a position argued from the standpoint of equality instead of holding women like shit on a stick?
quick - attack the person making the argument!

(i don't remember those details and they wouldn't be relevant to the example. if i had to fill the gaps, i'd say wallonia or brussels, the ~'ministry of social affairs', the ~'department of protecting kids and the homeless'. what matters is not only the bullshit selection process but the fucking theatre around it)

~*posts anecdote*~

my point is proven, owned equalitards

The problem is what people call equality is different to what it really is.


Woman is happy to let a man hold the door open for her but by Christ she will be angry if he gets that job he is better qualified for


If we lived in a truly equal society quatas would not be there.

the equality argument is so fucked due to the constant stream of bullshit that femnazis spout about how women are still second class citizens.

~*posts forced quotas in norway showing that quotas were followed under threat*~

text assuming women need to be stigmatized into weaklings that need affirmative action

5 pages later, still relevant.

What is your goal? Do you want to simply have a higher percentage of women in n positions (e.g 40% on a board, 40% on a city council, whatever)? It's a shitty goal that manifests in a number only (and a forced quota is no doubt effective if you threaten to dissolve a company unless they do it, even though it was pretty well evaded in norway by changing company legal status). Even for representation it doesn't take a woman to represent women like it doesn't take a teenager to represent children's rights. Everyone can run, everyone can vote, every vote is equal, the most popular candidates will win.

Try increasing the political/business/educational ambition of women or something as a goal instead of chasing numbers, the only way (if at all) how quotas work towards this is the breaking of old stereotypes and creating new role models, which are arguably less effective in already civilized society.

The opportunity differences between men and women that can not be made to go away are the fact men tend to be physically stronger, and that women can bear children. It should be up to the state to mitigate the inequality coming from these differences, e.g overall compensation for the loss of career opportunity when having children, creating and enforcing rules that forbid discrimination due to pregnancy, enforcing 'equal work = equal pay' and general supervision over other labour-related discrimination, creating social programs that aid with day-care of children and so on. Not fucking quotas of all things.

- The world is full of inequality.
- Feminist extremists, much like any other kind of extremist, should be ignored.
- Race/sex quotas are stupid.

These are facts. They are not going to go away, so why bother arguing about it

Shit thread, gotta work, the usual. But equal work = equal (actual) pay still doesn't happen, and "female" professions are blatantly underpaid (like MA level teachers in kindergartens, nurses etc etc) just off the top of my head. And making kids is nowhere near "safe" for ones career even with all the legislation we already have tbh.


Except that it's not bullshit

As for quotas for positions etc, agreed some of that can be really retarded. But the idea behind them needs defending nevertheless.

its ok, the lego wont be ruined by water so we can just dive down and get it later.



so your argument of "I see inequality all the time" is that jobs that were traditionally held by women are lower paid? that is completely beside the point. Its not inequality unless you for the same job, the same time worked there and with the same skill end up with different wages.

also I'd argue that those jobs are badly paid because they have low skill requirements, and also for stuff like working with kids its considered a "fun rewarding job", hence ppl will do it for less pay. They also don't have deadlines. deadlines = more pay.

also here is the blood-chilling cold truth: hiring a woman in 25-32 is much more risky than hiring a man because they are very likely to become pregnant and pretty much go off work for 0.5-1 year. In places like sweden you do get same government backed time off etc, but because of practicalities women generally take more (breast feeding etc). This isnt an issue for a big company, but for a small one it definitely is, especially when that person has a lot of responsibilities, because replacing a person like that isnt all that easy. Its generally a small difference, but its there.

Jesus fucking christ

They're low paid jobs *because* they're traditionally female-based, how is that not inequality? Also lol at skill requirements comment, a BA is a BA or a MA is a MA, same level degree should net similar pay, no?

And the "fun working with kids" bit is seriously some of the most retarded stuff I've ever read.