Violence isn't justifiable no matter the context. I'll be the first to admit I'm pure asshole when I'm in the right mood, but I've never hit a woman and if I don't get to take the Sean Connery approach and slap a woman whenever she's being a bitch then the same should apply to them.Tagaziel said:
Men's Rights Activism
- Thread starter Hassknecht
- Start date
Tagaziel said:
I don't remember, probably an argument over trivial causes. As tends to happen sometimes.
As Formerk says, no actions ever warrant violence.
In a perfect world, yeah.
Tagaziel said:
I expect the world to live up to my standards (perfection).
Oh yay, straw men. Good fun.TheWesDude said:
The 79% is a largely useless number, correct. Jumping to the opposite conclusion that women aren't discriminated against is still stupid.
Once again: cite your numbers, please, because I can't corroborate these numbers anywhere. Sure, if you look at certain slices of data you'll find these issues (that's just natural variation), but you'll find a lot of slices of data where this isn't true. More importantly, this doesn't take into account a lot of other issues with gender discrimination (hiring policies, promotion, work treatment etc).TheWesDude said:
Well, this wouldn't be the first time Wes is just pulling stuff out of his ass.
There was an interesting study where scientists working at universities where asked to rate students for a laboratory manager position. The applications where randomly signed with male or female names. The applications with female names attached where consistently rated lower than the others, even by women.
There was an interesting study where scientists working at universities where asked to rate students for a laboratory manager position. The applications where randomly signed with male or female names. The applications with female names attached where consistently rated lower than the others, even by women.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
bux, also there was a study of professional orchestras hiring practices...
when the applicants name was known or performed in the open, men typically got the job.
when they hid the applicants name and they performed behind an opaque sheet, women were given the thumbs up more than men.
this is all sub-conscious or un-intended discrimination. laws dont fix this. laws cannot fix this. that is my point. all laws can do to "correct" this is enforce quotas, which would require the real possibility that a non-qualified or potentially inept person in a job.
people should be hired based on their ability and knowledge. the only way to remove sex from the equation is to not reveal first name or sex on an application, and any voice/physical interactions be disguised or masked to prevent sex or race or anything from being a consideration other than their merits.
but then you are entering into the whole "ideal world" type issues.
when the applicants name was known or performed in the open, men typically got the job.
when they hid the applicants name and they performed behind an opaque sheet, women were given the thumbs up more than men.
this is all sub-conscious or un-intended discrimination. laws dont fix this. laws cannot fix this. that is my point. all laws can do to "correct" this is enforce quotas, which would require the real possibility that a non-qualified or potentially inept person in a job.
people should be hired based on their ability and knowledge. the only way to remove sex from the equation is to not reveal first name or sex on an application, and any voice/physical interactions be disguised or masked to prevent sex or race or anything from being a consideration other than their merits.
but then you are entering into the whole "ideal world" type issues.
There's a problem, let's not try to fix it! Wait, what?TheWesDude said:
Hiring quotas, anti-discrimination laws do help against this kind of problem. Obviously.
This argument is incredibly weak. It's basically just a reason to not do anything. Ridiculous.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
no, the argument is laws do not solve the problem.
its not a legal issue in the most prevalent sense.
both men and women who are responsible overall do not like hiring women. lots of studies have shown this over and over.
they also create the inverse.
we are a company that does work on a government contract. we are required to meet quotas. because we are technical and computer orientated, we do not get many female applicants.
in the past 2.5 years we have received 1 application from a woman that passed the government mandated background checks.
she passed the HR interview with flying colors. then came the technical interview.
the best answer to the technical questions she was asked:
"what purpose does spanning tree protocol serve on a network"
her answer?
"spanning tree forms the branches of the network allowing everything to stem and spread out from them."
i was told that the 2 managers who were interviewing her looked at her wondering what the hell she was talking about. the rest of her answers were downhill from there.
she was not hired.
its not a legal issue in the most prevalent sense.
both men and women who are responsible overall do not like hiring women. lots of studies have shown this over and over.
they also create the inverse.
we are a company that does work on a government contract. we are required to meet quotas. because we are technical and computer orientated, we do not get many female applicants.
in the past 2.5 years we have received 1 application from a woman that passed the government mandated background checks.
she passed the HR interview with flying colors. then came the technical interview.
the best answer to the technical questions she was asked:
"what purpose does spanning tree protocol serve on a network"
her answer?
"spanning tree forms the branches of the network allowing everything to stem and spread out from them."
i was told that the 2 managers who were interviewing her looked at her wondering what the hell she was talking about. the rest of her answers were downhill from there.
she was not hired.
Yeeeessss...that's the issue. This can be fixed, and legal measures have a place there, too.TheWesDude said:
Problem: Women and men alike are less likely to hire women than they are men.
