[Contextualized Study] Job discrimination towards men

[Thereturn]

Riiiight. Because that exaggeration really illustrates an effective comparison between people historically not represented or allowed participation. What a bunch of baloney.

So what? If a company was doing something that adversely affected their goals and profitability that would be their problem. Are all 10 of the new managers unsuited? What if they are not? Then it would seem a very good idea to have 10 new managers who represent female participants if the workforce is "80% male".

If they are all poor managers, which seems unlikely given that there are 10 of them supposedly, then the company is at fault for their poor vetting during hiring and promotion. Their gender would be irrelevant in either case EXCEPT to bring more diversity to an 80% male workforce.

We don't hear about those fields of labor much at all because those jobs, though essential, are also socially marginalized. Which creates a misrepresentation of laborers and social participants. Just as... nursing or child care by compairison.

In my company everyone knows one another well. So yeah, we all know who is suited and who is not and is has been discussed in every team aswell.

You jump to subjective conclusions way too fast but i guess thats that when discussing this subject with someone thats on the other side of this coin. My personal experience is that i cant have a proper conversation about this with any woman. They all resort too “but discrimination is OK when it comes to handing out jobs” and when you push a little further “we are forced to be moms by society!” Totally depriving themselfs of any blame on the subject or personal responsibility. Its somehow never the choice of the woman to work parttime after kids. (Hint; in new generations it usually is)

Dont get me wrong; diversity in management DOES lead to more quality discussion. But it should be an organic growth caused by more and more job participation by women which will also up the % in management, not a quota.

Which is the real discussion behind the discussion: why arent women working more? Why are so many modern women working parttime? Why are so many women working fulltime copeimg with burnout?

[Elegiac]

You jump to subjective conclusions way too fast

My personal experience is

You really don't get how you're contradicting your own point here, do you.

Which is the real discussion behind the discussion: why arent women working more? Why are so many modern women working parttime? Why are so many women working fulltime copeimg with burnout?

For all we know this has been explained to you and those explanations are what you're classifying as "improper discussion" based on a small set of anecdotes. Rofl.

[Elegiac]

A) being too radical and voicing your concerns in an unintelligent way

I.e. tone policing. You disagreeing with an opinion or the means by which it's being addressed doesn't mean it's illegitimate, especially when the counters to said legitimacy all seem to boil down to "Well maybe people like being forcibly boxed into a strict binary in which one party is clearly subordinate to the other based on sex, because if they didn't then why hasn't the situation resolved itself already?'"

It's as inane an argument as claiming racism doesn't exist because 'if racism is bad then people would have stopped being racist by now'.

[Dezerte]

This hasn't been explained at all.

The whole equality idea assumes that genders wants to be equal. But do we have proof of that? Do both (all) genders have the same priorities? I haven't yet seen proof of that, and I'm not sure if one can even provide that proof because ofc people's responses to a survey would be influenced by the way they were brought up, so it's an especially difficult topic.

Do we want the ability and freedom to do what we want without fear of societal norms or unequal restrictions? I'd wager most if not all would say yes.

[Elegiac]

That's not my argument. My argument is that I don't live in an idealist vacuum but in the real world where people have feelings that can be hurt and thus change can only be achieved by intelligent and peaceful insistence on truth, not by insulting your opponents. Even if they support an incredibly stupid point of view, actually unfortunately in such cases even more moderation is required to be able to achieve anything because these people get angry much more easily and stuck in their ignorant worldview.

So, yeah. Your issue is not that what they are saying is incorrect in any way, it's how it's being said - i.e. tone policing.

The problem with that is that "intelligent and peaceful insistence on truth" more often than not just tends to be code for ignoring topics that are too confrontational and/or boxing discussion into terms that are constructed to support the status quo.

Also lol @ "insisting on truth" when your entire position is built on anecdotes that you know aren't generalisable or, worse, blaming problems which are actually a function of the market or capitalism being shitty on a push for inclusivity and equity which... Kinda cringe, tbh.

[Dezerte]

Absolutely true. But that's not the question IMO. The question is "are we all strong-willed enough to be able to live in a world free of all expectations?". I honestly believe most people are not and that most people are actually much more content following a set of rules and fulfilling others' expectations.

