Topic: The danger of gender inequality (Read 789 times)

The employer considered many things before deciding on the option to make, we should understand that if I am an employer of labour i know what I want, irrespective of the gender, I will always go for who will deliver for me, the decision of employment is the power of the owner the company, no one should blame the manager for anything because we never can tell if he is under the instructions of the MD.
Making the situation look as if no one value women is not a good one for me, I think this now down to anything a man can do a woman can't do it, no matter how we see it, God made it to so and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

my view. Equality does not always have to be fair in making choices, equality is rights and opportunities. rights for people who have rights in their field or the criteria regulations, opportunities are those who are considered to have the ability in the criteria, so that the person understands the opportunities, talking about applying for jobs and rights, for example, a company must include a list criteria for prospective workers, for example, a company wants workers in the technical department to be male, so this right is given to men, and conversely, if a textile company needs a female seamstress to operate a sewing machine, then this right is given to women. Regarding opportunities, of course everyone has the opportunity, but it goes back to the criteria of rights that the company wants to give to whom. It is impossible for the world to be reversed where a man's position is filled by a woman and a woman's position is filled by a man. So in essence equality does not always have to be fair but must look at rights, criteria, abilities in all aspects...

OP you cant blame the manager for picking the man based on his feeling that he wiudl do the job better, and from what you said he was looking at physical Strength which is something a male has more than a female, so it's not fair to blame him for making such decision.


I agree with you on this, just see how a little right is making them feel in the society, there should fucking know their place and sit while men rule, but I guess working isn't such a bad thign for them to do.

every job have specification and employers most times have the kind of people they want to accept for each position in mind before  putting out an advert for a particular vacancy. If the job can be best performed by the male folks,  then there is nothing wrong if they are employed and the same is what is applicable for jobs that suit the female gender. Most managers employing receptionist would normally opt for females because the nature of the jobs suit the females more but when it comes to jobs that requires the use of energy, there nothing to argue about, the male will always be preferred to the female.

We can't deny the fact that there are folks that are too gender conscious and would always prefer a particular gender to another which is obviously wrong but putting all things into perspective, as long as you are relying on others for your employment, they have the final say on who they want to accept into their organisation and whatever decisions they make is totally up to them.

The gender imbalance can have a severe impact on both men and women, leading to emotions of feeling unsafe, dissatisfaction, and even physical and sexual assault. Women confront difficulties in terms of participation in positions of authority such as government and industry, and their interests are not always taken into account, which can lead to harassment and unequal treatment. And women are thought to be only designed to be at home, either as housewives or as persons who are incapable of leadership and should instead focus on their families. That is why in the olden days, even now, in some groups of people, women don't attend to school, because they are considered as people who don't have value or can't offer anything in her father's house.So they refused to pay more attention to them, whereas some males face inequity, particularly if they come from a poor family or do not have a good reputation.

It is funny you mention jobs which take physical strength, because in reality little women actually seek to take part in those jobs were men are over presented because being strong and having a high stamina is a requirement. When feminist organizations talk about gender inequality they never mention positions like construction workers, plumbers, lumberers, etc. they mostly talk about positions in the head of corporations, CEOs, bosses, managers, among other similar positions of responsibility, where men are also over represented.
There is some hypocrisy in those talking points in my opinion, if those feminist organizations would actually find equality they would also encourage women to also join the military and enroll in the defence of their country, but it is not how they are trying to push their message forwards.

Also, you talk about women are supposedly better in jobs which require kindness and care. Still it is common to see men in jobs of nursery and as teachers.

Your boss or someone in that position that's higher than you and has been dropped with the required person that shall take that position needs to be specific with the candidate that you guys have to hire. It's always hard when it's about choosing the applicants and some are going through with their decision through their hearts than of their minds. On this matter, your higher op just chose the right fit that your company needs and that's why if it is what it is, you can't say that there's a bias thing that has happened on that candidate choosing.