Solution: Incentivize companies to hire women, mandate hiring quotas to correct this, institute anti-discrimination laws that are enforcable.
Those are measures that directly address this problem. They are also measures that have been shown to work, as you should realise just glancing at them.
So your argument that this is not a strictly legal issue (err...what does that even mean?) is ridiculous. Moreover, your statement that this does not work is bullshit.
Aaaaaand this is not a problem, how exactly? This is not a good incentive to try to get more women a technical education? Y'know, through, say, gender-specific scholarships. Oh no, wait, you hate those!TheWesDude said:
Also, your company sucks dick at finding with a technical background. They do exist, y'know.
Sander said:
Please stop with the homophobic slurs, Sander.
donperkan
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Sander said:
Doesn't that create problems discussed on page one?
Yes, it creates the problem that women are leaving their God-given position crunching letters, brewing coffee and being molested by their employers and entering the taboo male work territory.
Absolutely abominable. If God wanted women to do male work, he'd have given them a penis.
[spoiler:98be88b2ab]For braindead cases: the above is sarcasm.[/spoiler:98be88b2ab]
Absolutely abominable. If God wanted women to do male work, he'd have given them a penis.
[spoiler:98be88b2ab]For braindead cases: the above is sarcasm.[/spoiler:98be88b2ab]
Technical educations are a problem, I think.
Public and higher education in Germany is pretty cheap (compared to the US or UK or whatever. Tuition is ~500€ per semester max.) and also rather good. There are a lot of extra programs in schools to get girls to take an interest in physics, math, engineering and so on, but still, there are very few women actually studying physics, even less study engineering and don't even ask about IT. Math does surprisingly well, though.
So yeah, the overall amount of women with a proper education in those fields is simply lower despite a lot of encouragement. I actually wanted to participate in quite a few extracurricular activities in school, but most of them were only for the girls.
So how could one fix this? Quotas don't exactly work in some fields like engineering or natural sciences (except for biology). The solution would be sponsorships and scholarships and whatnot for women, and other programs for young girls to interest them in natural sciences. These exist, but they don't seem to work all that well, it seems that the social stigmata the natural sciences and engineering are still too strong.
So how could one fix that? More programs, more scholarships?
Public and higher education in Germany is pretty cheap (compared to the US or UK or whatever. Tuition is ~500€ per semester max.) and also rather good. There are a lot of extra programs in schools to get girls to take an interest in physics, math, engineering and so on, but still, there are very few women actually studying physics, even less study engineering and don't even ask about IT. Math does surprisingly well, though.
So yeah, the overall amount of women with a proper education in those fields is simply lower despite a lot of encouragement. I actually wanted to participate in quite a few extracurricular activities in school, but most of them were only for the girls.
So how could one fix this? Quotas don't exactly work in some fields like engineering or natural sciences (except for biology). The solution would be sponsorships and scholarships and whatnot for women, and other programs for young girls to interest them in natural sciences. These exist, but they don't seem to work all that well, it seems that the social stigmata the natural sciences and engineering are still too strong.
So how could one fix that? More programs, more scholarships?
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
they found a solution we found out yesterday.
find one of the women who passed the background check and failed the technical interview(s), and then hire them in a non-technical manager spot.
so which ever shift gets her, will have to deal with training a non-technical person on the technical aspects of our job so they can be their manager intelligently.
the reason its so hard to find qualified people let alone women/minorities:
1) the government background check
2) the shift work we do ( 12s, 3 on, 4 off, 4 on 3 off )
3) it is a purely technical job
the main reason i got the job? i had passed that government background check before. i barely passed the technical interview. i had no previous experience in this area, and had taken a class at a technical college for it.
the background check is where most people fail. if you fail that check, you cant get the job. plus there are requirements for certs you must have. if you dont have them, you cant apply for the job now due to changes in the rules.
its not that the company sucks at finding technical people, its that most of the people they find cannot pass the background check or finding people with that cert already.
and the fresher you are out of college, the harder it is to pass that background check they have found.
find one of the women who passed the background check and failed the technical interview(s), and then hire them in a non-technical manager spot.
so which ever shift gets her, will have to deal with training a non-technical person on the technical aspects of our job so they can be their manager intelligently.
the reason its so hard to find qualified people let alone women/minorities:
1) the government background check
2) the shift work we do ( 12s, 3 on, 4 off, 4 on 3 off )
3) it is a purely technical job
the main reason i got the job? i had passed that government background check before. i barely passed the technical interview. i had no previous experience in this area, and had taken a class at a technical college for it.
the background check is where most people fail. if you fail that check, you cant get the job. plus there are requirements for certs you must have. if you dont have them, you cant apply for the job now due to changes in the rules.
its not that the company sucks at finding technical people, its that most of the people they find cannot pass the background check or finding people with that cert already.
and the fresher you are out of college, the harder it is to pass that background check they have found.
