Workplace equality (or inequality..) - what to do?

hakkenuh on 23/02/2020 - 11:47
Last edited 25/02/2020 - 23:39

So basically, I was recently looking to move internally at my work to another division.

Upon contacting HR in an attempt to make the move happen (as I know there are roles open), they informed me that this division is not accepting any males at the moment and there are only roles open for women. The HR Lady then informed me that even though you may see the role open on the website, if you apply you will be rejected for being a male (she put this in writing in an email so technically I could take it to fair work if I really cared). In addition to this, on the website it did not say the role was specifically for women, as such males who thought they were rejected for performance, were simply rejected on the basis of their gender.

Note: the industry this relates to is Finance, not a role which specifically would require to be performed by women, this is simply because she said "there are too many males in the division at the moment and they have overhired in males".

Whilst I'm all for gender equality, and really do support gender quotas, this seems a bit crazy that I'm not even allowed an interview to prove my worth? At the same time, I'm also for the better person, and hard worker. If I put in the effort and try really hard working long nights for months on end to try get this position and my female counterpart has not but gets the role simply for being a female, isn't this then reverse discrimination? Couldn't discrimination just be completely removed by removing gender and all unique identifiers of the person on the application forms?

Just curious for people's thoughts, I'm not really planning to take it any further (like go to any discriminatory govt body) as I stated I'm all for gender equality. Just been having some issues trying to get over this rejection for a role that I really wanted..

Edit: didn't think I'd get so many replies, thanks everyone for contributing to some healthy discussion - have taken everything on board. I guess at the end of the day, the firm has no obligation to provide me with a job and the only ones missing out on something is them :) My opinion about gender quotas still hasn't changed (maybe not go so far as to quotas requiring X amount of females, but certainly at least targets they can work towards, using professional judgement where necessary for hiring). I still believe especially in an area such as consulting or problem solving professions, having diversity of opinion and background can definitely improve the outcome of a project. After all having a bunch of college educated white cis males vs a diverse group of females and males from different educational backgrounds pitching to clients trying to win work, I can tell you which group of people I would engage and would give me the best outcome (all other things equal)….

Education & Work

Comments

          • HighAndDry on 24/02/2020 - 13:46
            +2

            @[Deactivated]: The fact that greater female representation on company boards are correlated with better performance with causation still unproven, and the fact that merely appointing more women to company boards does not result in greater performance, ruling out causation acting in that direction.

            Absent pure coincidence, all other possibilities being ruled out, the one remaining possibility must be true.

            • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 13:49
              -1

              @HighAndDry: Why are we ruling out the possibilities mentionned here?

              • HighAndDry on 24/02/2020 - 13:57
                +12

                @[Deactivated]: Because all of of them are correlation, not causation. There are only three possibilities:

                1. Zero causal relationship,

                2. Women causes better performance,

                3. Better performance causes more women.

                2 has been ruled out because appointing women does not lead to better performance. 1 is unlikely given the strong correlation. That leaves 3 - better performing companies have structures in place that promote women in the correct ratios.

                • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 13:59

                  @HighAndDry: And I agree with 3- "better performing companies have structures in place that promote women in the correct ratios" .

                  • HighAndDry on 24/02/2020 - 14:14
                    +5

                    @[Deactivated]: Yeah that seems to make more sense to me too. But it's those structures which cause better performance, not the fact of having more women.

                    By that logic, quotas which just increase the number of women without improving those underlying structures won't do anything to improve performance.

                    Effectively you'd be hosing down the footpath thinking that that's going to make it rain.

                    • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 17:41
                      -1

                      @HighAndDry:

                      quotas which just increase the number of women without improving those underlying structures won't do anything to improve performance.

                      If your human resource department is that inefficient and lazy, you have bigger problems.

              • SlavOz on 25/02/2020 - 18:43
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: Majority of military personnel who die in wars are men. Majority of people who die doing dangerous jobs are men. Majority of plumbers who need to handle human shit for a living are men. Majority of garbage disposal workers are men. Why aren't women rallying for equality in these fields?

                Seems they only want equality for the cushy safe jobs. When it's something dangerous or unpleasant they're more than happy to leave it to the men.

                Cold hard fact is that women are just not doing their fair share of essential work for society. Why should they share in the riches then? If you need someone to fix your toilet or kill an animal so your child can eat, it's gonna be a male who does it.

