life to proof it. Females will lead by example, integrity. Females are very clever and intelligent. Its sad that males abuse females and girls. Real Men dont do it. Your daughter or wife can be a born leader!!!!!
The message of gender equality is getting stronger as women are fighting for more inclusion, and truth is i think that if these women really put themselves out there more, they may really be an option for the inclusion they seek. However the twist for the gender equality message is that some females are trying to turn it into a situation where they want to be more favoured than males even without qualifications, tipping the scale of equality against men as we have now started to see more men who are unnecessarily marginalized by some new rules that the people who set them claim is to promote equality.
Gender equality is a scam, at least in first world countries. It shouldn't be about underrepresentation of political leadership, small number in certain jobs, etc. But about do they (woman) have the freedom to do anything they want? I think Jordan Peterson's interview is an excellent answer to this gender equality issue. About the abuse, oh well, my wife abuse me mentally, and I bet men also get abused by women (just in a different form lol). Women already protected by law anyway. Thus, if you want to seriously solve gender equality, go to the Middle-East.
This specific case mentions 2021 and refers to the article mentioned in the OP."scam" without doubt a criterion that is very typical of the same adjective you use in your post.
On the other hand, it is not necessary to go anywhere, it is something individual, respect for others should not involve countries and fewer cultures is something universal.
But why is there inequality at first. Why not be equal from the beginning?
Why does it seems female are weaker, why not the reverse?
Maybe we should be saying of gender justice and not gender equality.
It is a question of form and not of substance, in the long run, if it is justice or equality, it is necessary to debate the issue and arrive at unifying criteria. Why does it seems female are weaker, why not the reverse?
Maybe we should be saying of gender justice and not gender equality.
Gender equality is a scam, at least in first world countries. It shouldn't be about underrepresentation of political leadership, small number in certain jobs, etc. But about do they (woman) have the freedom to do anything they want? I think Jordan Peterson's interview is an excellent answer to this gender equality issue. About the abuse, oh well, my wife abuse me mentally, and I bet men also get abused by women (just in a different form lol). Women already protected by law anyway. Thus, if you want to seriously solve gender equality, go to the Middle-East.
Gender Equality is as stupìd as the people pushing it. You can't achieve equality through agitation and intimidation. Throughout history, people strive hard, through hard work, to become equal with whom they want. It is never handed down through legislations.
But why is there inequality at first. Why not be equal from the beginning?
Why does it seems female are weaker, why not the reverse?
Maybe we should be saying of gender justice and not gender equality.
Gender Equality is as stupìd as the people pushing it. You can't achieve equality through agitation and intimidation. Throughout history, people strive hard, through hard work, to become equal with whom they want. It is never handed down through legislations.
yep agree with you. idiots really need to keep their mental problems out of the public or be put inside an asylum
Gender Equality is as stupìd as the people pushing it. You can't achieve equality through agitation and intimidation. Throughout history, people strive hard, through hard work, to become equal with whom they want. It is never handed down through legislations.
Jump to: