Topic: The danger of gender inequality - page 4. (Read 755 times)

I agree with gender equality, everyone has the same rights and opportunities to do what they want. I also agree that women's representation must exist in every sector, especially in the government and education sectors. and this equality must and continues to be voiced to uphold what is meant by social justice.

But it is very unfortunate that women always demand gender equality but forget what is their obligation. Often after they get the equality they dream of, this can make their ego increase, especially in the household sphere, this often happens when the husband's income is less than himself, the wife often looks down on her husband and does not respect him. she, even though household matters are handed over to her husband, however the husband is still the head of the household who must be respected and the household chores that must be shouldered and lived together.

If that what the company needs, just let them be. That's the perk of being a man, but also women have their own advantages too, like when it comes to a job which require them to speak to people, women are more needed because they appear to look more charming, friendly, and preferable. Well, a lot of you might disagree with me, but in my country, that's what happens.

My point is both gender has their own advantage and disadvantage, I know it feels suck when I lost the opportunity to get a job because what appears to be unfair nowadays, but here we don't deal with such problem like the west countries have experienced.

The point is, if the genders weren't so unequal naturally, Big Business wouldn't have to go through all that trouble to make us equal, by making the men more feminine. We wouldn't get poisoned by BB, because they wouldn't have a need to poison us into being equal... if we were equal already. So, it's dangerous to be unequal.

The danger of gender inequality


The genders are NOT equal. And the danger is this:

Monsanto is spraying poison weed killer on our fields of grain, etc. In addition, they have convinced us all to use their poisonous weed killer. What does Monsanto have to do with gender inequality?

Women are more easily swayed in politics than men are. So, what Big Business wants is a bunch of women in government. That way they can sway government into their lines of thinking easier.

You might say, Men in government seem to be swayed as easily as women! But that's because the Monsanto weed killer - that we eat, because it's on our food - ALSO makes men more feminine (besides making us all sicker).

Our sissy men in government have been made sissy by Monsanto, just to please the rest of Big Business. And since women are made to be women, they can handle the weed killer poison better than men can. So, it looks like the women are stronger than men.

Every company will want to hire the best candidate to work for them, it's all depends on the skill they have, their personality and how much they willing to get paid. If the female candidate accept to get paid 20% lower than the male candidate, your CMD will think twice and he might choose the female candidate. It's fair because female is weaker than male, so they should get paid less, isn't?

Anyway don't forget with their money, their rules.

So do you really think women can match the physical strength of men? This is a shit card of gender inequality brother if you really think the Boss chooses the Man on his physical strength so what, he did the right in my view because the Boss needed the Physical strength and Man had that. If you are thinking that Wonman should complete the Man in physical strength buddy why don't you endorse Man vs Woman Olympic Physical Strength Championship? You can because both have different characteristics and physical strength is by nature Man's attribute.

There are some superiorities in Man and some in Woman, so this nature (This is how Allah Almighty) created them.

What ever the CMD thinks about the best gender for the position is what will make that position more active like the job descriptions. I don't even see a need for  woman to handle that position if the company needs someone that is strong and  muscle to do the job. Sometimes there are some type of jobs that women would never fit in well that is why men is most preferable to handle that position. That is the same way I prefer women to be in the position of a nurse then seeing a man handling that position so I will never blame the CMD for taken that decision that will be suitable for the job.

Well, depending on the job, but if the CMD knew he was going to give to the male, he should have indicated that the position would be for guys so the woman won't have applied because it would only leave the impression that the man's biased.

Well, inasmuch as a woman's place is at home, according to @BaDecker, it doesn't stop her from excelling in the secular world. Since people feel women should not struggle with men all in the name of gender equality because her place is the home front, then I see no reason for educating the girl child.

The job was not for her, that is why she did not get it. The CMD already had a preference in males for the position as some employers do also for some job openings, and on the condition that no males where found qualified for the position, he would have had to hire the lady the lady qualified and not go ahead to employ an unqualified male. If he had employed an unqualified male for the position when there was a qualified female, that would have been where I have an issue. Preference is what got the male the job.

