Melbourne University advertises female-only jobs in bid to remedy gender imbalance...
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
It's not really gendre baiting if you actually believe in the model that fugi is espousing. Lots of people think that way...I just disagree with it.
^^^^^^ hate mongering bullshit. How gullible do you have to be too believe this garbage? How riven with hatred?for those who want to know more about the racist roots of Modern Feminism. just ignore Fuji's gender and race baiting.
Radical feminism's first organized incarnation was within the Women's Ku Klux Klan in the late 1800's and by 1925 it had over 4 million members, a substantial organization in those days. In Indiana, an estimated 32% of white native-born women were members of the WKKK.. Their work was largely promulgated through networks in the Protestant Church, the Y.W.C.A., and a variety of "vice squad organizations" which blamed all vice on men, but never questioned women's part in it.
Early WKKK radical feminists wrote about the drudgery of motherhood and other typical feminist topics we read about frequently today. A common overarching theme was women using their sexual power to get men to do whatever they wanted – a theme identical to the core ideology of the contemporary V-Day initiative pushed by N.O.W. in hopes of replacing Valentine's Day with a murky celebration of misandry.
In the late 1880's, a broadside was published in Evansville, Indiana proclaiming; "No longer will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the world." This, and many other early radical mottos would magically reappear in the 1960's and find popularity in "great society" feminist revolution. The similarities in core language and ideology between the WKKK and the modern radical feminist movement over time are remarkable.
In the 1920's, a congressional investigation into the KKK concluded that a woman named Elizabeth Tyler was the "true power" behind the KKK -- the grand dragon serving as little more than a figurehead. Tyler had achieved controlling power by catering to the weaknesses of men, and being the leading fundraiser of the WKKK and even the KKK itself.
After passage of the 19th amendment, radical women no longer needed the Klan as a power base, and vacated it in the early 1930's.
Those who don't believe about feminism's substantial participation in discrimination against blacks, via the use of sexual imagery; and the foundation it formed for contemporary feminism, should read the book "Women of the Klan" by Kathleen L. Blee.
One book reviewer wrote this summary of Blee's book: "The significance of "Women of the Klan" rests not in its somewhat ebullient celebration of feminist principles, but rather, that it documents in great detail a direct lineage between the Women's Ku Klux Klan and the radical feminist movement as it exists today. The book draws from a wide variety of historical documents, letters, and in-camera interviews that the author recorded with older women who were still alive at the time the book was written."
great reading material for summer 2016!
WKKK was a fringe movement on the edge of the feminist movement, not the origin of feminism.
Outright bigotry. How far gone do you have to be too promote this sort of hate bullshit????
Disgusting that such misogyny is tolerated here. It's vitriolic hatred of women in the extreme.
Here is the actual origin of feminism in the US:
The first wave of feminism in the United States began with the Seneca Falls Convention, the first women's rights convention, held at the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York, on July 19 and 20, 1848.[5]
This Convention was inspired by the fact that in 1840, when Elizabeth Cady Stanton met Lucretia Mott at the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London, the conference refused to seat Mott and other women delegates from America because of their gender.[6] Stanton, the young bride of an antislavery agent, and Mott, a Quaker preacher and veteran of reform, talked then of calling a convention to address the condition of women.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#First-wave_feminism
Absolutely I make decisions based on the sex of a new employee. Without a doubt. But I absolutely never make any decision based solely on gender. Ever.
What are you having trouble understanding? Did the addition of the word "solely" make the sentence too complex for you? Was it too big a word for you, so you just ignored it????
I think it's very clear what I said.
It may not be "sole" factor you consider...but you are certainly discriminating in favour of women and against men. It's affirmative action, no?
Yes. As I said, it's something I do when I find a female employee who is doing her job well. I double down, and fast track her by giving her the best opportunities. But first she had to show promise. It is not a decision based solely on gender.
I have two female employees on my team the serve as a good contrasting examples. One has done well on several assignments and now and my goal is to get her promoted within her first year on the job where most new college grads would take 2 or 3 years.
