Chinese Tech Companies Post Men-Only Job Listings, Report Finds (theverge.com) 438
Major Chinese tech companies like Huawei, Alibaba, and Tencent discriminate against women in their online job listings, a new report from Human Rights Watch found today. Some job postings directly state they are for men only, while others specify that women must have attractive appearances and even be a certain height. The Verge reports: The Human Rights Watch report reveals gender discrimination amongst major tech companies, as in the rest of Chinese society, is common and widespread. Search engine Baidu listed a job for content reviewers in March 2017 stating that applicants had to be men with the "strong ability to work under pressure, able to work on weekends, holidays and night shifts." The conglomerate Tencent, which owns WeChat, the massive game Honor of Kings, and a majority stake in League of Legends, was found to have posted an ad for a sports content editor in March 2017, stating it was looking for "strong men who are able to work nightshifts."
And Alibaba, despite Jack Ma touting the company's inclusiveness, merited an entire case study from the Human Rights Watch report. The report noted the e-commerce giant came under fire in 2015 for posting a job ad on its site for a "computer programmer's motivator" seeking women applicants with physical characteristics like Japanese adult film star Sola Aoi. Alibaba removed the reference to Sola Aoi after media reported on it, but kept the ad on the site. As recently as January this year, Alibaba still mentioned "men preferred" in job listings for "restaurant operations support specialist" positions. Tech companies also often tout the attractive women they've hired as incentives for more men to come on board, according to the HRW report. Both Tencent and Baidu were noted to have posted to their social media accounts interviews with male employees who cited having beautiful women around them as an incentive for working there.
And Alibaba, despite Jack Ma touting the company's inclusiveness, merited an entire case study from the Human Rights Watch report. The report noted the e-commerce giant came under fire in 2015 for posting a job ad on its site for a "computer programmer's motivator" seeking women applicants with physical characteristics like Japanese adult film star Sola Aoi. Alibaba removed the reference to Sola Aoi after media reported on it, but kept the ad on the site. As recently as January this year, Alibaba still mentioned "men preferred" in job listings for "restaurant operations support specialist" positions. Tech companies also often tout the attractive women they've hired as incentives for more men to come on board, according to the HRW report. Both Tencent and Baidu were noted to have posted to their social media accounts interviews with male employees who cited having beautiful women around them as an incentive for working there.
Alternate headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Other cultures are actually different, Euro and Euro derived cultures are shocked to discover!
"This isn't the diversity we had in mind", activists quoted as saying ...
Re: (Score:2)
Given that it's Human Rights Watch and they have a long history (40 years) of reporting on what goes on in China, I doubt this came as much of a surprise to them. Women's rights have long been a concern to them, especially during the one child policy era.
Re:Alternate headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Other cultures are actually different, Euro and Euro derived cultures are shocked to discover!
"This isn't the diversity we had in mind", activists quoted as saying ...
I had a discussion with our diversity counselor about this very subject. She was promoting "cherishing" other cultures. My question was "Should we cherish all cultures?
She said "Of course - all cultures are valid and must be cherished"
My next question was "What about Saudi Arabia, where you wouldn't even be allowed t drive, much less have many other rights? Where your dress today might get you stoned?"
She replied "Next Question - someone else?"
I think it is massively wrong to have "men only" jobs. But do we abandon the dictates of diversity and attempt to impose our cultures dictates on the very cultures we have been told to cherish?
Re:Alternate headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but your Diversity Counselor was ill-prepared on the topic or just didn't care for your question. Your question is very common and asked all the time. She should have faced that question in almost ALL her sessions. Its not an invalid question, nor one without a simple answer. A co-worker asked a similar question and got a pretty good response.
"Of course - all cultures are valid and must be cherished" ...?"
"What about
Just because we say all cultures should be cherished doesn't mean we must accept all aspects of their cultures. The statement appears extreme because the alternative is more dangerous. With the statement, there is an attempt to understand the other culture. With the goal, one culture can more effectively compare & assess their own practices/norms. This leads to an evolution where we incorporate the highlights of the other culture. Eventually, with open doors, both cultures benefit by influencing the other with the best of what they have and removing their worst practices.
The alternative is to easily dismiss the entire culture based on a few known horrible practices. This is very natural for humans. But it results in siloed societies where each thinks they are the best there is and the rest are barbarians. There is no will nor reason to objectively assess each other and themselves. This results in misunderstandings, and conflicts that only hurt the standard of living of all involved.
For Saudi Arabia, its a cultural norm to wash your hands before eating (even at restaurants). Families are very important and very big. Their country really puts their citizenry first and well in front of all others. Of course they have a ton of bad practices, but those don't devalue the good. Some of which we can use in the US.
Re:Alternate headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because we say all cultures should be cherished doesn't mean we must accept all aspects of their cultures.
If we don't accept all aspects of their cultures, then we don't cherish them. Cherish means "protect and care for (someone) lovingly", "hold (something) dear", or "keep (a hope or ambition) in one's mind". If you want to change it, you're not protecting and caring for it in its current state. If you hold it dear, you don't want to change it. If it's your hope or ambition, you don't want to change it — you want to implement it.
We should not cherish cultures which are abusive. And we should cherish our fucking dictionaries so that we can have meaningful conversations.
Re: (Score:3)
The statement was not meant to imply that every aspect of a culture should be cherished without question, merely that the good aspects if it should not be dismissed because they are different to our own.
You can argue over the semantics but orlanz is still right about this. It's a shame the councillor didn't explain it.
Re:Alternate headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Dictionary.com: Cherish
-to hold or treat as dear; feel love for
-to care for tenderly; nurture
-to cling fondly or inveterately to
Note there isn't anything about "all" or "everything" or anything synonymous to that. Cherish doesn't mean blind love of all good and bad. That would be idiotic.
An example: A mother can cherish her children, but that doesn't mean she condones, nor approves their drug addiction or gang membership.
Re: (Score:3)
Cherish means "protect and care for (someone) lovingly", "hold (something) dear", or "keep (a hope or ambition) in one's mind".
It's entirely possible to care deeply for someone or something, while recognizing they have flaws, and working to improve them precisely because you do care/cherish them. It's the dichotomy of being human, no one is perfect, everyone has flaws. All we can do is to seek to improve ourselves and help others improve.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because we say all cultures should be cherished doesn't mean we must accept all aspects of their cultures.
If we don't accept all aspects of their cultures, then we don't cherish them. Cherish means "protect and care for (someone) lovingly", "hold (something) dear", or "keep (a hope or ambition) in one's mind". If you want to change it, you're not protecting and caring for it in its current state. If you hold it dear, you don't want to change it. If it's your hope or ambition, you don't want to change it — you want to implement it.
We should not cherish cultures which are abusive. And we should cherish our fucking dictionaries so that we can have meaningful conversations.
You just won the internet for this week Drinkypoo. A double shot of truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but your Diversity Counselor was ill-prepared on the topic or just didn't care for your question.
Of course she didn't care for the question. The question is a deal breaker.
Just because we say all cultures should be cherished doesn't mean we must accept all aspects of their cultures.
Here's what I believe. I believe that men and women are equal under the law. This does not mean there are no differences in physical or mental charistics. As for cherishing - that is what we should cherish. Equality is what I believe in. And here is the issue. China is getting their chops busted because some of their jobs are for men only.
Wailing and gnashing of teeth ensues. I would early love to hear you make a dissertation on
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to adjust that last statement of yours, into a discussion without gender.
I also think that it's pretty dumb to not let women work.
I do, however, think it's very dumb to have everyone in a household working a career. I think there's no such thing as a life-work balance if everyone works a job, and works to maintain a household -- there's simply no time left to enjoy the household.
So what if we "adjust" these other cultural norms to remove "men only" and replace it with "only one human per household
Re:Alternate headline (Score:4, Funny)
This precise conversation got me a disciplinary note as a student in the late 1980s at the University of MN Twin Cities - I was in an anthropology class where the professor and 8? other classmates were women. I was the only man.
We studied primitive cultures where the professor refused to condemn cannibalism (!) on the basis that it was unreasonable to judge their culture by our western, white standards.
Later, when we studied female-liberation issues across south Asia and South Africa, I asked your same question - by insisting on the equality of women, aren't we just being cultural imperialists?
I was not simply ignored, I was flat-out attacked by the professor and fellow-travelers for being regressive, patriarchal, and suggested that perhaps I should look for another class. (I ended up getting a complaint note in my file from the prof...I didn't even know there WERE such stupid things at the University level?)
But...well, I confess as a younger man, I was much more confrontational and interested in "energetic" debate, so I stayed in the class for the rest of the quarter. Every session I bothered to make a comment, I was either met with stone-cold silence or was the focus for attacks.
I probably enjoyed it way too much.
Re: (Score:2)
And then you married a dominatrix?
Re: (Score:3)
I had a discussion with our diversity counselor about this very subject. She was promoting "cherishing" other cultures. My question was "Should we cherish all cultures?
Actuall that diversity counselor remembers it differently.
"This trolling twerp tried to play a pointless rhetorical gambit with me, but got frustrated when I ignored their disingenuous needling."
When anyone with a unique job title (e.g. diversity counselor, CEO, managing partner) asks "Any questions?" you shouldn't interpret it as "Challenge my views, I welcome all criticisms". Doing so is highly detrimental to your career. These people don't get into these positions by being trail blazers or truth seekers, they get there with raw ambition, manipulation, and lack of scruples. You should always remember that.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a discussion with our diversity counselor about this very subject. She was promoting "cherishing" other cultures. My question was "Should we cherish all cultures?
Actuall that diversity counselor remembers it differently.
"This trolling twerp tried to play a pointless rhetorical gambit with me, but got frustrated when I ignored their disingenuous needling."
When anyone with a unique job title (e.g. diversity counselor, CEO, managing partner) asks "Any questions?" you shouldn't interpret it as "Challenge my views, I welcome all criticisms". Doing so is highly detrimental to your career. These people don't get into these positions by being trail blazers or truth seekers, they get there with raw ambition, manipulation, and lack of scruples. You should always remember that.
At that point in time - the conditions were not so draconian as today. This was when a man could disagree with a woman without it being sufficient grounds for dismissal. Today? As pointed out to some folks here, I have no opinion, If the political correctness enforcer says the sky is heliotrope in color, and that there are an infinite number og genders, I would just sit there quietly.
Today - as David Thornley points out, and agrees with - annoying a woman is legitimate grounds for terminating a mans care
Re: (Score:2)
I had a discussion with our diversity counselor about this very subject. She was promoting "cherishing" other cultures. My question was "Should we cherish all cultures?
Actuall that diversity counselor remembers it differently.
"This trolling twerp tried to play a pointless rhetorical gambit with me, but got frustrated when I ignored their disingenuous needling."
No doubt she does. I was promoting equality of the sexes, while she was trying to defend male enforced head to toe covering and not allowing women to travel without a male family member, and sex based driving pribeliges.
She probably should have been happy that I didn't bring up the tradition in some cultues of clitorectomy.
Sucks when the core principle of your narrative means you support what you don't support. Cognitive dissonance is not exclusive to the far right wing.
Re: (Score:3)
At some point, to progress human rights, we must be willing to draw a line and say 'this cannot be tolerated'. Intolerance such as this lies on the far side of such a line, and most reasonable people would understand the important contradiction inherent in 'absolute tolerance'.
I think tolerance is better understood as a sort of a peace treaty, rather than a moral principle. That is, I'm not obligated to show you tolerance because I'm a moral person, rather, I'm obligated to show you tolerance if I'd like you to show me tolerance -- and to show it to others, too, because what goes around comes around. If someone breaches the tolerance peace treaty by deciding it's okay to be intolerant, then that person has lost any right to expect tolerance from others, at least with respect to t
Re:The paradox of tolerating intolerance (Score:5, Interesting)
Who gets to define what constitutes progress?
