Melbourne University advertises female-only jobs in bid to remedy gender imbalance...
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Says the guy who calls people "knuckle draggers" in your post. nobody123's post you got confused with was post #3 in this thread. There were no other "knuckle dragger" posters when you said that as the thread was just created. The posts were the OP's post, your post as post #2, and nobody123's post as #3. You got confused with his sarcastic post and then replied with the following post later.
But congrats on calling yourself a knuckle dragger. The only post in between the OP post and nobody123's in #3 is your own past at #2. And then you replied to his post as post #4 in the thread.
Why do you continue to make yourself like stupid?..... I take that back. Since you call yourself a knuckle dragger, I now understand.
You do realize there's nobody in this thread that has agreed with you yet right? lol
You're a long time poster with 67,000 posts over 11 years here. I have 1,000 posts. You should have more experience with forums how to succeed in winning an argument.
But as I said before, you are no manager. You claim to be one, even claiming to take newly hired women under your wing. Lies. You spend all day and night on this forum posting at all times of the day.
You are a fraud. And an easy one to pick out. I've only been debating you over the past few days and already picked you apart. Be true to yourself and joining forums will more fun and less stressful. I'm not saying tell everyone your real name and job, but just relax and be part of a forum. Act like an ass and you look like an idiot.
It's like sports forums. Guess what? They are fine and fun to chat with people if everyone acts relaxed. Once some guys get into stupid Yankees vs Red Sox or Leafs are better than all teams except the Habs because they have the second most cups and entire threads and forums get ruined. Don't be that guy.
Don't be like that poster who had that thread about paying monthly sums of $5-7k using an alias and got caught with it and resorted to telling the mod to delete all his accounts so he can start over. He'll be back under a new name. But it always stings posters when their longtime user ID is tossed out the window. All that effort trying to create an online image and it's debunked and deleted.
Still undisputed:
And what is the cause of the different interests?
What you don't get is the difference is ingrained stereotypes which you are assuming true and taking for granted, and which affirmative action programs overturn.
The more successful women there are in STEM fields, the more that stereotype erodes, and the more women choose it.
And what is the cause of the different interests?
What you don't get is the difference is ingrained stereotypes which you are assuming true and taking for granted, and which affirmative action programs overturn.
The more successful women there are in STEM fields, the more that stereotype erodes, and the more women choose it.
He would, if it meant that he was being harassed or paid a fraction of what the women were being paid. Bet none of that is true though, is it.
And here's betting not a one of these questions occurred to you, because, hurrr durrr femnists!
- What is the benchmark used: did they compare it with other companies in the same industries, same time frame, same size, nationality etc?
- What is the methodology used?
- Are they using data that runs through 2008 when all publicly traded companies went into the shitter?
- Why did they choose to examine a single valuation ratio - Tobin's Q?
- What about other indicators? Profits, share prices, and other valuation ratios? What did they indicate?
- Are there any other studies that correlate board composition and corporate performance?
- If we were to actually accept and take the leapt-to conclusion at face value, does it mean women are somehow inferior, or does it mean that over a century of marginalizing women in the corporate world means that they have some serious catching up to do? (i.e., if there were more women in the upper corporate echelons, there would be a better pool of female BoD candidates to chose from)
- Who the fuck actually thinks the BoD does anything other than rubber stamp shit and make sure that CEOs get paid obscenely well?
But no. You just saw a yet another men's rights meme-ified pic, unhinged your jaw, and swallowed that shit whole. It's OK though. Sure, you might have yet again referenced a scholarly article without conducting any real analysis, providing any context, or any thought at all, really. But hey, it's a captioned pic, an MRA meme, so you just KNOW it's gotta be solid intel. Cute.
For someone who can't get enough of implying that women are shallow and dim witted, you sure do seem to engage in a lotta superficial non-thought yerself. But like I said in another thread: you keep doing you, Candaman Man.
What I don't like is your confirmation bias. Oh look, a meme that supports my idiot idea of how women are inferior. It even cites a study of some sort or another. Is the study problematic? Does it even exist? Who cares, funny pickshurs and wommen r dumb, hurr durrr.
it does not say women are inferior it is saying that affirmative action hiring of women lowers standards. and why aren't you going after the islamic circle of north america and the dundas square islamic booth that openly supports wife beating, and saying women should not leave the home and work without the permission of their husband?
Not only does fuji not understand the meaning of discrimination. He doesn't understand the meaning of irony. Time to buy a dictionary fuji. Maybe we could take up a collection?
Before going any further, do you have any basis to claim school rankings take into account the gender or ethnic make up of the faculty?
So tell me then. What does it tell you? Are you saying that several decades of women getting the short end of the stick in the corporate world has led to a smaller pool of qualified female talent? Careful!! That's feminist speak that is! No, no. Best you just assume that women are somehow inferior at Board of Directing when compared to men. Any other interpretation may turn you into a weak girlie man.
Great question. And one with all the intellectual heft I've come to expect from you. Tell me, why have you failed to condemn them? Are you a fan? I also notice that you have not said that murder is bad. Are you a proponent of murdering your fellow human beings? Also - I haven't heard you explicitly say that pedophiles are bad. How long have you been a member of NAMBLA, you sick bastard?
you are going on my ignore tired of you leftist cucks and white knights bitching and crying about my posts claiming to defend and speak for women.
ignore list update
fuji, sexb and nobody123
I was trying to find McLean's methodology, and I may have been wrong on some metrics I said.
I do remember seeing these kinds of demographics type metrics, but it was actually for MBA school ranking methodology. I guess I read these when I did my masters way back.
The link has 2014 methodoology, but I don't think it's change much from when I did it over a decade ago.... that's when I read similar stuff when I'd skim magazines which schools were ranked the best for MBAs. You can see in the link various gender/diversity metrics.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5728ac98-7c7f-11e3-b514-00144feabdc0.html
adorable!
Calling people that disagree with you "cucks" speaks freaking VOLUMES about the 4chan level of discourse and reasoning you engage in.
Stahp already. You've established your bona fides just fine!
Whaaa? Your posts don't claim to defend women. WTF are you talking about? Oh, sure, you claim to speak for women since some poor gal agreed with you on some point or another once in your posting life, but still... I'm confused. Wish I wasn't on ignore so you could clarify. Ah well. I guess that's what I get for actually trying to get to the heart of an argument instead of posting some meme in reply. Or for assuming you were either interested in or capable of defending the ceaseless flow of other people's bullshit you constantly regurgitate. My bad.
adorable!