I have another female employee hired around the same time and she has NOT shown the same promise. I'm doing nothing for her that I don't do for other employees.
So it's not just gender, it's gender AND good performance. That combination is what I fast track. I prioritize anybody with good performance but when that person is female I pull out all the stops.
You continually call footer a liar, quite correctly most of the time,...but you, are getting pretty good at it too.
FAST
Is English your second language? Again: absolutely I make decisions based on gender but NEVER solely on gender. Nowhere in this thread did I ever suggest anything different and I objected when Occasionally falsely accused me of making decisions based solely on gender.
One last chance for YA.
If you had two recent hires, of equal qualifications, one a male and one a female, which one would you actively give special attention,... to serve your do good dead for the day,...???
What ever your answer is,...you have been lying up to this point.
FAST
I'd treat them the same. Wait a few months and ask me again based on observed performance. If they both show high performance I'm going to spend more energy on the female employee. If they are both average I will continue to treat them the same. If they are both poor performers I will terminate them both.
That decision is based "solely" on the gender of the employee.
As you have previous stated.
FAST
No it isn't. It is based on a combination of factors, not solely on gender. You need to look up the word "solely" in your dictionary. It means only/exclusively/alone. My decision to fast track is based on performance AND gender, not solely on gender.
Says the guy who said the following in this thread:
Relax Fuji. Don't act like a crybaby.
Here's a good example of culturally ingrained sexism: things like affirmative action are required to combat and roll back this sort of sexist cultural assumption.
That's why it's so important to actively promote, figuratively and literally, the counter examples.
I have no doubt that there are cultural dinosaurs throughout our society who hold women back because they actually believe this sort of sexist bullshit. Teachers in schools, images in the media, parents, family members, dinosaur managers, coworkers, all repeating this sexist shit to young women and girls until they believe it themselves.
It's going take a lot of hard work to roll back this misogynistic garbage and I'm happy to say that I'm post of the solution, unlike Occasionally, who clearly is part of the problem.
Versus:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/feminism-todays-womens-ku-klux-klan/
Below is a brief synopsis of what is proven in “Women of the Klan.”
The WKKK played a controlling role in the KKK. Early feminists in the WKKK demanded great power in the Klan, applying powerful sexual imagery to get it. Women were placed on a pedestal of motherly sexual purity requiring knee-jerk protection from black men. WKKK activists quickly discovered that the power of sexual victimization was just as effective against white men, too.
In the late 1880s, a broadside was published by the Evansville, Indiana, WKKK chapter proclaiming; “No longer will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the world.” This and other early radical feminist mottoes reappeared in the suffragette movement and the 1960s as a core agenda of the “great society” and sexual liberation revolutions.
The WKKK established many memes and institutions still central to contemporary feminism. Motherhood was drudgery. The YWCA was established to offload child care. Abortion of black babies was urged in cohort with Margaret Sanger.
Women exercised sexual power fluently. The movie “Rosewood” documents a white woman claiming rape by a black man to cover up for an affair she was having, resulting in a massacre of blacks in the town of Rosewood, Florida. The KKK was also America’s first child-support collection agency and a prototype for our one-eyed Title IV-D system.
Elizabeth Tyler, the first WKKK grand chief of staff, seized control of the KKK, removing Grand Dragon Simmons by accusing him of sexual improprieties. She replaced him with her paramour whom she controlled along with the membership of the Klan. By 1925, the WKKK had about 4 million members – a very large organization in those days.
One reviewer of Kathleen Blees’ book wrote, “The significance of ‘Women of the Klan’ rests not in its somewhat ebullient celebration of feminist principles, but rather, that it documents in great detail a direct lineage between the Women’s Ku Klux Klan and the radical feminist movement as it exists today. The book draws from a wide variety of historical documents, letters, and in-camera interviews that the author recorded with older women who were still alive at the time the book was written.”
