If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Originally posted by patlajan I agree with the equal pay for equal work part completely. However, for example I see way too many female cops around. And that's equal pay for unequal work in my opinion. If the job requires certain physical capabilities I don't think we should go out of our way to create diversity. Same thing with the armed serivces.
Who said anything about forced diversity? I said meritocracy. If the applicant has the qualifications, hire that applicant, without regard to anything but the qualifications. Do not discriminate for or against.
the whole reason, or the main reason for woman getting equal rights hasnt been passed is because woman do not want to be drafted for war. But see, many woman who are in the forces, cannot go into battle because of not having equal rights passed, even though they are capable and want to, they have to stay behind and do other tasks, but never battle.
its not fair, and its fair , depends what angle you look at it.
some woman are okay with being drafted, and some arent, but they still demand to have equal pay and respect etc.
the whole reason for the draft being put into the bill/or whatever is because they know woman wont want to be drafted, so it wont ever get passed by a majority. So they basically prevent it that way.
if woman want to be treated equally, then they better be okay with being drafted as well.
i dunno, we will see if this ever passes, if it does, its a wonderful thing, but at the same time it has its faults.
Originally posted by loseyourname Who said anything about forced diversity? I said meritocracy. If the applicant has the qualifications, hire that applicant, without regard to anything but the qualifications. Do not discriminate for or against.
The problem with that is at a certain point, in whatever industry we're talking about there is going to be a pool of eqauly qualified candidates, and then a choice will have to be made.
Plus the "meritocracy" you're talking about will have to be enforced which makes it forced intergration. Which I'm not saying is a bad thing, but those chiks in uniform don't look like they can run down a young male suspect to me.
by extrem i meant like not shaving your arm pits and legs, not wearing a braw, sh!t like that doesnt do anything to change things, its annoying and pointless.
do you want to look like a hairy ape , or a clean lady ? make up your minds confused woman lol
Originally posted by patlajan The problem with that is at a certain point, in whatever industry we're talking about there is going to be a pool of eqauly qualified candidates, and then a choice will have to be made.
Plus the "meritocracy" you're talking about will have to be enforced which makes it forced intergration. Which I'm not saying is a bad thing, but those chiks in uniform don't look like they can run down a young male suspect to me.
Then they won't be on the force. Gail Devers could certainly run anybody down.
If you have a pool of candidates who are equal in every respect - which is a little hard to believe given all of the qualities you can look for - then whoever's doing the hiring will just have to go on instinct. It's a necessarily subjective process anyway, unless you choose randomly. The choice needn't be based on gender. As it is, there are labor laws in place that enforce fair hiring standards anyway. All you have to do is remove special considerations, and if everyone is honest, you will have the system I advocate. I suppose you'll need that ERA lotus was speaking of as well.
Comment