Discussion:
Women won't be truly equal till this isn't a story
Add Reply
de chucka
2018-06-10 22:29:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for first
time https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5

Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an attempt to
make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
Clocky
2018-06-11 00:24:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for first
time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an attempt to
make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
Yep, it's point scoring under the guise of "equality", merit be damned.
de chucka
2018-06-11 00:37:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for first
time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an attempt
to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
Yep, it's point scoring under the guise of "equality", merit be damned.
I assume that that the merit process has been followed it is the point
scoring that gets me. I'm sure a headline "Queen's Birthday honours
2018: Men outnumber women on list" would be rightly condemned.
MattB
2018-06-19 02:19:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for first
time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an attempt to
make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
Yep, it's point scoring under the guise of "equality", merit be damned.
In the USA it is called Affirmative action. You have 100 people
applying for 10 jobs you can't hire the 10 best applicants you have to
have a token or 2 if the 10 best don't fit politically correct
standards..
Ördög
2018-06-11 01:37:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Women outnumber men ...
/snip/

I think this is terrible news for women in general.
It takes on grounds of arithmetic the option of polyandry for the
foreseeable future off the menu!

;)

(Sorry!
I promise, I'll be urgently off to have a cuppa and cool my brain!)
--
Ördög, without any apologies
Daniel60
2018-06-11 06:01:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for first
time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an attempt to
make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??

It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there might not
be any pro-Women bias in the list!
--
Daniel
de chucka
2018-06-11 06:19:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for first
time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an attempt
to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but what has a
persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there might not
be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
Daniel60
2018-06-12 09:08:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for first
time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an attempt
to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but what has a
persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there might
not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the best people
independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. " supposed to
suggest .... except that you thought there was some sort of Pro-Woman
Bias applied to this years awards??

At least that is how I interpreted your comment.
--
Daniel
de chucka
2018-06-12 20:25:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for first
time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an attempt
to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but what has a
persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there might
not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the best people
independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. " supposed to
suggest .... except that you thought there was some sort of Pro-Woman
Bias applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
Post by Daniel60
At least that is how I interpreted your comment.
Your problem
Daniel60
2018-06-13 06:20:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for
first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an
attempt to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but what has
a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there might
not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the best
people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. "
supposed to suggest .... except that you thought there was some sort
of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it?? Why not just post something like "xxx people receive
the top gong in Queen's Birthday list."??

No emphasis on sex either way!!
--
Daniel
de chucka
2018-06-13 08:10:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for
first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an
attempt to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but what has
a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there might
not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the best
people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. "
supposed to suggest .... except that you thought there was some sort
of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex should be irrelevant

Why not just post something like "xxx people receive
Post by Daniel60
the top gong in Queen's Birthday list."??
No emphasis on sex either way!!
Fran
2018-06-13 11:43:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for
first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an
attempt to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but what
has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there
might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the best
people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. "
supposed to suggest .... except that you thought there was some sort
of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!! You two are talking about gender, not sex.
de chucka
2018-06-13 20:02:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for
first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an
attempt to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but what
has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there
might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the best
people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. "
supposed to suggest .... except that you thought there was some
sort of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes

1.
(chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including
specifically sexual intercourse.
"he enjoyed talking about sex"

2.
either of the two main categories (male and female) into which
humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their
reproductive functions.
"adults of both sexes"
synonyms: gender
Fran
2018-06-14 04:15:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for
first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an
attempt to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but what
has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there
might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the best
people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. "
supposed to suggest .... except that you thought there was some
sort of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
    1.
    (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including
specifically sexual intercourse.
    "he enjoyed talking about sex"
    2.
    either of the two main categories (male and female) into which
humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their
reproductive functions.
    "adults of both sexes"
    synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with any
credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then it's no skin off
my nose.
de chucka
2018-06-14 04:21:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for
first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an
attempt to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but what
has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there
might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the best
people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. "
supposed to suggest .... except that you thought there was some
sort of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
     1.
     (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including
specifically sexual intercourse.
     "he enjoyed talking about sex"
     2.
     either of the two main categories (male and female) into which
humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their
reproductive functions.
     "adults of both sexes"
     synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with any
credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then it's no skin off
my nose.
It is a correct usage of the term so I'll keep using it
Fran
2018-06-14 10:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list
for first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an
attempt to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but
what has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there
might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the best
people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. "
supposed to suggest .... except that you thought there was some
sort of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
     1.
     (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including
specifically sexual intercourse.
     "he enjoyed talking about sex"
     2.
     either of the two main categories (male and female) into which
humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their
reproductive functions.
     "adults of both sexes"
     synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with any
credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then it's no skin
off my nose.
It is a correct usage of the term so I'll keep using it
As I said, no skin off my nose for you to sound out of touch.
de chucka
2018-06-14 20:08:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list
for first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an
attempt to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but
what has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there
might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the
best people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or
race. " supposed to suggest .... except that you thought there
was some sort of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
     1.
     (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including
specifically sexual intercourse.
     "he enjoyed talking about sex"
     2.
     either of the two main categories (male and female) into which
humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of
their reproductive functions.
     "adults of both sexes"
     synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with any
credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then it's no skin
off my nose.
It is a correct usage of the term so I'll keep using it
As I said, no skin off my nose for you to sound out of touch.
I'll e-mail Kate Jenkins and tell her she's out of touch
Fran
2018-06-15 03:34:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list
for first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of
their sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly
scoreboard or an attempt to make them totally inclusive
demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but
what has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so
there might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the
best people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or
race. " supposed to suggest .... except that you thought there
was some sort of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
     1.
     (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including
specifically sexual intercourse.
     "he enjoyed talking about sex"
     2.
     either of the two main categories (male and female) into which
humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of
their reproductive functions.
     "adults of both sexes"
     synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with any
credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then it's no skin
off my nose.
It is a correct usage of the term so I'll keep using it
As I said, no skin off my nose for you to sound out of touch.
I'll e-mail Kate Jenkins and tell her she's out of touch
If you catch her out saying 'sex equity issues', then please do so. If
she talks abut 'sexual equality' then you'd look like a goose if you did
so.
de chucka
2018-06-15 03:48:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list
for first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of
their sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly
scoreboard or an attempt to make them totally inclusive
demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but
what has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so
there might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the
best people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or
race. " supposed to suggest .... except that you thought
there was some sort of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years
awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
     1.
     (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including
specifically sexual intercourse.
     "he enjoyed talking about sex"
     2.
     either of the two main categories (male and female) into
which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis
of their reproductive functions.
     "adults of both sexes"
     synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with any
credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then it's no
skin off my nose.
It is a correct usage of the term so I'll keep using it
As I said, no skin off my nose for you to sound out of touch.
I'll e-mail Kate Jenkins and tell her she's out of touch
If you catch her out saying 'sex equity issues', then please do so. If
she talks abut 'sexual equality' then you'd look like a goose if you did
so.
I was thinking more of her title
Fran
2018-06-15 04:34:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on
list for first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of
their sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly
scoreboard or an attempt to make them totally inclusive
demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year
than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but
what has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so
there might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the
best people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or
race. " supposed to suggest .... except that you thought
there was some sort of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years
awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex should
be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
     1.
     (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity,
including specifically sexual intercourse.
     "he enjoyed talking about sex"
     2.
     either of the two main categories (male and female) into
which humans and most other living things are divided on the
basis of their reproductive functions.
     "adults of both sexes"
     synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with any
credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then it's no
skin off my nose.
It is a correct usage of the term so I'll keep using it
As I said, no skin off my nose for you to sound out of touch.
I'll e-mail Kate Jenkins and tell her she's out of touch
If you catch her out saying 'sex equity issues', then please do so. If
she talks abut 'sexual equality' then you'd look like a goose if you
did so.
I was thinking more of her title
Which is now probably about 30 decades old!! The world has evolved
since that organisation was created along with the title that has always
been given to it's Commissioner.
de chucka
2018-06-15 05:01:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on
list for first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of
their sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly
scoreboard or an attempt to make them totally inclusive
demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year
than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year
but what has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so
there might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the
best people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or
race. " supposed to suggest .... except that you thought
there was some sort of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years
awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex should
be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
     1.
     (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity,
including specifically sexual intercourse.
     "he enjoyed talking about sex"
     2.
     either of the two main categories (male and female) into
which humans and most other living things are divided on the
basis of their reproductive functions.
     "adults of both sexes"
     synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with any
credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then it's no
skin off my nose.
It is a correct usage of the term so I'll keep using it
As I said, no skin off my nose for you to sound out of touch.
I'll e-mail Kate Jenkins and tell her she's out of touch
If you catch her out saying 'sex equity issues', then please do so.
If she talks abut 'sexual equality' then you'd look like a goose if
you did so.
I was thinking more of her title
Which is now probably about 30 decades old!!  The world has evolved
since that organisation was created along with the title that has always
been given to it's Commissioner.
but not so much that the terms sex and gender aren't correctly
interchangeable in this context
Fran
2018-06-15 05:38:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on
list for first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of
their sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly
scoreboard or an attempt to make them totally inclusive
demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year
than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year
but what has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so
there might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to
the best people independent of their sex/sexuality,
religion or race. " supposed to suggest .... except that
you thought there was some sort of Pro-Woman Bias applied
to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex
should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
     1.
     (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity,
including specifically sexual intercourse.
     "he enjoyed talking about sex"
     2.
     either of the two main categories (male and female) into
which humans and most other living things are divided on the
basis of their reproductive functions.
     "adults of both sexes"
     synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with any
credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then it's no
skin off my nose.
It is a correct usage of the term so I'll keep using it
As I said, no skin off my nose for you to sound out of touch.
I'll e-mail Kate Jenkins and tell her she's out of touch
If you catch her out saying 'sex equity issues', then please do so.
If she talks abut 'sexual equality' then you'd look like a goose if
you did so.
I was thinking more of her title
Which is now probably about 30 decades old!!  The world has evolved
since that organisation was created along with the title that has
always been given to it's Commissioner.
but not so much that the terms sex and gender aren't correctly
interchangeable in this context
Nope. Her position has a very specific title.
de chucka
2018-06-15 06:26:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on
list for first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of
their sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly
scoreboard or an attempt to make them totally
inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year
than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year
but what has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so
there might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to
the best people independent of their sex/sexuality,
religion or race. " supposed to suggest .... except that
you thought there was some sort of Pro-Woman Bias applied
to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex
should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about
gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
     1.
     (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity,
including specifically sexual intercourse.
     "he enjoyed talking about sex"
     2.
     either of the two main categories (male and female) into
which humans and most other living things are divided on the
basis of their reproductive functions.
     "adults of both sexes"
     synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with
any credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then
it's no skin off my nose.
It is a correct usage of the term so I'll keep using it
As I said, no skin off my nose for you to sound out of touch.
I'll e-mail Kate Jenkins and tell her she's out of touch
If you catch her out saying 'sex equity issues', then please do so.
If she talks abut 'sexual equality' then you'd look like a goose if
you did so.
I was thinking more of her title
Which is now probably about 30 decades old!!  The world has evolved
since that organisation was created along with the title that has
always been given to it's Commissioner.
but not so much that the terms sex and gender aren't correctly
interchangeable in this context
Nope.  Her position has a very specific title.
The terms are interchangeable, consult the OED
Fran
2018-06-16 06:29:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on
list for first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent
of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly
scoreboard or an attempt to make them totally
inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year
than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year
but what has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year,
so there might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to
the best people independent of their sex/sexuality,
religion or race. " supposed to suggest .... except that
you thought there was some sort of Pro-Woman Bias
applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex
should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about
gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
     1.
     (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity,
including specifically sexual intercourse.
     "he enjoyed talking about sex"
     2.
     either of the two main categories (male and female) into
which humans and most other living things are divided on the
basis of their reproductive functions.
     "adults of both sexes"
     synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with
any credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then
it's no skin off my nose.
It is a correct usage of the term so I'll keep using it
As I said, no skin off my nose for you to sound out of touch.
I'll e-mail Kate Jenkins and tell her she's out of touch
If you catch her out saying 'sex equity issues', then please do
so. If she talks abut 'sexual equality' then you'd look like a
goose if you did so.
I was thinking more of her title
Which is now probably about 30 decades old!!  The world has evolved
since that organisation was created along with the title that has
always been given to it's Commissioner.
but not so much that the terms sex and gender aren't correctly
interchangeable in this context
Nope.  Her position has a very specific title.
The terms are interchangeable, consult the OED
And I've told you now repeatedly that times have changed and moved on.
You'd know that if you were interested in the subject and read anything
current.
de chucka
2018-06-16 07:56:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men
on list for first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent
of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly
scoreboard or an attempt to make them totally
inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this
year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this
year but what has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year,
so there might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to
the best people independent of their sex/sexuality,
religion or race. " supposed to suggest .... except
that you thought there was some sort of Pro-Woman Bias
applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex
should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about
gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
     1.
     (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity,
including specifically sexual intercourse.
     "he enjoyed talking about sex"
     2.
     either of the two main categories (male and female)
into which humans and most other living things are divided
on the basis of their reproductive functions.
     "adults of both sexes"
     synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with
any credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then
it's no skin off my nose.
It is a correct usage of the term so I'll keep using it
As I said, no skin off my nose for you to sound out of touch.
I'll e-mail Kate Jenkins and tell her she's out of touch
If you catch her out saying 'sex equity issues', then please do
so. If she talks abut 'sexual equality' then you'd look like a
goose if you did so.
I was thinking more of her title
Which is now probably about 30 decades old!!  The world has evolved
since that organisation was created along with the title that has
always been given to it's Commissioner.
but not so much that the terms sex and gender aren't correctly
interchangeable in this context
Nope.  Her position has a very specific title.
The terms are interchangeable, consult the OED
And I've told you now repeatedly that times have changed and moved on.
You'd know that if you were interested in the subject and read anything
current.
:-) you may be right
Fran
2018-06-16 12:09:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men
on list for first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent
of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some
silly scoreboard or an attempt to make them totally
inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this
year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this
year but what has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year,
so there might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go
to the best people independent of their sex/sexuality,
religion or race. " supposed to suggest .... except
that you thought there was some sort of Pro-Woman Bias
applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex
should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about
gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
     1.
     (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity,
including specifically sexual intercourse.
     "he enjoyed talking about sex"
     2.
     either of the two main categories (male and female)
into which humans and most other living things are divided
on the basis of their reproductive functions.
     "adults of both sexes"
     synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with
any credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then
it's no skin off my nose.
It is a correct usage of the term so I'll keep using it
As I said, no skin off my nose for you to sound out of touch.
I'll e-mail Kate Jenkins and tell her she's out of touch
If you catch her out saying 'sex equity issues', then please do
so. If she talks abut 'sexual equality' then you'd look like a
goose if you did so.
I was thinking more of her title
Which is now probably about 30 decades old!!  The world has
evolved since that organisation was created along with the title
that has always been given to it's Commissioner.
but not so much that the terms sex and gender aren't correctly
interchangeable in this context
Nope.  Her position has a very specific title.
The terms are interchangeable, consult the OED
And I've told you now repeatedly that times have changed and moved on.
You'd know that if you were interested in the subject and read
anything current.
:-) you may be right
I thought of you when I was watching the news tonight and someone being
interviewed spoke of 'gender equity'.........
Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
2018-06-14 05:05:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
    1.
    (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including
specifically sexual intercourse.
    "he enjoyed talking about sex"
    2.
    either of the two main categories (male and female) into which
humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their
reproductive functions.
    "adults of both sexes"
    synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with any
credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then it's no skin off
my nose.
The difference between men and women is sex, not gender.

Gender would be me talking about my boat: "She's a beauty".

Male/female gender is not what determines whether somebody is a man or a woman, that is determined by their sex.

There are two reasons english-speaking monoglots get confused by this:
1/ They don't use gender in their everyday communications and therefore don't understand it
2/ They intend to create political mischief by supporting the ludicrousness that is gender theory
jonz
2018-06-14 10:43:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for
first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an
attempt to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
Nobody, from the awards more women 'did good' this year but what
has a persons sex got to do with anything?
Post by Daniel60
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there
might not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Nobody claimed there is
O.K., so what was your comment "Sorry they should go to the best
people independent of their sex/sexuality, religion or race. "
supposed to suggest .... except that you thought there was some
sort of Pro-Woman Bias applied to this years awards??
None stated none implied,
So why mention it??
because they emphasised one sex over the other when sex should be irrelevant
There is no sex involved!!!  You two are talking about gender, not sex.
sex
sɛks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
    1.
    (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including
specifically sexual intercourse.
    "he enjoyed talking about sex"
    2.
    either of the two main categories (male and female) into which
humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their
reproductive functions.
    "adults of both sexes"
    synonyms:    gender
If you are happy to continue to use "sex" when everyone with any
credibility who writes on the issue uses "gender", then it's no skin off
my nose.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
The terms are interchangeable, Whether *you* like it or not....Tough titty.
Fran
2018-06-11 06:41:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for first
time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an attempt
to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there might not
be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion. Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs. IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets
reported for those who are interested in equity issues.
de chucka
2018-06-12 20:52:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for first
time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an attempt
to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there might
not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets
reported for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have realequality
Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
2018-06-12 21:50:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for first
time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an attempt
to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there might
not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets
reported for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have realequality
Just as they need a separate Tennis comp for women so that women can experience winning without having to suffer an equal playing field, so too should they do it with these sorts of non-segregated awards to save us all this rigmarole. That way men would know they weren't pipped by a woman because the organisers arbitrarily wanted to bump up the numbers of women recipients, and we would never have to hear women moan about men getting all the awards.
We would all then know there was on field based on pure merit, and a second field to keep the feminists quiet, and all would be good.
Ördög
2018-06-12 23:12:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.

Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.

So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
--
Ördög, without any apologies
Clocky
2018-06-13 01:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.

Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
de chucka
2018-06-13 03:32:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
YES
Post by Clocky
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
sadly yes
Fran
2018-06-13 04:57:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh. It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were. Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection. It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
2018-06-13 05:01:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh. It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were. Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection. It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.

The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.

I note feminists appear to remain utterly unmoved by the very extreme gender ratio imbalance that applies in the waste services industry.
Clocky
2018-06-14 16:23:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Fran
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh. It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were. Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection. It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Exactly.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
I note feminists appear to remain utterly unmoved by the very extreme gender ratio imbalance that applies in the waste services industry.
Heh ;-)
de chucka
2018-06-14 23:11:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based appointments,
it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Exactly.
All feminism or only some more radical ones. Naughty naughty you are
making a massive generalisation.
Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
2018-06-15 02:50:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based appointments,
it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Exactly.
All feminism or only some more radical ones. Naughty naughty you are
making a massive generalisation.
Feminism has moved to the radical end of the spectrum as it sheds support among the women of the mainstream. It has become a fringe movement that advocates quite a lot of nonsense as it sows division and attempts to promote irrational dogma.
Fran
2018-06-15 03:52:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based appointments,
it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Exactly.
All feminism or only some more radical ones. Naughty naughty you are
making a massive generalisation.
It's actually not a gross generalisation or even a reality, it's a fantasy.
de chucka
2018-06-15 04:24:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding
achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Exactly.
All feminism or only some more radical ones. Naughty naughty you are
making a massive generalisation.
It's actually not a gross generalisation or even a reality, it's a fantasy.
Really I was told on the ABC World Today that while shouldn't need
Eurydice Dixon shouldn't need to take personal responsibility I as a man
had to take responsibility for the scum who is 'accused' of raping and
murdering her because I'm a bloke. Does Jane Gilmore speak for all women
or only feminists or a sub-set of feminists

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/stop-making-women-responsible-for-mens-violence-jane-gilmore/9874494
Fran
2018-06-15 04:38:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding
achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Exactly.
All feminism or only some more radical ones. Naughty naughty you are
making a massive generalisation.
It's actually not a gross generalisation or even a reality, it's a fantasy.
Really
WTF??? Merit selection is what was being discussed!!!!!!!now has to do
with a murder???????

I was told on the ABC World Today that while shouldn't need
Post by de chucka
Eurydice Dixon shouldn't need to take personal responsibility I as a man
had to take responsibility for the scum who is 'accused' of raping and
murdering her because I'm a bloke. Does Jane Gilmore speak for all women
or only feminists or a sub-set of feminists
You really should get over whatever it was that was done on you. Get help.
Post by de chucka
http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/stop-making-women-responsible-for-mens-violence-jane-gilmore/9874494
de chucka
2018-06-15 04:55:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding
achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Exactly.
All feminism or only some more radical ones. Naughty naughty you are
making a massive generalisation.
It's actually not a gross generalisation or even a reality, it's a fantasy.
Really
WTF???  Merit selection is what was being discussed!!!!!!!now has to do
with a murder???????
I was told on the ABC World Today that while shouldn't need
Post by de chucka
Eurydice Dixon shouldn't need to take personal responsibility I as a
man had to take responsibility for the scum who is 'accused' of raping
and murdering her because I'm a bloke. Does Jane Gilmore speak for all
women or only feminists or a sub-set of feminists
You really should get over whatever it was that was done on you. Get help.
Just showing the putrid depth that some feminists sink to. Yes women
still face discrimination and that should be addressed but not by
demeaning blokes in some great generalisation.
Fran
2018-06-15 05:41:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there
would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding
achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up
offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Exactly.
All feminism or only some more radical ones. Naughty naughty you
are making a massive generalisation.
It's actually not a gross generalisation or even a reality, it's a fantasy.
Really
WTF???  Merit selection is what was being discussed!!!!!!!now has to
do with a murder???????
I was told on the ABC World Today that while shouldn't need
Post by de chucka
Eurydice Dixon shouldn't need to take personal responsibility I as a
man had to take responsibility for the scum who is 'accused' of
raping and murdering her because I'm a bloke. Does Jane Gilmore speak
for all women or only feminists or a sub-set of feminists
You really should get over whatever it was that was done on you. Get help.
Just showing the putrid depth that some feminists sink to.
You're showing your issues.

Yes women
Post by de chucka
still face discrimination and that should be addressed but not by
demeaning blokes in some great generalisation.
Yes petz, do learn to read and to follow a thread.
de chucka
2018-06-15 06:01:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number
of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there
would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were
nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets
reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding
achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating
sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Exactly.
All feminism or only some more radical ones. Naughty naughty you
are making a massive generalisation.
It's actually not a gross generalisation or even a reality, it's a fantasy.
Really
WTF???  Merit selection is what was being discussed!!!!!!!now has to
do with a murder???????
I was told on the ABC World Today that while shouldn't need
Post by de chucka
Eurydice Dixon shouldn't need to take personal responsibility I as a
man had to take responsibility for the scum who is 'accused' of
raping and murdering her because I'm a bloke. Does Jane Gilmore
speak for all women or only feminists or a sub-set of feminists
You really should get over whatever it was that was done on you. Get help.
Just showing the putrid depth that some feminists sink to.
You're showing your issues.
No I've touched a sore point with you, seems no matter how valid a point
is you must support the 'sisterhood' whatever that is. Normally you
logically argue your pov but here it is insult mode
Post by Fran
Yes women
Post by de chucka
still face discrimination and that should be addressed but not by
demeaning blokes in some great generalisation.
Yes petz, do learn to read and to follow a thread.
Fran
2018-06-15 06:25:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number
of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that
there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were
nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of
their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and
gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded
honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding
achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes
on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating
sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Exactly.
All feminism or only some more radical ones. Naughty naughty you
are making a massive generalisation.
It's actually not a gross generalisation or even a reality, it's a fantasy.
Really
WTF???  Merit selection is what was being discussed!!!!!!!now has to
do with a murder???????
I was told on the ABC World Today that while shouldn't need
Post by de chucka
Eurydice Dixon shouldn't need to take personal responsibility I as
a man had to take responsibility for the scum who is 'accused' of
raping and murdering her because I'm a bloke. Does Jane Gilmore
speak for all women or only feminists or a sub-set of feminists
You really should get over whatever it was that was done on you. Get help.
Just showing the putrid depth that some feminists sink to.
You're showing your issues.
No I've touched a sore point with you,
The only sore point you've touched is the same one that petz does
constantly. He does that because he's the village idiot of
aus.politics!!!! You failed to follow the thread! Your comments about
the murder had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion!

seems no matter how valid a point
Post by de chucka
is you must support the 'sisterhood' whatever that is. Normally you
logically argue your pov but here it is insult mode
Yes, I am insulting you! You're being a moron just like petz becasue
you mixed merit selection up with a murder and then didnt even notice
that you've done it'. THEN you go and pull out your monkey about how
bad a woman has been to you. You stuffed up! Don't blame me for your
failure to follow the thread and for your doing a petz.
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yes women
Post by de chucka
still face discrimination and that should be addressed but not by
demeaning blokes in some great generalisation.
Yes petz, do learn to read and to follow a thread.
Fran
2018-06-15 03:50:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
LOL. In a pig's ear.
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based appointments,
it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection! As have quite a few
more enlightened male managers who noticed decades ago that they weren't
getting the best out of their employment pool.