            • Lastchancetosee on 25/02/2020 - 11:58
              +1

              @HighAndDry: Expecting more women on boards to produce better outcomes than more men on boards, is perpetuating the idea that women have to perform better to have the right to representation.

              I don't claim that’s men or women are better - it's about opportunity and equity. As JJB has pointed out, ad nauseum, there are different hurdles for women, and caring outside the workplace is not fiscally recognised or rewarded.

              Same issue with regard to multi cultural representation.

              • HighAndDry on 25/02/2020 - 13:33

                @Lastchancetosee: Absolutely no one has a right to representation. Those men are there because they were better for the company than the other available options, men or women.

                If women want to be there, they should beat out the competition too.

      • Belts on 24/02/2020 - 17:10

        Hear hear. Dunno why all the negs though…

  • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 24/02/2020 - 08:03
    +14

    So you are for gender quotas as long as you aren't personally affected?

  • chuderino on 24/02/2020 - 08:56
    +7

    You say you support gender quotas, well you just gave yourself an uppercut.

  • harveyworld on 24/02/2020 - 14:13
    +5

    If the email clearly states that you'd be rejected based on gender I would send that to fair work regardless of whether you apply or not.

    Totally agree with this and to sit by and do nothing is shameful.
    If a job can be done by any sex then surely the best person for the job should get it..End of.

    Political correctness is getting ridiculous in this country and at the end of the day all genders suffer for it.
    If you don't stand up for yourself then make a stand for the obvious discrimination that it is.

  • wog_ta on 24/02/2020 - 14:19
    +2

    There is a deference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, the latter is what I am not a big fan of. Hiring someone that could be potentially less suitable due to what is between their legs is discrimination by its very definition.

    This happens a LOT, although pretty rare for someone (particularly HR) to put it in email.

  • superdarkhumour on 24/02/2020 - 14:29
    +5

    Wear a dress and a wig, and slap some makeup on.

    Some men did it and won Women of the Year award!

  • OzHunterNSW on 24/02/2020 - 14:59
    -5

    Do you go to church… I think you need to do a confession.
    Maybe pay for some psychologist to listen to you.

  • dogboy on 24/02/2020 - 16:10
    +10

    There is no such thing as reverse discrimination - it is just discrimination.
    Unfortunately people (usually women) are not interesed in equal opporunity - just equal outcome.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 17:45
      -5

      There is no such thing as reverse discrimination

      Nope. The term is 'positive discrimination'.

      when the present bias situation is what prevents candidates from competing on a level playing field, many would argue that positive discrimination is the only way to restore balance to the workforce and achieve true meritocracy.

      • LFO on 24/02/2020 - 19:38
        +1

        restore balance to the workforce and achieve true meritocracy.

        Conflict aims.

        Balance in the workforce speaks of numbers, masses of people.

        Meritocracy refers to skills and knowledge to a particular job/task.

        Today we have "balance" with numbers more or less representing gender and sexuality in our society.

        But also today, incompetents are part of that balance so meritocracy is nonexistent.

        Person A gets it because she/he/it is a number they need, not because she/he/it has the skills/knowledge.
        No wonder we are sinking so quickly.

      • sakurashu on 27/02/2020 - 14:39

        I'd be surprised to hear anyone sees this as not only a valid methodology to address any issues, but also a sustainable one?

        The correct and only way to restore any imbalance is to truly provide equal opportunities from a young age through school etc. and do our best to encourage parents to do the same.

  • Herbse on 24/02/2020 - 17:29
    -4

    I agree with all the anti-women posters in here. It's unfair, and what's the point of hiring a woman only anyway? She's just going to get pregnant and leave.

    /sarcasm 🙄

    • syousef on 24/02/2020 - 18:34
      +4

      I have a son and a daughter, as well as a wife and a mother. I genuinely want both my kids to have opportunities, and I want them both of them to earn their roles without someone checking what is between their legs to either reject or hire them on that basis. I guess I'm "anti-woman" huh?

      • Herbse on 25/02/2020 - 00:12
        -4

        You want them both to be judged equally, but the world has proven that this is not the case. Females are judged harshly for their reliability, emotions and long term commitment to the roles they apply for. That's just where we are at as a society at the moment, it used to be worse, but equal opportunity laws and companies taking initiatives like this have changed that over time.