This is the rough thing about the corporate world. You need to be at the best during the interview but then when on the actual duty, the performance drops if didn't monitored well. As for that hiring process, it's the typical process and that's your opinion that he might be bias but in reality and everyone's perspective, he's not and he just did his job and the right thing to select the right new colleague.

I think if you look physically, then there is a difference between the genders. Some professions, the female are more ideal and some professions, the male are more ideal. They can't be equal trait vs trait, i mean when it comes to strength, its male, but when it comes to kindness and affection, i think its the female, so that is why i believe that female can be more successful and more useful in professions like teaching and related jobs, but men can be more ideal for jobs where physical strength matters. No point in taking it as a gender inequality.

We all have our own perspective and obligations to handle in a family. It would not be nice if we do things in a way that will not help us to stay better na d connection to our responsibility. Man and woman when they comes together, each have there own role to play being parents for the children. It is the duty of a man to take care of his family by providing for them and making sure that they get things done within pressure on the other partner.

I’m a firm believer that the job should always go to the best candidate. I have found over the last 20 years or so that companies seem to want to hit quotas, so many women, so many disabled, so many black, asian employees etc. The job should go to the best qualified, best candidate for the job every time. There should never be anything else to the decision to employ somebody.

I think that am not in the position to question the decision of the direct employer position in this, may be he has considered so many things before coming out with such decision and again the assignment may require strength we can never tell, I think we can be complaining when the woman was chosen in place of the man, I have seen this happen severally, I want you to understand that the decision of the man has nothing to do with negligence, the employer knows what he wants and he went for it and that's it. There is no atom of discrimination or favouritism in this event, what happened was bound to happen for a reason.

I don't know if op is a male or female for his ideology of inequality but i have a few more things to ad to his knowledge of life.

The social strata is of a hierarchy for a reason because if everyone becomes equal there will be no superior nor inferior and this will lead to a social crisis. There must be one who gives command and one who obeys this command and that it's how human race had evolve from origin.

The so called embittered mind individuals who agitate for equality in every sector of life are more likely to seek there personal/ selfish aims and after achieving this goals will tend to decamp from the feminists headed groups. and I believe op was unfortunate on this job position, I mean he or she must have a personal reason (selfish aim) for thinking what the CMD did was an act of inequality or discrimination.

Mind you I'm not in support of discrimination but I love things being put to order. let the truth stand and don't be biased OP.

Not only Holy Bible, but also eastern philosophies, such as Yin-Yang, have always presented men and women as different from each other, although always complementary, since one need the other to live in balance. Along the time, differences between them, especially regards social roles, have been decreasing considerably, what is undoubtedly good, since women conquered individual rights and got recognization for their deeds and skills inside the society.

However, this feminist movement has lost its legit purpose once their legit goals were achieved by the XX century to become a left wing extremist conglomerate of embittered, rageful and sick minded individuals who don't want social equality anymore, rather they want superiority towards men. They don't act to build, but to destroy and spread strife between the sexes. Thankfully, wise women who keep their essence don't fall for such rageful movements. They don't give up on their femininity, loveliness, grace and every other attributes which are exclusive of female beings, and therefore make them unique, different and unequal from men, as it has been always supposed to be by natural rules.

If everyone was equal and there wouldn't be differences between sexes, what would motivate men to get inspired and fall in love for women, then? The consequences of the implementation of these noxious political and ideological agendas are the subversion and annihilation of the beauty containing in the world.

In the modern era, it is true the gap is closing when comes to the differences between the number of hired men and hired women, the gap between their salaries and also the way they are treated when they are in a position of power or management. Though, it is a positive phenomenon which is not happening in an uniform way around the planet, there are countries where it is still very rare to see women in administrative positions or women who are bosses. Here in my country, women mostly stay in secretary jobs and not as bosses.

You would also consider in Eastern societies, women are not allowed to do many things, because of societal rules or because of religion. Iran and Saudi Arabia are good examples of it, so to me it is weird to see how the West supports women's rights in a wide sense and at the same time does not mind the muslin customs and traditions which keep women from doing things all men can do. Obviously, it is also something which affects the ability to seek and get jobs.