Bog substandard blokes have been selected for millenia based on simple
their gender and, as you've so validly pointed out, their time served
and the fact that they worked in a blokey dominated kulcha. It's only
in the past few decades when the poor old bog sub-standard bloke was
expected to face merit selection (sadly for him, that doesn't include
time served and 'blokey') so old sub-standard bloke has discovered merit
and now uses it like a weapon.

He's bleating about merit because he sees women being selected when he
isn't. Poor old sub-standard bloke has to got blame someone other than
his own sub-standard performance so he places the blame on a feminist
conspiracy.
Post by Clocky
Exactly.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
I note feminists appear to remain utterly unmoved by the very extreme
gender ratio imbalance that applies in the waste services industry.
But of course you won't be able to give a cite will you? But then even
if you did, I won't see it as I plonked you because you're a moron a
long time ago.
Post by Clocky
Heh ;-)
de chucka
2018-06-15 04:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based appointments,
it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?

As have quite a few
more enlightened male managers who noticed decades ago that they weren't
getting the best out of their employment pool.
Bog substandard blokes have been selected for millenia based on simple
their gender and, as you've so validly pointed out, their time served
and the fact that they worked in a blokey dominated kulcha.   It's only
in the past few decades when the poor old bog sub-standard bloke was
expected to face merit selection (sadly for him, that doesn't include
time served and 'blokey') so old sub-standard bloke has discovered merit
and now uses it like a weapon.
Does he? Is that all substandard blokes? It is hilarious that some women
are just as bad as the blokes they deride with generalising.

OK before the rant begins there is only one thing that at the moment
women can do better then men and that is carry babies/give birth and the
vica versa is men supplying sperm. When it comes to everything else that
matters the sexes are equally capable.
He's bleating about merit because he sees women being selected when he
isn't.  Poor old sub-standard bloke has to got blame someone other than
his own sub-standard performance so he places the blame on a feminist
conspiracy.
Post by Clocky
Exactly.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
I note feminists appear to remain utterly unmoved by the very extreme
gender ratio imbalance that applies in the waste services industry.
But of course you won't be able to give a cite will you?  But then even
if you did, I won't see it as I plonked you because you're a moron a
long time ago.
Post by Clocky
Heh ;-)
Fran
2018-06-15 04:44:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding
achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Clocky
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
Post by de chucka
 As have quite a few
more enlightened male managers who noticed decades ago that they
weren't getting the best out of their employment pool.
Bog substandard blokes have been selected for millenia based on simple
their gender and, as you've so validly pointed out, their time served
and the fact that they worked in a blokey dominated kulcha.   It's
only in the past few decades when the poor old bog sub-standard bloke
was expected to face merit selection (sadly for him, that doesn't
include time served and 'blokey') so old sub-standard bloke has
discovered merit and now uses it like a weapon.
Does he? Is that all substandard blokes?
Yep. Smart competent ones don't.

It is hilarious that some women
Post by de chucka
are just as bad as the blokes they deride with generalising.
But then you should try reading before you stop let that monkey on your
back show.
Post by de chucka
OK before the rant begins there is only one thing that at the moment
women can do better then men and that is carry babies/give birth and the
vica versa is men supplying sperm. When it comes to everything else that
matters the sexes are equally capable.
He's bleating about merit because he sees women being selected when he
isn't.  Poor old sub-standard bloke has to got blame someone other
than his own sub-standard performance so he places the blame on a
feminist conspiracy.
Post by Clocky
Exactly.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
I note feminists appear to remain utterly unmoved by the very
extreme gender ratio imbalance that applies in the waste services
industry.
But of course you won't be able to give a cite will you?  But then
even if you did, I won't see it as I plonked you because you're a
moron a long time ago.
Post by Clocky
Heh ;-)
de chucka
2018-06-15 04:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding
achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to mind and
Company Board appointments and political preselection
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
  As have quite a few
more enlightened male managers who noticed decades ago that they
weren't getting the best out of their employment pool.
Bog substandard blokes have been selected for millenia based on
simple their gender and, as you've so validly pointed out, their time
served and the fact that they worked in a blokey dominated kulcha.
It's only in the past few decades when the poor old bog sub-standard
bloke was expected to face merit selection (sadly for him, that
doesn't include time served and 'blokey') so old sub-standard bloke
has discovered merit and now uses it like a weapon.
Does he? Is that all substandard blokes?
Yep.  Smart competent ones don't.
WOW another sub-section of the population that you believe totally share
the same beliefs.
Post by Fran
It is hilarious that some women
Post by de chucka
are just as bad as the blokes they deride with generalising.
But then you should try reading before you stop let that monkey on your
back show.
I do, sorry I suffer a feeling of justice and fairness for all people.

snip
Fran
2018-06-15 05:52:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding
achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to mind and
Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
  As have quite a few
more enlightened male managers who noticed decades ago that they
weren't getting the best out of their employment pool.
Bog substandard blokes have been selected for millenia based on
simple their gender and, as you've so validly pointed out, their
time served and the fact that they worked in a blokey dominated
kulcha. It's only in the past few decades when the poor old bog
sub-standard bloke was expected to face merit selection (sadly for
him, that doesn't include time served and 'blokey') so old
sub-standard bloke has discovered merit and now uses it like a weapon.
Does he? Is that all substandard blokes?
Yep.  Smart competent ones don't.
WOW another sub-section of the population that you believe totally share
the same beliefs.
Put the monkey back in it's cage and stop seeing things that aren't
there. Some of the smart ones are just as bad in term of feeling put
upon as the sub-standard ones who rabbit on about merit. Being smarter,
they know not to use that term. Being smarter means some hide it better
or some do figure out the issues or some just don't notice and so don't
piss anyone off or.......
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
It is hilarious that some women
Post by de chucka
are just as bad as the blokes they deride with generalising.
But then you should try reading before you stop let that monkey on
your back show.
I do, sorry I suffer a feeling of justice and fairness for all people.
Yeah you keep saying that but then that monkey comes out again.
Post by de chucka
snip
de chucka
2018-06-15 06:06:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there
would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding
achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up
offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to mind and
Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything

There are groups pushing quotas
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
  As have quite a few
more enlightened male managers who noticed decades ago that they
weren't getting the best out of their employment pool.
Bog substandard blokes have been selected for millenia based on
simple their gender and, as you've so validly pointed out, their
time served and the fact that they worked in a blokey dominated
kulcha. It's only in the past few decades when the poor old bog
sub-standard bloke was expected to face merit selection (sadly for
him, that doesn't include time served and 'blokey') so old
sub-standard bloke has discovered merit and now uses it like a weapon.
Does he? Is that all substandard blokes?
Yep.  Smart competent ones don't.
WOW another sub-section of the population that you believe totally
share the same beliefs.
Put the monkey back in it's cage and stop seeing things that aren't
there.  Some of the smart ones are just as bad in term of feeling put
upon as the sub-standard ones who rabbit on about merit.  Being smarter,
they know not to use that term.  Being smarter means some hide it better
or some do figure out the issues or some just don't notice and so don't
piss anyone off or.......
Come on they may actually believe in equality, I fist heard the 'blokes
don't really believe in equality of women they are just saying it'
argument back at Uni in the 70's. Totally impossible to argue against
because the reply is 'you're just saying that'
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
It is hilarious that some women
Post by de chucka
are just as bad as the blokes they deride with generalising.
But then you should try reading before you stop let that monkey on
your back show.
I do, sorry I suffer a feeling of justice and fairness for all people.
Yeah you keep saying that but then that monkey comes out again.
Thanks for proving my point
Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
2018-06-15 06:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Come on they may actually believe in equality, I fist heard the 'blokes
don't really believe in equality of women they are just saying it'
argument back at Uni in the 70's. Totally impossible to argue against
because the reply is 'you're just saying that'
I was recently contracting in a government department and the whole staff were subjected to diversity training on the subject of "unconscious bias".
We were told the women's opinions were poorly valued and so we had to listen to all opinions.
We were then told that the overwhelmingly male hirings our department made was proof of bias.
My (recently immigrated) male colleague volunteered the opinion that this was probably less about bias and more about the fact that 90+% of graduates in relevant disciplines being male, it stands to reason that our hirings would be similarly skewed.
The short-haired female consultant told him his opinion was wrong.
I laughed.
My other (recently-immigrated) male colleague volunteered the opinion that there was no problem with bias or undervalued opinions in his (evenly male/female) section because he didn't invite anybody's opinions and simply expected his underlings to follow his directions.
The wimmin directing the activity told him his opinion was the root of the problem.
I laughed even harder.
If I had been a permanent employee I would have brought up the fact that I had recently participated in a hiring activity which attracted 5 applicants, all male, and in such circumstances, how could we be expected to employ any female at all.
I would also have asked her to explain why, if "diversity" was such a good thing, her consulting company was staffed exclusively by wimmin and a couple of gay guys. Where was her diversity?

Honestly, I have never seen such a hideous mish-mash of irrational dogma, logical fallacies, hypocrisy and downright intellectual dishonesty ever before nor since.
Feminism is The Stoopid.
Fran
2018-06-15 06:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number
of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there
would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were
nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets
reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding
achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating
sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the award
goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to mind and
Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
OH FFS!!!!!! Read this:
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
merit based
selection. It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs? Cite?
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
  As have quite a few
more enlightened male managers who noticed decades ago that they
weren't getting the best out of their employment pool.
Bog substandard blokes have been selected for millenia based on
simple their gender and, as you've so validly pointed out, their
time served and the fact that they worked in a blokey dominated
kulcha. It's only in the past few decades when the poor old bog
sub-standard bloke was expected to face merit selection (sadly for
him, that doesn't include time served and 'blokey') so old
sub-standard bloke has discovered merit and now uses it like a weapon.
Does he? Is that all substandard blokes?
Yep.  Smart competent ones don't.
WOW another sub-section of the population that you believe totally
share the same beliefs.
Put the monkey back in it's cage and stop seeing things that aren't
there.  Some of the smart ones are just as bad in term of feeling put
upon as the sub-standard ones who rabbit on about merit.  Being
smarter, they know not to use that term.  Being smarter means some
hide it better or some do figure out the issues or some just don't
notice and so don't piss anyone off or.......
Come on they may actually believe in equality,
Yes they may! Do read what I wrote rather than what that monkey tells
you! Does he want a banana?

I fist heard the 'blokes
Post by de chucka
don't really believe in equality of women they are just saying it'
argument back at Uni in the 70's. Totally impossible to argue against
because the reply is 'you're just saying that'
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
It is hilarious that some women
Post by de chucka
are just as bad as the blokes they deride with generalising.
But then you should try reading before you stop let that monkey on
your back show.
I do, sorry I suffer a feeling of justice and fairness for all people.
Yeah you keep saying that but then that monkey comes out again.
Thanks for proving my point
And thanks for yet again showing the monkey.
de chucka
2018-06-15 07:07:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
snip
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to mind and
Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Fran
merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they
got every
first pick for every gong or job going
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-army-shunning-male-recruits-for-women
Australia will not hit 30% women on boards by 2018, time for quotas ...
https://www.smh.com.au › Business › Workplace › Careers

https://www.womenonboards.net/en-AU/Impact-Media/News/Quotas-for-Australian-Honours
snip
Fran
2018-06-16 06:27:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to mind and
Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
 >>>>>>>>> merit based
 >>>>>>>>> selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they
 >>>>>>>>> got every
 >>>>>>>>> first pick for every gong or job going
 >>>> No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or
jobs.
Post by de chucka
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-army-shunning-male-recruits-for-women
That is like a petz cite. There is nothing in that cite that is from
the Army about who they are recruiting. I have noticed how all of the
army ads show a lot of women in the its ads so it's certainly possible
that the army does see a need for more female recruits.
Post by de chucka
Australia will not hit 30% women on boards by 2018, time for quotas ...
https://www.smh.com.au › Business › Workplace › Careers
https://www.womenonboards.net/en-AU/Impact-Media/News/Quotas-for-Australian-Honours
I asked for citess for gongs or jobs. Board membership is a gift not a
job.
de chucka
2018-06-16 07:45:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to mind and
Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
 >>>>>>>>> merit based
 >>>>>>>>> selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they
 >>>>>>>>> got every
 >>>>>>>>> first pick for every gong or job going
 >>>> No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or
jobs.
Post by de chucka
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-army-shunning-male-recruits-for-women
That is like a petz cite.  There is nothing in that cite that is from
the Army about who they are recruiting.  I have noticed how all of the
army ads show a lot of women in the its ads so it's certainly possible
that the army does see a need for more female recruits.
"Staff have been told to recruit only women, including in frontline
combat roles, under threat of being reassigned if they ignore the
directive, News Corp Australia reports.