Contemporary feminism still functions on the same visceral sexual-political mechanics as the WKKK. By the 1960s, the feminist machine was now armed with Freudian victim psychology and Kinsey’s sexual liberation agenda, expounded by degreed professional feminists (“women’s studies” majors).
Old Frankfurt school Marxism previously ineffective in America was retargeted by Herbert Marcuse, who theorized that contented middle-class America could be divided and destroyed by a youthful sexual revolution. The rise of Saul Alinsky’s New Marxist movement created a generation of politically powerful young Americans bent on destroying their own country.
The KKK collapsed about the same time radical feminism rose to prominence because feminists re-pointed their agenda at all men, not just black men. They demanded equality, destruction of “the Patriarchy,” evisceration of religion and special protections for “liberated” women.
The only difference between racism and contemporary sexism is the target of social and economic repression. Racism focused on black males, but feminism targets all males.
Racism did not truly end with the rise of feminism. Black males bear the brunt of feminist policy. When boys do not grow up expecting to be fathers and husbands, how can black Americans succeed? Black males, as a group, are the most likely to end up in prison or dead at an early age. The ejection of black men from the own communities is the primary reason they are so easy to recruit into radical masculist Muslim activism.
Meanwhile, black females are provided massive social and educational supports along with preferential treatment getting “apron ready” jobs they are often unqualified for. Welfare is an entitlement for women and a sentence to indentured servitude for men funded by governmental socioeconomic destruction of marriage – especially in the lower classes.
Today, one-third of children are raised by unmarried mothers supported with our tax dollars. Child support is then forcefully collected from low-income men (who must support themselves, too). From a policy perspective, it is madness to destroy marriage with welfare state “income guarantees” that are also recoupments, expecting the poor to lift the poor out of poverty.
Most of these children lack necessary parental and economic resources that cannot be effectively replaced by government. We spend 30 times more per-capita on welfare than China does and wonder why so many children are failing in school. Congress has been unable to balance the budget – so it raises the debt ceiling another notch every few months.
Indeed, as much as 70% of poverty would be erased if fathers and mothers simply married – a policy direction professional feminists discount as meaningless.
Feminist policy has left more women barefoot, pregnant and in poverty than any other event in American history. It is time we hold feminists squarely responsible for it – which Phyllis Schlafly accomplished in her new book “Who Killed the American Family?” In this short column, Dr. Gina Loudon proves the “eight important benefits of marriage, controverting nearly the entirety of the feminist agenda.
There is scant evidence feminism impacted public policy positively. Feminists have little girls dressed up as sexy princesses using filthy language. At age 24, there are 148 women with college degrees for every 100 men. The “gender pay gap” is a reflection of women’s choices. Rape rates have declined significantly since 1973 – long before feminist policy kicked in. Women now commit at least half of all serious domestic violence. Widely disseminated feminist myths about domestic violence have been thoroughly debunked. A crisis of child sex abuse in schools is perpetrated by female teachers, who rarely go to prison, and nobody is doing anything about it.
The feminist power agenda has caused serious problems on college campuses. California just enacted “Yes Means Yes,” a widely criticized law converting college life into a witch hunt for a non-existent campus rape “crisis.” This law was thoroughly eviscerated by feminists Camille Paglia in Time magazine, Margaret Wente in the United Kingdom, professor Alan Dershowitz, and challenged by at least 30 men suing colleges for discriminatory dismissal.
The feminist movement is falling out of favor in public. Many young Americans see that feminism is a cult and reject it on its face. Voters are learning that feminism is the movement driving liberalism, socialism, taxes, deficits, dystopian government, and our nation’s greatest social and criminal problems. Even in massively liberal Portland, Oregon, feminism is on the skids. The feminist bookstore featured in the TV show “Portlandia” is going out of business for lack of paying customers.
