5minsmadness:

Well, cococandy already answered it succinctly even though she thought she was raising a point against me.
How many functions did u expect me to list concerning men and women and how they should be treated? It would fill an entire book wouldn't it? I simply summarised it into the two words I used in replying u.

A man should be respected. It doesn't mean he doesn't need love but respect would come first as like you all say Men have huge egos. Even the bible says women should respect their husbands (I know u don't believe in the bible but humor me for a moment). These were words of wisdom because it is lack of respect that makes most men begin to misbehave. We have huge egos which are easily bruised. To be loved is cool but give us our due respect and we are good to go.
That is why a man can pick a random woman from the Internet and marry her. He doesn't need to love her at least not at first. All she has to do is respect him and he'll be good to her. It doesn't mean love should be absent.


A woman on the other hand is made to be loved. She thrives on love more than anything else. A woman will marry a philandering wife-beater and stick with him because in his moments of sanity he shows her love. Without love (sic. affection... It could be emotional or financial... whichever) a woman's feelings for a man quickly dries up. She can even fall physically sick following a lack of love. It doesn't mean she should be respected of course but love comes first.




As a PS if women valued respect so much there wouldn't be so many porn movies or nakedddd women on music videos

Okay, he doesn't need to love her at first, but she has to respect him, I don't see how this works.

We have agreed men and women should be treated differently, now how about fairness? Does that mean anything? How do you respect someone who doesn't love you? Or are you saying every woman must respect every man by default? Why does the woman have to give respect first, especially to someone who may have disrespected her?

Women that stay with such men are not stable emotionally and need help,so let's not go there.


Really? How about the men in those videos, or what they are involved in is disrespectful only to women?

Dude abeg, just forget.

Nonso23:

You are welcome I like the way he puts it. Direct, no coloring and no sentiments. 'You either like it or you don't' kind of delivery

Straight up. Just the way I like it.

edwife:

He was amazing and he said some plain truths.
I loved it.

You sure his telling truths or just being a chauvinist pig?

5minsmadness:


I think you're just trolling sha
Meanwhile u guys ve broken my mentions

Tired of this rigmaroll. Let me move it along.

Me: if women stopped exposing thier bodies then men wouldn't see the porn to consume.
You: if men stopped paying women ten women wouldn't throw thier respect to the wind to act porn
Me: Women should respect themselves enough not to allow thier respect to be bought with money
--—--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Women and children being forced are victims of crime and are not allowed the liberty of being or asking for respect . The Internet is full of many willing women who are not kidnapped or forced into exhibiting thier nakidness. Don't delude yourself.

Children below 18yrs are also victims and not what we are talking about here.

Blah blah blah blah
Am tired.
Out.

If my asking you questions that causes you to think outside your rants is a definition of a troll then I am a troll!

Unlike you, I am honest enough to blame both parties for porn and other sexual deviations. Women who are willing and forced participants in the porn industry are being paid by MOSTLY men consumers. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

Timbuktou:


If that's true, why are feminists calling for "equal representation" and quotas in positions of authority in the workplace and government? What's the equality in enforcing workplace quotas? Isn't that anti-merit, and as a result anti-equality?

Quotas are not in themselves bad but their being easy to misappropriate is what gives them a bad vibe. Filling a quota should also be done by merit and not simply by any "ism". While agreeing that it really does not help the case for feminists, I think quotas should serve as a stop gap solution until society has a more balanced view of these things. The idea that man is better than woman still has a strong hold on society and will prevent fair competition between the 2.

@freecocoa
Point of correction. I reread the post and saw my error.

That is why a man can pick a random woman from the Internet and marry her. He doesn't need her to love him at least not at first. All she has to do is respect him and he'll be good to her. It doesn't mean love should be absent.

This is what I meant to type. You can see it follows the logic of the whole paragraph. I was in a hurry while typing the previous post.

jaybee3:
Una still dey on this matter

Choi

Timbuktou:


I'm talking about feminists wanting more representation than they deserve. One would assume that feminists would want to secure employment and advance at work through merit, but one would be wrong.

Isn't it a good thing that feminists are asking for representation based on merit and not because of affirmative action?

How can a man represent a woman? It makes no sense. Although, a few women doesn't represent the totality of women hood, at least there is a female voice is what they are really asking.

In a company of 4500 employees and only 200 are women and most of their positions are administrative support. People can pretend there isn't any sexism in the workplace and continues to be ignorant won't change matter none.

Don't get me started on sexual misconduct and harassment that occurs daily on the workplace. Many women didn't go to college to.be a coffee maker but to practice their field of study.