Wrong question, you're making an appeal to authority, an assumption that some *person* should be doing the deciding. That's a bad approach. Of course you're not really asking the question, you know it's a bad approach and you know that anyone reading it will know it's a bad approach, so you're asking the question rhetorically in an effort to discredit the notion that any decision is right. That's underhanded argumentation. Say what you mean.
The right question is what *principles* should be used to decide. Obviously, not everyone will agree on the principles, which is why we fall back on democratic ideals. To avoid tyrannies of the majority, we use democratic processes to decide broad, high-level principles rather than to answer specific questions. Then we apply reason and debate to those principles.
In this case, the core principle is that of freedom. Cultures are free to do what they want, but that freedom ends where it begins infringing on the freedom of individuals (of course, we make exceptions where to allow too much individual freedom causes bad outcomes for society as a whole -- there's a balance to be found. Yes, this is hard.). The notion that women are morally equal to men (which isn't saying they're the same as men) means that they should have the same opportunities to compete for the jobs based on their ability to do the job.
I argue that this freedom for women trumps the freedom of Chinese culture to restrict their role in society. Do you actually disagree? On what basis?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they'll be breaking through the Great Firewall of China any day now.
Re: (Score:3)
Cultures compete. The winners set the rules. That's how it's always been.
Now, I strongly prefer when values change to what I consider more moral, but I don't have a whole heck of a lot of influence here.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Romania there are plenty ads looking for women-only, it's obvious from the ad itself because we have genre-specific nouns, for example a male clerk is called "vânztor" whereas a female clerk is called "vânztoare". So when the ad says "vânztoare" it's clearly biased. Nobody gives two shits though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I like how you invented a quote them claimed that some anonymous activist said it. I guess the activist had to be anonymous otherwise it's be even more obvious you made it up.
So you're saying that this is the diversity you had in mind?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Alternate headline (Score:2)
Re: Alternate headline (Score:4, Insightful)
So my "invented" quote
Putting scare quotes around invented doesn't change the fact you're making shit up. The fact you opened with an alternaitve "fact", then doubled down with an intentional isreading means you are not arguing in good faith. There's therefore no point trying to have an actual conversation, so I'll simply highlight your lies for the benefit of other people.
Re: Alternate headline (Score:4, Insightful)
So my "invented" quote
Putting scare quotes around invented doesn't change the fact you're making shit up. The fact you opened with an alternaitve "fact", then doubled down with an intentional isreading means you are not arguing in good faith. There's therefore no point trying to have an actual conversation, so I'll simply highlight your lies for the benefit of other people.
I thought it was bleeding obvious that I was making a pointed joke. It never even occurred to me that someone might think it was an actual quote.
Why am I even bothering to explain this?
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying that this is the diversity you had in mind?
So you're not denying your original post was a lie. I mean who cares if it's a lie if it feels right, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying that this is the diversity you had in mind?
So you're not denying your original post was a lie. I mean who cares if it's a lie if it feels right, eh?
I thought it was bleeding obvious that it was a pointed joke. Never even occurred to me that someone might think it was an actual quote.
Re: (Score:3)
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Stamping your feet that the more efficient method is unfair will mean nothing if our economy ends up crashing and there's no money to pay for things, nor any more rich people to blame for it.
Re: (Score:3)
and having men only position kinda pushes that agenda too. Look at the most recent study on Uber drivers and pay inequality. Men and women typically make different choices and that's reinforced by what we're told our roles are in society.
I have a feeling a lot more men would peruse art, journalism, music and culture, if it wasn't for the idea that they need to "provider for their families." No matter how much of a progressive ethos we try to push, those beliefs hold in place because in the end, we do all ha
Re: Alternate headline (Score:2)
Bill Clinton sold out the American working class to the Chinese in exchange for a big bribe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding, China is super diverse. They are like... 100% Asian!
That reminds me of something I recently saw about the diversity of Black Panther [facebook.com].
what? (Score:5, Funny)
Both Tencent and Baidu were noted to have posted to their social media accounts interviews with male employees who cited having beautiful women around them as an incentive for working there.
That's crazy talk; no way do men like being surrounded by beautiful women!