NOT ALL PEOPLE OF COURSE, before somebody misquotes me. But I believe that the current discourse is leading in the wrong way - we should absolutely help those who have to face unfair disadvantages and remove those barriers. At the same time, I think many people feel like being super free and openminded and trying new things and blahblahblah is the only "right way" to live and because they do not posses the character traits for such a life, they end up being unhappy because they feel weak and left out.

I think we are just moving the feeling of unfulfillment from one group to another. For example women that want a career and want their husband to take care of the kids are probably super happy now, same for men who hate building a career and want to be happy fathers being there for their kids like their fathers never were. But the women who want to dedicate their life to raising children for example are looked down upon and thus unhappy.

We should find some middle ground. This is anedcotal evidence only of course but I've heard this from countless friends, both male and female.

That is essentially what equality is about. The question you pose is more asking what the challenges are, which there are some of. But that shouldn't mean we stop trying. Even supposing what you're saying here is true, that most people are more content following societal norms, it does not mean that other people should be looked down upon for breaking them. Nobody should be forced to conform to societal norms, whether they are old or new - in fact, norms shouldn't at all be seen as some definitive way of life but more of an option.

Those that don't wish to change their own life shouldn't have to, so if a man wants to work in childcare we as a society should not look down upon such a person. And similarly if a man wants to work construction we shouldn't look down upon that either.

The middle ground here is to say that it's okay to do what you want, not that it's okay to look down on people for breaking norms. People minding their own business shouldn't be a high bar to reach.

[Fencers]

In my company everyone knows one another well. So yeah, we all know who is suited and who is not and is has been discussed in every team aswell.

So are the new mangers unfit for the role or not?

You jump to subjective conclusions way too fast but i guess thats that when discussing this subject with someone thats on the other side of this coin.

I went based on what you said and presented both sides of the coin; If they were unfit and if they were qualified for the role. The outcome would still be the same and the onus of the company.

My personal experience is that i cant have a proper conversation about this with any woman.

Hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

They all resort too “but discrimination is OK when it comes to handing out jobs” and when you push a little further “we are forced to be moms by society!” Totally depriving themselfs of any blame on the subject or personal responsibility. Its somehow never the choice of the woman to work parttime after kids. (Hint; in new generations it usually is)

Uh...

Dont get me wrong; diversity in management DOES lead to more quality discussion. But it should be an organic growth caused by more and more job participation by women which will also up the % in management, not a quota.

That's exactly what I was saying, dude. If it is a "quota" that is driving these promotions and hirings of then the company is making a mistake and will likely suffer for mismanagement if the hires are also unfit for the role. But that is not the fault of diverse hiring, the desire for workplace equity, or one's own "subjective" experience. The company is doing poorly in choosing talent.

I and most of my friends and family have worked for corporations at management and directorial levels- I don't know any workplace that actually ever had a diversity quota. PErhaps that is different abroad, but I worked for a German company and lived and worked in Europe and Asia as well. Still, no such thing as a diversity quota was handed to me by anyone.

Which is the real discussion behind the discussion: why arent women working more? Why are so many modern women working parttime? Why are so many women working fulltime copeimg with burnout?

I am not sure this is all universally applicable. Especially in the US.

[rayvio]

Breaking News: Sexism against men now 1/20 as bad as sexism against women, boofuckinghoo.

both are serious issues. acknowledging the fact that there is some discrimination against men doesn't negate the awfulness of the discrimination against women

[Grimbold21]

Woah, I'm surprised this thread wasn't locked on page 1...

[Doctor Amadeus]

There's a huge gap between adressing problems and being a SJW/canceler.

If you legitimarely adress a legitimate problem, you are not being a SJW or canceler. If you get labeled one, you are either A) being too radical and voicing your concerns in an unintelligent way or B) the listener is one and then you need to find a better listener.

This is complete nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

Woah, I'm surprised this thread wasn't locked on page 1...

So you made this thread with every intention of breaking the rules and expecting it to get locked.

[Grimbold21]

So you made this thread with every intention of breaking the rules and expecting it to get locked.

Yes, those two statements mean entirely the same thing...

[Rozz]

Prolly because I don't live here. It's closed now.