The Irish just went full retard - Legalizing gender discrimination

[TheRealJoeFish]

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.

What you're arguing, CoMD, is that we should 1) look at a negative outcome, 2) try to figure out whether that negative outcome was caused by a negative event or a neutral event, and 3) only rectify the negative outcome of the cause was also negative.

That's like saying we should rebuild houses burned down by arson but not houses hit by lightning.

[Iroscato]

For a short period of time I wondered why pool would post something on gender discrimination. I wonder no more after reading the story.

Women don't face gender discrimination lol

You do come out with some astonishingly stupid lines at times, Pooly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

They no longer astonish me.

[CanOfMountainDew]

"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.

What you're arguing, CoMD, is that we should 1) look at a negative outcome, 2) try to figure out whether that negative outcome was caused by a negative event or a neutral event, and 3) only rectify the negative outcome of the cause was also negative.

That's like saying we should rebuild houses burned down by arson but not houses hit by lightning.

In fact that's not what I'm saying. I have not classified gender disparity in the workplace as a negative outcome.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Women don't face gender discrimination lol

You do come out with some astonishingly stupid lines at times, Pooly.

I just haven't seen any. Can you give me a few instances of discrimination against women?

---

I can't help but feel that Pool has a certain feeling of being threatened by Women gaining equal rights. I wonder why this is.

What do you mean equal rights? Women already have equal if not more rights than men. I'm not in the least bit "threatened" but I am concerned about sexism in general. Employers already prefer to hire women so much more than men. I have a fairly large group of female friends and they all hate this. Their reasoning is that if they are indeed hired because of their gender they will not be respected in a workplace because everyone will simply disregard them as they all would know this person didn't deserve to get the job but instead got it because of her sex organ. Nobody wants to work somewhere where everybody thinks they got the job because of their pee pee. People want others to acknowledge their hardwork and respect their accomplishments - not disregard them but there's a good lot of losers(without any accomplishments or hardwork) about that'll jump at the hint of a freebie to be concerned about it. I don't want to lose an opportunity in the future because I'm not a woman, you could say I'm almost jealous of them that's why I'm thoroughly against it. Accomplishments should carry value - not sex, not sexual orientation and definitely not oppression points.

---

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.

There is also a serious lack of dwarfs in senior positions. Does this mean there's a discrimination against dwarfs in the workforce? As in a systematic oppression of dwarfs? A bunch of dwarfists in the board? Haha C'mon Boru. You can do better than that. Try using common sense instead of just parroting what the media tells you.

---

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.

It is almost impossible to have two candidates with identical resumes. There will always be a candidate with better work experience, history working in a better more challenging position, working for a much more demanding company, the amount of experiences doing a variety of tasks. My position is that it is incredibly stupid, ultimately short sighted and inherently sexist to look at two resumes and go "Oh. Okay, so we have two candidates. Both with the same post graduate degree. Oh look, this one has most work experience in that famous company...Holy Shit! Did you see that?!! Look! The other candidate!! This one has a vagina - HIRED!"

Besides, isn't this what feminists used to complain about with no evidence? That there is a systematic "oppression" based on sex? Now there is evidence as clear as day in front of them why aren't they coming forward and fighting this? Bunch of hypocrites lol

[Cecelia]

Wait... people still read Pool's posts?

...Why?

[CanOfMountainDew]

Wait... people still read Pool's posts?  

...Why?

Curiously, when you posted that, what did you intend to convey?

I would ask that you be open to the idea that you are virtue signalling.

[Cecelia]

Or... I'm saying that the guy has never said anything worth responding to. He lives in his own little bubble where the world works exactly the way he thinks it works. And anyone who says otherwise is 'wrong'.

Also I'm saying he's an asshole quite frankly.

[CanOfMountainDew]

Or... I'm saying that the guy has never said anything worth responding to.  He lives in his own little bubble where the world works exactly the way he thinks it works.  And anyone who says otherwise is 'wrong'.

Also I'm saying he's an asshole quite frankly.

But why say that? If his reasoning is faulty on any given thing, just cliarify exactly why it is faulty, right? No need to be rude.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

Linguistic flummery aside, can you give an explanation for the very nearly universal gender imbalance in government positions that is not rooted in sexism?

Boru