thavoice;1739595 wrote:Wife of the year right there!

Don't get any ideas, bitch.

Women tollarate pain better, are more flexible, better nurturers, more attractive species. So no, men and women are not equal.

Azubuike24;1739622 wrote:Sleeper, while I agree with your premise, when companies provide a benefit to everyone, it's hard to penalize those who use it. If that was the case, any woman who took maternity leave would automatically be pushed down on the totem pole. Anyone who took vacation would get the same treatment. The true evaluation would come based on productivity aside from those activities.

Now, taking excessive vacation, abusing the system and becoming a less reliable employee SHOULD hinder your development, but not just being absent with a benefit provided to everyone.

If that's the case, every single obese, unhealthy and careless person who drags expenses up and brings productivity down, but fit into a protected class, should also be penalized. It's a very sensitive argument here...

Who says anything about penalizing? They are merely not going to get as much productivity done as their colleague so their colleague is probably going to get a bigger raise. That person has a choice to have children or take leave so they are choosing less productivity and less opportunity for wage growth because of that.

It's not a sensitive issue. It's reality. Time for people to start being accountable for their own decisions.

Sonofanump;1739631 wrote:Women tollarate pain better, are more flexible, better nurturers, more attractive species. So no, men and women are not equal.

Women are the same species as men last time I checked.

Azubuike24;1739623 wrote:Women's athletics would be relegated to the sports that men don't want to play. Sleeper, lets hear your thoughts on TITLE IX LOL.

It's garbage at best and fraud at worst.

Can't we all just get along.

sleeper;1739632 wrote:Who says anything about penalizing? They are merely not going to get as much productivity done as their colleague so their colleague is probably going to get a bigger raise. That person has a choice to have children or take leave so they are choosing less productivity and less opportunity for wage growth because of that.

It's not a sensitive issue. It's reality. Time for people to start being accountable for their own decisions.

I guess it also depends on the job. More time AT the job doesn't always mean a bigger impact on the bottom line.

power i;1739594 wrote:I am not equal to my husband, nor do I want to be. He makes more money than I do. (Yes, I do work and I contribute to our household, but by about half.) He does things around the house I could never do. He keeps me safe and I appreciate everything he does, and he knows that I do. Sometimes he doesn't even have to ask for his sandwich, I just make it.

You are an awesome wife. 'Wife of the Year' indeed.

And yet, somehow, inspite of everything you said, your husband is no better nor no worse than you. I'm going to safely assume you both have equality in the eyes of each other, am I right?

Azubuike24;1739622 wrote:Sleeper, while I agree with your premise, when companies provide a benefit to everyone, it's hard to penalize those who use it.

Ah, but do companies provide this benefit (maternity leave) to everyone? Or do they provide it selectively, based on gender?

Of course. But I will always make the better sandwich.

Azubuike24;1739623 wrote:Women's athletics would be relegated to the sports that men don't want to play. Sleeper, lets hear your thoughts on TITLE IX LOL.

Complete joke, and just another example (one that pisses me off the most to be fair) why I hate hearing/seeing/reading women (and SJW males) bitch about how they don't get their fair share. QQ and fuck off.

The men and women who usually whine and complain about equality are the very same people who love to separate and put labels on people. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. (think isadore)

We as a society need to put a spotlight on this practice and put an end to it.

CenterBHSFan;1739666 wrote: They talk out of both sides of their mouth. (think isadore)

Gosh a ruddies, he needs credited for his skill of copy/pasting too.

QuakerOats;1739636 wrote:Can't we all just get along.

Saw post, saw poster, LOL'd

Well done.

Buddy of mine just got fired a couple weeks ago. VP went headhunting on him. Been there 5 years, not one complaint or write-ups. VP got one person to say something bad about him (a woman who was leaving in a week anyways). Canned for "providing a hostile work environment."

Went to talk with an attorney about it, said if he was a woman (or other race) he may have a case, but not since he's a white male.

OSH;1739711 wrote:Buddy of mine just got fired a couple weeks ago. VP went headhunting on him. Been there 5 years, not one complaint or write-ups. VP got one person to say something bad about him (a woman who was leaving in a week anyways). Canned for "providing a hostile work environment."

Went to talk with an attorney about it, said if he was a woman (or other race) he may have a case, but not since he's a white male.

If it was in Ohio, an employer does not have to give any reason to an employee for termination.

I just saw a blurb about a study claiming Google job searches provide more high-paying leads to men than women...it was something like 10 to 1. The headline was something along the lines of Google search bias and pay inequality.

But the actual study focused on targeted ads for $200k+ "professional job search coaching"...which is to say the tag was complete bullshit, and the more insightful lead might have been that men are far more gullible into wasting their money on such services. At that level, it's about networking and executive recruiters that usually find you and "coaching services" are scams. The services they appeared to look at in the study almost always work on retainer, rather than contigency, and bleed you for several thousand until you wise-up.

In this day and age, no service worth a damn has exclusive listings that they sell to candidates. As a candidate, if a service or recruiter wants YOU to pay them a retainer or fee...run. I'd even argue you're wasting your money on LinkedIn premium.

I've worked for two women business owners, dedicated to their work, employees and motivated for success. Early in my career I learned a lot from those women and their standards of professionalism. Just like many things in life, you can't just lump individuals into one group ask about equality. We are all equal as humans deserving of respect, oppertuities, rights and freedoms. It is up to the individual to maintain that equality of being a human within society and if proven to meet the standards set for career, profession and law biding citizen than equality remains status quo.

Al Bundy;1739617 wrote:If we truly had equal, there would not be "Men's WC" and "Women's WC." There would just be WC, and the best would compete for a spot on that team.

It doesn't change the fact that you are a little bitch.

Meh

Al Bundy;1739715 wrote:If it was in Ohio, an employer does not have to give any reason to an employee for termination.

And as much as it would suck, this is how it should be. Unfortunately, there are people (and attorneys) who actually WANT to get fired, just so they can make more with a suit.

I've been involved first hand with having to actually discuss whether it's worth the potential hassle to fire someone (even if they absolutely deserve to be) because they are some sort of a protected class.

Azubuike24;1739811 wrote:I've been involved first hand with having to actually discuss whether it's worth the potential hassle to fire someone (even if they absolutely deserve to be) because they are some sort of a protected class.

On the flip side of this I have had a conversation with a business owner about some local immigrants that are very skilled but he would not hire them because "they don't talk good English."

In a separate incident I have been in a meeting with an it hiring manager who first sorted resumes based on her ability to pronounce their names.

FatHobbit;1739861 wrote:In a separate incident I have been in a meeting with an it hiring manager who first sorted resumes based on her ability to pronounce their names.

It'd be quite a shame to overlook someone like Sergey Brin or Azim Premji just because someone has trouble pronouncing their names.

FatHobbit;1739861 wrote:On the flip side of this I have had a conversation with a business owner about some local immigrants that are very skilled but he would not hire them because "they don't talk good English."

In a separate incident I have been in a meeting with an it hiring manager who first sorted resumes based on her ability to pronounce their names.

These business owners will lose out on talent to their competitors. No harm no foul here except maybe to the shareholders in the company.

O-Trap;1739868 wrote:It'd be quite a shame to overlook someone like Sergey Brin or Azim Premji just because someone has trouble pronouncing their names.

Exceptions, not norms.

In my personal experience, a "Mike Jones" would be a helluva lot better than a "ICantEvenPronounceYourName" candidate. For every "Sergey Brin or Azim Premji" you can give me, I can just as easily turn around and give you a "Bill Gates", "Donald Trump", "Warren Buffet", "Steve Jobs", "Tim Cook", "Jake Welch", etc.