Unfortunately, professional feminists have firm control of government, law schools, universities and media – forcing their agenda on the rest of us. We must strive for more balance in perches of power. Title IX holds the keys to end the reign of radical feminist sexism. We must establish new, sensible supply-side socioeconomic policy focusing on rebuilding the marriage culture and a pro-social God-loving country.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/feminism-todays-womens-ku-klux-klan/#0pgP3dhj1O3CA3Ot.99
Below is a brief synopsis of what is proven in “Women of the Klan.”
The WKKK played a controlling role in the KKK. Early feminists in the WKKK demanded great power in the Klan, applying powerful sexual imagery to get it. Women were placed on a pedestal of motherly sexual purity requiring knee-jerk protection from black men. WKKK activists quickly discovered that the power of sexual victimization was just as effective against white men, too.
In the late 1880s, a broadside was published by the Evansville, Indiana, WKKK chapter proclaiming; “No longer will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the world.” This and other early radical feminist mottoes reappeared in the suffragette movement and the 1960s as a core agenda of the “great society” and sexual liberation revolutions.
The WKKK established many memes and institutions still central to contemporary feminism. Motherhood was drudgery. The YWCA was established to offload child care. Abortion of black babies was urged in cohort with Margaret Sanger.
Women exercised sexual power fluently. The movie “Rosewood” documents a white woman claiming rape by a black man to cover up for an affair she was having, resulting in a massacre of blacks in the town of Rosewood, Florida. The KKK was also America’s first child-support collection agency and a prototype for our one-eyed Title IV-D system.
Elizabeth Tyler, the first WKKK grand chief of staff, seized control of the KKK, removing Grand Dragon Simmons by accusing him of sexual improprieties. She replaced him with her paramour whom she controlled along with the membership of the Klan. By 1925, the WKKK had about 4 million members – a very large organization in those days.
One reviewer of Kathleen Blees’ book wrote, “The significance of ‘Women of the Klan’ rests not in its somewhat ebullient celebration of feminist principles, but rather, that it documents in great detail a direct lineage between the Women’s Ku Klux Klan and the radical feminist movement as it exists today. The book draws from a wide variety of historical documents, letters, and in-camera interviews that the author recorded with older women who were still alive at the time the book was written.”
Contemporary feminism still functions on the same visceral sexual-political mechanics as the WKKK. By the 1960s, the feminist machine was now armed with Freudian victim psychology and Kinsey’s sexual liberation agenda, expounded by degreed professional feminists (“women’s studies” majors).
Old Frankfurt school Marxism previously ineffective in America was retargeted by Herbert Marcuse, who theorized that contented middle-class America could be divided and destroyed by a youthful sexual revolution. The rise of Saul Alinsky’s New Marxist movement created a generation of politically powerful young Americans bent on destroying their own country.
The KKK collapsed about the same time radical feminism rose to prominence because feminists re-pointed their agenda at all men, not just black men. They demanded equality, destruction of “the Patriarchy,” evisceration of religion and special protections for “liberated” women.
The only difference between racism and contemporary sexism is the target of social and economic repression. Racism focused on black males, but feminism targets all males.
Racism did not truly end with the rise of feminism. Black males bear the brunt of feminist policy. When boys do not grow up expecting to be fathers and husbands, how can black Americans succeed? Black males, as a group, are the most likely to end up in prison or dead at an early age. The ejection of black men from the own communities is the primary reason they are so easy to recruit into radical masculist Muslim activism.
Meanwhile, black females are provided massive social and educational supports along with preferential treatment getting “apron ready” jobs they are often unqualified for. Welfare is an entitlement for women and a sentence to indentured servitude for men funded by governmental socioeconomic destruction of marriage – especially in the lower classes.
Today, one-third of children are raised by unmarried mothers supported with our tax dollars. Child support is then forcefully collected from low-income men (who must support themselves, too). From a policy perspective, it is madness to destroy marriage with welfare state “income guarantees” that are also recoupments, expecting the poor to lift the poor out of poverty.
Most of these children lack necessary parental and economic resources that cannot be effectively replaced by government. We spend 30 times more per-capita on welfare than China does and wonder why so many children are failing in school. Congress has been unable to balance the budget – so it raises the debt ceiling another notch every few months.
Indeed, as much as 70% of poverty would be erased if fathers and mothers simply married – a policy direction professional feminists discount as meaningless.
Feminist policy has left more women barefoot, pregnant and in poverty than any other event in American history. It is time we hold feminists squarely responsible for it – which Phyllis Schlafly accomplished in her new book “Who Killed the American Family?” In this short column, Dr. Gina Loudon proves the “eight important benefits of marriage, controverting nearly the entirety of the feminist agenda.
There is scant evidence feminism impacted public policy positively. Feminists have little girls dressed up as sexy princesses using filthy language. At age 24, there are 148 women with college degrees for every 100 men. The “gender pay gap” is a reflection of women’s choices. Rape rates have declined significantly since 1973 – long before feminist policy kicked in. Women now commit at least half of all serious domestic violence. Widely disseminated feminist myths about domestic violence have been thoroughly debunked. A crisis of child sex abuse in schools is perpetrated by female teachers, who rarely go to prison, and nobody is doing anything about it.
The feminist power agenda has caused serious problems on college campuses. California just enacted “Yes Means Yes,” a widely criticized law converting college life into a witch hunt for a non-existent campus rape “crisis.” This law was thoroughly eviscerated by feminists Camille Paglia in Time magazine, Margaret Wente in the United Kingdom, professor Alan Dershowitz, and challenged by at least 30 men suing colleges for discriminatory dismissal.
The feminist movement is falling out of favor in public. Many young Americans see that feminism is a cult and reject it on its face. Voters are learning that feminism is the movement driving liberalism, socialism, taxes, deficits, dystopian government, and our nation’s greatest social and criminal problems. Even in massively liberal Portland, Oregon, feminism is on the skids. The feminist bookstore featured in the TV show “Portlandia” is going out of business for lack of paying customers.
Unfortunately, professional feminists have firm control of government, law schools, universities and media – forcing their agenda on the rest of us. We must strive for more balance in perches of power. Title IX holds the keys to end the reign of radical feminist sexism. We must establish new, sensible supply-side socioeconomic policy focusing on rebuilding the marriage culture and a pro-social God-loving country.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/feminism-todays-womens-ku-klux-klan/#0pgP3dhj1O3CA3Ot.99
^^^^^^^^ more misogynistic hate mongering against women. Feminism did not originate from WKKK as you claimed and posting a bunch more about it doesn't make you any less of a liar, and linking to a kook conspiracy theory website like WND just shows how irrational your claims are.
Early feminism was actually associated with the anti slavery movement, totally contrary to your KKK feminism bullshit. I have no doubt there was a WKKK but they were a crazy fringe group that had absolutely nothing to do with the main feminist movement.
Just drop your non stop misogyny. Your constant hate mongering is inexcusable.
Early feminism was actually associated with the anti slavery movement, totally contrary to your KKK feminism bullshit. I have no doubt there was a WKKK but they were a crazy fringe group that had absolutely nothing to do with the main feminist movement.
Just drop your non stop misogyny. Your constant hate mongering is inexcusable.
Who cares if women want to hold up a sign saying that work in a field that is mostly men. I have a male friend who is a nurse in a hospital. He' said there's only a few guy nurses in the whole building. Who cares.Here's a good example of culturally ingrained sexism: things like affirmative action are required to combat and roll back this sort of sexist cultural assumption.
That's why it's so important to actively promote, figuratively and literally, the counter examples.
I have no doubt that there are cultural dinosaurs throughout our society who hold women back because they actually believe this sort of sexist bullshit. Teachers in schools, images in the media, parents, family members, dinosaur managers, coworkers, all repeating this sexist shit to young women and girls until they believe it themselves.
It's going take a lot of hard work to roll back this misogynistic garbage and I'm happy to say that I'm post of the solution, unlike Occasionally, who clearly is part of the problem.
