(December 25, 2017 at 11:02 am)Grandizer Wrote:(December 25, 2017 at 10:55 am)SaStrike Wrote: Apology accepted, and I disagree because it depends on what is being applied for. For a nightclub bouncer for example, would you hire a male or female? In this example I would hire shell B over thumpalumpacus, that doesnt mean im discriminating against the males, it's just she is more suited for the job.
Study results trump your individual opinion that may or may not be partly dishonest. Regardless, your example involves one man vs. one woman. Hardly a conclusive example that proves your point.
Furthermore, bouncer is not a high status job anyway, so prob not a loss for either Shell or Thump.
You're just nitpicking in order to skew the stats into favouring the point you are trying to force. A job is a job, it was only an example anyway. Why not mention the many ads that require PA's or secretary which state female only? Had it said male only I'm sure somehow those would be included in your range of things to point out. But all of a sudden it's "prob not a loss" (just one example of the excuses and selective logic made by both feminists and mra).