From my perspective it's not discrimination although I'm not a support of discrimination but some times things aren't discrimination but a decision for the best.

The feminists who claims that women should be equal with men has brought so many problem to the society today, from the family level to every social level. even from the creation of man and woman according to the accounts of the bible, man was created first and then woman from his ribs. this is a sign that this to beings are never equal in any situation man is always higher than women but there are women who will emerge on the same level as men but it doesn't men we are equal.

Looking at the family level, women now work this same shift and equal time with men leading to children not been will taking care of living the children in the hands of their teachers. thereby leading to change in social behavior or children. infact there is more negative effect of feminism than positive effect.

Exactly what you are saying is right, I also think that the company should look first, then the man and woman should look after, that is the laws of the company are applied first. One should first choose what is best for him,  the place from which the person is eating sustenance, then one should think of it first, that is why this choice was made. Because it was the best choice for him, he ignored the things that were not in his favor.

This discrimination is seen everywhere.  Women are looked down upon everywhere.  However, in the modernization of the era, its amount has decreased a lot. However, it has not disappeared at once.  Men are valued more in every institution, but the current women's society is not behind anything.  Women are excelling in every sector.  Almost women are now vertical.

The value of women is now increasing and this is not without the feminist movement or agenda that was pioneered by the first sets of female who were educated and felt that they were marginalized and cheated of different rights including that of association. In the past the female sex were denied of different rights, they were more of the reserved specie that it was almost like a taboo that their voice would be heard but not anymore. So many phenomenon has changed to the favour of women, from job engagement and appointment to even their status at home against their earlier known duties as house wife. So it is no surprise with the way changes have occurred in the global status of women because of education which created that awareness and solidarity within themselves to pursue a common course.

Hmm what do I think about this. I think there are job requirements that is gender centred as in if you look at the position of a secretary assistant you will most likely find the females in that area being giving the job more than males and there's a reason for that if you look deep into it. It is for this reason that I think further that the CMD must have his genuine cogent reasons for doing what he did, it could be that his experience over the years would have thought him that the male is one that is best fit for the job cause it could be that it requires physical strength to man the duty. So it's not all about gender inequality.

That is a good decision and the CMD know what he is doing by employed the male worker because, male employees are more active in some organization and they are more regular at work compared to femal employees who always take some permission monthly base on their monthly issues they use to experience from their body and they use to experience maternity leave every year to take good care of their new born baby.

But there are some CMD that will like to employ female workers in their organization for some certain things that will attract more customers to them in a way the company will remain popular in that particular product they are into in the society.

There is no such thing as a danger of gender discrimination it will always depend on the people of the society and an individual's perspective. Irrespective of gender caste religion shape and position the first identity of human being is human. Women will get the same rights and benefits as men deserve. Men are as human as women. Every person shall have the opportunity to freely exercise his rights. Those who could not be civilized by leaving bad mentality fail to value women as human beings.

This can not be termed gender inequality, it is a matter of fitness both mentally and aswell physically. What has been making the female gender get involved into seeing it as inequality is the saying, what a man can do, a woman can also do better. That may be the worst statement to believe in, women should know their limits to certain jobs and where they are best considered fit. Go to the banks and hospitals you see more of women there because when it comes to caring and being emotional to saving lives women have all it takes. Their are certain which are best for a man and women should understand all this.

Everyone has their own idea of what category of employee they want to hire and I think these two guys were capable enough to work in the rest of the company if they had some rules. because of which they do not see the matters that are there, but they must learn to do them. Apart from that, if he did not keep women, but there must be a reason for that, because otherwise there are no such matters for this behind the reason.

A man is a man for reason, so also, a woman is a woman for a reason. They don't have equal abilities and so it will be wrong to equate them. A man can never be a woman and a woman can never be a man, forget about these transgender shit. It is just a mirage, deep down they know they are living under a fake identity.
So, I don't see the point trying to equate a man to a woman, let us continue to play our God given roles.