Of 50 Army jobs posted this week, only 15 are available to men.

The navy and air force are facing similar quotas. Only one of 18 navy
jobs listed for the next six months is open to men and the air force has
none at all."
Post by de chucka
Australia will not hit 30% women on boards by 2018, time for quotas ...
https://www.smh.com.au › Business › Workplace › Careers
https://www.womenonboards.net/en-AU/Impact-Media/News/Quotas-for-Australian-Honours
I asked for citess for gongs or jobs.  Board membership is a gift not a
job.
Close enough, there are calls out there for quotas do you really want me
to post more?
Fran
2018-06-16 12:19:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to mind
and Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
 >>>>>>>>> merit based
 >>>>>>>>> selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they
 >>>>>>>>> got every
 >>>>>>>>> first pick for every gong or job going
 >>>> No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or
jobs.
Post by de chucka
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-army-shunning-male-recruits-for-women
That is like a petz cite.  There is nothing in that cite that is from
the Army about who they are recruiting.  I have noticed how all of the
army ads show a lot of women in the its ads so it's certainly possible
that the army does see a need for more female recruits.
"Staff have been told to recruit only women, including in frontline
combat roles, under threat of being reassigned if they ignore the
directive, News Corp Australia reports.
"Staff have been told"... Which staff? Told by who? And they
supposedly told that the News Corp and SBS is rereporting what News Corp
suppsedly said. That's just Chinese whispers.
Post by de chucka
Of 50 Army jobs posted this week, only 15 are available to men.
So? How is that a quota? How many women are there in the Army? What
percentage of anything is this quota? Has the army announced any quota?
Post by de chucka
The navy and air force are facing similar quotas. Only one of 18 navy
jobs listed for the next six months is open to men and the air force has
none at all."
So where is the navy or air force announcement of quotas?
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Australia will not hit 30% women on boards by 2018, time for quotas ...
https://www.smh.com.au › Business › Workplace › Careers
https://www.womenonboards.net/en-AU/Impact-Media/News/Quotas-for-Australian-Honours
I asked for citess for gongs or jobs.  Board membership is a gift not
a job.
Close enough, there are calls out there for quotas do you really want me
to post more?
Yes, I do expect you to come up with credible information on quotas
being used for jobs or gongs. If you state it, be prepared to back it
up rather than give a cite that sounds like a pretzel fauxnews report.
Fran
2018-06-16 12:35:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And
seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to mind
and Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
 >>>>>>>>> merit based
 >>>>>>>>> selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they
 >>>>>>>>> got every
 >>>>>>>>> first pick for every gong or job going
 >>>> No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs
or jobs.
Post by de chucka
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-army-shunning-male-recruits-for-women
That is like a petz cite.  There is nothing in that cite that is from
the Army about who they are recruiting.  I have noticed how all of
the army ads show a lot of women in the its ads so it's certainly
possible that the army does see a need for more female recruits.
"Staff have been told to recruit only women, including in frontline
combat roles, under threat of being reassigned if they ignore the
directive, News Corp Australia reports.
"Staff have been told"...  Which staff?  Told by who?  And they
supposedly told that the News Corp and SBS is rereporting what News Corp
suppsedly said.  That's just Chinese whispers.
Post by de chucka
Of 50 Army jobs posted this week, only 15 are available to men.
So?  How is that a quota?  How many women are there in the Army?  What
percentage of anything is this quota?  Has the army announced any quota?
OK. I've done your homework for you since you don't seem to be able to
manage it.

I call bullshit on your claim that the ADF has quotas. It certainly has
targets but targets are not quotas. Females in the ADF are a whole 15%
of the full time force. Woop-de-doo!!!! A whole 15%!!!!!! As opposed
to them being about 50% of the population. How scary that they've
reached a whole 15%!!!!! The ADF should seriously consider setting
quotas if the best they can manage with targets is only 15%.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-21/women-in-the-australian-defence-force-challenges-to-choices/6410208

http://www.defence.gov.au/AnnualReports/15-16/Downloads/Women-in-ADF-Report-2015-16-online-only.pdf

https://defencereview.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/chapter4.pdf
Post by de chucka
The navy and air force are facing similar quotas. Only one of 18 navy
jobs listed for the next six months is open to men and the air force
has none at all."
So where is the navy or air force announcement of quotas?
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Australia will not hit 30% women on boards by 2018, time for quotas ...
https://www.smh.com.au › Business › Workplace › Careers
https://www.womenonboards.net/en-AU/Impact-Media/News/Quotas-for-Australian-Honours
I asked for citess for gongs or jobs.  Board membership is a gift not
a job.
Close enough, there are calls out there for quotas do you really want
me to post more?
Yes,  I do expect you to come up with credible information on quotas
being used for jobs or gongs.  If you state it, be prepared to back it
up rather than give a cite that sounds like a pretzel fauxnews report.
de chucka
2018-06-16 21:47:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections. And
seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to mind
and Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
 >>>>>>>>> merit based
 >>>>>>>>> selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they
 >>>>>>>>> got every
 >>>>>>>>> first pick for every gong or job going
 >>>> No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs
or jobs.
Post by de chucka
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-army-shunning-male-recruits-for-women
That is like a petz cite.  There is nothing in that cite that is
from the Army about who they are recruiting.  I have noticed how all
of the army ads show a lot of women in the its ads so it's certainly
possible that the army does see a need for more female recruits.
"Staff have been told to recruit only women, including in frontline
combat roles, under threat of being reassigned if they ignore the
directive, News Corp Australia reports.
"Staff have been told"...  Which staff?  Told by who?  And they
supposedly told that the News Corp and SBS is rereporting what News
Corp suppsedly said.  That's just Chinese whispers.
Post by de chucka
Of 50 Army jobs posted this week, only 15 are available to men.
So?  How is that a quota?  How many women are there in the Army?  What
percentage of anything is this quota?  Has the army announced any quota?
OK. I've done your homework for you since you don't seem to be able to
manage it.
I call bullshit on your claim that the ADF has quotas.  It certainly has
targets but targets are not quotas.
How do you achieve these "targets". I'd describe Targets as aspirational
goals while quotas are mandated one, however both need to have some form
of positive discrimination to be achieved. Is this a bad thing? maybe
not although it does stick in my craw to say that as I'm such a strong
supporter of best person for the job.

Females in the ADF are a whole 15%

Totally irrelevant, the discussion is about whether there are calls by
for quotas in jobs and gongs
Post by Fran
of the full time force.  Woop-de-doo!!!!  A whole 15%!!!!!!  As opposed
to them being about 50% of the population.  How scary that they've
reached a whole 15%!!!!!  The ADF should seriously consider setting
quotas if the best they can manage with targets is only 15%.
Now you are suggesting quotas, I think that shows very important people
are calling for quotas and my point is proven

snip
Fran
2018-06-16 23:56:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections.
And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to mind
and Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
 >>>>>>>>> merit based
 >>>>>>>>> selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they
 >>>>>>>>> got every
 >>>>>>>>> first pick for every gong or job going
 >>>> No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs
or jobs.
Post by de chucka
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-army-shunning-male-recruits-for-women
That is like a petz cite.  There is nothing in that cite that is
from the Army about who they are recruiting.  I have noticed how
all of the army ads show a lot of women in the its ads so it's
certainly possible that the army does see a need for more female
recruits.
"Staff have been told to recruit only women, including in frontline
combat roles, under threat of being reassigned if they ignore the
directive, News Corp Australia reports.
"Staff have been told"...  Which staff?  Told by who?  And they
supposedly told that the News Corp and SBS is rereporting what News
Corp suppsedly said.  That's just Chinese whispers.
Post by de chucka
Of 50 Army jobs posted this week, only 15 are available to men.
So?  How is that a quota?  How many women are there in the Army?
What percentage of anything is this quota?  Has the army announced
any quota?
OK. I've done your homework for you since you don't seem to be able to
manage it.
I call bullshit on your claim that the ADF has quotas.  It certainly
has targets but targets are not quotas.
How do you achieve these "targets". I'd describe Targets as aspirational
goals while quotas are mandated one,
Yep. I think that is near enough by way of definition.

however both need to have some form
Post by de chucka
of positive discrimination to be achieved.
Nope. It does for quotas but not for targets. Hence the advertising I
mentioned. Show lots and lots of women in the military ads is how one
works towards targets.

Is this a bad thing? maybe
Post by de chucka
not although it does stick in my craw to say that as I'm such a strong
supporter of best person for the job.
Well that too is a bullshit comment when it comes to ADF recruiting.
There is no qualifications beyond passing the medical at the target
level of entry. And if you read the cites I gave, in terms of where
women are inside the military, there are fuck all women up the greasy
poll so the blokes are still being seleceted over women all the way up
the greasy pole. Your craw needs to rethink it's setting.
Post by de chucka
 Females in the ADF are a whole 15%
Totally irrelevant, the discussion is about whether there are calls by
for quotas in jobs and gongs
It IS relevant!!!! You produced a moronic petz-like cite to support
your assertion about quotas! In short, you posted hysteria and not
facts. The facts about what is really going on in the Army are that the
Army level of female particpation is lower that the 15% of all the ADF
female participation AND there are no quotas anywhere in the ADF
including the Army.
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
of the full time force.  Woop-de-doo!!!!  A whole 15%!!!!!!  As
opposed to them being about 50% of the population.  How scary that
they've reached a whole 15%!!!!!  The ADF should seriously consider
setting quotas if the best they can manage with targets is only 15%.
Now you are suggesting quotas, I think that shows very important people
are calling for quotas and my point is proven
Do learn to recognise sarcasm when you see it.

You stuffed up by posting hysteria and making a dodgy statement that
doesn't withstand examination. And, like petz, you got caught out.
Suck it up Sunshine.
de chucka
2018-06-17 00:18:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections.
And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to
mind and Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
 >>>>>>>>> merit based
 >>>>>>>>> selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they
 >>>>>>>>> got every
 >>>>>>>>> first pick for every gong or job going
 >>>> No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for
gongs or jobs.
Post by de chucka
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-army-shunning-male-recruits-for-women
That is like a petz cite.  There is nothing in that cite that is
from the Army about who they are recruiting.  I have noticed how
all of the army ads show a lot of women in the its ads so it's
certainly possible that the army does see a need for more female
recruits.
"Staff have been told to recruit only women, including in frontline
combat roles, under threat of being reassigned if they ignore the
directive, News Corp Australia reports.
"Staff have been told"...  Which staff?  Told by who?  And they
supposedly told that the News Corp and SBS is rereporting what News
Corp suppsedly said.  That's just Chinese whispers.
Post by de chucka
Of 50 Army jobs posted this week, only 15 are available to men.
So?  How is that a quota?  How many women are there in the Army?
What percentage of anything is this quota?  Has the army announced
any quota?
OK. I've done your homework for you since you don't seem to be able
to manage it.
I call bullshit on your claim that the ADF has quotas.  It certainly
has targets but targets are not quotas.
How do you achieve these "targets". I'd describe Targets as
aspirational goals while quotas are mandated one,
Yep.  I think that is near enough by way of definition.
however both need to have some form
Post by de chucka
of positive discrimination to be achieved.
Nope.  It does for quotas but not for targets.  Hence the advertising I
mentioned.  Show lots and lots of women in the military ads is how one
works towards targets.
I'd make the environment more inclusive, however it seems a quota system
is operating
Is this a bad thing? maybe
Post by de chucka
not although it does stick in my craw to say that as I'm such a strong
supporter of best person for the job.
Well that too is a bullshit comment when it comes to ADF recruiting.
There is no qualifications beyond passing the medical at the target
level of entry.  And if you read the cites I gave, in terms of where
women are inside the military, there are fuck all women up the greasy
poll so the blokes are still being seleceted over women all the way up
the greasy pole.  Your craw needs to rethink it's setting.
No there is positive discrimination in ADF recruitment at the moment
which some believe is needed as only 15%are involved are women
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/army-shuns-male-recruits-for-women/news-story/d3ab0118aced4757d3e188759e17fa69
Post by de chucka
  Females in the ADF are a whole 15%
Totally irrelevant, the discussion is about whether there are calls by
for quotas in jobs and gongs
It IS relevant!!!!  You produced a moronic petz-like cite to support
your assertion about quotas!  In short, you posted hysteria and not
facts.
You are proving that the entomology of hysteria is true "via Latin from
Greek husterikos ‘of the womb’, from hustera ‘womb’" :-) OK I retract it
but bugger of with trying to insult me

  The facts about what is really going on in the Army are that the
Army level of female particpation is lower that the 15% of all the ADF
female participation AND there are no quotas anywhere in the ADF
including the Army.
Which is probably why there is discrimination in recruitment at the
moment, need to reach the targets somehow.