What sort of elaborate background check is that, if most people cannot pass it? Do you fail if you've had sex before marriage?
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Background checks are getting out of hand IMO. The new employee must be spotless, they check your Facebook inside and out, where you lived,what school you went, all kinds of things. Also, even for basic jobs, you usually need 2-3years of experience in your domain. No choice but to acquire that experience through underpaid or just unpaid internships, and hope youu don't do anything naughty along that way. Many businesses don't want employees, they want automatons that do the job without saying a word and without wasting a single dollar in training or in stuff like maternity leaves.
Sorry for the mini-rant, but this kind of BS applies to both men and women. Maybe women have it worse. I do know (being friends with a guy from Human Ressources of a company) that they left a girl out because she talked about eventually having children on her Facebook, once she was married. Said girl is qualified above and beyond the call, yet a few Facebook comments and ciao, we don't want you anymore.
And after they complain that they lack qualified personnel. FFS.
Sorry for the mini-rant, but this kind of BS applies to both men and women. Maybe women have it worse. I do know (being friends with a guy from Human Ressources of a company) that they left a girl out because she talked about eventually having children on her Facebook, once she was married. Said girl is qualified above and beyond the call, yet a few Facebook comments and ciao, we don't want you anymore.
And after they complain that they lack qualified personnel. FFS.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
not sure about the specifics, but it involves a hair drug test where they go back the full 7 years. plus full investigation of not only you, but your family. plus the typical criminal record and credit checks.
more red flags you have, lower the chance they will even allow an interview to explain red flags. and i dont work for some joe blow company, i technically fall under the DOD. so its not your typical average background check, and they have resources to investigate not available to normal companies.
more red flags you have, lower the chance they will even allow an interview to explain red flags. and i dont work for some joe blow company, i technically fall under the DOD. so its not your typical average background check, and they have resources to investigate not available to normal companies.
Crni Vuk said:
i am a bit late to the party and i cringed at some of this thread, but i cannot let this stand.
the difference is huge. no discussion. you cannot argue or dream or philosophize (is that a word?) it away.
background: i have spent the better part of 7 years in the german army working with conscripts and career soldiers during basic and specialised training. i serve with force recon. my observation is this: the average male conscript (conscripts were chosen pretty randomly, mind you) beats 90% of the female sergeants i have met to date, no matter the branch, when it comes to athletics. yes.
why do you think the standards in the anual fitness tests are different for men and women? i mean just look at the german sports badge (which is just one of many), and the requirements in each discipline.
example: shot put. ages 18-29:
for males: 8m with 7.26kg shot,
for females: 6.5m with 4kg shot.
another one: 3000m dash, same ages:
men: 13 minutes,
women: 18 minutes, 30 seconds.
how is this equal? the badge is designed for the average civilian joe to earn, which means it is not exactly hard.
i'm sorry, but even arguing this is borderline delusional. i went through and passed the german equivalent of ranger training. some of the staff that run the required courses are active SF (Airborne Recon, LRRP or KSK) or injury related ex-SF.
(also, they sometimes send their guys over to our bataillon to train with our APCs)
i talked to a few of them. you know how many women applied for SF selection in the last ten years?
3.
you know how many have passed?
zero.
they all failed on the first day because not one could perform the required 5 (FIVE!) pull-ups. on the first day. in the gym. 5 pull-ups is nothing, and one can easily train to achieve them. i'd say 4 to 6 weeks for the average, healthy guy, maybe a little longer for a woman.
keep in mind you get to train 3 months before even attending selection.
this has nothing to do with psychological pressure (which women are better at coping with anyway) during selection or training. most women don't even get that far (also because ranger training is a prerequisite, and few women pass this). it's just basic physiology and has zero to do with discrimination. that's why there is constant talk about lowering the selection standards for women.
case in point: olympics. peak of current human performance. if your argument were valid, peak performances between men and women would be equal. objectively, they are not. that alone should suffice.
anyway, i know that i do not know every single female soldier in the german army, but i know a lot. in fact, my ex-gf of 6 years is a sergeant right now. and in all my time i have only met 2 girls that were genuine ass-kickers and with whom i would gladly go into a combat situation. but they are exceptions.
P.S.: i have also seen, talked to and trained with female soldiers from other NATO countries. oh boy. but that's another story.
P.P.S.: also, israel is completely different, because their political situation requires them to have the complete population being able to defend themselves. has got nothing to do with equal rights.
edit: dem words is hard.