Re: (Score:3)
Worse (Score:2)
That sheds an even worse light on chinese programmers than on chinese companies....
It's a sad life if the best thing about your job is the gorgeous.... whatever an software developer motivator is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That sheds an even worse light on chinese programmers than on chinese companies....
It's a sad life if the best thing about your job is the gorgeous.... whatever an software developer motivator is.
It's bad for men to want beautiful women around them?
They didn't say it was the best thing about their jobs (though so what if it were?)
interviews with male employees who cited having beautiful women around them as an incentive for working there
Hooters (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet, the US has Hooters. Hooters gets away with only hiring women as servers because of BFOQ. That's Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications. While they were sued many years ago, they only agreed to put men in other positions but they never agreed to hire men for server roles. How is this different?
Re:Hooters (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet, the US has Hooters. Hooters gets away with only hiring women as servers because of BFOQ. That's Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications. While they were sued many years ago, they only agreed to put men in other positions but they never agreed to hire men for server roles. How is this different?
Our entertainment business (including, ahem, newsreaders) is heavily based on looks too.
We threw out traditional morality (anything goes! let it all hang out!), and then we keep trying to smuggle bits of it back using SJW-ness. It's kind of a mish mash mess.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK there is a newsreader called Moira Stuart. When she was eventually let go by the BBC there was a bit of a controversy because it was thought to be due to her age, and a lot of people liked her. She does have a very clear but warm style.
Anyway, she was later re-hired for BBC Radio 2. Not sure how that fits in to your SJW-driven model...
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, she was later re-hired for BBC Radio 2. Not sure how that fits in to your SJW-driven model...
Too old to let people look at her, so put her on the radio?
Why doesn't it work in any public facing job? (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure you could come up with data that shows that attractive people produce greater levels of customer satisfaction, higher sales, and so on, so why isn't being good looking a BOFQ for a lot of jobs?
It's funny, but in IT the majority of women sales people I encounter are way better looking than the male sales people. I had to sit through a sales meeting the other day and the 4 women there were all super attractive -- I don't just mean well dressed, or slim, etc, but were 5/5 on all the sub measur
Re:Hooters (Score:5, Funny)
Because nobody wants to look at guys with hugs boobs?
Re:Hooters (Score:5, Funny)
almost nobody.
Re: (Score:2)
"When 1 person does it -- they are a pervert,
When N people do it -- they have a fetish."
If anything, the Internet has taught me:
1. You can always find someone who enjoys the same fetishes as you, ... =P
2. I don't even want to know about half of THOSE fetishes
Re: (Score:2)
You're not conjugating that right:
"When you do it -- you are a pervert,
When I do it -- I have a fetish."
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen but couldn't recall the variations.
Thanks for that great alternative!
Re: (Score:2)
*sniff*
You mean I may have hopes to work in my dream job after all?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody complains about all-women companies (Score:5, Informative)
Case in point below. The founder eventually concluded that it was a bad idea from the standpoint of productivity, but it never seems to have occurred to her that her policy was deeply sexist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nobody complains about all-women companies (Score:4, Insightful)
This article is about Samantha Brick, so it's more likely that it was just her personality that ruined it. She wrote an article titled "There are Downsides to Looking This Pretty': Why Women Hate Me for Being Beautiful" so you shouldn't be surprised that she was clueless.
The fact that the story is in the Daily Mail should ring alarm bells too. Sure enough, they failed to mention any of this and decided to depict the whole thing as "bitches, right?"
Re: (Score:3)
America Needs to React (Score:2)
I think America needs to have a gender equality tariff, as well as a child labor tariff, and other social engineering that we're doing here at home applied to the possibly advantageous business practices of our international competitors. Those companies found to be doing such discrimination would get the tariff. Tariff by company? Can we do that? Lets try it and see if it flies...
Re: (Score:2)
Tariff by company?
It would be trivially easy to circumvent this. It's not like American regulators can inspect foreign companies.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Spies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You really think that ANY company is doing something that makes salaries go up? Really?