To be fair the original comment was about if people were calling for
quotas on jobs and gong so IF they are being implemented is rather
irreverent
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
of the full time force.  Woop-de-doo!!!!  A whole 15%!!!!!!  As
opposed to them being about 50% of the population.  How scary that
they've reached a whole 15%!!!!!  The ADF should seriously consider
setting quotas if the best they can manage with targets is only 15%.
Now you are suggesting quotas, I think that shows very important
people are calling for quotas and my point is proven
Do learn to recognise sarcasm when you see it.
I do, were you being sarcastic?
You stuffed up by posting hysteria and making a dodgy statement that
doesn't withstand examination.  And, like petz, you got caught out. Suck
it up Sunshine.
Sorry but the facts are that people are demanding quotas for both jobs
(including that important JOB of Company Director) and gongs. OK it
doesn't fit your idea of feminism. However your fight should be with
these sisters not me for pointing out the facts
Fran
2018-06-18 01:54:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections.
And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating merit-based
appointments, it is advocating discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for gongs
or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to
mind and Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
 >>>>>>>>> merit based
 >>>>>>>>> selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they
 >>>>>>>>> got every
 >>>>>>>>> first pick for every gong or job going
 >>>> No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for
gongs or jobs.
Post by de chucka
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-army-shunning-male-recruits-for-women
That is like a petz cite.  There is nothing in that cite that is
from the Army about who they are recruiting.  I have noticed how
all of the army ads show a lot of women in the its ads so it's
certainly possible that the army does see a need for more female
recruits.
"Staff have been told to recruit only women, including in
frontline combat roles, under threat of being reassigned if they
ignore the directive, News Corp Australia reports.
"Staff have been told"...  Which staff?  Told by who?  And they
supposedly told that the News Corp and SBS is rereporting what News
Corp suppsedly said.  That's just Chinese whispers.
Post by de chucka
Of 50 Army jobs posted this week, only 15 are available to men.
So?  How is that a quota?  How many women are there in the Army?
What percentage of anything is this quota?  Has the army announced
any quota?
OK. I've done your homework for you since you don't seem to be able
to manage it.
I call bullshit on your claim that the ADF has quotas.  It certainly
has targets but targets are not quotas.
How do you achieve these "targets". I'd describe Targets as
aspirational goals while quotas are mandated one,
Yep.  I think that is near enough by way of definition.
however both need to have some form
Post by de chucka
of positive discrimination to be achieved.
Nope.  It does for quotas but not for targets.  Hence the advertising
I mentioned.  Show lots and lots of women in the military ads is how
one works towards targets.
I'd make the environment more inclusive, however it seems a quota system
is operating
There is no quota system in place as they'd have to meet them. Targets
are in place and even they aren't being met.
Post by de chucka
Is this a bad thing? maybe
Post by de chucka
not although it does stick in my craw to say that as I'm such a
strong supporter of best person for the job.
Well that too is a bullshit comment when it comes to ADF recruiting.
There is no qualifications beyond passing the medical at the target
level of entry.  And if you read the cites I gave, in terms of where
women are inside the military, there are fuck all women up the greasy
poll so the blokes are still being seleceted over women all the way up
the greasy pole.  Your craw needs to rethink it's setting.
No there is positive discrimination in ADF recruitment at the moment
which some believe is needed as only 15%are involved are women
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/army-shuns-male-recruits-for-women/news-story/d3ab0118aced4757d3e188759e17fa69
So you want it both ways? Was it positive discrimination when it was
only males who were selected? Did you squeak up about that then and did
that stick in your craw then? Of course you had no issue with any of
that.

How can it be positive discrimination when there are only 15% of women
in the whole of the ADF? If it was 60% women then yep, then you could
justifiably squeak on about positive discrimination.

At the moment, the ADF has decided it wants women recruits so if they
pass the physical, that is who it chooses to take to meet its targets.
If there was no squeaking when it was a massive majority of men who
passed the physical and were selected, then it's not an issue now the
forces have decided to take a majority of women.
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
  Females in the ADF are a whole 15%
Totally irrelevant, the discussion is about whether there are calls
by for quotas in jobs and gongs
It IS relevant!!!!  You produced a moronic petz-like cite to support
your assertion about quotas!  In short, you posted hysteria and not
facts.
You are proving that the entomology of hysteria is true "via Latin from
Greek husterikos ‘of the womb’, from hustera ‘womb’" :-) OK I retract it
but bugger of with trying to insult me
You're having a fit of the vapours rather than using your brain! Yes, I
am insulting you for being a petz like dimwit and posting low grade
hysteria instead of facts! READ your own pathetic cite! That cite WAS
hysteria and the sort of shit Id expect from petz who clearly has
neither an analytical or a functioning brain and who gravitates to the
lowest form of cite. You usually don't but in the instance of that
cite, you got down to his level.
Post by de chucka
  The facts about what is really going on in the Army are that the
Army level of female particpation is lower that the 15% of all the ADF
female participation AND there are no quotas anywhere in the ADF
including the Army.
Which is probably why there is discrimination in recruitment at the
moment, need to reach the targets somehow.'
Pull the other one dechucka. You and I both know that you would not
have had any problems or ever have made a single comment or even thought
there was anything discriminatory in the practices of the ADF when it
took in a majority of males. You'd be lying if you say otherwise.
Post by de chucka
To be fair the original comment was about if people were calling for
quotas on jobs and gong so IF they are being implemented is rather
irreverent
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
of the full time force.  Woop-de-doo!!!!  A whole 15%!!!!!!  As
opposed to them being about 50% of the population.  How scary that
they've reached a whole 15%!!!!!  The ADF should seriously consider
setting quotas if the best they can manage with targets is only 15%.
Now you are suggesting quotas, I think that shows very important
people are calling for quotas and my point is proven
Do learn to recognise sarcasm when you see it.
I do, were you being sarcastic?
Now who is attempting to be insulting.....
Post by de chucka
You stuffed up by posting hysteria and making a dodgy statement that
doesn't withstand examination.  And, like petz, you got caught out.
Suck it up Sunshine.
Sorry but the facts are that people are demanding quotas for both jobs
(including that important JOB of Company Director) and gongs.
So give a cite to support that for gongs and jobs. Stop being a petz.

OK it
Post by de chucka
doesn't fit your idea of feminism. However your fight should be with
these sisters not me for pointing out the facts
So give a cite to support your claim on gongs and jobs.
Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
2018-06-18 02:02:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
No there is positive discrimination in ADF recruitment at the moment
which some believe is needed as only 15%are involved are women
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/army-shuns-male-recruits-for-women/news-story/d3ab0118aced4757d3e188759e17fa69
So you want it both ways? Was it positive discrimination when it was
only males who were selected? Did you squeak up about that then and did
that stick in your craw then? Of course you had no issue with any of
that.
How can it be positive discrimination when there are only 15% of women
in the whole of the ADF? If it was 60% women then yep, then you could
justifiably squeak on about positive discrimination.
Wherein Fran demonstrates she has lost the ability to think rationally.

The 15% are not applying for jobs. We aren't talking about people who already have jobs. The discrimination applies to people who apply for jobs.

If 85 men and 15 women want a job in the ADF today, all 15 women will get the job, whereas 80 of the men will be unsuccessful. This result has nothing to do with fairness nor merit, it is about discrimination.

I'd also wager that the fitness bar is set a lot lower for women than it is for men - I certainly remember the bar was *much* lower for women when I was serving. From memory they weren't even required to be able to do chin-ups, and they were permitted to take several days off all physical activity every month, time-off they were never required to make good on.
de chucka
2018-06-18 02:14:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Of course merit applied to them. And good connections.
And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating
merit-based appointments, it is advocating
discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for
gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to
mind and Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
 >>>>>>>>> merit based
 >>>>>>>>> selection.  It never had to apply to them for
millenia as they
 >>>>>>>>> got every
 >>>>>>>>> first pick for every gong or job going
 >>>> No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for
gongs or jobs.
Post by de chucka
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-army-shunning-male-recruits-for-women
That is like a petz cite.  There is nothing in that cite that is
from the Army about who they are recruiting.  I have noticed how
all of the army ads show a lot of women in the its ads so it's
certainly possible that the army does see a need for more female
recruits.
"Staff have been told to recruit only women, including in
frontline combat roles, under threat of being reassigned if they
ignore the directive, News Corp Australia reports.
"Staff have been told"...  Which staff?  Told by who?  And they
supposedly told that the News Corp and SBS is rereporting what
News Corp suppsedly said.  That's just Chinese whispers.
Post by de chucka
Of 50 Army jobs posted this week, only 15 are available to men.
So?  How is that a quota?  How many women are there in the Army?
What percentage of anything is this quota?  Has the army announced
any quota?
OK. I've done your homework for you since you don't seem to be able
to manage it.
I call bullshit on your claim that the ADF has quotas.  It
certainly has targets but targets are not quotas.
How do you achieve these "targets". I'd describe Targets as
aspirational goals while quotas are mandated one,
Yep.  I think that is near enough by way of definition.
however both need to have some form
Post by de chucka
of positive discrimination to be achieved.
Nope.  It does for quotas but not for targets.  Hence the advertising
I mentioned.  Show lots and lots of women in the military ads is how
one works towards targets.
I'd make the environment more inclusive, however it seems a quota
system is operating
There is no quota system in place as they'd have to meet them.  Targets
are in place and even they aren't being met.
They'll have to increase the recruitment of females within the
recruitment number
Post by de chucka
Is this a bad thing? maybe
Post by de chucka
not although it does stick in my craw to say that as I'm such a
strong supporter of best person for the job.
Well that too is a bullshit comment when it comes to ADF recruiting.
There is no qualifications beyond passing the medical at the target
level of entry.  And if you read the cites I gave, in terms of where
women are inside the military, there are fuck all women up the greasy
poll so the blokes are still being seleceted over women all the way
up the greasy pole.  Your craw needs to rethink it's setting.
No there is positive discrimination in ADF recruitment at the moment
which some believe is needed as only 15%are involved are women
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/army-shuns-male-recruits-for-women/news-story/d3ab0118aced4757d3e188759e17fa69
So you want it both ways?  Was it positive discrimination when it was
only males who were selected?
Yes
Did you squeak up about that then and did
that stick in your craw then?  Of course you had no issue with any of that.
In my day women could not serve actively so it didn't really matter to
me. They could service trucks, drive, feed us, arrest us (not me but
there were female MPs) as well as the blokes. Did I women the barricades
to change the policy? No
How can it be positive discrimination when there are only 15% of women
in the whole of the ADF?
because the discrimination is in the recruitment to get up to the 50/50
level

  If it was 60% women then yep, then you could
justifiably squeak on about positive discrimination.
At the moment, the ADF has decided it wants women recruits so if they
pass the physical, that is who it chooses to take to meet its targets.
If there was no squeaking when it was a massive majority of men who
passed the physical and were selected, then it's not an issue now the
forces have decided to take a majority of women.
So women and men didn't fight for total equality in the armed services?
I remembered when it happened, it should be open to anyone to serve
anywhere was and is my opinion.