I am still surprised to hear that women are still being neglected in different countries of the world.I don't know when this gender discrimination will disappear from the world. But those who make gender discrimination in employment in office courts should keep one thing in mind now that a woman can do the same work as a man can do.


I think it was a wrong decision by the CMD of your company as they are both applicants. They should have given an opportunity to both the applicants to demonstrate their own qualification but instead of doing so they gave only one an opportunity to demonstrate his qualification and deemed him eligible.

For hundreds of thousands of years and men and women evolved differently because of their different function in the society. Men evolved for more hard work and things that requires stamina and women evolved more for satisfying the men and caring the children. Why do women have big breasts and curvy body? Why do men and have bigger and stronger than women? Each gender should have each role in the society. When this role is messes up expect the fall of the society is near.

The sooner women understand the fact the we can never be equals with the men the better.

Going to apply for a job that has to do with strength? and you are in competition with a man? How do you think you would get the job. It’s better we start getting the real taste of reality and stop leaving in fantasy.

Men were created to do the strenuous work… so please when applying for a job let’s be more realistic and get a peak in to reality to avoid wasting of time.

I don't really know why people term things like this as gender inequality. If the job in question requires strength then should a woman be chose for it when a capable man is already in place. This phrase what a man can do women can do better shouldn't even exist because it has ruin alot of things considering women to handle things just fir the sake of equality.

Now here it's an individuality case and I don't see the CMD to a sentimental person because his either making the best choice the the company or his protect the brand or work from some excuses that aren't relevant in such work place.

That's how things are done in my locality and it doesn't has to be an application for a job but it has been for long and this has caused a lot of problem in today society, the fact you used job as an example doesn't necessary mean it has to do with employment only, if you observe carefully in some areas ladies don't have equal right as men do, when I mean equal right I'm referring to the things women have less privilege to do like contesting for a governorship election etc.
Although no one can really tell why things are done like that. since you made employment as a reference, if the work requires human strength then ladies should not get involved like some work need strength and if the person is not fit then there's no need for an opportunity, and you didn't mention the kind of job so I can't give any reason why the lady didn't get the job.

All nature of jobs has its criterials while considering possessions of individuals that is best fitted with the nature of the jobs.
There are nature of jobs that either requires skills, manpower or number counts including genders considerations.
You can't admit to hire an individual who doesn't posses the criterias required to execute your job or anyone who may compromise the possible achievement of your goals so, ramifications in considering quality employees is paramount to enhance and reaching your goals.

What I think is that you should have asked your CMD the reason he didn't hire the female candidates for the job and not us who has no idea of the job descriptions or specifications. I think there's no gender discrepancy in that scenario. The CMD must have observed something you didn't observe, maybe you were probably looking at the buts and boobs of the female candidates.

If there girls were more qualified, they would have been hired. And if the job opening was only for male, they wouldn't have been asked to apply. When you become a CMD, you may understand better. But if you insist you want to get the community honest reactions, let's know the job specifications of that position. Did this story actually happened? Maybe a made up story as usual.

You gave vague job description as health assistant but if the nature of job requires physical strength then giving the opportunity to whoever is stronger is fair thing and I am against denying anyone without even knowing what they are capable of. But this can't be taken into wider picture about the gender inequality exists around the world and the fact is Male and female has their uniqueness and certain jobs require one over others and most women choose to ignore the job even if they are capable of doing it.

When it comes to professionalism, I don't think we should apply gender discrimination here because it is a must that we must apply it to find the suitability of the role we are in need of a particular gender, you can't expect a man to put in for a role of a nurse when this has to deal with women experienced in the specific role needed, same also as men, but when it comes to the giving of equal rights, everyone should be treated equally by the virtue of whom they are as accordingly, when we are being partial about this with injustice, our conscience alone talks alot about that on us.

