German leader singles out demographic for arbitrary punishment/solution

Slot Machine

It's not about women "not being good enough", it's about a culture that refuses to acknowledge the idea that a women could be good enough.

nokia69 wrote: »

the wimmin

Ugh.

Littlekittylou

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

But do I know in what way its misleading ?

I think it might be in your brain. :-)


It's big in there!

EazyD

Slot Machine wrote: »

It's not about women "not being good enough", it's about a culture that refuses to acknowledge the idea that a women could be good enough.



Ugh.

It's fairly simple actually. Women have babies, often when that happens the career is put on hold and some employers are wary of such. Doesn't make it right I know but that's the thinking behind it.

Wibbs

Why aren't these same liberal bubble dwellers not arguing for more women in coal mining, deep sea diving, steel and metal workers, construction workers, trawler fishing types, bin collectors, truck drivers, farmers, frontline military, etc? It's nearly always what are seen as the "cushy" low risk higher return jobs they look for quotas in.

Never mind that these company leader jobs are the very top of the tree elite positions. The vast majority of men never get close to the same boardrooms either. Then again the so called "patriarchy" that many of your nitwits rail against is a false comparison to a tiny elite, not how the vast majority of people, men and women, live their lives and careers.

Gender quotas stand to hurt equality if you ask me. Simply put, if a man and woman are going for a particular position that has a gender quota that will be met by hiring the woman, then the man will never get the job even if he's more qualified or suited to the job. Gender quotas are complete bóllocksology.

DeadHand

Slot Machine wrote: »

It's not about women "not being good enough", it's about a culture that refuses to acknowledge the idea that a women could be good enough.

Then why are there several women who have earned these positions already?

Surely if the culture refused to "acknowledge the idea" that women could be good enough there would be none?

Littlekittylou

Wibbs wrote: »

Why aren't these same liberal bubble dwellers not arguing for more women in coal mining, deep sea diving, steel and metal workers, construction workers, trawler fishing types, bin collectors, truck drivers, farmers, frontline military, etc?

They do.

Why do men in those industries moan about women trying to break into them?

I know a female who is in rigging and construction and has been subjected to the most extreme sexual harassment.

You always hear people giving out about the idea of women in frontline military.

Wibbs

Littlekittylou wrote: »

They do.

Not nearly as much as for the cushier numbers.

Why do men in those industries moan about women trying to break into them?

I know a female who is in rigging and construction and has been subjected to the most extreme sexual harassment.

And many a man in sthe same industries will tell you of the near endless ribbing as a newbie/apprentice sent out to source air hooks and the like.

You always hear people giving out about the idea of women in frontline military.

Mainly because it boils down to simple biology and physics. The more technology based military stuff would be no barrier to women(or less robust men), but in actual frontline combat the sheer physicality of some men simply makes them more effective. EG I'd be a physically weak man by most measures and whlle there would be women out there that would have my measure when it got down to the dirty business of hand to hand, eyeball to eyeball wounding and killing they would be in the minority. If it came down to it, weak as I am, I'd "take out" the majority of women in such a situation. Never mind that aspect, consider an engagement where one of your number is hit and wounded and you have to get them away from danger, I'd be in real trouble trying to lift and move an average 12 or 13 stone guy and more women than men would be in similar trouble. In short a platoon or men against a platoon of women, only a fool would bet on the latter except for a rare outlier.

OK let's talk quotas. Why are there not more quotas in play for male teachers? Or health workers? Hell, why not more male biased quotas for higher education where men are dropping behind. EG In Canada the ratio of college goers is near 2 to 1 in favour of women.

Laura Palmer

Wibbs wrote: »

And many a man in sthe same industries will tell you of the near endless ribbing as a newbie/apprentice sent out to source air hooks and the like.

Ah here. I agree with everything else you say but you cannot compare the above to sexual harassment IMO.

DeadHand

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Ah here. I agree with everything else you say but you cannot compare the above to sexual harassment IMO.

You're right there but most male apprentices will be able to tell you about ferocious slagging from the older fellas regarding their sexual history, prowess and preferences as well as their looks, body type and physical features.

I went through it myself.

Didn't bother me but I suppose if I was sensitive or had an appetite for victimhood I could have called it sexual harassment.

Wibbs

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Ah here. I agree with everything else you say but you cannot compare the above to sexual harassment IMO.

Why not? Yes some of that kinda shíte can be sexual harassment, but some of it may also be "take the piss outa the newbie and aim for the obvious bits", IE their gender. I've also seen examples of women in mostly male dominated industries been given an easier time of it because of their gender.