Last thing, I want to mention is that no one has an authority to govern who deserve what and why. If I was to say that father's don't deserve to have control of their children because they haven't put in work in conceiving and carrying the child would.be fair right?

Exactly.

LordReed:


1. Quotas are not in themselves bad but their being easy to misappropriate is what gives them a bad vibe.

2. Filling a quota should also be done by merit and not simply by any "ism".

3. While agreeing that it really does not help the case for feminists, I think quotas should serve as a stop gap solution until society has a more balanced view of these things.

4. The idea that man is better than woman still has a strong hold on society and will prevent fair competition between the 2.

1. Every system is easy to misappropriate. However, the very essence of a quota system is anti-equality, end of. Feminists/feminism cannot claim to fight for equality and in the same breath clamour for and accept special treatment in the form of quotas. It is discriminatory.

2. The idea of a quota has already ruled out merit. There is already an "ism" in it; it's womanism. There must be a certain number of women in the system not because they're competent but because they are women.

3. Quotas are discriminatory and the thought should only be considered in passing and rightly shelved. They should not be desperately clamoured for by people who paradoxically are screeching for equality.

4. I would request that you prove this unfair competition. Taking Fortune 500 companies as a case study; what exactly is the proportion of founders between both sexes. Are men stopping women from starting and owning their own companies? Aren't there women who have founded successful companies?

5minsmadness:
@freecocoa
Point of correction. I reread the post and saw my error.


This is what I meant to type. You can see it follows the logic of the whole paragraph. I was in a hurry while typing the previous post.

Ok, so how does it work if he just picks her up? What if he never gets to love her and she the same? Or can a man survive in a relationship with respect alone, with nothing in it for the woman?

freecocoa:
Ok, so how does it work if he just picks her up? What if he never gets to love her and she the same? Or can a man survive in a relationship with respect alone, with nothing in it for the woman?

According to Steve Harvey, a man rather have respect and admiration than love and compassion.

There is a different between owning a company and working for a company.

Women who are business owners aren't complaining about representation however women who are in male driven industries are complaining about lack female representation in the workplace.

I refuse to believe that every male that are employed in the workplace are competent. Let me give two companies that was dominated by men and they are no longer contending because of legal and ethical issies...Enron, Tyco, and Worldcom.

MrsChima:


According to Steve Harvey, a man rather have respect and admiration than love and compassion.

The thing is that you can hardly separate all these emotions from one another.

MrsChima:


Isn't it a good thing that feminists are asking for representation based on merit and not because of affirmative action?

How can a man represent a woman? It makes no sense. Although, a few women doesn't represent the totality of women hood, at least there is a female voice is what they are really asking.

In a company of 4500 employees and only 200 are women and most of their positions are administrative support. People can pretend there isn't any sexism in the workplace and continues to be ignorant won't change matter none.

Don't get me started on sexual misconduct and harassment that occurs daily on the workplace. Many women didn't go to college to.be a coffee maker but to practice their field of study.

Last thing, I want to mention is that no one has an authority to govern who deserve what and why. If I was to say that father's don't deserve to have control of their children because they haven't put in work in conceiving and carrying the child would.be fair right?

Exactly.

If quota is enforced, it's affirmative action, isn't it; and merit is effectively out the door. No amount of renaming can change that fact. If a woman merits a job, then she'll get it. Simple. If my business is better served by employing men, I will employ me. Period. The business world is not a women's shelter.

Who's asking for men to represent women? That's just senseless. And women's voices for what exactly? I don't get that.

Again, the onus on you is to prove the existence of discrimination. If there are requirements for a job and women continually fail to meet those requirements, is it fair to the business to employ women anyway, just so they don't feel bad? What about the other men who couldn't male the cut? They shoull push for quota for dullards or slackers as their bosses are discriminating against olodos?

Men don't make coffee in the office? Oh, please tell me, when a huge table has to be moved in the office is it the men who have Ph. Ds that were taught to do heavy lifting while submitting their theses? Some arguments are irrelevant. If, as a woman, you don't want to make coffee, don't fvcking make it. Nobody will sack someone adding value for refusing to make coffee. Maybe, male colleagues should be mad that they're expected to do the more physical but out of job description activities.

Fathers have contributed in creating the life of that child. They have a right to have access to the life of that child not minding their not lactating or gestating. Any woman who doesn't want the child's father in the life of a child can get an anonymous donor; no biggie. That argument is irrelevant though. How does a first time applicant have employment entitlement, what value have they hitherto contributed to that company to warrant automatic employment. Or what right does an incompetent person have to promotion ahead of a more valuable member of staff because the government wants inclusion?

Timbuktou:


1. Every system is easy to misappropriate. However, the very essence of a quota system is anti-equality, end of. Feminists/feminism cannot claim to fight for equality and in the same breath clamour for and accept special treatment in the form of quotas. It is discriminatory.

Quotas are not simply discrimintory. They are meant to ensure there is a balance especially where it is highly likely that such an imbalance is likely to occur. Take our educational system for example if only the overall best people in the country are given admission it is highly likely certain sections of the country will not have a chance or will have very slim chances. The same applies to the issue of federal character, these quotas help to maintain a balance, a form of fairness if you will.

2. The idea of a quota has already ruled out merit. There is already an "ism" in it; it's womanism. There must be a certain number of women in the system not because they're competent but because they are women.

So if a company decides that its employment quota will be sorted out to maintain 50% for administration and related courses and 50% for Tech and sciences what "ism" is that?

3. Quotas are discriminatory and the thought should only be considered in passing and rightly shelved. They should not be desperately clamoured for by people who paradoxically are screeching for equality.

Quotas are not discriminatory anymore than saying a job will be filled by a person with a certain type of skill.

4. I would request that you prove this unfair competition. Taking Fortune 500 companies as a case study; what exactly is the proportion of founders between both sexes. Are men stopping women from starting and owning their own companies? Aren't there women who have founded successful companies?

Take for instance the views expressed by folk here saying men are better at STEM fields than women, this already sends the message that a woman is not going to beat out her male counterparts at work. A hiring manager with such a mindset is likely to employ men before women. Here is a study that talks about that:

http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/13/study-men-and-women-twice-as-likely-to-hire-a-man-for-a-math-based-job/

The study showed men and women were more likely to hire a man than a woman for a hypothetical math based job. This clearly shows the grip of this kind of thinking on society.

LordReed Nonso23 5MinsMadness Pickabeau1
Feminists are welcome to explain this away. I'm all ears.
[b]If you’re ever trapped in a burning building, just pray the firefighter climbing up to rescue you isn’t Rebecca Wax. Or someone like her, who’s been given an EZ-Pass through firefighting training for the sake of gender equity. This week Wax, who repeatedly flunked the rigorous physical test required by the New York City Fire Department, will graduate anyway, The Post reported. All over the nation, fire departments are easing physical standards, in response to litigation to increase the number of women firefighters. It’s roiling fire departments, and the turmoil is a preview of what’s to come for the US military, which has committed to opening all combat roles to women by 2016. Wax tried six times to pass New York’s Functional Skills Test within the 17-minute, 50-second deadline. Five times she couldn’t finish at all; on the sixth try, she needed 22 minutes. Women’s groups claim the test is needlessly difficult and unfairly bars women. Trainees wearing 50 pounds of gear and breathing through an air tank must climb six stories, raise ladders, break down doors and drag a dummy through a dark tunnel, all at breakneck speed. Sounds like firefighting. The city’s test is tougher than some tests elsewhere, but city buildings are higher. Nevertheless, Fire Commissioner Daniel Nigro gave Wax a pass because she had good performance on other measures, including academic tests. Nigro wants to significantly boost the number of women in the FDNY — now only 0.5 percent of the rank-and-file — and he wants to do it before he’s staring at a court order. Court orders are compelling Chicago to relax its standards. Two federal class-action lawsuits brought by women who flunked that city’s firefighting tests claimed that the exams required more than what is actually needed to be an effective firefighter. Women account for 3.4 percent of the Chicago force, compared with 5.7 percent of firefighters nationally. Chicago authorities settled the case last month, admitting into training the previously rejected women and paying millions to others no longer eligible. In Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti is plainly unhappy with this year’s all-male class of firefighting graduates. There were four women among the 44 recruits who started last December, but they all dropped out. Desperate to diversify, Garcetti paid the RAND Corp. a whopping $270,000 for advice. RAND’s brilliant insight was that LA should recruit women athletes who can take the grueling training. Well, duh! That’s what San Marcos, Calif., learned upon hiring Siene Freeman. Several other female recruits had washed out, but for her — a former marathoner and weight-lifter — the training was a piece of cake. Municipalities that already have women firefighters are being hit with lawsuits. But more often these are about sexual harassment rather than qualifications. This year alone, Philadelphia, Tampa and at least a dozen other cities are being sued for allowing a culture of bawdy, suggestive behavior. Tampa’s fire department personnel chief, known as “Uncle Touchy,” just resigned after admitting he had hugged, massaged and flirted with female firefighters. Many departments face the practical problem that firefighters — male and female — work 24 hour shifts, and sleep in an open bunk room, with no privacy curtains or separate changing area. That’s hardly conducive for a professional working environment. Nigro says he is going to remedy these problems in New York. Then again, the Tampa female firefighters are fanning the flames. To raise money for burn victims, they put out a calendar. Trouble is, some of them posed in bikinis, sending a mixed message. The touchy issue of women in traditional men’s occupations will be center stage this fall, when the Pentagon announces its “gender-neutral” rules for military assignments. Some feminists argue that the Marine Corps’ grueling Combat Endurance Test is more of an “initiation rite” than a fair appraisal of physical ability, the same argument Wax’s supporters use about New York’s firefighting exam. Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey ominously announced at a Pentagon briefing that if “a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain . . . does it really have to be that high?” Military brass — like officials overseeing New York’s fire department — are too ready to lower standards, never mind the consequences in the field. Is that really a victory for women?[/b]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb_WYGtZ7K4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4UfEE0NDfs

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvdqyJk-Hfk

LordReed:


1. Quotas are not simply discrimintory. They are meant to ensure there is a balance especially where it is highly likely that such an imbalance is likely to occur. Take our educational system for example if only the overall best people in the country are given admission it is highly likely certain sections of the country will not have a chance or will have very slim chances. The same applies to the issue of federal character, these quotas help to maintain a balance, a form of fairness if you will.



2. So if a company decides that its employment quota will be sorted out to maintain 50% for administration and related courses and 50% for Tech and sciences what "ism" is that?



3. Quotas are not discriminatory anymore than saying a job will be filled by a person with a certain type of skill.



4. Take for instance the views expressed by folk here saying men are better at STEM fields than women, this already sends the message that a woman is not going to beat out her male counterparts at work. A hiring manager with such a mindset is likely to employ men before women. Here is a study that talks about that:

http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/13/study-men-and-women-twice-as-likely-to-hire-a-man-for-a-math-based-job/

5. The study showed men and women were more likely to hire a man than a woman for a hypothetical math based job. This clearly shows the grip of this kind of thinking on society.

1. Lol. The very existence of any quota system has established the eventuality of discrimination. Quotas are a lazy way of creating balance based on merit, it is only fair when the balance is based on gender. Merit is relegated to the back in such a system. Please refer to my previous post. The so-called regions that have been gifted higher education quotas have proven that giving quota is a waste of resources. Would you rather take your child to a doctor who merited his way to his license or one who just got there because his region was given a slot? Bros, haba. Let's engage absent sentiments. I had a coursemate who pronounced the word "view" as "fuwa" I was mind-blown. This guy would get a degree in four years ahead of somebody from another state because the school was in his home state. Is that a good argument for quota system? In fact, that accounts largely for why Nigeria is like this. Competition should be made to thrive and the best should get the prize; all this talk of representation is counter-productive.

2. That's stupidism. A company that wants to remain in business does not employ arbitrary systems just for the fun of it. Any company that does that will fold up in no time. There's something called a SWOT analysis that determines how businesses are run, or at least, should be run. What do you think they do at board meetings? Hahahahha. Funny man.

3. Eee, e gbami ke. Quotas and merit are parallels, they do not meet; unless it's for charity maybe. When you give people a quota, then another set are already discriminated against. There are women in employment in companies in Nigeria, you think that's quota? A serious employer would employ the best fit for his business. If you were an employer, would you employ a female with a first class who passed all tests and aced the interview or the guy who has a 2.2 and scores lower than the above lady in all tests and interviews. If you employed the female, would that be because of merit or because you qere given instruction to hire females?

4. Straw man to the nth degree. Whatever anyone says is irrelevant to someone who has a destination to get to. This might sound strange but companies usually carry out extensive tests before they offer employment to prospects. There's the CV vetting process amongst other modalities that actually qualify one for a job. One would be tempted to aasume that employing managers have some degree of a value-adding IQ to a firm and would employ the best candidate for the job, but now that you're saying this, it sounds like employers just go to blogs and decide to employ without reviewing applicants' qualifications and even CVs. And if men constantly perform better then that trend/pattern will be noticed. Or you don't want people to say the truth because it will pain the wimmin? Funny man.

5. Gee. The earth is round. Maybe that's because men tend to do better at employment tests and criteria. Oh my, oh my.

Timbuktou:
LordReed
Nonso23
5MinsMadness
Pickabeau1

Feminists are welcome to explain this away. I'm all ears.

