(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).
Actually, yes, I am nitpicking. Because my argument here isnt that women cant get relatively low-status jobs like secretary or nurse. Its that they are less likely to be CEOs or surgeons. And in the example you provided earlier, even in the case of a low status job like bouncer, you wouldve still gone for men over women in most cases. You were being selective yourself by conveniently selecting between two specific members.