Fresh graduates .

wait, there is

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.

i would end by arguing that a lot of people ITT are confusing two different concepts, namely:

equality of opportunity
&
equality of outcome

of course everyone (even feminists!) that if you do better, you should be rewarded. however, the question is whether or not people are actually competing under the same conditions as one another.

as a really simple example, think of two kids. one kid comes from an normal (not rich!) family and the other comes from a poor family.
they both go to the same school, are in the same classes, same natural intelligence, etc etc whatever
if the poor kid goes into school hungry and therefore cannot perform up to the same standard as the other kid, then it cannot be fairly said that he is inherently less capable than the other kid or incapable of doing the same as the other kid, it's just that his circumstances did not allow it.

both of them had equality of opportunity, but due to their different situations, they did differently.
unless there is some kind of equality of outcomes (free school meals, minimum level of income for all parents, whatever), then the competition between the two of them is not truly fair.

this manifests itself in what our argument stemmed from, which was preferential places in uni.
pre-apartheid south africa only allowed black people to go to underfunded and shitty unis, meaning that despite their "education", they'd only get shitty jobs

post-apartheid south africa, black people were suddenly allowed to go to the these super awesome unis, but due to the shitty and generationally underfunded schools, they were not actually even fully capable of doing so thanks to schools in the black areas being terrible and making it much harder for black people to get in.

in addition to this, their parents might not be smart enough/might not have the time off work to help them out with homework/can't afford tutors like people with nice wellpaying jobs with regular hours would be able to

only extremely hardworking or intelligent black people are able to get in and white people of less intelligent or more academic support (via the richer parents who had gone to the n1 unis or the better schools) are able to get in in much greater numbers

in this context, we can obviously say it's not actually entirely their fault that they couldn't get into the good unis, since their parents had shit jobs, they go to shit schools and it's a cycle which just doesn't end for most families

... until some bright spark saw that perhaps we could break the cycle with some affirmative action??

(ps. pls do not apply this example directly to the argument at hand about board quotas, if u do, ur literally fucking retarded and incapable of understanding two different strands of argument in one post)

(pps. this example does actually still stands for women in the workplace, but to a much lesser extent and therefore is not directly applicable, hence my earlier ps)

I don't see how that example applies at all though, literally all of that comes from segregation, which is not a concept that applies to sex at all.

Similarly, men and women are advantaged and disadvantaged equally by their economic situation so I really don't see how you can apply that example to the argument.

(ps. pls do not apply this example directly to the argument at hand about board quotas, if u do, ur literally fucking retarded and incapable of understanding two different strands of argument in one post)

(pps. this example does actually still stands for women in the workplace, but to a much lesser extent and therefore is not directly applicable, hence my earlier ps)