Reverie

Melbourne University advertises female-only jobs in bid to remedy gender imbalance...

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,065
1
0
When I have a strong female new hire in my organization I actively give her the best assignments and work hard to accelerate her promotion through the ranks. I openly talk to other managers in my company about my plans to accelerate her career. We collectively create a plan to move her up.
You made a decision based on the sex of a new employee.

As this employee is `new`, you have no idea how she will perform, but you have already made your decision based on gender.

Are you telling me that you have HR backing in this, this is pure bull shit, unless that is the companies policy, even the self proclaimed great fuji, doesn't get to make company policy, that's ridiculous.

Mind you, if that is how this company is run, it explains some of its more recent hiring practices, doesn't it fuji.

FAST
 

LeeHelm

New member
Apr 14, 2002
780
1
0
Seems like a good move. In my experience women excel in hard sciences, engineering, and technology jobs but yet many are somehow persuaded to do something else.
And what if it was you losing your job in place of a woman that might be less qualified? Would that be a good move then?

Fire the dead wood, keep the performers, hire the most qualified your money can buy. Hiring someone based on sex or race is liberal lunacy.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,644
7,076
113
... and offering advantages that have historically NEVER been offered to men in any way shape or form.....
I assume you are being sarcastic here.


But yes, staff should be mentored and promoted because they show potential, not because their gender (or ethnic background or family connections or members of the right club or church ... but it still happens).


As for this university, in addition to research credentials, hiring academics does serve the purpose of promoting their program. Giving the public a perception that the math department isn't male dominated will make it more likely that excellent female candidates will apply for undergrad and make for more competition in the faculty.
 

nobody123

serial onanist
Feb 1, 2012
3,566
5
38
nowhere
And you are wrong. Historically positions have been offered to men exclusively.

It's kind of sad when the people I'm agreeing with fail to see the sarcasm in what I thought was an absurd and too-over-the-top-to-take-seriously reply.


edited to add: I see from the post above that at least basketcase sussed it out
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,966
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
It's kind of sad when the people I'm agreeing with fail to see the sarcasm in what I thought was an absurd and too-over-the-top-to-take-seriously reply.


edited to add: I see from the post above that at least basketcase sussed it out
Sorry, there were so many knuckle draggers rolling through the thread that what you thought was over the top sarcasm looked a lot like many of the ludicrously sexist posts some others were writing.

Apologies for not realizing yours was meant as sarcasm.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,966
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
You made a decision based on the sex of a new employee.
Absolutely.

As this employee is `new`, you have no idea how she will perform, but you have already made your decision based on gender.
That's not entirely true. I have data about new employees, more and more every day. It's not like on day one I'm giving her the great assignment. It takes people a few months to ramp up in the role, and I can tell a lot about people by the way they do that, and how fast they come up to speed.

I have terminated female employees after the first few months if they just weren't cutting it. I've terminated lots of people who didn't work out.

It's when I see a new employee ramping up quickly and asking all the right questions that I start planning to fast track them and if that promising employee is a woman I double down.

Also , me just giving them the great opportunities is no guarantee that they will succeed. I clear the path, but they have to deliver. If they don't I'll take them off the fast track.

Are you telling me that you have HR backing in this, this is pure bull shit
Absolutely I have HR backing me up. I periodically meet with HR and tell them what the career development plans are for everybody in my organization. If I have identified a promising female employee I talk about how she's a good fast track candidate and then HR start asking me for regular updates on her progress. In fact, HR will start pushing me to make sure I'm really fast tracking her.

unless that is the companies policy, even the self proclaimed great fuji, doesn't get to make company policy, that's ridiculous.
Of course it's company policy. Promoting diversity is company policy at every company I've ever worked for. The bigger and more successful the company the more likely that are to have formalized policies around hiring and promoting women.

I bet you can't find any well known company that DOESN'T have such policies.
 

Occasionally

Active member
May 22, 2011
2,926
8
38
Sorry, there were so many knuckle draggers rolling through the thread that what you thought was over the top sarcasm looked a lot like many of the ludicrously sexist posts some others were writing.

Apologies for not realizing yours was meant as sarcasm.
Nice backtrack.

There were no "knuckle draggers" when you quickly responded to nobody123's post.

Canada-Man created the thread, you responded, nobody123 posted sarcastically, then you immediately replied to nobody123 unable to understand he was making a funny post, even though it's pretty obvious when people type using exclamation marks, all caps and such, a person is being purposely funny or sarcastic.

Open your eyes Fuji.

Calling other's people's posts sexist is absurd when you openly admit hiring and promoting people based solely on their gender, when other people prefer to have it based on merit.
 

