.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

War of the Genders

A confrontational soapbox for rants and politically incorrect manifestos regarding feminism, chauvinism, dating and gender issues.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Thought Control

In other news, workers are filing lawsuits against companies that discriminate against people with low IQs. Managers are protesting that many jobs demand a standard of intelligence and that people with lower IQs need higher maintenance, management and training, but the courts ruled that this is discrimination and therefore these opinions are misguided and inadmissible. Affirmative Action has now been expanded so that all ranges of IQs are fairly represented in the workplace.

Yes, I'm kidding and no, I am not about to say that one gender has a lower IQ than the other. But imagine a manager who has worked with men and women, studied gender differences and brain functions and came to the scientific conclusion that women and men are less suitable for specific jobs and that preferring one gender over another for certain responsibilities is therefore not unfair discrimination. Whether this conclusion is right or wrong, it's only an opinion with the same logic, scientific backing and fallibility as the policy of assigning responsiblity based on IQ. Who are you to tell him how to run his business?

Imagine two managers: One has the opinion that women are better at team-work, handling customers and departmental communications and therefore prefers to hire women, the other thinks that women are prone to emotionalism, PMS and pregnancies and therefore prefers to hire men. The former would be praised, while the latter vilified and sued even though both are exercising the exact same decision-making right and ability.

Or what about personal issues? What if a man simply doesn't get along with women? What if a man decided that gender differences too often cause friction between mixed co-workers? What about all the female HR managers who don't hire women for personal reasons? It's quite common in my experience for women to object to other female workers and to prefer working with men.

There may also be religious reasons: I know of a company run by religious Jews that exclusively hires women (over 100 women, no men). Both the men and women in these circles support this policy because it serves their purposes and allows for a much more comfortable work environment.

Perhaps you think it's unfair that some companies hire more men than women and vice versa, but then why isn't there affirmative action on companies that only hire people with a certain level of IQ, experience or personality? There are plenty of practical and valid reasons for hiring one gender over another whether you agree with them or not. What is the difference between discriminating against someone based on their natural intelligence or charm, and hiring someone based on their natural gender-based differences?

The common argument is that Affirmative Action is a correctional policy that aims to balance a historical imbalance. But this would only be valid if the imbalance was due to unfairness, not fact. Feminists may argue that gender differences are only due to oppression, patriarchy, society and upbringing and that discriminating based on gender therefore only reinforces such chauvinism and unfairness, but you'd have to be an idiot not to see at least some inherent general differences in the genders as a whole as well as to ignore all the scientific evidence on brain differences. In any case, such practices effectively eliminate any of the aforementioned opinions or valid reasons for preferring one gender over another.

Most people complain that Affirmative Action is unfair, that it creates a privileged caste, or forces businesses to hire less qualified employees. But isn't there an even more basic issue? One would think that, at the very least, a country that values its freedom would protest against such censorship and Marxist/Socialist government practices.



“The common argument is that Affirmative Action is a correctional policy that aims to balance a historical imbalance. But this would only be valid if the imbalance was due to unfairness, not fact”.

Well, here are some facts (taken from the economist): http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6802551

1. Women account for only 7% of directors on the world's corporate boards however studies show that American companies with more women in senior management jobs earned a higher return on equity than those with fewer women at the top.

2. Women make better investors than men. Researchers have concluded that women investors consistently earn higher returns than men investors.

Affirmative action may seem unreasonable, but it may be the only way to get society used to women being in positions that are typically associated with men just because of historical reasons, not facts.

In a perfect world every person should be considered for a job based on his/her skills. I'm not saying that gender is totally irrelevant, just as skin color is not totally irrelevant, or just as nationality isn't totally irrelevant and just as religion is not totally irrelevant. Every group suffers (and benefits) from good and bad stereotypes as well as real tendencies and characteristics (which make them a group in the first place). A business may discriminate against religious Jews because religious Jews can't work on Saturdays and holidays, are reluctant of working with the opposite sex, require special food, tend to have more children so they demand higher salaries, rush home earlier and generally don't fit in well in a secular environment. Now if only one business discriminated against religious Jews it wouldn't be a problem, but if all companies discriminated against religious Jews it is a problem that calls for some kind of intervention. Women are discriminated against and excluded from management positions not by one company but on a global scale. And even though I believe you can find facts to support discrimination against any given group (just as I demonstrated above) I am not familiar with facts that show all women lack managerial skills.

