(December 25, 2017 at 11:28 am)SaStrike Wrote:(December 25, 2017 at 11:02 am)Grandizer Wrote: 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).
Here in America, those ads specifying a gender are generally illegal, unless for some reason the gender is crucial to the job's focus.
As for bouncer, I doubt I could do it. A friend of mine was a bouncer (before we met a few years back) for a long time, and it's a job that calls for both the ability to issue beat-downs (like what we see in the movies) and more importantly, the ability to deescalate a situation so that blows aren't thrown. Now, I can talk a situation down, but in a scrap I don't have much weight to throw around.