No, moron.

I said you are a minority group, and as such, could stand from benefit from a quota that forced employers to hire you because of your belonging to a minority. I never said there is any law in norway, even though I probably know more about their laws than you do yourself.

Christ nexus put your retard tier rage away for a second to read what I posted

A) I mean the world is inequal, and it always will be. Sex is not even close to the primary example, if you think it is you are beyond arrogant. Racial, religious, and economic discrimination is a much larger problem than sex discrimination will ever be. Often sex based discrimination is a direct result of these other forms of discrimination, so unless you intend to rid the world of religion, destroy the term 'third world', and perform a multitude of other impossible tasks, some form of sexual discrimination will always exist. It's fine and dandy to sit in your little first-world bubble and rant and rage about how THE WORLD SHOULD BE EQUAL , but the world is most likely going to ignore your annoying ass and go on it's way. And the end of the day all you are doing is talking, you yourself are not actually going to do fuck all toward solving any of these problems. People doing that is what pisses me off about the whole discrimination debate more than anything.

B ) FUCKING PAY ATTENTION. When I say EXTREMIST, I mean, EXTREMIST. The kind of feminists who legitimately believe all men are evil and should be killed, or that women are forced to wear bra's by men and that such underwear is degrading and a tool used by 'the man' to keep women down, that chivalry (ie holding a door open for a woman, 'ladies first' mentality etc) are degrading to women and all sorts of associated bullshit. There are fair arguments brought foward by the feminists, yeah, but there is a huge gap between the ideas of your average feminist and a feminist extremist.

C) Employing people by quota instead of personal merits, logically, is COMPLETELY FUCKING RETARDED. This is not a fucking difficult concept. Sure, without it, some fields would have seen less women/ethnic minorities/even men in some cases, but those that were there would actually deserve to be there instead of being a figurehead for a company saying 'LOOK I FOLLOW THE LAW AND I DON'T DISCRIMINATE AND I HIRE ETHNIC MINORITIES BECAUSE I HAVE TO'. If I was hired not because of my merits but because the hospital I wanted to work for needed more white male doctors I would be fucking pissed, because that reasoning is more or less directly insulting me.

Christ. Quit being blinded by rage and actually try and have a discussion.

Shut the fuck up retard

( B) Those people don't really exist in large quantities in modern society so not postworthy

C) Read the SA example)

SA example?

As for B, they do exist, which was my point, and then nexus assumes that I apply that logic to all feminists

don't we all work/study in male dominant fields anyway so quotas won't affect us. why are we having this discussion again.

It is correct that to get a good job unless your last name is Bush or Bruni you need some kind of previous experience.

In this times of massive youth unemployment many first jobs are night jobs, bad payed, far from home, and many other drawbacks.

From what I've seen, where I live (am not implying it's the same everywhere) men are taking such jobs and put their pride away for a year of two. Women don't, mostly. This is of great benefit later because the future employer knows you fucking want some.

But France is a pretty machist state anyway. When my Sister got tired of guetting shitty jobs despite her Bac +4 she moved to London and got a promotion within a Month. Not because of quotas, because merit and "intelligence" (in the working environment) are rewarded.

Should be the same everywhere tbh and it's the only thing to push for, merit should be rewarded then there's no need for quotas anymore.

I keep forgetting my country is not located in Europe.

South Africa

In fact a key paper for understanding how quotas lead to token minorities. Also still relevant from p 12:


__

I'm sceptical about the circular argument of "the inexperienced don't get hired" though - it is true but not absolute, and applies regardless of gender (yet you expanded it onto women exclusively). If it were absolute, it would manifest in no fresh graduate getting hired regardless of gender for any job requiring qualification.

1. human isn't experienced enough for the job
2. human doesn't get the job
3. human can't get any experience for the job
4. human isn't experienced enough for the job
5. cry evertim

And your anecdote about africa. The inevitable kind of inequality obviously can not (and should not) ever be removed, lest mankind be growing in glass jars as some bizarre experiement. Instead there should indeed be some positive mitigation of circumstances to level the playing field, not wing-clipping.

Also some semi-relevant South Park, which is always good. http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep ... es-nanners, watch timestamp around 18:20 to 19:30.

Fresh graduates face pretty rough conditions nowadays. Labor law is at its worst worlwide, outsourcing is on the rise, and many have to work during the university to get "experience" which is only so helpful since they spent more time working, than actually learning what the fuck they are doing.

Whomever argues that just by working you can learn what a dude can in the classroom, is a moron.