Tendencies work only with large numbers. They are completely invalid on the individual level. That is why group discrimination is and should be illegal. Your IQ analogy is amusing but the sad truth is we discriminate more on the basis of gender than on the basis of IQ.


May 06, 2006 10:31 pm  

It sounds like you're arguing about the glass ceiling which has to do with women not getting promoted or getting executive jobs. I am arguing about both men and women not getting hired for a job at ANY position based on their gender.

I already argued against the myth of the glass ceiling previously and in any case, the issue is whether men and women can be rejected for even low-paying jobs based on their gender, not whether women make good executives. For example, a man might not be hired to be a kindergarden teacher because of his gender.

For all I know women may very well be great at executive jobs.

Investors are definitely irrelevant because they aren't hired.

Regarding your argument about getting society used to women in certain positions: I believe affirmative action is causing the exact opposite effect. Now men are used to seeing women being given jobs not because they have seniority or deserve it, but because the government gave them special protection. How is that going to help? It'll only make men hate female employees more.

Regarding global scales: First of all since not all companies and managers discriminate based on genders this is irrelevant. Second of all, even if they did, that's capitalism for you. If companies all over thought that one gender or race was unsuitable for a certain role, then why should anyone force equality on business men just to live up to some ridiculous ideal/utopia? If all companies refused to hire Jews then the Jews would have to find another way to make a living (which they actually did by becoming doctors and business men). Why is it right to force companies to hire people they think are unqualified?

Regarding tendencies: Since studies show that ALL women have certain brain differences, this argument is invalid.

Regarding IQ: If a man is hired as a manager based on his having a higher IQ, then how is this different than hiring based on gender? I can argue that 10 extra IQ points makes a better manager, and I can also argue that it makes a worse one, and I can even argue that it makes no difference if I wanted to. The point is, let the HR people decide what's best for their company!

Women are making a fuss over something that isn't unique to them, they are making the government practice radical socialism and thought control, and they are going to achieve the opposite effect on society than what they were hoping for.

May 07, 2006 1:09 am  

P.S. A few more comments:

1. If historically women were discriminated against in companies and this is the sole basis for the policy of affirmative action, then why should current companies who don't discriminate unfairly suffer financially for that?

The only rational reason to force a company to do what it doesn't want to, is if you believe in socialism and the company is currently discriminating unfairly.

2. My argument is that not all discrimination is unfair. The policy of affirmative action should take that into consideration.

3. Even if there is unfair discrimination now and you think that the government and capitalistic companies should help fix this problem, then the correct approach should be to encourage fariness using marketing techniques, and perhaps force managers to go to a course about gender studies and female achievements. But like I said, forced quotas will only make men understand that women are only getting jobs due to protection, not merit. This is the exact opposite effect of the goal you are talking about.

May 07, 2006 9:23 am  

P.P.S. A few comments on the article you posted:

1. I love this quote: "The increase in female employment in developed countries has been aided by a big shift in the type of jobs on offer. Manufacturing work, traditionally a male preserve, has declined, while jobs in services have expanded. This has reduced the demand for manual labour and put the sexes on a more equal footing."

I.e. Now that jobs have become more comfortable, women are equal to men. When jobs are tough, what happens to equality?

2. Regarding investments. It's well known that men have all the crazy ideas and women are more careful. That would easily explain better consistent return on investments but it also means that women do not and will never reach extraordinary achievements. It's the men who go to extremes and they will therefore fail more often, but they will also be the only ones to achieve spectacular findings, inventions, and/or riches.

So again, if you want to hire someone to invest your money, are you looking for a careful investor who will more likely bring moderate success, or do you want to take risks in the chance that you will become a billionaire? This kind of decision is exactly the kind of thinking I'm talking about that a person might make based on gender.

Having women around in management probably does help balance out the male factor in which case I am not surprised that companies with female executives do well. But this only supports my argument that sometimes it's valid to hire based on gender according to the current needs of the company.

May 07, 2006 9:39 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home