I think that is not how interview work. The interviewer looks biase in the attitude going by op post. He won't have to look down on the lady with the excuse of having gotten what he wanted from the male counterparts and only person interviewed according to you. I think the lady was not fairly treated, she was embarrassed and insulted in that act by the interviewer.

Do male leaders in business hire more males or females? And the same with the female leaders? Seems to me that both hire more men.

The rise of feminist organizations wants to distort the social order. There are jobs that women cannot be effective in. Sometimes these women's rights groups will always showcase a female that is a truck driver, mechanic, or other male-dominated fields just to prove that women are limitless. But they fail to understand that these cases are rare because the buildup of males is not the same with females. These feminists are even causing more harm than good in families because they have influenced the wives to believe that they are equal to their husbands. The high rate of divorce can be traced to disrespect by the wives because of the misconception of the term equality.

Every job has physical, mental, and emotional requirements to perform them effectively. Women a likely to become good teachers and nurses because of their tender, caring and kind nature. Men will always do well in the task that needs physical strength. I will prefer to employ men as ambulance attendants because they have the strength to carry patients on stretchers.

It will be called inequity if both the female and male applicants have the requisite skills but decisions are made based on sex. I know of a firm that has a policy never to employ female staff because of sexual harassment. Some schools will employ only female staff. All these things are based on the company policies and the tasks to be accomplished.

I think the CMD saw the best qualifications and strength in the male job applicants already, and I think it has nothing to do with gender inequality, is not as if the female job applicants was interviewed and did well and yet she was not chosen or given the job.

The CMD was only comfortable with the male applicants and has no need for interview the female applicants when he has already seen the best qualities in the male applicants...

Skills and experience should be the primary factors in making hiring decisions. It's disheartening when opportunities are denied based on gender or stereotypes. But for the specific reason of "physical strength" your boss is not totally wrong if the job requirements will require to a large extent someone handle stress to a certain level.

Women should get married, stay at home, have babies and raise them. It's the idea that there is gender equality that is wrecking society.

Don't be surprised there are people that still emulate the practice of this gender inequity in the society, some cultures and traditions so make much of this difference more known and widespread across their geographical location all because of customs, there should be equal opportunities for everyone be it male or female, young or old, this will also help a peaceful coexistence between the people living together in the society.

All of these things depend on what type of work will be done later. If it was a tough job and really required a lot of energy in the job, men would definitely have the upper hand and would definitely be the ones to be chosen for the job. But if for example the work is not too hard and women are able to do it, I think there is indeed a bit of injustice. Because if the work can indeed be done by women (capable), why are women not given the opportunity to benefit from entering these jobs.

But maybe the decision issued by the employer must have strong reasons, because it only selects men for jobs in the company. Maybe because of the female applicants, none met the company's criteria? Or maybe there is another reason? So in conclusion, maybe if the job can be done by both men and women. You could say it was unfair treatment. But if the company really needs workers, I think that's reasonable.

I hope this is not about racist or any other colouration because health jobs don't really require physical attributes or gender nor sex except their are these specifics for the job otherwise I don't see a reason that the lady should be disqualified for such reasons of physical attributes or because she is a lady. She was not even given a chance of interview. If these were the criterias then the health company seeking to employ those workers should have indicated that in their adverts so that only the male physically endowed will apply.

There's no gender disparity here since they selected base on what they actually needed, i even thought you would have said that the female was preferred than the male, another context is to decided base on their performance in cases where gender is not a barrier, there are jobs offers you would love to employ females as well than men because that's what you needed, but when there's nothing like gender preference in the job requirements then when the male meet up with the requirements but the role was given to a female is another thing entirely as gender inequalitya and same applies vise versa to both genders.

My view is that while males are in general stronger than female, not all males are necessarily stronger than females so an opportunity to interview and, if strength is required for the role, to test and compare should have been given. I do believe there should be fair processes that guarantee equal opportunity regardless of gender. Just be aware than on certain roles, that equal opportunity means that a stronger candidate may be the chosen one (e.g. if they have to move heavy patients from their beds).