For me personally it boils down to this; I don't give a tupenny fcuk about your race, creed, gender or sexuality, can you do the job or not? Full stop. Period for our American viewers. End of.

Littlekittylou

Wibbs wrote: »

Not nearly as much as for the cushier numbers.

And many a man in sthe same industries will tell you of the near endless ribbing as a newbie/apprentice sent out to source air hooks and the like.

Mainly because it boils down to simple biology and physics. The more technology based military stuff would be no barrier to women(or less robust men), but in actual frontline combat the sheer physicality of some men simply makes them more effective. EG I'd be a physically weak man by most measures and whlle there would be women out there that would have my measure when it got down to the dirty business of hand to hand, eyeball to eyeball wounding and killing they would be in the minority. If it came down to it, weak as I am, I'd "take out" the majority of women in such a situation. Never mind that aspect, consider an engagement where one of your number is hit and wounded and you have to get them away from danger, I'd be in real trouble trying to lift and move an average 12 or 13 stone guy and more women than men would be in similar trouble. In short a platoon or men against a platoon of women, only a fool would bet on the latter except for a rare outlier.

OK let's talk quotas. Why are there not more quotas in play for male teachers? Or health workers? Hell, why not more male biased quotas for higher education where men are dropping behind. EG In Canada the ratio of college goers is near 2 to 1 in favour of women.

What she went through ended up going to court and criminal charges were brought and there were convictions. There was a group mentality involved and a pervading culture in the industry.

It was nothing like what you describe above.

Even though she was vindicated when she went back she was subjected to bullying for some time after.

She got ahead because she is very good at what she does. She now works all over the world doing it. They are still stuck in Dublin. But she should never have had to go through that.

Laura Palmer

Wibbs wrote: »

Why not? Yes some of that kinda shíte can be sexual harassment, but some of it may also be "take the piss outa the newbie and aim for the obvious bits", IE their gender.

Ok well when I think of sexual harassment, I only think of the really horrible stuff like groping and intimidating obscenities, and making the person feel comfortable if alone with them in a lift etc. I don't deem the messing stuff to be sexual harassment, so my own definition of same is not the mild bawdy innuendo, but actual harassment.
It's rare but it happens.

What DeadHand describes is, in my opinion, a lot more extreme than a bit of messing too.

Littlekittylou

DeadHand wrote: »

You're right there but most male apprentices will be able to tell you about ferocious slagging from the older fellas regarding their sexual history, prowess and preferences as well as their looks, body type and physical features.

I went through it myself.

Didn't bother me but I suppose if I was sensitive or had an appetite for victimhood I could have called it sexual harassment.

Maybe then through highlighting of the issue we can change it all ....for the greater good.

It sounds kind of pointless and pathetic on the part of those who do that. They are usually the first to turn around and claim victim hood when they are called up on and and asked to stop.

Oi what about my rights of expression etc?

Its a balance of allowing a certain amount of steam to be blown off in the work place and making sure it never gets out of hand.

Wibbs

Littlekittylou wrote: »

Its a balance of allowing a certain amount of steam to be blown off in the work place and making sure it never gets out of hand.

Depends on what you gauge as "out of hand". In nigh on every society that has ever existed from cave dwellers onward "maleness" and the transition from boy to man for a culture at the time was funneled through a process of exposure to and guidance from older men that weren't your father. The apprenticeship of many trades and professions has a very deep history. IMH it is one aspect that is lacking for many young men these days and again IMH it is a part of why so many younger men are finding it hard to navigate life as they move from their childhood - youth - adulthood. Urban gang culture is an extreme example of that and where it goes wrong. Where adrift boys on the cusp of being men end up looking to slightly older boys/men because of a lack of positive adult men as role models. A more tragic example is the scary suicide rates among young men, men who should have so much to live for.

Again IMH, women can raise themselves more easily and mothers alone can raise them more easily, but men need more. As well as their mothers(and fathers), they need the community of men and positive role models within that community. If you leave boys to fend for themselves without that community, or you try to raise them as "acceptable to women" men, you're on a hiding to nowhere and a very deep history will bear this out as a damn near fact for the majority.

I would see the positive "female" influence on men as a good thing and especially a way to tone down some of the excesses of the "pure" male mind(especially the adolescent male mind), but only when balanced with the "male" influence. These days the latter is left up to chance and the "female" perspective is too often given priority.

Jester252

Congratulation to Germany for reducing strong, smart and powerfully women to a vagina need to fill a seat.

Fr_Dougal

Jester252 wrote: »

Congratulation to Germany for reducing strong, smart and powerfully women to a vagina need to fill a seat.

I believe they're doiing the same thing here in Ireland with regards to Dail seats.