Idk if this belongs here but I think it'd be an interesting topic to be had and I could use some advice I guess on this because idk how to think
So, discrimination, I think it's valid in some cases (hiring a man over a women to do a more on hands job like oil rigging or a women over a man for a nursing job), but a lot of people disagree. Idk why, because I think it comes down to naturalistic properties of men and women.
So I guess I am asking, why and when is discrimination valid?
ignore img
>>16906601
There is no reason to discriminate. Stop being a faggot.
>>16906612
you seriously wouldn't hire a man over a women for an oil rigging job if all you knew was that it was a man or a women?
k
>>16906601
Hiring the best person for the job is not discrimination but there's a lot of dumb motherfuckers that think it is.
>>16906617
If the man seemed physically stronger for the manual labor I am going to ask of him then sure. Otherwise no. Same thing with the nurse. Hire blind. If the only thing I had was paper then no.
>>16906619
I think it is in a way discrimination. I mean I am implying you are hiring just based off their gender of course. But you can pretty much tell that a man will do better in oil rigging than a women and a women would be better at nursing due to their nature. But it's valid, imo
>>16906621
You aren't given "no" as an option. Literally all you know is the memo they sent you. Ones a female, ones a male, their qualifications are basically the same.
>>16906627
I answered that at the end. My reply is short. Read the whole thing.
>>16906623
>But you can pretty much tell that a man will do better in oil rigging than a women and a women would be better at nursing due to their nature. But it's valid, imo
This is discrimination and blatant as fuck. A woman can be stronger than a man and a man can be more nurturing than a women. You are clearly discriminating.
>>16906634
Yes? And? I am not denying this
>>16906630
You said "no"...
>>16906635
>You said "no"...
No read the context anon. I would not hire a man over a woman.
>>16906635
By hiring someone based on their sex you are in fact denying it.
>>16906640
So you would hire the women? You literally are hiring a man or a women based on their gender when it comes to the specific job of oil rigging. You can't not choose one. I think a smart person would choose a man.
>>16906643
Are you trying to confuse me? I just said it's discrimination....I was wondering if people think it's valid or invalid and why or why not.
Smh
>>16906649
I would hire blind to gender. Are you this much of an idiot. Id treat it as if two 'men' were applying. Theres nothing smart about discrimination.
>>16906656
You aren't playing biological factors into your hiring? Like men being biologically strong than females on average, due to their testosterone? I just think it's valid. No need to be all pissy, fag.
>>16906634
so if you have a woman and a man applying for a job and you know nothing else about them, do you really believe the man is no more likely than the woman to be the stronger of the two?
what are you, a woman?
>>16906660
>Like men being biologically strong than females on average, due to their testosterone?
For all you know this woman can be an olympic weight lifter. Id hire blind and not discriminate like a faggot.
>>16906667
Oh my, you really are a silly anon. You know what the likes of that are? I'm glad you most likely aren't an owner of a company.
>>16906664
If shes applying shes probably strong enough for the job.
>>16906670
Of course Im not the owner. Owners dont take the role to hire people. But I get paid to supervise people and tell others to hire and you can bet its my job to fire you if I see discrimination.
>>16906679
You sound like a tumblrina
>>16906681
You dont have to be from tumblr to know that discrimination is wrong.
>>16906671
>if she's applying, she's probably strong enough for the job
Must be why every fucking fire department in the country fails out female applicants because they can't pass the fucking agility test.
Except for New York who said fuck maintaining standards and hired somebody who failed the agility test.
>>16906671
>people only apply for jobs they are qualified to do
>someone who applies for a job is as equally qualified as other candidates
>>16906671
Do you live in a fantasy land
>>16906687
If someone fails a test its not because of their gender. There are plenty of women who make it. Stop being a discriminating faggot. >>16906693
Unless you have a reason to believe theres a difference based on information about the specific person, then they are equal. You dont know if she is strong enough or not and assuming not is blatant discrimination. Dont be a faggot.
>>16906704
B I O L O G Y
N
A
T
U
R
E
>>16906601
It depends on the circumstances. Men are generally stronger than most women, sure, but there are also examples of women meeting or exceeding the requirements of labor intensive jobs. It's better to hire somebody based on individual merits for that exact reason.
There are jobs that are almost entirely dominated by a single sex but that doesn't necessarily mean there is discrimination at play. Sometimes the other sex simply can't do the job because of physical constraints.
>>16906697
You mean a land where a woman can be stronger than a man.
>>16906601
By law in America and Europe, if the person can do the job, he or she should be hired. There are strong women and caring male nurses.