[b]If you’re ever trapped in a burning building, just pray the firefighter
climbing up to rescue you isn’t Rebecca Wax. Or someone like her, who’s
been given an EZ-Pass through firefighting training for the sake of gender
equity.
This week Wax, who repeatedly flunked the rigorous physical test
required by the New York City Fire Department, will graduate anyway,
The Post reported.
All over the nation, fire departments are easing physical standards, in
response to litigation to increase the number of women firefighters.
It’s roiling fire departments, and the turmoil is a preview of what’s to
come for the US military, which has committed to opening all combat
roles to women by 2016.
Wax tried six times to pass New York’s Functional Skills Test within the
17-minute, 50-second deadline. Five times she couldn’t finish at all; on
the sixth try, she needed 22 minutes. Women’s groups claim the test is
needlessly difficult and unfairly bars women.
Trainees wearing 50 pounds of gear and breathing through an air tank
must climb six stories, raise ladders, break down doors and drag a dummy
through a dark tunnel, all at breakneck speed. Sounds like firefighting.
The city’s test is tougher than some tests elsewhere, but city buildings are
higher. Nevertheless, Fire Commissioner Daniel Nigro gave Wax a pass
because she had good performance on other measures, including academic
tests.
Nigro wants to significantly boost the number of women in the FDNY —
now only 0.5 percent of the rank-and-file — and he wants to do it before
he’s staring at a court order.
Court orders are compelling Chicago to relax its standards. Two federal
class-action lawsuits brought by women who flunked that city’s
firefighting tests claimed that the exams required more than what is
actually needed to be an effective firefighter.
Women account for 3.4 percent of the Chicago force, compared with 5.7
percent of firefighters nationally. Chicago authorities settled the case last
month, admitting into training the previously rejected women and paying
millions to others no longer eligible.
In Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti is plainly unhappy with this year’s
all-male class of firefighting graduates.
There were four women among the 44 recruits who started last December,
but they all dropped out.
Desperate to diversify, Garcetti paid the RAND Corp. a whopping
$270,000 for advice. RAND’s brilliant insight was that LA should recruit
women athletes who can take the grueling training. Well, duh!
That’s what San Marcos, Calif., learned upon hiring Siene Freeman.
Several other female recruits had washed out, but for her — a former
marathoner and weight-lifter — the training was a piece of cake.
Municipalities that already have women firefighters are being hit with
lawsuits.
But more often these are about sexual harassment rather than
qualifications.
This year alone, Philadelphia, Tampa and at least a dozen other cities are
being sued for allowing a culture of bawdy, suggestive behavior. Tampa’s
fire department personnel chief, known as “Uncle Touchy,” just resigned
after admitting he had hugged, massaged and flirted with female
firefighters.
Many departments face the practical problem that firefighters — male and
female — work 24 hour shifts, and sleep in an open bunk room, with no
privacy curtains or separate changing area.
That’s hardly conducive for a professional working environment. Nigro
says he is going to remedy these problems in New York.
Then again, the Tampa female firefighters are fanning the flames.
To raise money for burn victims, they put out a calendar. Trouble is, some
of them posed in bikinis, sending a mixed message.
The touchy issue of women in traditional men’s occupations will be center
stage this fall, when the Pentagon announces its “gender-neutral” rules for
military assignments.
Some feminists argue that the Marine Corps’ grueling Combat Endurance
Test is more of an “initiation rite” than a fair appraisal of physical ability,
the same argument Wax’s supporters use about New York’s firefighting
exam.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey ominously announced at a
Pentagon briefing that if “a particular standard is so high that a woman
couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and
explain . . . does it really have to be that high?”
Military brass — like officials overseeing New York’s fire department —
are too ready to lower standards, never mind the consequences in the field.
Is that really a victory for women?[/b]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb_WYGtZ7K4



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4UfEE0NDfs


www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvdqyJk-Hfk

Smh

Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey ominously announced at a Pentagon briefing that if “a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain . . . does it really have to be that high?” Military brass — like officials overseeing New York’s fire department — are too ready to lower standards, never mind the consequences in the field. Is that really a victory for women?

Yeah, keep lowering your standards for the sake of women.
America won't be the first empire to fall because of women. It won't be the last either. Let a real war begin them we'll all see whether the enemy will lower it's standards as well.

5minsmadness:


Yeah, keep lowering your standards for the sake of women.
America won't be the first empire to fall because of women. It won't be the last either. Let a real war begin them we'll all see whether the enemy will lower it's standards as well.

Welcome to the world of quota systeming. What's even more disgusting is that there is a high probability that there were men who qualified, but were denied employment because of her. Did you watch the youtube clips?

Timbuktou:


Welcome to the world of quota systeming. What's even more disgusting is that there is a high probability that there were men who qualified, but were denied employment because of her. Did you watch the youtube clips?

Nope. Checking it out now.

Timbuktou:
LordReed
Nonso23
5MinsMadness
Pickabeau1

Feminists are welcome to explain this away. I'm all ears.

[b]If you’re ever trapped in a burning building, just pray the firefighter
climbing up to rescue you isn’t Rebecca Wax. Or someone like her, who’s
been given an EZ-Pass through firefighting training for the sake of gender
equity.
This week Wax, who repeatedly flunked the rigorous physical test
required by the New York City Fire Department, will graduate anyway,
The Post reported.
All over the nation, fire departments are easing physical standards, in
response to litigation to increase the number of women firefighters.
It’s roiling fire departments, and the turmoil is a preview of what’s to
come for the US military, which has committed to opening all combat
roles to women by 2016.
Wax tried six times to pass New York’s Functional Skills Test within the
17-minute, 50-second deadline. Five times she couldn’t finish at all; on
the sixth try, she needed 22 minutes. Women’s groups claim the test is
needlessly difficult and unfairly bars women.
Trainees wearing 50 pounds of gear and breathing through an air tank
must climb six stories, raise ladders, break down doors and drag a dummy
through a dark tunnel, all at breakneck speed. Sounds like firefighting.
The city’s test is tougher than some tests elsewhere, but city buildings are
higher. Nevertheless, Fire Commissioner Daniel Nigro gave Wax a pass
because she had good performance on other measures, including academic
tests.
Nigro wants to significantly boost the number of women in the FDNY —
now only 0.5 percent of the rank-and-file — and he wants to do it before
he’s staring at a court order.
Court orders are compelling Chicago to relax its standards. Two federal
class-action lawsuits brought by women who flunked that city’s
firefighting tests claimed that the exams required more than what is
actually needed to be an effective firefighter.
Women account for 3.4 percent of the Chicago force, compared with 5.7
percent of firefighters nationally. Chicago authorities settled the case last
month, admitting into training the previously rejected women and paying
millions to others no longer eligible.
In Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti is plainly unhappy with this year’s
all-male class of firefighting graduates.
There were four women among the 44 recruits who started last December,
but they all dropped out.
Desperate to diversify, Garcetti paid the RAND Corp. a whopping
$270,000 for advice. RAND’s brilliant insight was that LA should recruit
women athletes who can take the grueling training. Well, duh!
That’s what San Marcos, Calif., learned upon hiring Siene Freeman.
Several other female recruits had washed out, but for her — a former
marathoner and weight-lifter — the training was a piece of cake.
Municipalities that already have women firefighters are being hit with
lawsuits.
But more often these are about sexual harassment rather than
qualifications.
This year alone, Philadelphia, Tampa and at least a dozen other cities are
being sued for allowing a culture of bawdy, suggestive behavior. Tampa’s
fire department personnel chief, known as “Uncle Touchy,” just resigned
after admitting he had hugged, massaged and flirted with female
firefighters.
Many departments face the practical problem that firefighters — male and
female — work 24 hour shifts, and sleep in an open bunk room, with no
privacy curtains or separate changing area.
That’s hardly conducive for a professional working environment. Nigro
says he is going to remedy these problems in New York.
Then again, the Tampa female firefighters are fanning the flames.
To raise money for burn victims, they put out a calendar. Trouble is, some
of them posed in bikinis, sending a mixed message.
The touchy issue of women in traditional men’s occupations will be center
stage this fall, when the Pentagon announces its “gender-neutral” rules for
military assignments.
Some feminists argue that the Marine Corps’ grueling Combat Endurance
Test is more of an “initiation rite” than a fair appraisal of physical ability,
the same argument Wax’s supporters use about New York’s firefighting
exam.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey ominously announced at a
Pentagon briefing that if “a particular standard is so high that a woman
couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and
explain . . . does it really have to be that high?”
Military brass — like officials overseeing New York’s fire department —
are too ready to lower standards, never mind the consequences in the field.
Is that really a victory for women?[/b]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb_WYGtZ7K4



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4UfEE0NDfs


www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvdqyJk-Hfk

There is nothing to explain here. Do men and women compete in the same athletic events at the same time? Lower PHYSICAL standards for job is not the kind of in between measures that are needed when it is clear that men surpass women physically. Not all men can even pass the physical tests so this case is moot. What I think is that for fields where woman can compete but are unfairly discriminated against either there is a quota or there simply is no discrimination (we all know that is the real task).

Nonso23:


Imagine the sense of entitlement

"does it really have to be that high?"

No it should be low enough such that every ill-trained, ill-qualified humanoid that identifies itself as a modern feminist can easily scale it.
Next they would request for lowering the standards for these same set of humanoids in critical STEM majors and then hopefully our first space-craft to mars will spiral into the sun.
Fire fighting just like medicine and emergency response squads is a game of time, the more time you can shave off,the greater the chances of survival of the victims but it's okay to let some people die because some ill qualified, incompetent humanoid thinks it is discriminatory to not do so.

Nonsense once again.

But they are wimmin na, aren't they? Entitlement is their middle name, and they've succeeded in infecting many men. The most disgraceful thing is these men don't know that by granting them these dodgy quotas, they(the men) are being cheated. Oh, the irony. So much for being progressive.

Watched it.
Burst out laughing at first.
But it's actually a very serious problem looming.
"equality of responsibility ", I like that.
These women are so blinded by thier selfish agendas they fail to see the Inherent dangers they are causing to themselves and the society around them. And no better excuse to allow them do such terrible things than " it's what she wants".
Very thought provoking and sobering videos.
But I still blame the whites.
They started all this equality bullsh1t.
They should face the consequences.

Timbuktou:


If quota is enforced, it's affirmative action, isn't it; and merit is effectively out the door. No amount of renaming can change that fact. If a woman merits a job, then she'll get it. Simple. If my business is better served by employing men, I will employ me. Period. The business world is not a women's shelter.

Who's asking for men to represent women? That's just senseless. And women's voices for what exactly? I don't get that.

Again, the onus on you is to prove the existence of discrimination. If there are requirements for a job and women continually fail to meet those requirements, is it fair to the business to employ women anyway, just so they don't feel bad? What about the other men who couldn't male the cut? They shoull push for quota for dullards or slackers as their bosses are discriminating against olodos?

Affirmative action is not about quota, it is about not discriminating someone based on race, gender, religion, creed, and sexual orientation. Affirmative Action isn't a gender movement but equality movement for all that wants a fair shake in employment, education, housing, finance, and many other factors.

If you want to employ all men because you feel comfortable with men and want to work alongside musty dicks all day and night..do you boo. I stand on my comment that every male that is employed on any workplace isn't always competent. Isn't that "quota" when you employ all men? Exactly.

Donald Trump is one of the most brilliant business man I have had a chance to researched and many of his top positions are held by women. Of course, he wasn't trying to achieve a "quota" like you he wanted the best in his company and they so happens to have a toto. Some of his executive positions are also held by his sons...DUH! why wouldn't he not hired his sons who have also interned for him as well.

Ivana Trump, a woman and his daughter has several director positions in his company and she has a MBA. I am sure he wasn't trying to fill a "quota".

When you asked why feminists were asking for representation in the workplace...I inserted that feminists are not asking to hire women that are incompetent to perform employment duties but to hire women that are competent and will be their voice i.e. representation. My statement about men can't represent women is relevant.

My point about father's and their rights to control their children was a response to your silly comment about women wanting more than they deserve and I asked how would you feel if I said father's don't deserve to control their children because they didn't put in any effort and you responded they do have the rights to control their children....I can say the same thing about women in the workplace.

Bottom line is this we can list things of who deserve what and why at the end of the day neither one of us have the authority to govern who deserve what and why

freecocoa

What do u think about the Rebecca Wax story

LordReed:


There is nothing to explain here. Do men and women compete in the same athletic events at the same time? Lower PHYSICAL standards for job is not the kind of in between measures that are needed when it is clear that men surpass women physically. Not all men can even pass the physical tests so this case is moot. What I think is that for fields where woman can compete but are unfairly discriminated against either there is a quota or there simply is no discrimination (we all know that is the real task).

Hmm. Disingenuity from the feminist camp? What a cliche.

There is a lot to be explained, actually, sir. And the explanation is nothing but "Quota In Action". This real life incident lends credence to the argument of the anti-quota camp. Whether she's qualified or not is irrelevant. What's relevant, though, is that this "firefighter" will be deployed to someone's burning building one day and be expected to justify the employment of this "worthy representer". Oh, I shudder to think. One giant leap for feminism. Yay.

Nonso23:
Just watched those videos and uggghhh i'm irritated to say the least.
From the first one " women want the same job with men, the same pay with men but with lesser responsibility and risk"
And someone would come here to chant INEQUALITY!

Pay differences should be entrenched in the law. If you do less you earn less; no need to appease a non-contributing member of the society because it is - in their words- 'unfair'.

The second video is hilarious.... "she really really really really reeeeeeaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyy wanted to become a firefighter"
Even if it meant lowering standards like: first, the stipulated age of entry and now, the physical assessment requirements.

It is fair because she is a woman!
Rubbish... I repeat any man who is swayed by this feminism nonsense is either doing so to earn his bucks without issues or is plain senile.

Anyone who is lazy and doesn't like hard labor will say they prefer more money and less responsibilities. This is not a gender thing....this is a lazy thing.