This gender discrimination is seen everywhere in any kind of workforce

Please enlighten me how does height is considered when employing a health assistant? As for physical strength, I guess one would need it in case they need to carry a patient regardless whether the candidate can do it she still should have been given the chance to show it

I think that it would be dumb for employers who wants the progress of their companies to employ applicants based on gender preference alone, it must be that the preferred gender will enhance productivities and add value to the companies. So in the OP naretive I believe that the employers must feel that the job will best suit a male applicant, if not they'll be doing their company a diservice. My point is that as far as private sector work goes, I doubt that any reasonable company will employ based on gender inequality, it has to be the gender that'll be more productive for them. The public sector is a different ball game, they can employ based on sentiments and it could be either of the genders.

Generally I think that the issue of gender equality is been addressed because we can now see women that are holding top positions both in the public and private sectors, something that was solely for the male gender before.

Gender inequality in the society can be seen in the church,at home,at school where a gender is preferred over another.In this case,the girl has a chance of trying because she was qualified and her physical appearance doesn't matter that much because it is said that what a man can do a woman can do more better.For example in most Africa countries the girls are not privileged to be educated due to gender norms,only the male children are allowed to be educated.In a situation like this the girls are deprived from receiving education in any form.Gender inequality restrict a gender from being valued, recognized and respected.

^^^ All you are saying is that everybody who is applying for a job, must apply for ALL OF THE JOBS. And he/she must hire on to every job that accepts his/her application. No discrimination.

An employer gets 500 applications for a job he is hiring for. One job available, 500 apps. So, hire them all and let each one work 57.6 seconds of each 8-hour day.

Wouldn't freedom for the employer be better?

The word discrimination is used only for women in today's society, but actually discrimination should mean both men and women as women are discriminated in one way or another as well as men in one way or another.Discrimination victim We say women and men are equal in employment, in fact women and men can never be equal. Women should be given jobs for women and men should be given jobs for men.Because men and women form a family, women have a special advantage where men can't do anything. Men also have some Indians who can't do anything. They may be equal in terms of rights.I don't see any logical reason why women should be given more priority in work or jobs, because in a society if a man gets a job his whole family can run well under him but one.Every time a woman gets something good or a job she acts aggressively and abuses men and men always try to put society down, and they always try to stay down, but actually it is society.Therefore, according to Begum Rokeya, it is better for women to live as half-breeds. Women should stay at home, work at home and help men in various tasks. Men should help them and make them work hard.There are many jobs in our society where strength is required, women will never be able to do them, but they are the ones who say in the society that they don't get equal rights, they don't get equal work, can they actually do it? I am a woman Not speaking against women who should be where they need to be, like wildings in forests beautiful babies in mother's arms Maybe many women can do many stressful jobs, but many men can't, but it is not right to give equal rights to all women race with one or two examples. Men are always more powerful and creative. We have created them as strong so that any movement or any discrimination can be solved by talking to women or talking about equality.I will never say that we need equality between men and women. I will say that we should give and respect and give them dignity and men should have their own rights and dignity.Being aware of work and showing respect to women and valuing their work will not be a discrimination Many interviews ask for beautiful women and don't ask for black or ugly guys. Beauty should never be a criterion for eligibility. Most of the interviews are about girls.Because the girls are beautiful, and they will give good service, it is believed that the work should be Not selected We should create an environment where men and women can live in peaceful co-existence and live according to their dignity and the word discrimination should not be used as it is artificial. Some masculine some feminine People people are creating this word and moving the society in a different direction Finally I can say we are all above all each we are next and everything in this world is half women there is no place for discrimination the word discrimination must not be used.

That is the truth, there are some jobs that are masculine and feminine in nature but we are not always allowed to post gender specifity in jobs. It appears like some kinds of description.
Talking about your idea that there are some jobs that needs gender segregation. When you go to banks they use more of women in the counter with their sweet and light voice to take your money from you. Man's voice might sound deep and somehow scary

Common sense should prevail. But it became endangered in the land of the Free.