        If you truly want both your daughter and son to be treated equally, you would be championing policies that change societal behaviour for the better.

        • syousef on 25/02/2020 - 03:11
          +4

          You are the one that has given up on real equality and are trying to fix the situation by applying even more inequality. There is nothing more destructive and counter productive. Your way wastes our best and brightest and makes them resentful instead of bringing them in as allies who will help. There is no substitute for the real thing and it absolutely can be achieved. Quotas are a distraction that plaster over sexism without fixing underlying attitudes.

        • SlavOz on 25/02/2020 - 18:33

          Females are judged harshly for their reliability, emotions and long term commitment to the roles they apply for.

          They are not judged harshly. Those are fair judgements. Studies show that women choose to work less hours, are less ambitious, perform at a lower overall level of financial gain, and take more time off after having kids. When those stats become equal, you'll have a case. Until then, an employer is only able to go by what the data says.

          If you truly want both your daughter and son to be treated equally, you would be championing policies that change societal behaviour for the better.

          So in other words, you want to help women by brainwashing or legally forcing them to do things they wouldn't otherwise want to do? Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

  • syousef on 24/02/2020 - 18:28
    +2

    I am not a lawyer so take this opinion only with a grain of salt: Good luck with that. Quotas are legal. I don't agree with them either, but I suspect you won't get anywhere.

    https://www.gotocourt.com.au/civil-law/sex-discrimination/

    "Australia followed, with the federal Sex Discrimination Act being passed in 1984.

    …

    The act allows for a person to take special measures to achieve equality between the sexes or between persons with different attributes covered by the act. Such measures do not amount to discrimination if they are imposed solely or partly for the purpose of achieving equality. Special measures may include affirmative action programs such as the imposition of gender quotas in a workplace."

    In my view the best thing you can do is look for a new employer and a step up in pay/promotion in the move. During your exit interview be sure to mention that you moved away as there was no opportunity for advancement.

  • TheTopMostDog on 24/02/2020 - 19:17
    +2

    If I put in the effort and try really hard working long nights for months on end to try get this position and my female counterpart has not but gets the role simply for being a female, isn't this then reverse discrimination?

    No, it's just discrimination.

    My mother fought in her younger years to make it in a man's world; got knocked back from being a police dog handler because "women don't do that", as well as from a few other positions, before turning down her acceptance letter to be a nurse and going on to become a self-employed engine mechanic for 30 years, as well as building her own cottage by hand.

    What you are cannot be changed, and it's unfair for anyone to define you by - and particularly when applying for a job - anything other than your merit. People have been discriminated forever, and while I'd love to say "keep fighting" to anyone who is dealing with this kind of stuff, that's just not a fix for the problem. It just bothers me to no end how when we overshoot true egalitarianism, where we land isn't far from where we began.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2020 - 19:28
    +9

    Whilst I'm all for gender equality, and really do support gender quotas

    Congratulations, you just got a taste of your own medicine. Hope you will reevaluate your beliefs after this experience.

  • DiscoJango on 24/02/2020 - 20:29
    +3

    Didnt this happen in the police force a few years ago, they were literally hiring females just to match the ratio, even if this meant passing on legitimately good male candidates.

    • siresteelhell on 24/02/2020 - 21:47
      +1

      same thing with the australian army…

    • TEER3X on 24/02/2020 - 21:48
      +1

      and the banks

    • Herbse on 25/02/2020 - 00:01

      And yet society hasn't broken down and we're all doing fine.

      • DiscoJango on 25/02/2020 - 18:34

        Society hasnt broken down no, however its probably the reason simple shit takes so long to get done (by incompetent employees hired purely based on their gender and not skill set)

      • SlavOz on 25/02/2020 - 18:36
        -2

        Let's reconvene when there's a war and we need our army to fight for us. I bet all the lowering of physical requirements will come in handy then.

        On the upside the enemy will be killing our young men just as often as they kill our young women. Death by equality for women.

  • groot on 24/02/2020 - 21:23
    -5

    Mate .. its called diversity .. and I do not see any problem with the employer's view.
    Whether. you prove yourself as right candidate for the position or not… it does not matter. Every employer need to show the data related to diversity specially incase of number of women employed & their pay as comapred to men in the organization. They will be easily able to defend that why they want women inplace for that position and you will end up loosing & you will earn bad fame as well.

