The Irish just went full retard - Legalizing gender discrimination

[Shell B]

Good. Good. This is almost too perfect. I didn't believe them when they said liberals typically resort to name calling and insults when they lose an argument but now I wholeheartedly do ??

I'm actually not liberal, but you're still a fucking idiot.

---

Good. Good. This is almost too perfect. I didn't believe them when they said liberals typically resort to name calling and insults when they lose an argument but now I wholeheartedly do ??

What argument do you think you won exactly? Your entire claim in the thread title is factually wrong and the article you posted proves that. Point out which law was just passed that enforced this and I'll admit you were right.

He also called me a liberal.

[Autumnlicious]

In events of two candidates being equally equipped and socially compatible, the ideal circumstance would be a random coin flip, thus converging eventually on parity in a vacuum.

However, people aren't as repeatable as machines, so we have to come up with more crude corrections to compensate. It doesn't help that the current deployment influences future ones, necessitating perturbing the system as-is in an attempt to induce a change.

As affirmative action stands, this policy is one of the more cautious implementations that will have a small effect, if at all. Any increase in gender parity will ultimately be for the better in reducing stagnant groupthink by providing additional perspectives - that alone can increase economic output and achieve more consumer engagement. A good case example of that was salvaging Subaru from the financial cliff by taking a gamble on expanding their audience through the unheard of (at the time) outreach to the LGBT bracket which had more cash than business interest engagement. It saved a lot of US jobs by diversifying consumer base.

I can only conclude that Pools opposition comes either out of forgivable ignorance or a less noble and less forgivable concern.

[Shell B]

Given his derisive comments about pretending to be a lady, I can only assume that he's being typical pool, which is less than great.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

*sigh* Never fails. Once in a blue moon, the Irish do something that makes good sense, and some clod misinterprets it.

Boru

[CanOfMountainDew]

That kind of sucks. In the case that a man and a woman are equally employable, it should come down to a coin flip. Or even just who the employer prefers for no good reason. But to make a policy that priorities one sex over the other is inherently sexist - this can't even be argued.

[Autumnlicious]

That kind of sucks. In the case that a man and a woman are equally employable, it should come down to a coin flip. Or even just who the employer prefers for no good reason. But to make a policy that priorities one sex over the other is inherently sexist - this can't even be argued.

That's how we got into this situation to begin with.

Given that preference in government hiring has resulted in unexpected sexism, you argue that falling back to that originating behavior will be less sexist despite it producing this scenario than one that says:

If both candidates are equally capable, pick the one that is further from the majority, which currently happens to be most obviously imbalanced by sex.

You've basically argued that implicit sexism and an existing imbalance for public jobs is better than attempting to rectify that under very specific circumstances.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What can be argued is that as a means of redressing past discrimination, taking steps to give both genders representation in any workforce is a fair step. Affirmative action is not always called-for, and I don't know that the situation in Ireland can or cannot benefit from it, but it's obvious that in many cases entrenched preferences need to be broken, by policy if need be.

[CanOfMountainDew]

That kind of sucks. In the case that a man and a woman are equally employable, it should come down to a coin flip. Or even just who the employer prefers for no good reason. But to make a policy that priorities one sex over the other is inherently sexist - this can't even be argued.

That's how we got into this situation to begin with.

Given that preference in government hiring has resulted in unexpected sexism, you argue that falling back to that originating behavior will be less sexist despite it producing this scenario than one that says:

If both candidates are equally capable, pick the one that is further from the majority, which currently happens to be most obviously imbalanced by sex.

You've basically argued that implicit sexism and an existing imbalance for public jobs is better than attempting to rectify that under very specific circumstances.

"Given that preference in government hiring has resulted in unexpected sexism"

That's not a given.

"You've basically argued that implicit sexism and an existing imbalance for public jobs is better than attempting to rectify that under very specific circumstances."

I see. You seem to be under the illusion that workplaces that don't exhibit gender parity are necessarily caused by sexism in hiring. This doesn't follow.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's how we got into this situation to begin with.

Given that preference in government hiring has resulted in unexpected sexism, you argue that falling back to that originating behavior will be less sexist despite it producing this scenario than one that says:

If both candidates are equally capable, pick the one that is further from the majority, which currently happens to be most obviously imbalanced by sex.

You've basically argued that implicit sexism and an existing imbalance for public jobs is better than attempting to rectify that under very specific circumstances.

"Given that preference in government hiring has resulted in unexpected sexism"

That's not a given.

"You've basically argued that implicit sexism and an existing imbalance for public jobs is better than attempting to rectify that under very specific circumstances."

I see. You seem to be under the illusion that workplaces that don't exhibit gender parity are necessarily caused by sexism in hiring. This doesn't follow.

Firstly, sexism in government hiring is a given. Find me a government structure anywhere in the world where males don't make up a whopping great majority of senior positions. If sexism isn't at the core of the problem (and it most definitely is a problem), you're left in the untenable and even more sexist position that women are not as fit as men for these jobs.

Secondly, the article wasn't referencing workplaces in general, but described steps being taken to rectify gender inequality. There isn't anything about gender that makes a female less fit for a management position than a male. 80% of top-tier management positions in the Irish Civil Service are held by men. At the next level down, the split is 56%/44%, very close to parity. The notion that a glass ceiling is not in play here is simply absurd.

Boru

[CanOfMountainDew]

"Given that preference in government hiring has resulted in unexpected sexism"

That's not a given.

"You've basically argued that implicit sexism and an existing imbalance for public jobs is better than attempting to rectify that under very specific circumstances."

I see. You seem to be under the illusion that workplaces that don't exhibit gender parity are necessarily caused by sexism in hiring. This doesn't follow.

Firstly, sexism in government hiring is a given.  Find me a government structure anywhere in the world where males don't make up a whopping great majority of senior positions.  If sexism isn't at the core of the problem (and it most definitely is a problem), you're left in the untenable and even more sexist position that women are not as fit as men for these jobs.

Secondly, the article wasn't referencing workplaces in general, but described steps being taken to rectify gender inequality.  There isn't anything about gender that makes a female less fit for a management position than a male.  80% of top-tier management positions in the Irish Civil Service are held by men.  At the next level down, the split is 56%/44%, very close to parity.  The notion that a glass ceiling is not in play here is simply absurd.

Boru

"Firstly, sexism in government hiring is a given.  Find me a government structure anywhere in the world where males don't make up a whopping great majority of senior positions."

The second sentence - that is; your premise - does not necessitate the first - that is; your conclusion.