Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Women are witnessing friends and family being maimed and killed too, they're getting maimed, killed and also raped, and are the mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, wives and girlfriends of those going to war. Of course, men make up the majority of casualties on the battlefield, but the civilian population left behind would have a majority of women.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Maybe this Snopes article would help you see the context in which Clinton made her comment. For starters, she made that comment at a conference on domestic violence in El Salvador in 1998, at a time that country was still reeling from a vicious civil war.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Women are witnessing friends and family being maimed and killed too, they're getting maimed, killed and also raped, and are the mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, wives and girlfriends of those going to war. Of course, men make up the majority of casualties on the battlefield, but the civilian population left behind would have a majority of women. The first time I saw that extract of Clinton's speech in this thread, I thought of the infamous campaign of rape carried out by the Soviets as they made their way to Berlin, along with the brutality Da'esh have inflicted upon Yazidi, Christian, Shia and moderate Sunni women. Maybe this Snopes article would help you see the context in which Clinton made her comment. For starters, she made that comment at a conference on domestic violence in El Salvador in 1998, at a time that country was still reeling from a vicious civil war.
py2006 wrote: » Oh I remember this. The victims of war were not those who witnessed friends maimed and killed, were not those who got maimed or killed themselves, were not the fathers, grandfathers, sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends of the men......it was women!!
silverharp wrote: » A bias one way or the other isnt a problem if there is a perceived commercial advantage. If a hairdresser wanted all or mostly women and a barber wanted men then each could be perceiving that the customer might prefer the vibe and spend more money or come back more
silverharp wrote: » Reminds me of Hillary saying that the primary victims of war are women
tritium wrote: » AND...again with missing the point! Saying that men are discriminated for some roles is counterbalanced somehow by a completely different selection criteria applied to picking "suitable" female candidates is the ridiculous aspect here. Your counter bias bears absolutely no bearing on the initial discrimination unless all male applicants are also overweight and unpresentable. The equivalent position in my modified statement would be the spurious argument that virtually no women get appointed always on the same basis that some men get rejected Clearer now?
Billy86 wrote: » Well by CV, I mean would most tattoo parlors not even consisder possibly considering you for a job on the basis on not having a penis? Don't mean that to sound accusatory by the way, because it definitely does strike me as the type of industry where there would be a gender bias.
tritium wrote: » Is the there maybe a but of this for one gender or other in pretty much any job though. I remember working in a few bars when I was younger where female staff got to feck off at the end of the night while male staff did all the cleanup. Male waiting staff also tended to be pulled from the floor if anything needed to be done and ended up losing out badly on tips etc. Colleagues seemed to think it was pretty much just the way everywhere.
bodice ripper wrote: » No, lots of places are happy to have a female tattoo artist, if only to make the place seem less threatening. But you end up expected to do desk work that none of the male tattoo artists are even asked to do. And you get shafted with smaller, less desirable work because you are perceived to be less likely to kick up about it.
bodice ripper wrote: » What cv? You definitely have a harder time proving your worth. I am ok with it by the way, but it is definitely a thing.
Billy86 wrote: » It would be, true (like I said the bias can go both ways). Would it be usual for a tattoo parlor to refuse to so much as look at your CV because you don't have a willy?
bodice ripper wrote: » I am not an attractive woman, and tattooing is definitely male dominated.
Billy86 wrote: » Im not saying all workplaces are biased (and indeed they are biased and reversed) but I my time working in and for recruitment companies, I can tell you that there is no greater advantage to entry (even ibtermediate) level type positions than being an attractive woman. Most companies I've seen wouldn't even consider looking at a male CV for admin positions and the likes. Because my job involves keeping tabs in who has positions available, I'll often tip off people I know... almost without fail if it is an admin or reception type role, all the women I tell are ran through what the position is, asked to send in their cv etc, and some have got the job from that. The men are told they were 'ghost postings' - eg that the positions don't actually exist,at least 90% of the time. Like I said it cuts both ways (and I'm not an MRA type), but that's an example of one type of job that is extremely prejudicial against men.
Recruitment for boardroom roles may be biased against women, but its also biased against males who lack strong influential business networks by conventional standards, or who are considered too young. Rightly or wrongly such roles tend to emphasise business networking skills and good connections,, and anyone who doesn't "look the part," whether male or female, doesn't stand much of a chance
NoCrackHaving wrote: » Also, generally speaking, receptionist type roles are quite poorly paid, they're not that desirable a gig for a lot of people, male or female.
NoCrackHaving wrote: » This post had been deleted.
Permabear wrote: » This post has been deleted.