Timbuktou:


1. Lol. The very existence of any quota system has established the eventuality of discrimination. Quotas are a lazy way of creating balance based on merit, it is only fair when the balance is based on gender. Merit is relegated to the back in such a system. Please refer to my previous post. The so-called regions that have been gifted higher education quotas have proven that giving quota is a waste of resources. Would you rather take your child to a doctor who merited his way to his license or one who just got there because his region was given a slot? Bros, haba. Let's engage absent sentiments. I had a coursemate who pronounced the word "view" as "fuwa" I was mind-blown. This guy would get a degree in four years ahead of somebody from another state because the school was in his home state. Is that a good argument for quota system? In fact, that accounts largely for why Nigeria is like this. Competition should be made to thrive and the best should get the prize; all this talk of representation is counter-productive.

Is quota inherently discriminatory or it establishes the eventuality of discrimination? You seem to be confused. Yes quotas are less than ideal but here we are in a less than ideal world. Any system can be circumvented to pointing out how you had a coursemate who couldn't pronounce a word is neither here nor there. The US with all its development and reliance on merit still has people circumvebt the system with money, familial ties and cronyism, should that be an argument against a merit based system?

2. That's stupidism. A company that wants to remain in business does not employ arbitrary systems just for the fun of it. Any company that does that will fold up in no time. There's something called a SWOT analysis that determines how businesses are run, or at least, should be run. What do you think they do at board meetings? Hahahahha. Funny man.

You are the funny man, you are taking a simple example way too literally. Do banks these days employ graduates to be cashiers or they employ either contract staff or OND/HND holders? That is not a quota system?

3. Eee, e gbami ke. Quotas and merit are parallels, they do not meet; unless it's for charity maybe. When you give people a quota, then another set are already discriminated against. There are women in employment in companies in Nigeria, you think that's quota? A serious employer would employ the best fit for his business. If you were an employer, would you employ a female with a first class who passed all tests and aced the interview or the guy who has a 2.2 and scores lower than the above lady in all tests and interviews. If you employed the female, would that be because of merit or because you qere given instruction to hire females?

That is a jaundiced view of quotas. Quotas and merit need not be parallels. When I employ only 1st class graduates am I discriminating? If I employ only female 1st class graduates am I discriminating?

Your example is not a proper parallel. In this scenario and as already demonstrated by the study I quoted, even where the candidates have similar capacity men are still preferred to women.

The experimental design of the study is informative because it can zero-in on some of the causes of discrimination. The study randomly assigned participants to “hire” a candidate for a math-related job and were rewarded for picking high-performers. Without any information about the candidates’ abilities, men were chosen twice as often, even though it created teams that were overall less effective at solving math problems.

Meaning they excluded high performers simply because they were women.

4. Straw man to the nth degree. Whatever anyone says is irrelevant to someone who has a destination to get to. This might sound strange but companies usually carry out extensive tests before they offer employment to prospects. There's the CV vetting process amongst other modalities that actually qualify one for a job. One would be tempted to aasume that employing managers have some degree of a value-adding IQ to a firm and would employ the best candidate for the job, but now that you're saying this, it sounds like employers just go to blogs and decide to employ without reviewing applicants' qualifications and even CVs. And if men constantly perform better then that trend/pattern will be noticed. Or you don't want people to say the truth because it will pain the wimmin? Funny man.

You asked for proof of unfair competition and presented with it suddenly its strawman, na wa to you. Did you even read the article? Read this again:

Even worse, giving recruiters knowledge about the candidates’ actual abilities didn’t eliminate discrimination. “When employers received objective information about candidates’ past performance, female candidates still were chosen significantly less often than male candidates (females were chosen 39.1% of the time), but the difference was smaller than in the No Information condition (in which females were chosen 33.9% of the time,” explains the team.

I never said companies don't have cv vetting processes so obviously you are the one with a strawman argument. What is in discussion here is the fairness/unfairness in the competition. If the hiring manager is already biased against women (as the study shows) where is the fairness?

5. Gee. The earth is round. Maybe that's because men tend to do better at employment tests and criteria. Oh my, oh my.

So according to you it is ok to discriminate based on a generalisation?

There is a reason there is a time limit and weight training attached to this task

This is not about segregating the task

A life has to be saved on a stretcher, moving through dust and darkness, using a Self Contain Breathing Apparatus which is heavy

How can the people of the city be sure of the proficiency of their fire fighters

LordReed:


There is nothing to explain here. Do men and women compete in the same athletic events at the same time? Lower PHYSICAL standards for job is not the kind of in between measures that are needed when it is clear that men surpass women physically. Not all men can even pass the physical tests so this case is moot. What I think is that for fields where woman can compete but are unfairly discriminated against either there is a quota or there simply is no discrimination (we all know that is the real task).