    Suck it up and move on. Their are 100s of companies outside to prove your worth. Go on and try that

  • Donaldhump on 24/02/2020 - 21:37
    +5

    Utterly ridiculous,and yet the hr department will be all chicks

  • bmerigan on 24/02/2020 - 22:28
    +2

    Not much a HR department can do to irritate me more than to put a gender quota on hiring. It must surely be illegal.
    If a HR department is serious about gender balance then they need to be ATTRACTING more female applicants, not just picking the only one that applies.

  • bmerigan on 24/02/2020 - 22:29

    Don't apply for the job, but I would report it anonymously.

  • christopher8827 on 24/02/2020 - 23:32
    -1

    Yeah, I wouldn't work a place that does it. Maybe its good luck they told you so?

  • Herbse on 24/02/2020 - 23:43
    +1

    Firstly you're not being discriminated against.
    They aren't saying that males are incapable of doing the job when they are in fact capable (that is what legal discrimination is)

    Assuming the workplace wanted a specific employee for equal opportunity reasons, it is completely legal under the Sex Discrimination Act

    https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/employers/sex-discri…

    Under "When discrimination is not unlawful"
    There's a subsection for "Special Measures"

    Special measures have the goal of fostering greater equality by supporting groups of people who face, or have faced, entrenched discrimination so they can have similar access to opportunities as others in the community.
    The SDA provides for special measures that improve equality of opportunity for people based on their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy status or family responsibilities.

    It's nothing new.

    • TheTopMostDog on 25/02/2020 - 00:24

      The distinction between subjective definitions and legal ones is very important. I did not know this was the case, so thank you.

    • HighAndDry on 25/02/2020 - 13:42
      +1

      You just said:

      Under "When discrimination is not unlawful"

      And yet you still say:

      Firstly you're not being discriminated against.

      When you need this amount of mental gymnastics to rationalise to yourself that you're doing the right thing, you're not doing the right thing.

  • DarkOz on 25/02/2020 - 05:53

    So basically you don’t want to support something that you are supporting because now that it involves you missing out?

  • chumlee on 25/02/2020 - 06:57

    What's with all these troll posts lately?

    • skywards on 25/02/2020 - 09:18
      +1

      Mercury in retrograde 😉

  • smartazz104 on 25/02/2020 - 08:00

    there are too many males in the division at the moment and they have overhired in males".

    Overhired, more like that many women don't actually want to work in the industry…

  • 00000000 on 25/02/2020 - 09:35

    Call 3AW and tell tom elliot

  • jaimex2 on 25/02/2020 - 10:32

    I'm surprised HR would disclose this, I almost don't believe it…

  • picklewizard on 25/02/2020 - 10:43
    +2

    Gender quotas are a load of nonsense.

    Gender quotas should be based on the applications, not a 50/50 balance. If 70% of respondents are women, then in all fairness 70% of hires should be women.

  • HighAndDry on 25/02/2020 - 13:46

    I agree with the other suggestion - the more letters after your name the higher in demand you are right?

    So go for it: masculine-presenting (you look male), lesbian (you're attracted to the ladies), pre-op (you still have your male bits), transwoman (ta-da you're a woman now).

    • [Deactivated] on 25/02/2020 - 21:48
      +1

      I'm pretty sure that Op said he was gay …

  • DarthAntz on 25/02/2020 - 13:52

    I've worked in both a sausage fest, and in a cave rave environment. I have in the past found it very difficult to find or make a workplace that isnt ratio unbalanced. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and it only really sucks for that small majority.

    I am surprised that I am now working in a very close 50/50 ratio.

    OP, what do you think the workplace/recruiter should have done, to specify that they were more interested in female candidates than male candidates for the role, to improve gender ratios and diversify the work environment? Maybe not be specific? Tell you to apply anyway?

  • DiscoJango on 25/02/2020 - 18:36

    Hey everyone, all the v8 supercar drivers are men! Lets hire more soccer mums to even the field.

    • SlavOz on 25/02/2020 - 18:41
      +2

      Majority of military personnel who die in wars are men. Majority of people who die doing dangerous jobs are men. Majority of plumbers who need to handle human shit for a living are men. Majority of garbage disposal workers are men. Why aren't women rallying for equality in these fields?

      Seems they only want equality for the cushy safe jobs. When it's something dangerous or unpleasant they're more than happy to leave it to the men.