Versus:
Where's all your hard work and suck up posts promoting men who work in field that are predominately female (let's say nursing)? Don't get me wrong. I can tell by your posts on this board that you portray yourself as some kind of white knight, galloping in the wind as protector of women trying to get any women reading this board to think you are protector of the universe.
Cut the crap. Nobody believes it. You think sucking up like this, some SP will PM you and saying you're a great guy so you get a freebie?
And besides, your profile saying "womanizing slimeball" and having a GIF rotating sexy/sleazy Asian women doesn't help your cause.
As for your "battle of the cultural sexism" kind of attitude, as I said, people think different. Men and women look different, they are different heights, and different physical strengths. Men are usually bigger, hairier, stronger, faster, and take a punch better.
As for thinking, it's no different. Men and women think different. That goes for affection towards kids, how things work and how they conduct themselves in life.
For example, men are usually louder, say stupider jokes, and when it comes to crime, it's usually guys.
Your crusade about how every person should act the same, but don't due to cultural sexism and media influencing a person to act like a man or act like a woman is false.
These types of SJW crusades are silly too from a mathematical standpoint. That's because in any of these kinds of "Group X deserves this or that", people don't have the brainpower to to see anything beyond that. For example, your crusade to have women all get jobs in field that are mostly men negates the fact more men choose to work than to stay home, prefer that line of work, and that there are many industries where the work is done mostly by women already. I never see you trying to balance out out the ratio by hiring more guys in those jobs.
So by trying to purposely balance out the men/women ratio (and that there are only so many jobs available by companies), what would happen is job mostly handled by men would be balanced out by gender, but jobs mostly held by wmen would remain the same. So it would purposely exclude some guys as they would get cut for a woman for sake of ratio balancing. Which is absurd.
You got to use your noggin a little more Fuji.
You claim to be a hiring manager within some kind of company (which you admitted previously hired men only, so it shows your prejudice hiring skills to begin with), so be true to being a quality manager and hire and promote quality talent. As opposed to hiring men or women only based on whatever absurd "gender of the month hiring strategy" you prefer doing.
What you are doing (which you didn't realize) is insulting everyone who reads your posts. That's because you are saying people can't think for themselves because as a man or woman, the culture and media are what has influenced your life and decisions.... and not your own intelligence or personal preferences.
Personally, despite you claiming to be a hiring manager, I doubt you are for many reasons:
1. Poor management skills
2. No manager would have enough time to have 67,000 posts on an escort site posting at any time of the day
All you are doing is doubling down on your misogynistic, dinosaur view that women shouldn't be engineers, justifying your discriminatory practices.
And I never said my company "previously hired men only". You failed at comprehending what I wrote, and I already corrected your failure once so repeating that again is just intentional lying on your part.
And of course lacking any way to counter the points being made you start going off on irrelevant personal attacks--sure sign that you know you are losing the substantial debate.
Next up, proof you are full of it
And I never said my company "previously hired men only". You failed at comprehending what I wrote, and I already corrected your failure once so repeating that again is just intentional lying on your part.
And of course lacking any way to counter the points being made you start going off on irrelevant personal attacks--sure sign that you know you are losing the substantial debate.
Next up, proof you are full of it
I never said women can''t be engineers. Unlike you who works at a company trying to force men only or women only hiring practices. Or you taking your new female hire as your pet project for the month, I stand by some key points in this thread:
1. People should be hired and promoted based on merit, not gender like you and your company prefers to do
2. Men and women are free to seek out whatever job or field of interest they want. If more women want to be nurses go ahead. If my male buddy wants to be a nurse (he is), go ahead. If most auto mechanics are guys because that job has more guys interested, so be it
3. The government and companies shouldn't be hiring for sake of satisfying some kind of demographic target % someone has set. That leads to tossing out qualifications out the window for sake of hiring a pinpointed demogtaphic to make numbers look nice