Sorry Fran there is currently positive discrimination in recruitment
from the reports, all for the best of reasons but that doesn't mean it
isn't occurring.
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
  Females in the ADF are a whole 15%
Totally irrelevant, the discussion is about whether there are calls
by for quotas in jobs and gongs
It IS relevant!!!!  You produced a moronic petz-like cite to support
your assertion about quotas!  In short, you posted hysteria and not
facts.
You are proving that the entomology of hysteria is true "via Latin
from Greek husterikos ‘of the womb’, from hustera ‘womb’" :-) OK I
retract it but bugger of with trying to insult me
You're having a fit of the vapours rather than using your brain!
You re thinking with your womb so ner ner. Cheap insults comparing me to
pez are really beneath you.
Yes, I
am insulting you for being a petz like dimwit and posting low grade
hysteria instead of facts! READ your own pathetic cite!  That cite WAS
hysteria and the sort of shit Id expect from petz who clearly has
neither an analytical or a functioning brain and who gravitates to the
lowest form of cite.  You usually don't but in the instance of that
cite, you got down to his level.
Come on less insults and more addressing the evidence of people calling
for quotas and jobs which you said you couldn't remember seeing
Post by de chucka
   The facts about what is really going on in the Army are that the
Army level of female particpation is lower that the 15% of all the
ADF female participation AND there are no quotas anywhere in the ADF
including the Army.
Which is probably why there is discrimination in recruitment at the
moment, need to reach the targets somehow.'
Pull the other one dechucka.  You and I both know that you would not
have had any problems or ever have made a single comment or even thought
there was anything discriminatory in the practices of the ADF when it
took in a majority of males.
Ok so past discrimination make present discrimination OK. Come lets have
your position is discrimination acceptable?
  You'd be lying if you say otherwise.
Post by de chucka
To be fair the original comment was about if people were calling for
quotas on jobs and gong so IF they are being implemented is rather
irreverent
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
of the full time force.  Woop-de-doo!!!!  A whole 15%!!!!!!  As
opposed to them being about 50% of the population.  How scary that
they've reached a whole 15%!!!!!  The ADF should seriously consider
setting quotas if the best they can manage with targets is only 15%.
Now you are suggesting quotas, I think that shows very important
people are calling for quotas and my point is proven
Do learn to recognise sarcasm when you see it.
I do, were you being sarcastic?
Now who is attempting to be insulting.....
;-)
Post by de chucka
You stuffed up by posting hysteria and making a dodgy statement that
doesn't withstand examination.  And, like petz, you got caught out.
Suck it up Sunshine.
Sorry but the facts are that people are demanding quotas for both jobs
(including that important JOB of Company Director) and gongs.
So give a cite to support that for gongs and jobs.  Stop being a petz.
OK it
Post by de chucka
doesn't fit your idea of feminism. However your fight should be with
these sisters not me for pointing out the facts
So give a cite to support your claim on gongs and jobs.
With a quick cut and paste from my previous posts

Some more examples of people calling for quotas/targets ( those with
defined time frame)
http://www.broadagenda.com.au/home/quotas-in-australia-what-has-changed-in-13-years/

https://honey.nine.com.au/2017/05/01/06/31/gender-balance-state-government-contractors-forced-to-hire-more-women

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/does-australia-need-gender-quotas/9082934
Progress in this area has so far been achieved without legislative
quotas, but the President of CWDI says that's a measure Australia should
seriously consider.
Australia will not hit 30% women on boards by 2018, time for quotas ...
https://www.smh.com.au › Business › Workplace › Careers
https://www.womenonboards.net/en-AU/Impact-Media/News/Quotas-for-Australian-Honours
Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
2018-06-18 23:49:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Ok so past discrimination make present discrimination OK. Come lets have
your position is discrimination acceptable?
I wish you'd stop calling it "positive" discrimination.

From the point of view of the well-qualified applicant who is passed over in favour of a less-qualified person on account of his sex, there is nothing "positive" about it.
Fran
2018-06-19 01:32:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Of course merit applied to them. And good
connections. And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating
merit-based appointments, it is advocating
discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for
gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to
mind and Company Board appointments and political
preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
 >>>>>>>>> merit based
 >>>>>>>>> selection.  It never had to apply to them for
millenia as they
 >>>>>>>>> got every
 >>>>>>>>> first pick for every gong or job going
 >>>> No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for
gongs or jobs.
Post by de chucka
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-army-shunning-male-recruits-for-women
That is like a petz cite.  There is nothing in that cite that
is from the Army about who they are recruiting.  I have noticed
how all of the army ads show a lot of women in the its ads so
it's certainly possible that the army does see a need for more
female recruits.
"Staff have been told to recruit only women, including in
frontline combat roles, under threat of being reassigned if they
ignore the directive, News Corp Australia reports.
"Staff have been told"...  Which staff?  Told by who?  And they
supposedly told that the News Corp and SBS is rereporting what
News Corp suppsedly said.  That's just Chinese whispers.
Post by de chucka
Of 50 Army jobs posted this week, only 15 are available to men.
So?  How is that a quota?  How many women are there in the Army?
What percentage of anything is this quota?  Has the army
announced any quota?
OK. I've done your homework for you since you don't seem to be
able to manage it.
I call bullshit on your claim that the ADF has quotas.  It
certainly has targets but targets are not quotas.
How do you achieve these "targets". I'd describe Targets as
aspirational goals while quotas are mandated one,
Yep.  I think that is near enough by way of definition.
however both need to have some form
Post by de chucka
of positive discrimination to be achieved.
Nope.  It does for quotas but not for targets.  Hence the
advertising I mentioned.  Show lots and lots of women in the
military ads is how one works towards targets.
I'd make the environment more inclusive, however it seems a quota
system is operating
There is no quota system in place as they'd have to meet them.
Targets are in place and even they aren't being met.
They'll have to increase the recruitment of females within the
recruitment number
that seems to be what the ADF appears to be doing.
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Is this a bad thing? maybe
Post by de chucka
not although it does stick in my craw to say that as I'm such a
strong supporter of best person for the job.
Well that too is a bullshit comment when it comes to ADF recruiting.
There is no qualifications beyond passing the medical at the target
level of entry.  And if you read the cites I gave, in terms of where
women are inside the military, there are fuck all women up the
greasy poll so the blokes are still being seleceted over women all
the way up the greasy pole.  Your craw needs to rethink it's setting.
No there is positive discrimination in ADF recruitment at the moment
which some believe is needed as only 15%are involved are women
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/army-shuns-male-recruits-for-women/news-story/d3ab0118aced4757d3e188759e17fa69
So you want it both ways?  Was it positive discrimination when it was
only males who were selected?
Yes >
Post by Fran
Did you squeak up about that then and did that stick in your craw
then?  Of course you had no issue with any of that.
In my day women could not serve actively so it didn't really matter to
me. They could service trucks, drive, feed us, arrest us (not me but
there were female MPs) as well as the blokes. Did I women the barricades
to change the policy? No
Of course you didn't. Now you do. That's hypocritical.
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
How can it be positive discrimination when there are only 15% of women
in the whole of the ADF?
because the discrimination is in the recruitment to get up to the 50/50
level
It's a form of redress. At 15% of the ADF, I don't see it as being
positive discrimination. I see it as a targeted recruitment and even
that is not being met if you read the reports I cited and how they are
trying to get up to nearer 25%.
Post by de chucka
  If it was 60% women then yep, then you could
Post by Fran
justifiably squeak on about positive discrimination.
At the moment, the ADF has decided it wants women recruits so if they
pass the physical, that is who it chooses to take to meet its targets.
If there was no squeaking when it was a massive majority of men who
passed the physical and were selected, then it's not an issue now the
forces have decided to take a majority of women.
So women and men didn't fight for total equality in the armed services?
I remembered when it happened, it should be open to anyone to serve
anywhere was and is my opinion.
Sorry Fran there is currently positive discrimination in recruitment
from the reports, all for the best of reasons but that doesn't mean it
isn't occurring.
OK, have it your way but do recall that it never was a problem for you
till they started choosing women over men. and you wonder why I get on
your case on gender issues when you keep putting your hoof in it.
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
  Females in the ADF are a whole 15%
Totally irrelevant, the discussion is about whether there are calls
by for quotas in jobs and gongs
It IS relevant!!!!  You produced a moronic petz-like cite to support
your assertion about quotas!  In short, you posted hysteria and not
facts.
You are proving that the entomology of hysteria is true "via Latin
from Greek husterikos ‘of the womb’, from hustera ‘womb’" :-) OK I
retract it but bugger of with trying to insult me
You're having a fit of the vapours rather than using your brain!
You re thinking with your womb so ner ner.
You can shove your whingeing about cheap insults up your arse when you
produce that as an example of your own cheap insults!

Cheap insults comparing me to
Post by de chucka
pez are really beneath you.
But not beneath you. Grow up and stop acting like him! Don't give petz
like cites and get petulant when you're called on the crap quality of
those cites. READ what you are going to cite and don't give cites that
have no meat to them. You'd have to be stupid if you think I'll accept
the line of "our un-named' anonymous source says"!
Post by de chucka
 Yes, I
Post by Fran
am insulting you for being a petz like dimwit and posting low grade
hysteria instead of facts! READ your own pathetic cite!  That cite WAS
hysteria and the sort of shit Id expect from petz who clearly has
neither an analytical or a functioning brain and who gravitates to the
lowest form of cite.  You usually don't but in the instance of that
cite, you got down to his level.
Come on less insults and more addressing the evidence of people calling
for quotas and jobs which you said you couldn't remember seeing
Come on and stop your own insults and READ the cites you give. A
discussion on quotas that does not "call for" quotas in jobs and gongs
is not support for your fantasy that there are quotas for jobs and gongs.
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
   The facts about what is really going on in the Army are that the
Army level of female particpation is lower that the 15% of all the
ADF female participation AND there are no quotas anywhere in the ADF
including the Army.
Which is probably why there is discrimination in recruitment at the
moment, need to reach the targets somehow.'
Pull the other one dechucka.  You and I both know that you would not
have had any problems or ever have made a single comment or even
thought there was anything discriminatory in the practices of the ADF
when it took in a majority of males.
Ok so past discrimination make present discrimination OK. Come lets have
your position is discrimination acceptable?
I've got no problems with targets set to redress past problems at the
entry level such as the ADF is doing.
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
To be fair the original comment was about if people were calling for
quotas on jobs and gong so IF they are being implemented is rather
irreverent
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
of the full time force.  Woop-de-doo!!!!  A whole 15%!!!!!!  As
opposed to them being about 50% of the population.  How scary that
they've reached a whole 15%!!!!!  The ADF should seriously
consider setting quotas if the best they can manage with targets
is only 15%.
Now you are suggesting quotas, I think that shows very important
people are calling for quotas and my point is proven
Do learn to recognise sarcasm when you see it.
I do, were you being sarcastic?
Now who is attempting to be insulting.....
;-)
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
You stuffed up by posting hysteria and making a dodgy statement that
doesn't withstand examination.  And, like petz, you got caught out.
Suck it up Sunshine.
Sorry but the facts are that people are demanding quotas for both
jobs (including that important JOB of Company Director) and gongs.
So give a cite to support that for gongs and jobs.  Stop being a petz.
OK it
Post by de chucka
doesn't fit your idea of feminism. However your fight should be with
these sisters not me for pointing out the facts
So give a cite to support your claim on gongs and jobs.
With a quick cut and paste from my previous posts
Some more examples of people calling for quotas/targets ( those with
defined time frame)
http://www.broadagenda.com.au/home/quotas-in-australia-what-has-changed-in-13-years/
READ IT!!!!! Even the title shows you it's a report not a call for
quotas!!!!!
"Here, one of our 50/50 Foundation team members, Jane Alver, reflects
on early research she carried out back when all eyes were on Norway."
Post by de chucka
https://honey.nine.com.au/2017/05/01/06/31/gender-balance-state-government-contractors-forced-to-hire-more-women
READ IT!!!! "sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins said the Daily
Telegraph report did "not accurately reflect" the commission's
position." ..."she did not recommend a mandatory quota or that
organisations should need to meet this gender balance target to secure
Government contracts, she said."
Post by de chucka
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/does-australia-need-gender-quotas/9082934
Board Membership! As I've said several times, Boards are neither a job
nor a gong. You say differently.
Post by de chucka
Progress in this area has so far been achieved without legislative
quotas, but the President of CWDI says that's a measure Australia should
seriously consider.
I'm underwhelmed. Your scratching the bottom of the barrel in your
search for ANY mention of quotas let alone ones that could be deemed to
be "calling for" them.
I have told you several times I want cites on jobs and gongs. Not once
have you produced anything of substance. And do cease with the Boards
when they are irrelevant to 99.99% of Australian women (and probably 98%
of Australian men). And did you not stop to wonder who is the President
of CWDI? Or where is the CWDI located? You report card is marked "must
try harder".
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Australia will not hit 30% women on boards by 2018, time for quotas ...
https://www.smh.com.au › Business › Workplace › Careers
https://www.womenonboards.net/en-AU/Impact-Media/News/Quotas-for-Australian-Honours
In short, you're still not been able to produce any cite of quotas being
'called for' for either jobs or gongs.
de chucka
2018-06-19 01:51:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Of course merit applied to them. And good
connections. And seniority.
LOL.  In a pig's ear.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
The issue is that feminism isn't advocating
merit-based appointments, it is advocating
discrimination based on sex.
Feminists always HAVE advocated merit selection!
Who are the people advocating quotas?
No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for
gongs or jobs.
There are many calling for quotas, the areas that come to
mind and Company Board appointments and political preselection
Do learn to read!!!
What? you haven't argued anything
then less smart blokes started squeaking about
 >>>>>>>>> merit based
 >>>>>>>>> selection.  It never had to apply to them for
millenia as they
 >>>>>>>>> got every
 >>>>>>>>> first pick for every gong or job going
 >>>> No-one I know of when it comes to merit selection for
gongs or jobs.
Post by de chucka
There are groups pushing quotas
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-army-shunning-male-recruits-for-women
That is like a petz cite.  There is nothing in that cite that
is from the Army about who they are recruiting.  I have
noticed how all of the army ads show a lot of women in the its
ads so it's certainly possible that the army does see a need
for more female recruits.
"Staff have been told to recruit only women, including in
frontline combat roles, under threat of being reassigned if
they ignore the directive, News Corp Australia reports.
"Staff have been told"...  Which staff?  Told by who?  And they
supposedly told that the News Corp and SBS is rereporting what
News Corp suppsedly said.  That's just Chinese whispers.
Post by de chucka
Of 50 Army jobs posted this week, only 15 are available to men.
So?  How is that a quota?  How many women are there in the Army?
What percentage of anything is this quota?  Has the army
announced any quota?
OK. I've done your homework for you since you don't seem to be
able to manage it.
I call bullshit on your claim that the ADF has quotas.  It
certainly has targets but targets are not quotas.
How do you achieve these "targets". I'd describe Targets as
aspirational goals while quotas are mandated one,
Yep.  I think that is near enough by way of definition.
however both need to have some form
Post by de chucka
of positive discrimination to be achieved.
Nope.  It does for quotas but not for targets.  Hence the
advertising I mentioned.  Show lots and lots of women in the
military ads is how one works towards targets.
I'd make the environment more inclusive, however it seems a quota
system is operating
There is no quota system in place as they'd have to meet them.
Targets are in place and even they aren't being met.
They'll have to increase the recruitment of females within the
recruitment number
that seems to be what the ADF appears to be doing.
Bit of discrimination to get the female numbers up, bugger merit No
judgement by me on it this is bad
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Is this a bad thing? maybe
Post by de chucka
not although it does stick in my craw to say that as I'm such a
strong supporter of best person for the job.
Well that too is a bullshit comment when it comes to ADF
recruiting. There is no qualifications beyond passing the medical
at the target level of entry.  And if you read the cites I gave, in
terms of where women are inside the military, there are fuck all
women up the greasy poll so the blokes are still being seleceted
over women all the way up the greasy pole.  Your craw needs to
rethink it's setting.
No there is positive discrimination in ADF recruitment at the moment
which some believe is needed as only 15%are involved are women
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/army-shuns-male-recruits-for-women/news-story/d3ab0118aced4757d3e188759e17fa69
So you want it both ways?  Was it positive discrimination when it was
only males who were selected?
Yes >
Post by Fran
Did you squeak up about that then and did that stick in your craw
then?  Of course you had no issue with any of that.
In my day women could not serve actively so it didn't really matter to
me. They could service trucks, drive, feed us, arrest us (not me but
there were female MPs) as well as the blokes. Did I women the
barricades to change the policy? No
Of course you didn't.  Now you do.  That's hypocritical.
no it isn't it has shown how I have changed over the year and am now in
touch with my femmonazi side. Actually in those days I had other things
on my mind when it came to sex equality the main one being equal pay for
equal work. Didn't march in the streets about that either
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
How can it be positive discrimination when there are only 15% of
women in the whole of the ADF?
because the discrimination is in the recruitment to get up to the
50/50 level
It's a form of redress.
So you believe that positive discrimination and quotas are OK, good for
society but rather shit for the person being dicriminated against
Now you understand why certain people are calling for it when it comes
for jobs
At 15% of the ADF, I don't see it as being
Post by Fran
positive discrimination.  I see it as a targeted recruitment and even
that is not being met if you read the reports I cited and how they are
trying to get up to nearer 25%.
Post by de chucka
   If it was 60% women then yep, then you could
Post by Fran
justifiably squeak on about positive discrimination.
At the moment, the ADF has decided it wants women recruits so if they
pass the physical, that is who it chooses to take to meet its
targets. If there was no squeaking when it was a massive majority of
men who passed the physical and were selected, then it's not an issue
now the forces have decided to take a majority of women.
So women and men didn't fight for total equality in the armed
services? I remembered when it happened, it should be open to anyone
to serve anywhere was and is my opinion.
Sorry Fran there is currently positive discrimination in recruitment
from the reports, all for the best of reasons but that doesn't mean it
isn't occurring.
OK, have it your way but do recall that it never was a problem for you
till they started choosing women over men.
Not a problem for me now or ever, in the long run it is fair for society
just crap for the person being discriminated against.

and you wonder why I get on
Post by Fran
your case on gender issues when you keep putting your hoof in it.
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
  Females in the ADF are a whole 15%
Totally irrelevant, the discussion is about whether there are
calls by for quotas in jobs and gongs
It IS relevant!!!!  You produced a moronic petz-like cite to
support your assertion about quotas!  In short, you posted hysteria
and not facts.
You are proving that the entomology of hysteria is true "via Latin
from Greek husterikos ‘of the womb’, from hustera ‘womb’" :-) OK I
retract it but bugger of with trying to insult me
You're having a fit of the vapours rather than using your brain!
You re thinking with your womb so ner ner.
You can shove your whingeing about cheap insults up your arse when you
produce that as an example of your own cheap insults!
Lol you're nothing if not a hypocrite, look at your comments about me
being like pez. OK ok maybe you consider yourself a protected species as
a women
Post by Fran
Cheap insults comparing me to
Post by de chucka
pez are really beneath you.
But not beneath you.  Grow up and stop acting like him!  Don't give petz
like cites and get petulant when you're called on the crap quality of
those cites.
The cites proved my point exactly people are calling for quotas in jobs
and gongs.

   READ what you are going to cite and don't give cites that
Post by Fran
have no meat to them.  You'd have to be stupid if you think I'll accept
the line of "our un-named' anonymous source says"!
Post by de chucka
  Yes, I
Post by Fran
am insulting you for being a petz like dimwit and posting low grade
hysteria instead of facts! READ your own pathetic cite!  That cite
WAS hysteria and the sort of shit Id expect from petz who clearly has
neither an analytical or a functioning brain and who gravitates to
the lowest form of cite.  You usually don't but in the instance of
that cite, you got down to his level.
Come on less insults and more addressing the evidence of people
calling for quotas and jobs which you said you couldn't remember seeing
Come on and stop your own insults and READ the cites you give.  A
discussion on quotas that does not "call for" quotas in jobs and gongs
is not support for your fantasy that there are quotas for jobs and gongs.
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
   The facts about what is really going on in the Army are that the
Army level of female particpation is lower that the 15% of all the
ADF female participation AND there are no quotas anywhere in the
ADF including the Army.
Which is probably why there is discrimination in recruitment at the
moment, need to reach the targets somehow.'
Pull the other one dechucka.  You and I both know that you would not
have had any problems or ever have made a single comment or even
thought there was anything discriminatory in the practices of the ADF
when it took in a majority of males.
Ok so past discrimination make present discrimination OK. Come lets
have your position is discrimination acceptable?
I've got no problems with targets set to redress past problems at the
entry level such as the ADF is doing.
so you're happy with discrimination now, did you agree with it in the past?

snip
de chucka
2018-06-16 21:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
snip
Post by de chucka
Close enough, there are calls out there for quotas do you really want
me to post more?
Yes,  I do expect you to come up with credible information on quotas
being used for jobs or gongs.
The original request came in this exchange

">>>>>> There are groups pushing quotas - me
Post by de chucka
For gongs and jobs? Cite?"" - u
OK OK I could have phrased it better " groups pushing for quotas ' but
the meaning was clear and this from a man who uses sex and gender
interchangeably correctly according to the OED

Some more examples of people calling for quotas/targets ( those with
defined time frame)
http://www.broadagenda.com.au/home/quotas-in-australia-what-has-changed-in-13-years/

https://honey.nine.com.au/2017/05/01/06/31/gender-balance-state-government-contractors-forced-to-hire-more-women

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/does-australia-need-gender-quotas/9082934
Progress in this area has so far been achieved without legislative
quotas, but the President of CWDI says that's a measure Australia should
seriously consider.

  If you state it, be prepared to back it
up rather than give a cite that sounds like a pretzel fauxnews report.
Sorry there are groups calling for quotas targets etc. Feminists don't
speak with a single mind nor do women or men or LGBTI or Aboriginals or
members of political parties ( and they've actually signed up to a
platform)
Fran
2018-06-17 00:03:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by de chucka
Close enough, there are calls out there for quotas do you really want
me to post more?
Yes,  I do expect you to come up with credible information on quotas
being used for jobs or gongs.
The original request came in this exchange
">>>>>> There are groups pushing quotas - me
Post by de chucka
For gongs and jobs?  Cite?"" - u
OK OK I could have phrased  it better " groups pushing for quotas ' but
the meaning was clear and this from a man who uses sex and gender
interchangeably correctly according to the OED
You could have actually READ for comprehension and followed the thread.
'Jobs and gongs' should be clear enough to anyone who can read.
Post by de chucka
Some more examples of people calling for quotas/targets ( those with
defined time frame)
http://www.broadagenda.com.au/home/quotas-in-australia-what-has-changed-in-13-years/
https://honey.nine.com.au/2017/05/01/06/31/gender-balance-state-government-contractors-forced-to-hire-more-women
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/does-australia-need-gender-quotas/9082934
Progress in this area has so far been achieved without legislative
quotas, but the President of CWDI says that's a measure Australia should
seriously consider.
  If you state it, be prepared to back it
up rather than give a cite that sounds like a pretzel fauxnews report.
Sorry there are groups calling for quotas targets etc.
For jobs and gongs? Those are the areas I specified.

Feminists don't
Post by de chucka
speak with a single mind nor do women or men or LGBTI or Aboriginals or
members of political parties ( and they've actually signed up to a
platform)
de chucka
2018-06-17 00:22:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by de chucka
Close enough, there are calls out there for quotas do you really
want me to post more?
Yes,  I do expect you to come up with credible information on quotas
being used for jobs or gongs.
The original request came in this exchange
">>>>>> There are groups pushing quotas - me
 >>>>>
 >>>>> For gongs and jobs?  Cite?"" - u
OK OK I could have phrased  it better " groups pushing for quotas '
but the meaning was clear and this from a man who uses sex and gender
interchangeably correctly according to the OED
You could have actually READ for comprehension and followed the thread.
'Jobs and gongs' should be clear enough to anyone who can read.
And I have shown people calling for quotas for both jobs and gongs
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Some more examples of people calling for quotas/targets ( those with
defined time frame)
http://www.broadagenda.com.au/home/quotas-in-australia-what-has-changed-in-13-years/
https://honey.nine.com.au/2017/05/01/06/31/gender-balance-state-government-contractors-forced-to-hire-more-women
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/does-australia-need-gender-quotas/9082934
Progress in this area has so far been achieved without legislative
quotas, but the President of CWDI says that's a measure Australia
should seriously consider.
   If you state it, be prepared to back it
up rather than give a cite that sounds like a pretzel fauxnews report.
Sorry there are groups calling for quotas targets etc.
For jobs and gongs?  Those are the areas I specified.
Shown, oh wait you then had to move the goal posts by claiming being a
company director isn't a job. That is one advantage I have following
rugby ( damn those Irish and their smiling eyes) fewer posts to move.
Post by Fran
 Feminists don't
Post by de chucka
speak with a single mind nor do women or men or LGBTI or Aboriginals
or members of political parties ( and they've actually signed up to a
platform)
Fran
2018-06-18 02:13:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by de chucka
Close enough, there are calls out there for quotas do you really
want me to post more?
Yes,  I do expect you to come up with credible information on quotas
being used for jobs or gongs.
The original request came in this exchange
">>>>>> There are groups pushing quotas - me
 >>>>>
 >>>>> For gongs and jobs?  Cite?"" - u
OK OK I could have phrased  it better " groups pushing for quotas '
but the meaning was clear and this from a man who uses sex and gender
interchangeably correctly according to the OED
You could have actually READ for comprehension and followed the
thread. 'Jobs and gongs' should be clear enough to anyone who can read.
And I have shown people calling for quotas for both jobs and gongs
Where?

I do suggest your read analytically rather than histrionically before
you answer that question. My line is hooked and baited.... (and here is
a clue that shows that you have so far failed to do that: "she did not
recommend a mandatory quota or that organisations should need to meet
this gender balance target to secure Government contracts, she said."
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Some more examples of people calling for quotas/targets ( those with
defined time frame)
http://www.broadagenda.com.au/home/quotas-in-australia-what-has-changed-in-13-years/ >>>
https://honey.nine.com.au/2017/05/01/06/31/gender-balance-state-government-contractors-forced-to-hire-more-women
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/does-australia-need-gender-quotas/9082934
Progress in this area has so far been achieved without legislative
quotas, but the President of CWDI says that's a measure Australia
should seriously consider.
   If you state it, be prepared to back it
up rather than give a cite that sounds like a pretzel fauxnews report.
Sorry there are groups calling for quotas targets etc.
For jobs and gongs?  Those are the areas I specified.
Shown,
Nope. Imagined so by you but not done so. Quotas have been discussed
but I'd have to a sensitive bloke or mad before I'd consider that any
such discussion was strong enough to be "called for".

oh wait you then had to move the goal posts by claiming being a
Post by de chucka
company director isn't a job. That is one advantage I have following
rugby ( damn those Irish and their smiling eyes) fewer posts to move.
So is Board Membership a job one goes to each day and which attracts a
living wage? Will any Board membership quota make any difference to
99.99% of women in Australia?

Can you join the dots at to why I mentioned jobs and gongs and don't
consider Board Membership a job? Or are you so busy being histrionic
that your brain has yet again failed to work?
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
  Feminists don't
Post by de chucka
speak with a single mind nor do women or men or LGBTI or Aboriginals
or members of political parties ( and they've actually signed up to a
platform)
de chucka
2018-06-18 02:21:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by de chucka
Close enough, there are calls out there for quotas do you really
want me to post more?
Yes,  I do expect you to come up with credible information on
quotas being used for jobs or gongs.
The original request came in this exchange
">>>>>> There are groups pushing quotas - me
 >>>>>
 >>>>> For gongs and jobs?  Cite?"" - u
OK OK I could have phrased  it better " groups pushing for quotas '
but the meaning was clear and this from a man who uses sex and
gender interchangeably correctly according to the OED
You could have actually READ for comprehension and followed the
thread. 'Jobs and gongs' should be clear enough to anyone who can read.
And I have shown people calling for quotas for both jobs and gongs
Where?
I do suggest your read analytically rather than histrionically before
you answer that question. My line is hooked and baited.... (and here is
a clue that shows that you have so far failed to do that: "she did not
recommend a mandatory quota or that organisations should need to meet
this gender balance target to secure Government contracts, she said."
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Some more examples of people calling for quotas/targets ( those with
defined time frame)
http://www.broadagenda.com.au/home/quotas-in-australia-what-has-changed-in-13-years/
https://honey.nine.com.au/2017/05/01/06/31/gender-balance-state-government-contractors-forced-to-hire-more-women
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/does-australia-need-gender-quotas/9082934
Progress in this area has so far been achieved without legislative
quotas, but the President of CWDI says that's a measure Australia
should seriously consider.
   If you state it, be prepared to back it
up rather than give a cite that sounds like a pretzel fauxnews report.
Sorry there are groups calling for quotas targets etc.
For jobs and gongs?  Those are the areas I specified.
Shown,
Nope.  Imagined so by you but not done so.  Quotas have been discussed
but I'd have to a sensitive bloke or mad before I'd consider that any
such discussion was strong enough to be "called for".
oh wait you then had to move the goal posts by claiming being a
Post by de chucka
company director isn't a job. That is one advantage I have following
rugby ( damn those Irish and their smiling eyes) fewer posts to move.
So is Board Membership a job one goes to each day and which attracts a
living wage?  Will any Board membership quota make any difference to
99.99% of women in Australia
irrelevant
Post by Fran
Can you join the dots at to why I mentioned jobs and gongs and don't
consider Board Membership a job?  Or are you so busy being histrionic
that your brain has yet again failed to work?
Now you're just getting argumentative and insulting because you have
been shown to be incorrect
Fran
2018-06-19 01:35:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by de chucka
Close enough, there are calls out there for quotas do you really
want me to post more?
Yes,  I do expect you to come up with credible information on
quotas being used for jobs or gongs.
The original request came in this exchange
">>>>>> There are groups pushing quotas - me
 >>>>>
 >>>>> For gongs and jobs?  Cite?"" - u
OK OK I could have phrased  it better " groups pushing for quotas '
but the meaning was clear and this from a man who uses sex and
gender interchangeably correctly according to the OED
You could have actually READ for comprehension and followed the
thread. 'Jobs and gongs' should be clear enough to anyone who can read.
And I have shown people calling for quotas for both jobs and gongs
Where?
I do suggest your read analytically rather than histrionically before
you answer that question. My line is hooked and baited.... (and here
is a clue that shows that you have so far failed to do that: "she did
not recommend a mandatory quota or that organisations should need to
meet this gender balance target to secure Government contracts, she
said."
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Some more examples of people calling for quotas/targets ( those
with defined time frame)
http://www.broadagenda.com.au/home/quotas-in-australia-what-has-changed-in-13-years/
https://honey.nine.com.au/2017/05/01/06/31/gender-balance-state-government-contractors-forced-to-hire-more-women
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/does-australia-need-gender-quotas/9082934
Progress in this area has so far been achieved without legislative
quotas, but the President of CWDI says that's a measure Australia
should seriously consider.
   If you state it, be prepared to back it
up rather than give a cite that sounds like a pretzel fauxnews report.
Sorry there are groups calling for quotas targets etc.
For jobs and gongs?  Those are the areas I specified.
Shown,
Nope.  Imagined so by you but not done so.  Quotas have been discussed
but I'd have to a sensitive bloke or mad before I'd consider that any
such discussion was strong enough to be "called for".
oh wait you then had to move the goal posts by claiming being a
Post by de chucka
company director isn't a job. That is one advantage I have following
rugby ( damn those Irish and their smiling eyes) fewer posts to move.
So is Board Membership a job one goes to each day and which attracts a
living wage?  Will any Board membership quota make any difference to
99.99% of women in Australia
irrelevant
Not when it comes to jobs or gongs.
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Can you join the dots at to why I mentioned jobs and gongs and don't
consider Board Membership a job?  Or are you so busy being histrionic
that your brain has yet again failed to work?
Now you're just getting argumentative and insulting because you have
been shown to be incorrect
Now you're getting argumentative and offensive because you've been
proven to be wrong. You can't produce a single cite to support your
claim that there is any call for quotas for jobs or gongs.
de chucka
2018-06-19 02:05:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by de chucka
Close enough, there are calls out there for quotas do you really
want me to post more?
Yes,  I do expect you to come up with credible information on
quotas being used for jobs or gongs.
The original request came in this exchange
">>>>>> There are groups pushing quotas - me
 >>>>>
 >>>>> For gongs and jobs?  Cite?"" - u
OK OK I could have phrased  it better " groups pushing for quotas
' but the meaning was clear and this from a man who uses sex and
gender interchangeably correctly according to the OED
You could have actually READ for comprehension and followed the
thread. 'Jobs and gongs' should be clear enough to anyone who can read.
And I have shown people calling for quotas for both jobs and gongs
Where?
I do suggest your read analytically rather than histrionically before
you answer that question. My line is hooked and baited.... (and here
is a clue that shows that you have so far failed to do that: "she did
not recommend a mandatory quota or that organisations should need to
meet this gender balance target to secure Government contracts, she
said."
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Some more examples of people calling for quotas/targets ( those
with defined time frame)
http://www.broadagenda.com.au/home/quotas-in-australia-what-has-changed-in-13-years/
https://honey.nine.com.au/2017/05/01/06/31/gender-balance-state-government-contractors-forced-to-hire-more-women
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/does-australia-need-gender-quotas/9082934
Progress in this area has so far been achieved without legislative
quotas, but the President of CWDI says that's a measure Australia
should seriously consider.
   If you state it, be prepared to back it
up rather than give a cite that sounds like a pretzel fauxnews report.
Sorry there are groups calling for quotas targets etc.
For jobs and gongs?  Those are the areas I specified.
Shown,
Nope.  Imagined so by you but not done so.  Quotas have been
discussed but I'd have to a sensitive bloke or mad before I'd
consider that any such discussion was strong enough to be "called for".
oh wait you then had to move the goal posts by claiming being a
Post by de chucka
company director isn't a job. That is one advantage I have following
rugby ( damn those Irish and their smiling eyes) fewer posts to move.
So is Board Membership a job one goes to each day and which attracts
a living wage?  Will any Board membership quota make any difference
to 99.99% of women in Australia
irrelevant
Not when it comes to jobs or gongs.
Will any gong quota make any difference to 99.99% of women in Australia?
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Can you join the dots at to why I mentioned jobs and gongs and don't
consider Board Membership a job?  Or are you so busy being histrionic
that your brain has yet again failed to work?
Now you're just getting argumentative and insulting because you have
been shown to be incorrect
Now you're getting argumentative and offensive because you've been
proven to be wrong.  You can't produce a single cite to support your
claim that there is any call for quotas for jobs or gongs.
http://www.wlia.org.au/media-coverage/
"This is not going to change until we have the courage to be assertive,
to rely less on nominations, and reserve at least a portion of each set
of honours for people who are actively sought out for consideration.
Call it quotas or call it affirmative action. It’s what the British do,
and their recent lists have been 50 per cent women, more than 9 per cent
from a BAME (Black, Asian or other minority ethnic) background, and 8
per cent had a disability. Plus, they honour recent heroes such as
Olympic champions in the same year as they won gold for their country."

https://www.couriermail.com.au/business/mining-boss-calls-for-female-quotas-to-smash-corporate-glass-ceiling/news-story/5ee8a9253d9c82b4c9973ab54a57b893

OK it the low hanging fruit for jobs

I'll get you some more if I can get some with no fire walls.

Anyhow there are calls for quotas for gongs and jobs in Australia which
overall would probably be good for Australia. Once there is an equal
footing for all hopefully merit will be the only criteria and things
like my OP headline will be a thing of the past

de chucka
2018-06-14 23:10:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
If we only take merit into consideration then equity doesn't come into
it. Whether it be all men, all women or whatever the spread - the
award goes to the best *people*.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to turn these things into
equity issues and as soon as it becomes a numbers game it's no longer
about merit.
Such comments make me laugh.  It's only in perhaps the last 15 to 20
years that lack of gender equity even began to be commented upon by
anyone other than women who had always known that their gender worked
against them regardless of how good they were.  Since it did begin to be
noticed and smart men noticed that half the talent pool was not being
considered, then less smart blokes started squeaking about merit based
selection.  It never had to apply to them for millenia as they got every
first pick for every gong or job going but once blokes had to compete
with women suddenly they thought it was important.
'Blokes' you are making a massive generalisation based on a persons SEX.
Naughty naughty people are individuals and there thinking is not based
on their ownership of ovaries or testicles
de chucka
2018-06-13 03:31:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Fran
/snip/
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have real equality
I can't help but agree with the points both of you are making.
Both men and women are equally capable of outstanding achievements so why
divide them into competing groups according to their sexes on the stage
of the public arena?
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
Totally agree as is racism and bigotry, particularly based on religion.
My point is that when we are truly free of sexism these headlines will
not occur.
Post by Ördög
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
Look at a person as a human being not at their sex. colour, race,
religion etc would be ideal
Post by Ördög
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
Fran
2018-06-13 05:01:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ördög
On the other hand the existence of every day discriminating sexism in our
society is quite real.
it's only when people actually notice it that things will begin to
change. Few people do notice it but the same thing applies to racism.
Post by Ördög
So the question is what can be done about it the right way?
I don't think there is a right or a wrong way. Legislation that is
proscriptive and presciptive is important but then so is cultural change.
Post by Ördög
It seems no matter what we have tried so far ended up offending some
sections of the public.
Yeah, well I will refrain from commenting on that....
Fran
2018-06-13 04:48:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for first
time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an attempt
to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there might
not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would have
been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and got
gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Yes, but of course there never was.
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have realequality
That will still be decades away IMO.
de chucka
2018-06-13 08:05:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by Daniel60
Post by de chucka
Queen's Birthday honours 2018: Women outnumber men on list for
first time  https://tinyurl.com/y9eyjjg5
Sorry they should go to the best people independent of their
sex/sexuality, religion or race. Some silly scoreboard or an
attempt to make them totally inclusive demeans recipients.
And who has determined that more men do good this year than women??
It *IS* possible that more Women did good this year, so there might
not be any pro-Women bias in the list!
Yebbut the concern is that by merely reporting the number of women vs
men, shows lack of inclusion.  Mind you, I doubt that there would
have been any such concern expressed when only men were nominated and
got gongs.
There should have been if women were overlooked because of their sex
Yes, but of course there never was.
And tha was totally wrong
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
IMO, it's just a reflection of what now makes news and gets reported
for those who are interested in equity issues.
IMHO until these are reported as people being awarded honours rather
than splitting it up into sexes we won't have realequality
That will still be decades away IMO.
Sadly Yes. I hate the stories about blokes fighting the stereotype in
"female jobs" and vice versa, OH I mentioned men first so I'm sexist
Loading...