People don't simply take a job. They apply for it. An application is really a request to the employer to make them an employee. Where is the requirement that an employer LOSE his freedom to make his own decision for whatever reason?

There are laws about hiring and firing. If an employer decides he is the kind of employer that falls under these laws, then he better do what the law says. If he doesn't, an applicant might attempt to sue him based on his breaking of one of these laws. The courts will decide.

If an employer has made his business to be outside the hiring and firing laws (there are ways to do this), then the courts will first have to decide if he followed protocols for even letting the person apply for a job. If he hasn't followed those protocols, he has pushed himself under the hiring/firing laws.

The whole thing is up to the freedom of the employer and the freedom of the applicant.

Both gender might fit some work, in other way round, we give women certain work, and men are also best suited for certain work. Also employer also knew what he wants for his or her organization. This is where in any advert, there is needs to state all the necessary criteria. But some has already left the standard they require and they built this inequality already in their minds which we need to be careful not to go for our own self or personal interest, but what it requires and along with our good goals. Can

Some of the physical attributes are fast disappearing in the job space and the simple reason is that AL is now taking over jobs and all you need to do is get trained on how to use machines. The time we are is about knowledge and idea so if a lady has a better knowledge, idea or information more than a man, she is best qualified to occupy the job space, this is what is happening now despite the old way of life. Now, except for a few kind of jobs, the gender inequality is fast going away unfortunately for the patrilineal society that dominated the society.

Opportunities should give to the males because they handle all family and their duty is to work an earn money. Females duty is not good for our society because their duty should be take care of house and babies. Their duty is only maintenance of house. This is best for our society. Females should get knowledge of Quran and hadees because these give all necessary things to our society. With doing practical on Quran, we can get success because this a true message of God. Males also should get knowledge of Quran. Physically, males are strong and they deserve jobs and they are eligible for jobs. Allah make a male body strong for hard work. Doing job for money is not good for our society because it causes destruction in our society.

The danger of gender inequality


Behind every successful man stands a woman, telling him he's wrong.

While gender inequality might be a lingering topic as long as humans exist. I think all employment processes aren't biased toward gender inequality regarding some professions. Well, as much as some professions give preference to a specific gender, I still believe competence plays a role in the choice of final selection.

In the context of the CMD in this scenario, I feel his conclusions may have been inspired by experience with previous employees who once had stints in the hospital. He may have opted for the male folk because of agility and more which the female may not have.

But in all of these, some professions will always be gender sensitive and it doesn't mean the other gender isn't competent enough, it's just what the job demands. For example, ladies will always be better options in sophisticated marketing positions than men...

Thanks for sharing!

Do you think life is fair? not everyone have a same chance like the others.

Inequality has been exist since you were born, it's impossible to make both male and female are equal. One has a dck and one has a pssy, it's already different, not to mention male is stronger than female based on the hormone. Life was never been fair, you need to accept it and know what you're good at to become the best of you.

I think it pretty much depends on the society and context were women and male try to compote for the same positions, jobs and status.
There are some countries were women do not have the option to even pursue a career, but stay home and take care of the children.

While sincerely the distrimination against women in the west as occured before, it has been turned into a political point of debate rather than looking at it in a natural and unbiased way.

Ironically, countries where Islam is prominent and the Sharia law is practiced, there is no question on the role of women, they do not even apply for certain jobs or can't even travel by their own

Really differs and depends on the type of job and what type of employee that the company thinks that will suit that opening.

But if it's possible that there's no gender preference on that duty and can be done by both man and woman, they have to filter the best candidate through series of interviews for both of them.

In the end, this isn't just a matter of gender but also on how the companies are picky and choosy with their next hiree.

Half the reason for all the 'trans' people is, they want to be able to do something that people of the other gender do. The danger of this is that you can't really do a good job of making people into the other gender. People really need to sit down and simply accept their gender position in life.