Not just tech, not just women (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't really news to anyone who has lived in China. Someone has found a tech angle to grab headlines, but a more accurate encapsulation would be, "Labor market discrimination is legal and open in China." I lived in China for four years; I'm white, my wife is Indian. There were all kinds of "hire-a-foreigner" jobs (mostly teaching English but a range of other things) that were open to me but not to her, and they were advertised as such. (As opposed to the West I guess where they just don't call you back -- but still, it's worse.) If you want to see some of these postings. go to thebeijinger.com and scroll through the help wanted ads. Some of these postings are for US-headquartered companies, which possibly makes them a violation of US labor law, if anyone wants to pursue that. In the Chinese-language job boards, things can be even weirder. Even the train system openly said that they were looking for women in their 20s as train attendants for the high-speed railway. And that's the government doing the hiring. There isn't any kind of social consensus that discrimination is a bad thing (though plenty of people think it is), so don't expect it to change soon.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't any kind of social consensus that discrimination is a bad thing (though plenty of people think it is), so don't expect it to change soon.
People openly stare and point at physical disabilities too. It's another world.
And this is what you complain about? (Score:3)
A country with appalling child labor practices, and this is what you have a problem with? Get some god damn priorities, people.
Ever see the flight attendant competitions? (Score:2)
Yeah! You tell 'em Social Justice Warriors! (Score:3)
Well duh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.
You seem to imply that this is a bad thing. Those vary same things allow for all manner of other ideologies, advocacy groups, or people with other points of view to exist as well, many of which have little or no overlap with SJWs in terms of belifs. It's those same protections that allow you to post about it on the internet without anyone from the government kicking down your door and dragging you off to one of those reeducation camps. I would think that having to listen to some idiots whinge on the interne
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.
You seem to imply that this is a bad thing. Those vary same things allow for all manner of other ideologies, advocacy groups, or people with other points of view to exist as well, many of which have little or no overlap with SJWs in terms of belifs. It's those same protections that allow you to post about it on the internet without anyone from the government kicking down your door and dragging you off to one of those reeducation camps. I would think that having to listen to some idiots whinge on the internet (where you're just as free to dispute them) is a tiny price to pay for those freedoms.
You're the one who seems to be missing the point, the poster was talking about how so many SJWs are ironically ignorant in how they rage against some of the very rights and protections that allow them to exist in the first place.
Re:Communist party reeducation (Score:5, Insightful)
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.
You seem to imply that this is a bad thing.
You misunderstood my point. What I said is that SJW couldn't exist without certain set of values in the society, and SJWs are against some of these values.
That is, SJW when taken to a logical conclusion would change society in a way that would make SJW impossible.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What you probably meant is that those author
Re: (Score:2)
However, given a choice of oppressive and more egalitarian and liberal and less egalitarian society most people would chose liberal society, even if that lan
Re: (Score:2)
Noone for example allows distressed minorites ( or anyone else) a mechanism to create new laws that forbid authoritarian Gub'mnt behavior.
Republic, at least in principle, creates laws that limit power of government over everyone, and that includes minorities. For example, Civil Rights movement and MLK activism was only possible because there are laws that limit what government could do. At the time, US government, if it was possible, would very likely permanently jailed MLK and anyone participating in the movement. They did try to, but it was declared unconstitutional. So minority benefited from society-wide freedom.
A though experiment. SJW
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
SJW when taken to a logical conclusion would change society in a way that would make SJW impossible
Indeed, even unnecessary
Hope I did not misinterpret
It is foolish to think that a logical conclusion of SJW movement is an egalitarian society free of repression where everyone would conclude SJW is no longer necessary. SJW is at its core is anti-liberal and counter-factual to the point of being anti-science (e.g. scientists are all old white guys). So unless your idea of egalitarian society is to see everyone equally living in oppressive and dogmatic society, society without freedom of speech, without freedom from sex or race based discrimination, without p
Re: (Score:2)
Very few college kids are actually "poor". Actual poor people can't afford to attend college. Really poor people don't end up finishing high school (if your father left when you were 5 and your mom can't make the rent payment, it's hard to turn down even a minimum wage job).
