- 40,891
Which is not always the case in a job application. A man be may more qualified than a women. With what you are saying, if the company chooses the more qualified man, they are sexist.Whether or not the men were more qualified is beyond the point in my opinion, because we're not talking about a huge difference. Today, woman are just as smart and hard-working as men.
That is an overly idealist view of the world. Companies exist to make money. If Frank makes 1% more, that is 1% more. Companies care about money. They don't care about gender statistics, because if the male they hired makes more money than the female they could have hired, they made more money. If women had some miraculous power to always be good at business deals, all Fortune 500 companies would be women run, because that is what made the most money. Companies would only care about gender if it meant more money. They don't hire men because they are men.You're supposed to take the woman because she most likely (and when i say most likely i mean most likely...just look at the statistics) worked harder to get to the same point as Frank, because the world we live in is still full of prejudice.
What unknowns? Maybe very few women apply at the place. Maybe very many highly qualified men did. The entire argument that companies have more men and are therefore sexist is filled with inconsistencies, and companies don't care.What unknowns? If you really think about it, there are none that morally make sense.
Exactly. Which is something you can't legislate for. Your taking a supposition and saying it happens more than it doesn't, and making a law on it. It is no different from when they used to make black kids go out of there way to go to white schools so it would look like they were racially integrated.You're right, the school was probably not christened all-black. But the neighborhood is probably economically segregated by what jobs those people can get, and crazy old white ladies who think the "separate but equal" policy was doing a bang-up job before those got rid of it.
The statistics show that there are men at hire paying jobs. You cannot draw any conclusions based purely on that.What i'm trying to say is that it almost can be taken as fact that men are hired more often only because they are men, because the statistics show it.
The fact that they are different in makeup means little when they both show the same bias. If you want to be against gender discrimination, you do not turn around and pass laws that give women an easier ride than a man. I don't care what the intended result was.Yes you can because like i said before, one is based on government policy for the greater good (the greater good) and the other is based on mindless prejudice.
Actually, it is. This law says that you must choose a specific portion of your workforce based on gender more than abilities. What part of that sentence isn't sexist, immoral or pointless. The fact that women have spent x amount of years fighting the very thing this law hopes to fix means nothing when the law essentially imposes the women's previous struggles on men.It's not immoral, pointless, or sexist. Not yet. More men still hold more jobs.
If a company bases hiring on qualifications, it is the epitome of equal opportunities. Whether or not the women spent half of her college term being discriminated against is out of the companies control, and they shouldn't be punished for something they have no control over. Legislation over sexism in education should be made to take care of that.GiancarloI'm talking about this because it's messed up that women don't get equal chances
Ignoring gender when hiring for qualifications is not the same as ignoring sexism. Ignoring gender just means that they give the job to the best person for the job. No law guarantees any man a job like this one does. If a women wants a job, she better work harder than a man who wants a job, just like a man who wants a job over another man must do. This law makes it so a women can work less than a man to get a job if the company needs to hire a women. It is essentially written legislation of a bizarro 50's America, and it completely goes against women's rights.GiancarloThe company should be punished for ignoring gender because that continues the process of inequality.
The numbers merely say that more men have higher positions than women. You cannot use that alone as proof that women are prevented in some way from achieving as much as men.GiancarloAnd you cannot tell me i wrongfully assume that most companies are sexist, because the numbers are there and they prove my point. Again, indirect sexism is the same thing as regular sexism.
Furthermore, indirect sexism means nothing. Just because a company has more men than women doesn't mean they find women inferior (which is what sexism essentially is). It just means they found more qualified men than they found women.
Your entire argument seems to be based on how this law somehow helps the struggle for women's rights. If anything, it knocks it back a couple of decades. Women's Rights is about how women want to be treated as equals to men. Not given any special treatment. They want to be rated on the same plane. If they apply for a job, they want to get it because they are qualified for the job. Not because a company needs to hire women to fill some meaningless statistic, which is essentially saying "you're not good enough, but take the job anyways."