Gender shouldn't be a concern here. I think if Mr A and B applied for a certain job both should be given equal chances to participate because both saw the vacancy before applying. With their performances you can pick without sentiment and gender preference.

I think it depends on the type of the job. if is the type of job that has to do with strength, I think the  guy will scare true. but if it's a job that needs brain,  is then you will look into there qualifications.

Opportunities should give to the males because they handle all family and their duty is to work an earn money. Females duty is not good for our society because their duty should be take care of house and babies. Their duty is only maintenance of house. This is best for our society. Females should get knowledge of Quran and hadees because these give all necessary things to our society. With doing practical on Quran, we can get success because this a true message of God. Males also should get knowledge of Quran. Physically, males are strong and they deserve jobs and they are eligible for jobs. Allah make a male body strong for hard work. Doing job for money is not good for our society because it causes destruction in our
society.

What's the point of having a poll if the answers are the same, or too vague to even know what the options mean?

Is it fair to give a physically demanding job to a small MAN who can't preform the duties required of the job, and expect his collogues to pick up the slack?  If you answered no, then you're thinking clearly and without bias.

If I changed the word "MAN" to "WOMAN" in the statement above, would your answer be any different?  If so, then you're a bigoted activist, and not at all interested in "equality" but some corrupt notion of "equity."

There are certain jobs that best fit a male,especially when the job will be tedious and needs physical strength to get it done. The CMD has already kept that position for a male and that was why he gave it to the guy and not the lady.

If it is a secretary job,do you think that he will give it to the guy,I doubt that. So don't see it as gender inequality. Since you where also part of the interview, why after the guy has been given the job,you didn't ask the CMD what happened that made him not give the lady the chance to prove herself. Maybe,you would have learnt from him because there must be a reason for it.

We are forgetting one major thing. What if the employer wasn't looking for the most qualified person for the job? What if the employer was looking for a medium qualified person who he could train to be better? Why might he do that? A personally trained employee might become, ultimately, as good as the qualified woman, but way more loyal to the company.

How did the employer get into the position of being an employer? He got there because he had something on the ball thinking-wise. If any of us advised the employer that he should have hired the woman, okay. But if the employer was making a mistake this time by NOT hiring her, don't we all reject good advice from others at times?

What this is all about is employer freedom. Sometimes such freedom includes the right to make a mistake. None of us likes to be dictated to, if we are employers or not. We all operate using logic, hunches, random roll-the-dice or coin-tosses now and again. We all suffer from our mistakes, and we all are benefited from our wisdom. But the point is, we are free to make our own choices. Why shouldn't the employer be free in choosing who he hires and who he doesn't hire?

To me that is a bad signal,  and with the the human resource department really has a lot of work to be done bexausutheir will recruit a lot of staff without any competency or capabilities for the job since the guy at the decision-making end has blatantly refused to hire based on qualification but adopting sentiments.

I don't know what the nature of the job, is but if it is not a physically involving job,  the employers should have hired the female if she is most qualified for the role.

This has nothing to do with gender inequality in my opinion. They both had interview with the CMD and have examined them both. If the work is for only one person and the male candidate has extra qualifications for the job because of his physical strength and ability then the work should go to him. Wanting to get the experience of the female candidate will only give are a false hope of being accepted, and if she doesn’t do well, she can still later be sacked. I think this is a fair interview and the male candidate should be the right person for the job if physical strength and height is amongst the criteria of getting the job.

Are you talking about gender inequality in general sense or base on job specifications only. Some job roles are suitable to a particular gender. No right thinking employer will employ a beautiful female model in a role that requires strength and agility. He needs to employ a muscular man and I see no gender inequality issue there.

But where it is very obvious that a particular person was rejected or prevented from doing something simply because his/her gender despite the fact that they can actually perform that role, then such excesses should be checked.

If people are prevented from doing what they love or know how to do best, they might become mentally, socially and morally paralysed and  rendered incapacitated.