Re:SJWs should welcome this (Score:4, Interesting)
Women are not aggressive and competitive? Are you kidding? They may be more subtle, but if you want to see backstabbing that could teach George R. R. Martin a few things even he didn't imagine possible, watch a few women try to outdo each other for a high level position.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Women are not aggressive and competitive? Are you kidding? They may be more subtle, but if you want to see backstabbing that could teach George R. R. Martin a few things even he didn't imagine possible, watch a few women try to outdo each other for a high level position.
And heaven forbid some woman ever gets added to an office that already has a queen bee. [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When people say "women are not aggressive", they refer to agreeableness metric. Or put in other way, how likely are they to initiate direct confrontation. This does not mean not competitive, or not ambitious.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not using the same definition of concept. When people say "women are not aggressive", they refer to agreeableness metric. Or put in other way, how likely are they to initiate direct confrontation. This does not mean not competitive, or not ambitious.
Most doubleplusgood!
Agressive is agressive. direct confrontation is not the only definition of aggression. Backstabbing works for that.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not using the same definition of concept. When people say "women are not aggressive", they refer to agreeableness metric. Or put in other way, how likely are they to initiate direct confrontation. This does not mean not competitive, or not ambitious.
Most doubleplusgood!
Agressive is agressive. direct confrontation is not the only definition of aggression. Backstabbing works for that.
Aggressive has multiple definitions. If your definition includes indirect social manipulation in addition to one on one direct confrontation, then women are as aggressive as men. However, such view lacks nuance.
You do realize that muddying and stretching definition leads to loss of meaning, not equality? For example, if I redefine equality to include slavery, that results in loss of meaning and not increase in equality (using traditional definition).
Re: (Score:2)
Direct confrontation is easier to handle than backstabbing manipulation. Direct confrontation is something you can at least take to HR, try that with a backstabbing mobbing master.
Re: (Score:2)
Direct confrontation is easier to handle than backstabbing manipulation.
This statement mostly true for men and mostly false for women.
Re:SJWs should welcome this (Score:5, Insightful)
Women are not aggressive and competitive? Are you kidding? They may be more subtle, but if you want to see backstabbing that could teach George R. R. Martin a few things even he didn't imagine possible, watch a few women try to outdo each other for a high level position.
While the fickle finger of blame has always been pointed at men and the patriarchy, my experience and my wife's experience have been very different. The rumor mills, the jealousy, and the general hatred of women toward other people has been breathtaking. Since I'd be accused of mansplaining for my own experiences, I'll talk for my wife.
She rose to the number two position in her company, and was the highest paid employee there. She had teams of mostly men working for her. There were of course women in her workplace. While there are always personnel issues, the only people that had a problem with her were the women. "Oh, she must be fucking the owner to have got her position. "I wonder if Doggy style is the position she used to get her position?" And on and on. Pleasant to her face, but active undermining the second they walked away. and an unhealthy obsession with sex. Outside of the sexual innuendo, she is tall and slender. So if people think fat shaming is bad, you ought to see the shit women sling at other women if they think a woman is not fat enough.
The men overwhelmingly just loved her.
Meanwhile, here was a place trying to get things done in the construction and home design industry, and had some troublesome employees that were not hard to identify. In a bit of irony, my wife became very reluctant to hire women because of all of the workplace drama.
Her view is that as long as every problem is considered to be the fault of men, the problem will never be fixed. Women need to take some responsibility. Because what they are doing now is a crab bucket. pulling each other down.
I saw this in my own workplace as well, but since I'm a guy, no one would listen to my description.
Re: (Score:3)
Outside of the sexual innuendo, she is tall and slender. So if people think fat shaming is bad, you ought to see the shit women sling at other women if they think a woman is not fat enough.
That is so true. My wife is short and slender (Asian) and women at her work and in her friend circle use mock "concern" for her weight and exercise habits. She's 5'2" and 110lbs, about 30lbs. north of anorexia and definitely not "skinny". But the fat women will make sure she's "okay", make sure that her husband isn't forcing her to exercise hard and eat less, etc. It's crazy how jealous they get and then pretend that they're really concerned for her.
Re: (Score:2)
How did you get away with it without a discrimination suit?
Eppur si muove. (Score:2)
Wow. I've seem some misogynist trolling on Slashdot, but it's far worse when you try to come over all reasonable and matter of fact about it.
People keep telling me we are all equal now and we don't need feminism any more, but then comments like this get modded as "insightful". Lewis' Law still stands.
As I said, I don't think denying the underlying problems are going to help. Pretending that there aren't any biological baggage that need addressing, and that we can get to full equality, trust and respect through fiat is like sticking your fingers in your ears and go NA-NA-NA.
The biological imperative will always be a factor, and we cannot reach equality unless we take it into account.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with you, but I think the problem is deeper. Capitalism (or really free-market) doesn't "think" anything. Its just a optimization engine for profits / economic output. Sometimes that is a really good thing - cars, pencils, and microwave ovens are surprisingly cheap. Other times, as you mention, pollution, and other externalities are not correctly costed.
Worse, maximizing profits is really not in the public interest. Executing everyone at retirement age would increase total economic output, but I
Re: (Score:2)
Discrimination is inefficient, but not so inefficient that it can't survive for a long time in the market.
Unfortunately, I don't think that this is true at all. It's something that we would *like* to believe. If there is a company that is racist or misogynistic, that company would lose to a more enlightened competitor who would treat their workforce much better. This probably does happen in the very long term but we are talking about timelines on the same order as that of a human life. And during the transition, even though the women and minorities get to work for the more enlightened company, they have les
Re:SJWs should welcome this (Score:5, Insightful)
> When has that ever been a good idea?
Most of the time.
Leave regulated non discrimination to governments and monopolies. Let normal people have freedom of association.
Re:SJWs should welcome this (Score:5, Interesting)
On the opposite extreme is gender quotas. Lowering requirements in hiring for one sex, yet still calling it equal opportunity while enforcing a double standard.
The issue with the physical requirements for NYC firemen [nypost.com] is an example, with women failing the exam but still being given the job. So in theory, a person can burn to death in a house fire because of political correctness that put people unsuitable for job in a position to rescue them, due to some unwritten formula for the ideal combination of genitals among firemen.
That seems just as counterproductive and detrimental to the society as unfettered capitalism. If jobs exists that are unsuitable for the disabled, or women who lack the physical strength do a fireman carry, why should laws exist to enforce their participation?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
hi, progressive feminist here. No I don't want gender segregation, and you're full of sit for claiming I do.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what would have happened if he were full of stand.
Re: (Score:2)
You have not provided evidence. Perhaps you do not understand what the word means.
Re: (Score:2)
We tell girls that life is all about their appearance. This is a cruel message but is probably pretty accurate. We tell boys the sweet like th
Re:They just want to decrease sexual harassment (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't care about workplace sexual harassment or the wage gap in China. This is driven purely by old fashioned ideas about women. You know the sort of thing - meek, emotional, distracting, take a week off every month to menstruate, will probably get pregnant and drop out completely etc.
I know some Chinese women are turning to doing contract work over the internet, software development and that kind of thing, using fake male names. When it's time to get paid they just say "sent it to my wife" and give their real WePay account.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and there are also proposals that women should get paid days off during menstruation. That's bleeding-edge feminism.
No pun intended?
Re: (Score:2)
While true, that's not really and specific reason to EXCLUDE females. It would totally explain a natural discrepancy but they're talking about an actual stated prohibition on female applicants.
In then end though China does indeed have a population problem and though I hate the method the excess males will likely help solve it. Their cultural preference there has led to an imbalance where a lot of their population will never have the opportunity to reproduce.
Gender hypocrisy from the Ministry of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
The news over the last few days has reported on a women-only co-working space in the Bay Area called "The Coven." Women-only and themed after witchcraft.
If men created a men-only workspace and called it "The Monastery," it would be hated on 24-7 by the self-appointed intelligentsia. Hypocrisy abounds.
Re: (Score:2)