The law acknowledges a very limited number of gender-specific jobs. (Traditionally this was called the Playboy Bunny Exception)
On the premise that unadmitted prejudices still exist in male-dominated fields and that therefore a woman has to be very very good to make it, I would rather have a female doctor than what might be the guy who just squeaked by male.
>>16906708
There are women stronger than both of us. Your mindset makes it clear that you are wrong. I know you wont agree but I mean what person who discriminates thinks they arent wrong.
>>16906718
I'm fucking weak as shit, I know there are women strong than me, quite a bit actually, but AVERAGES and BIOLOGY do come into play when it comes to BLIND hiring. Thank you for listening.
>>16906704
the assumption is completely logical. if you had to bet your life on a fight between a man and a woman who you knew nothing about, who would you bet on? unless your answer is something like "I'd flip a coin" I guess you're a bigot
Socialization matters a lot.
Not saying there aren't general trends, but I also think that we don't know what is intrinsic and what is socialization.
With more lifestyles and parenting styles becoming acceptable, it's getting harder to say what an individual man or woman is good at.
Regardless, a great employer is able to fit each individual to the best job. Generalizing may seem efficient, but in reality the results will be sub-optimal if, instead of picking the best of a pool of similarly-qualified candidates, you take shortcuts that may cut the best out.
TL;DR:
Not enough data, don't be lazy.
>>16906720
>AVERAGES and BIOLOGY do come into play when it comes to BLIND hiring
No they dont. Its called discrimination which is blatantly wrong.
>>16906704
When I see a five and half foot tall, 110 lbs female attempt to pick up a 210 lbs manikin and pull it a certain distance within a specified amount of time, I am not surprised when she fails.
Deal with it.
>>16906722
If I cant see the people and know nothing about them then I honestly dont know, because men today are weak as shit and might as well be women.
Id never actually pick a man over a woman for a job that involved fighting unless I was given more information.
>>16906729
She failed, whats your point. You can choose based on test that she passes or fails. But you are just doing blind discrimination and its so disgusting.
>>16906734
I think dishonestly you DO know. It is empirically shown that men have about 40% more upper-body strength than women and about 20% more lower-body strength. If you accept that data and think that strength matters in a fight then you would be suicidal to not bet on the man. Don't die for your ideology.
Do you really think the reason fighting promotions like the UFC have separate divisions for women is because of discrimination?
>Hiring somebody that better suits the requirements for the job is discrimation now
What a time to be alive
>>16906789
If the male population was to fight the female population then yeah. But if we are talking about individuals than no. You dont know that.
>>16906797
If you know they are better suited then its not discrimination.
>>16906802
Individuals make up those populations of males and females. How could a group of males beat a group of females unless the males were individually stronger? Take two individuals out of the population and who's more likely to be stronger the male or female? This is very simple.
>>16906832
>How could a group of males beat a group of females unless the males were individually stronger?
because some are. Not that hard anon.
>>16906836
Yes. Some men are stronger than the women. They are more likely to be and that's why they win. I'm glad you finally understand.
>>16906847
Yep, if in an all out war, men have an advantage. No individually though. Shouldnt be this hard.
>>16906854
100 men and 100 women go to war. They are naked and have no weapons. Why do the men have the advantage?
>>16906859
Only a hundred. Really no one since so many men are weak pieces of shit. We need on the magnitude of the millions for this to work. Because thats how statistics and probability works. Look up the law of large numbers and stop being stupid.
>>16906847
>not individually though
And why the fuck not?
>>16906869
Because an individual man isnt stronger than a woman without further knowledge.
You're fucking retarded.
Discrimination isn't ever valid.
Having a cock and balls doesn't make you any smarter and being white doesn't make you any better at anything.
Fuck me when did Tumblr invade
All these pussy SJWs like holy fuck
>>16906879
Yeah its crazy, not being a sexist piece of shit is only for tumblr.
>>16906872
Yes, he is. Unless you do some whit like pair up an obese man with an Olympic heavyweight woman. This is why we use averages and use our brains.
Fact: men naturally have more muscle mass and body strength than women. Fact:most women do not spend their time at the gym weightlifting. (inb4 anecdotes)
Fact: most men weigh somewhere around 1.4 to 1.8 times more than women. Fact: men spend a lot more time lifting heavy objects over large distances than women. With these facts in your fucking face, tell me again why assuming a man is stronger than a woman until shown to be otherwise is wrong.
>>16906864
I should have stopped trying to reason with you as soon as you said you wouldn't bet on the man.
Saying that "so many men are weak pieces of shit" does not do any kind of theoretical work for you position. Your opinion doesn't matter.