Occasionally

Active member
May 22, 2011
2,926
8
38
As for this university, in addition to research credentials, hiring academics does serve the purpose of promoting their program. Giving the public a perception that the math department isn't male dominated will make it more likely that excellent female candidates will apply for undergrad and make for more competition in the faculty.
Schools have an interest in making faculties as equally balanced as possible, both gender and race. And when I say balanced, I don't mean based on population proportion, but balanced in a literal sense.... 50/50.

That's due to school rankings... such as McLean's Magazine. I'm assuming Australia has similar systems.

People read it and focus on the top ranked schools. They don't look at the metrics, or even bother trying to understand whether a metric means anything. or even bother trying to see how good that program is at that school. They just look at the ranking and assume a school ranked #3 is better than #7, and blankets that thought across everything.

For example, a school will get better ranking marks the more women and minorities are hired as professors. Yet there are zero metrics to say how good the teachers really are. So a school that has 7 whites and 3 minorities will get a worse ranking than one that is 5-5, even though the 7-3 school has experienced vets, while the 5-5 are less experienced. I don't think a school would purposely go overboard, but a school that hires 5-5 who are McDonald's fry cooks would technically get a better score than 10-0 whites who are all experienced teachers.

A school will rank higher the more books/resources it has vs. a competing school, but nowhere does it qualify how good the resources are.

A school may have a higher operating budget. But that means nothing. It can simply mean it gets funneled to profs or pays for expensive downtown buildings. On the other hand, a good university that is smaller and based in the prairies gets ranked lower because the budget $$$ is lower.

A lot of funny games when it comes to school rankings.

Most of the metrics are simply: More quantity = Higher ranking. Very few metrics cover quality.

It's like getting a job. IBM is one of the biggest tech companies in the world. Some people would equate that to meaning it's the best at everything. But just because it has $100 billion sales doesn't mean it's a great place for you or your job field to go after.

Or saying Ken Baumgartner is a better hockey player than Connor McDavid because the bomber has more career points.
 
Last edited:

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,497
2,866
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
so Fuji a male feminist constantly accuse me of misogyny and hating women. refuse to or can't point a post i made where i attack women based on their gender has openly admitted in this thread he hire and discriminates based on Gender in favour of women.


a lesson for this week.

don't listen to anybody who constantly race and genderbating and cry bigot when there is none
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,966
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Your reply.



And then,...



Another fujiism.

FAST
Are you illiterate? The word solely is incredibly significant. I don't hire or promote anyone based solely on their gender. I do make decisions about new employees who show promise based on their gender. That isn't a decision based solely on their gender. There's a huge fucking difference.

I realize your debating tactic is to rewrite things into falsehoods but you really shouldn't do that.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,966
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
so Fuji a male feminist constantly accuse me of misogyny and hating women. refuse to or can't point a post i made where i attack women based on their gender
If it isn't their gender, what are your constant attacks on women based on?????

Post 16 is a good example of your hate mongering.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,497
2,866
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
If it isn't their gender, what are your constant attacks on women based on?????

Post 16 is a good example of your hate mongering.
Fuji is illiterate or have reading comprehension problems

here is post 16 written by FAST


WOW, the job market in the US is worse than I though.

A so called "manager" can show favoritism to a single employee based on sex, and not be concerned about its other employees reacting negatively.

I see possible new union in the making.

Dumb management, gets the union it deserves.

FAST

Nothing in that thread attacks women based in their gender

I didn't wrote that post
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,966
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Fuji is illiterate or have reading comprehension problems

here is post 16 written by FAST





Nothing in that thread attacks women based in their gender

I didn't wrote that post
This is the one I meant: "early feminists were members of the Klu Klux Klan."

That's just more of your demonizing feminism and women. It's false as well, you are saying all feminists were in the KKK where the only thing that may be true is that some in the KKK were feminist--very different.

But your reason for posting? Your continuing campaign to demonize anyone who thinks women should have rights.

It's hate mongering.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,497
2,866
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
fuji
Womanizing Slimeball
This message is hidden because fuji is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list


i am not going to respond to Fuji's genderbating crap claiming i hate women. the biggest crybabies against my criticism of feminists are leftist men like Fuji.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,966
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
i am not going to respond to Fuji's genderbating crap claiming i hate women. the biggest crybabies against my criticism of feminists are leftist men like Fuji.
Insulting me doesn't excuse your behavior. Pretending you didn't read my post when you obviously did is also childish.

There's no excuse for your hate mongering claim that all feminists belonged to the KKK. None. You were exposed, you can't reply, so these mindedness insults and childish posts follow.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,497
2,866
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
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!
 
May 8, 2010
1,015
1
0
I support the idea of helping groups that have historically been oppressed to have a fair chance at being successful...but I don't support affirmative action programs. They seem inherently unfair. I don't think the answer to addressing oppression is to impose a reverse form of oppression.

I admire fugi's intent...but I think his methods are misguided.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts