Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whoah, there. Some feminists are/were Marxist, but it is clearly not universal. I will confess it's fun to watch someone mansplaining feminism to women.
I never claimed it was universal. That's a bizarre accusation. However what I posted is aboslutly true about feminism... not necessary feminists. Feminism is on a spectrum.
Some feminists still expect men to act traditionally... why?
.
I never claimed it was universal. That's a bizarre accusation. However what I posted is aboslutly true about feminism... not necessary feminists. Feminism is on a spectrum.
Some feminists still expect men to act traditionally... why?
.
Oh I've seen that when it comes to dating...the man "always" pays
In some cases the women are not physically able to do the job....
But they are there because they are women and the standards were lowered so they could pass.
Honestly I don't care who does the work as long as they are qualified and can do the job.
But don't go changing the rules and pick out women just to check off a quota box.
As long as the acceptance standards are actually applicable to the task at hand, I emphatically agree.
Men aren’t neutered by this. They just go to the next girl. What is happening now is the women who turned men away are now complaining they can’t find a man. Well, ladies, you made your bed.
At least we get the whole bed and don't have to listen to snoring and farts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikala43
I always read that online. I have NEVER heard a woman saying this in real life. Not among friends in their 30s, 40s or 50s.
Most women who are single (single, widowed or divorced) are pretty adament about never getting again)
Count me in; I'm never getting married again. Hell NO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
You've got nothing but hyperbole... not much of an argument for a self professed feminist. How about something real?
Who's fighting? Those are EARNED positions. Typically those positions are filled by very driven competitive people, mostly men who won't roll over and let someone else get the job and who are willing to work 80 hrs a week and give up their lives for the work/position.
People forget that C-Suite folks, flag officers and high level politicos didn't start at the top of their respective food chains. Decades of grind, countless risk takings and a dash/pinch of luck all play a role in sitting at any apex.
Why are their so few female C*O's? Well, calculate the percent of people in corporate America who become corporate officers as a percentage, then look at the number of women in the positions that are part of that particular promotion path, and apply the percentage. One of the job reqs for corporate officer is "many unbroken years of 80-100 hour work weeks." Right out of the gate, virtually all women who are mothers exclude themselves from such a requirement. Recalculate the percentage. It starts to make sense.
Why are there so few female flag officers? Well, calculate the percent of people in the military who become flag officers as a percentage, then look at the number of women in the ranks that are part of that particular promotion path, and apply the percentage. Two job reqs right out of the gate for a flag are 1) went to that branch's academy and graduated at/near top of class and 2) had at least three distinguished tours, at least two of which were in command. Find the number of females who satisfy just those two reqs, and recalculate.
Etc. It starts to make sense when you examine what all the folks who got there have in common throughout their careers, and then examine the pool of women who have similar career experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
When I did hiring for an electric utility, HR wanted to know why more women don't get hired for utility work in the field? ( I actually had to write a response)I said " well... they don't apply" HR said what about entry level position like drivers, or meter readers. I said "because it's outside work and it's hot in Florida".
Women typically like easier work and typically those positions pay less and aren't very demanding. Nothing is an absolute... so yes, there are women who will work 80 hrs a week and do that. I have never met one.
Like Jordan Peterson points out...you don't see women climbing the walls over the fact that 99% of bricklayers are men. That's a good paying job, so why aren't women beating down the doors at job sites to get hired as bricklayers? I mean, considering the foreman can pay them 77% of what they'd pay men (wink, wink), you'd think the skilled trades would be killing it with women. That's a real head scratcher, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
Men are better suited for those positions especially when they're developing their careers as young men. Women on the other hand are disadvantaged to develop their careers, if they want a family too. That's just reality. However our society allows you to pick one or the other. Trying to do both of them would be impossible and equally destructive.
"Don't half ass two things, Leslie. Whole ass one thing." - Ron Swanson.
As long as the acceptance standards are actually applicable to the task at hand, I emphatically agree.
My company clearly had gender affirming hiring practices and I was expected to foster them. I actually did.
My son is a Fireman paramedic. He's a trainer. in the county he works for. The women who apply do extremely well on the medical side, but most fail on the physical side. So where I live there are physical standards, however There are no national standards that regulate firefighter physical performance standards. There are no binding regulations, codes or laws that require firefighters to be able to perform the job that they been placed in the public trust to do.
So imagine a 120 lb woman carrying a 200lb dead weight person down 4 flights of stairs.
Does this impact societal standards? On paper it doesn't, but in reality... no standards is a danger to individuals in society, in and of certain professions.
Oh, I agree.
It appears you're assuming certain feminists do not somehow subscribe to feminism. I'm amused.
like I said, maybe you missed it in a rash to judge... feminism is on a spectrum. By definition... I'm a feminist. However in much the same way as the grievance industry promoted black lives matter, feminism supports strong and independent women. On the BS meter.... we get to judge the outcome .
Both statements, while universally true, both are still promoting a hidden untruth, at the expense of society. That untruth is corrupt to the core and hurts society at large.
Humans left to their own devices.........many of them will live with very low standards.
Think of chamber-pots being tossed into the alleyway, yes, that bad.
and yet those who run away from society and live a more remote "wholesome" life do not impact society at large. OK, so they still poop outside .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