I know some will say the man and the woman can never be equal  but hey! Everyone should be given a chance to grow normally without any fear of victimisation or oppression.

You have already stated that both of them performed well in the interview, but the male applicant was granted the opportunity due to his physical strength, which I am sure is part of the physical criterion in addition to qualification.


If the female candidate possesses such abilities, she should have been given the opportunity, based on the circumstances. I don't believe there was any unfairness in this case because you confirmed that the male candidate possessed some qualities that the female applicant lacked.

We have many roles that should be held by men but are being run or controlled by women owing to whatever influence they have in that position, not because men cannot do the job.

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).

    Gender inequality has suddenly become a topic of debate among nations and individuals  every now and then, on the other hand I ask are they really being marginalized?

   Let's not forget in a  hurry the format of home and societal hierarchy as stated by nature  whereby the man  as the head fights(protects), labours and governs the family  while the woman as the helper keeps the home and makes sure of the implementation of the man's directives in his absence. Let's also remember that women came to the realization of what vocational independence is during the world wars when almost all the men were in the battle front then the industries and gov't institutions were short of labour so the women had to be engaged in replacement of that vacuum.

   The men at the war front gave their lives for a better society which is what both genders are benefiting from  today, yes they should be given rights as well but not on an equal scale with a man because  diving into societal welfare I still don't think that women has that fragile heart in certain political decisions.

Finally  Women should be integrated into the system but not as the head so that there can still balance between both genders in the society.

This depends on the quality of work required, sometimes equality is required and sometimes it is not good.
In jobs that require more physical strength and patience, men are preferred and will be chosen. As for cases that require good looks and kindness, such as tourism or secretarial work, women are preferred.

Therefore, we cannot say that equality between men and women is always required.

I don't think there's gender inequality on that. If the person who's assigned to choose the best candidate sees the best in one, then that's the decision that must be done. This is just the tough situation of the hiring, application, and selection process. There's nothing wrong with that if that's the quality that the CMD is looking for in a candidate. Usually in this hiring process, if a company has already found the one that they are looking for, they'll reject and stop wasting time in the selection and also saves time the applicants.

Gender inequality is a tolerance system underrating ones ability and capacity to do work and delivering of a given task.
Nowadays what a man can do a woman can do better so the thoughts of genders inequality should be abolished as human qualities depends on individuals and not of the gender differences.

Give it a benefit of doubt before you can conclude because there are women who does some muscular and manpower's job better than some men though majority of men a likely to attain stamina's in a stressful occasion.
This is the same of a mentality that states kitchen works is meant for women and they do it better than men but there are male genders out there who does it better than the women such as the cooking.
Knowledge and skills doesn't only comes from a particular gender.

We know where all gender equality bullshit comes from, just like we are now struggling with the alphabet gangs and their so-called rights. A man can never be equal to a woman, and each gender has roles that they are best suited for.

We see all the human rights activists and feminists (who, by the way, are there just to make money) bitching about gender inequality in white-collar jobs, but you will never see them advocating for more women to work in Sewers or other blue collar jobs. Why is it so?

I think that if the job requires strength and a man is best fit for it, the employer should drop all the equality bullshit and simply write that in the offer, but that would get him all the backlash from big and strong women, so maybe a strength test would show the applicants what's what?

I've been there on the other side of the fence. I was unemployed and they were looking for an office assistant, so I applied. When I came to the interview I was the only guy in the room with 3 good looking girls and the employer was a balding guy in his 40s. I knew I had no chance and I wasn't angry because of that, but because they wouldn't simply say they needed a female secretary. They wanted to be polite and that made me waste my time on that whole charade.

I don't think women should even have the vote!

Two candidates visited my office two days ago to submit their applications for the position of a health assistant. I had the honor of taking part in the interviews with them.After the interview, the candidate did very well, but the CMD chose to hire the male candidate because of his physical strength and height as the best contender for the position.He didn't even give the female applicant a chance to demonstrate her qualifications.What do you think about this?