      • DiscoJango on 25/02/2020 - 21:37
        +1

        If you ever want to see girl power go out the window, just hang around for an office move, suddenly they all stand around expecting the guys to do all the heavy lifting! Need to move that large heavy boardroom table, dont look at me, im a woman!

  • [Deactivated] on 25/02/2020 - 20:38

    I can't keep replying to each and every single comment directed at me and all the private messages in my inbox. I'm also tired of repeating myself ad nauseam. So, once and for all ,this is what I have to say on the subject :

    For a start , I am male. I was born male and have always identified as male. For those PMing me asking what I have "between my legs" , there you go - now you know! And yes @SM, they are fully descended.😂

    Secondly, I am not a feminist and have never been one. Ideologically, I am closer to humanism. I try to base my moral and ethical decision-making on reason, empathy and compassion for others. I do not ascribe to the sheeple mentality nor to being "p-whipped". I hope this answers your question "proud incel" who brought that up in the PM he sent me. Thank you for your concern but no, thanks - abstinence is not really my thing and I quite like women.😂Truth be told, I find one in particular quite irresistible and she is quite into me too. Happy times!

    Thirdly, and more importantly, I do not see those quotas as a great win for women - the win would be removing the discrimination and inequality that creates under-representation in the first place. But in the short term, alongside other measures, I believe they can be an effective way to make progress happen faster. And who knows, maybe one day @SlavOz's dream of seeing women garbos might come true? In the meantime @SlavOz, know that the Defence has introduced targets for women in the ADF. By 2023, they are aiming for 25% in the Navy, 15 % in the Army and 25 % in the Air Force. Currently women represent 17.9 % of the permanent ADF (21.2% in the Navy, 14.3 % in the Army and 22.4 % in the Air Force). Does that make you feel better?

    As I have mentioned previously ( and got negged to oblivion!),I have also been enjoying the unexpected perks of working in a more diverse workplace. So far these have included access to gender-neutral parental leave, in-home help, employer-subsidised childcare facilities, a better work-life balance, family-friendly WFH arrangements,flexible working hours, additional 5 days carer's leave allowance, heavily subsidised-holiday care for my kids and salary sacrifice arrangements that goes beyond just owning a car. Perhaps others could enjoy similar perks if they were less insecure and more open-minded to change that has been a long time coming?

    Finally, I am only here for the light-hearted convos and the Ms Paint drawings. No idea how I got embroiled in this discussion.

    Peace out.
    JJB :)

    • ozhunter on 26/02/2020 - 01:48

      Who pm'ed you? lol

      Secondly, I am not a feminist and have never been one. Ideologically, I am closer to humanism

      I'd guess you were a hardcore feminist

      I do not see those quotas as a great win for women

      It's a huge win for women. They're going to get the job over a man for being a woman.

      the win would be removing the discrimination and inequality that creates under-representation in the first place.

      Lol, don't see 50:50 representation as a necessity at all and doesn't mean discrimination occurred. Could be that most of the applicants are guys, so good chance that most of the ones hired are guys too.

      ,I have also been enjoying the unexpected perks of working in a more diverse workplace.

      Don't know how any of perks are related to there being more women in the workplace. Unless you think they are likely to complain more. That could also be the reason why employers are more reluctant to hire them.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2020 - 07:28

        Who pm'ed you?

        Quite a few users : some were (unintentionally) funny; others were more threatening.

        I'd guess you were a hardcore feminist

        Can't be bra-burning if I ain't wearing no bra, bruh:p

        But seriously, I find extremism of any kind objectionable - that goes for hardcore feminists, male supremacists, "guardian(s) of the patriarchy", "proud incel(s)"…. Etc What is dangerous about them is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their 'opponents' .

        It's a huge win for women.

        In the same vein, would you say the gender restrictions in the ADF that came in effect with the EOA was a huge win for men? Many women who were already employed in combat-related duties had to be replaced, so more men were drafted.

        50:50 representation

        Look at the quota for the ADF, for instance - what they are aiming for is nowhere near 50:50. My current employer's objective is to recruit 3 female scientists to join our team by 2022. This will be equivalent to 15% female representation.

        Don't know how any of perks are related to there being more women in the workplace.

        We are not interested in scraping the bottom of the barrel. In order to recruit more women of the right calibre, we have had to become a more female-friendly organisation, which really just mean a more family-friendly one.

        That could also be the reason why employers are more reluctant to hire them.

        It must be hard competing with your male counterparts when you have a couple of kids shackled to your ankle. According to the ABS,sometime in the next decade, the number of couples without children will overtake the number of couples with children. It will be interesting to see how this affects female representation in high-powered jobs, patriarchy and ultimately,our survival as a race.

  • SlavOz on 25/02/2020 - 21:58
    -3

    I try to base my moral and ethical decision-making on reason,

    And you fail, since on a topline level you're probably one of the people who thinks women should have equal pay despite endless empirical data showing that women work less hours and retire earlier in almost every single country. They're not doing equal work yet people like you are happy to ignore that. You have no interest in reason.

    empathy and compassion

    Have no place in public policy or even job hiring. We don't make laws around people's feelings nor do we give jobs out of pity. That's a destructive world to live in.

    know that the Defence has introduced targets for women

    No, you're ignoring the deeper issue. Why should women have to be pushed into the military with policies and quotas? Why should the ADF be responsible for making women contribute their fair share to society?

    If women really cared about progress and equality, they would enter the military or other tough industries by their own free will. Men have been doing these jobs for hundreds of years. Women claim that society is against them and they should be treated as equals yet they have been skimping out on their fare share of essential duties for a very long time. The day women are happy to do 50% of the dying or 50% of the shit-cleaning, I'll happily help them reach 50% of billionaire CEOs.

    Until then, ladies should count themselves very lucky that the patriarchy exists. If we had perfect equality, the death toll of women during the last 2 wars and other major epidemics would be much, much higher. Thankfully, they had men to suffer in their place.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/02/2020 - 22:39

      If women really cared about progress and equality, they would enter the military or other tough industries by their own free will.

      Because for a very long time they weren't allowed to do so. The ADF was granted an exemption when the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 came in effect in respect to women in combat or combat related duties. Ironically, despite the aim of eliminating discrimination against women, the result of these exemptions was that women who had been employed in combat related duties, such as certain transport duties in the Royal Australian Corps of Transport and in the Royal Australian Engineers in the Army, were unable to continue to be employed in these roles.

      It was only in October 2018(!), capping a seven-year effort to end gender restrictions in Defence, that an omnibus bill was passed that included removing this Defence exemption in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

      But we are rehashing the same thing over and over again. This was already discussed above.

      What I am more intrigued by is why are you so bitter and hate women so much? 🤔

      Edit: Ah! So you didn't like being in the minority, did you?

      MODERATOR hamza23 10 hours 33 min
      Comments are closed and OP is warned for posting with apparent disingenuous intentions.

      Please do tell us more about those "disingenuous intentions" of yours? What is your hidden agenda @slavOz?

      • SlavOz on 26/02/2020 - 07:33
        -1

        Because for a very long time they weren't allowed to do so.

        It was only in October 2018(!), capping a seven-year effort to end gender restrictions in Defence, that an omnibus bill was passed that included removing this Defence exemption in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

        LOL you're just relying on smoke and mirrors now. Women were barred from 7% of military roles before the new bill passed. They were still eligible for the remaining 93%. If they really wanted to serve their country and society, they would have been flocking to these other military roles. The opportunity was there. They simply didn't want to do it.

        Same goes for the police force or other dangerous roles. Women have always been allowed to apply for most roles in these industries. The simple truth is that they chose to leave the filthy, violent, and dangerous work to men. Worse yet, they had the nerve to complain and whinge while shaming the gender that is responsible for virtually all of their progress and independence over the last million years.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2020 - 07:58

          If as you say, "they chose to leave the filthy, violent, and dangerous work to men.", then those quotas won't work.

          BTW, you've ignored my questions regarding your agenda and what the warning you received from mod was about? Was it for trolling? 😂

          • SlavOz on 26/02/2020 - 13:41

            @[Deactivated]:

            If as you say, "they chose to leave the filthy, violent, and dangerous work to men.", then those quotas won't work.

            Again, it's not about whether or not the quotas will work. It's about the fact that women need to be pushed and convinced to do their fair share of society's dirty work.

            BTW, you've ignored my questions regarding your agenda and what the warning you received from mod was about? Was it for trolling? 😂

            I was modded for 'trolling' because my statements were misinterpreted. That's neither here nor there. This is a separate discussion in which I have simply quoted facts. Don't mistake someone posting an inconvenient truth as 'trolling'

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join