The law of large numbers applies to that research I cited way up there about men being stronger than men. They started by testing the strength of one man then they tested another and then another etc. Then they did the same with women and compared the results. More individual men were stronger than the individual women. The average strength difference was roughly 50%. That means a man is more likely to be stronger than a woman if taken randomly from the population.
We can officially write this board off as being part of 4chan. It's unfortunately Tumblr and Reddits' portal to spread their SJW cancer further across the chans.
>>16906880
why are you so defensive virgin
>>16906882
>I dont know what the gamblers fallacy is
No. A random man is not stronger than a random woman. You are actually retarded.
Unless you know the details about the person no of those 'facts' apply.
Sexism, racism, political discrimination and other prejudices are fine when you lack better information.
They get a very bad reputation from people applying them on principle. Most people do it though. Especially concerning things that aren't talked about. Like age/looks/hygiene/dress sense/interests/super specific political opinions etc.
You just don't need to hold wildly inaccurate prejudices. Someone who thinks women are all emotional cheaters (looking for someone new when in a relationship) will be so inaccurate that they're sabotaging themselves. Being the appropriate amount of suspicious is sadly the best chance of success (getting out early). Same for men, mostly, but they're irrelevant to a heterosexual guy like me. If you follow stats that represent the group well in your situation you're fine. Just be smart enough to understand statistics when you do read them.
>>16906886
The law of large numbers explicitly states that unless you are working with large numbers it doesnt matter.
So yes, when working with large numbers it fits, individually it doesnt.
>>16906889
> omg le libruls so stooput gb2 leddit amirite??
Just stay in your containment board >>>/pol/
>>16906897
Who are you quoting, virgin?
>>16906869
Take two groups, 100 random men and 100 random women, as the other anon suggested, and make them play tug-of-war. Men would win pretty much for sure.
Now split them into couples and make them play tug of war again, 1 men against 1 women. Men would still win pretty often, but probably not in every couple.
>>16906893
>a random woman is not weaker than a random man
Dishonest. On average they are. If you pick randomly from each group the one with the most men comes out ahead in most cases.
Also the gamblers fallacy is about how the next one you pick would be related to the previous somehow. That's not relevant here.
>>16906906
You mention how our brains work which isnt a legitimate way of analysis anything as the gamblers fallacy shows.
>Dishonest
Its how it works anon. Without knowing anything about them you cant say who is stronger.
>>16906895
>individually it doesn't
Untrue. Let's say you're gonna find someone you'd like to date. Your preference is wealth, to keep it simple. You get to pick a person to date every year and everyone 10% of their value every year. You can choose to only date in a fantasy ghetto where there might be some rich dude who's really cheap. Or you can choose to live in an area with a large amount of rich people. Your chances increase based on availability. If there's no investment to your actions sure. Go ahead, spend 1000 years looking for this dude in the ghetto. But most would consider you a fool for not understanding how the system you're in works.
>>16906893
>I read about the gambler's fallacy on Tumblr so I know more than you
Wew lad
First of all, this game isn't fair. It isn't an equal probability from start to finish here. It's not flipping a coin. It's more like rolling a normal die while rolling another loaded die and seeing which one comes out with the bigger numbers more often. Sure, the chances are still one in six for the Fair one, and it can roll sixes all day, which one is more consistent?
>>16906914
>Untrue
This is exactly how it works. Stop being stupid.
In your example have you ever thought that you probably dont want to date some rich guy whos really cheap...
>>16906912
Anon no. I'm not that other anon. Should have said.
>without knowing anything
We do know plenty. We know what the expected value is in this situation. This is basic stuff. If you're gonna play a lottery your mathematically beneficial choice of lottery is the one with he highest expected return (sum of potential prises adjusted by chance/price of ticket). In this case it's malestenght/maleplayers you're allowed to pick vs femalestrenght/females you're..
If we have the same tug of war team size for men and women men come out ahead if their strength is higher.
I'm pretty sick of people promoting bigotry. This is math, it's not a discussion.
>>16906924
>in your example have you..
So you're arguing I should have picked the district with higher expected return?
No seriously you're obviously baiting now. Thanks for making it obvious.
>>16906920
more like a majored in math and you sound like an idiot.
>>16906930
>majored in math
>doesn't recognize that this is where expected value is significant
Bullshit. But if it's true were all gonna die very soon. Quality education there.
To be honest with you, who cares what society thinks. Give the job to the person you think will do a great job.
>>16906933
Expected value doesnt mean shit if you arent using large numbers. Stop being retarded.
>>16906958
I weep for the current education system.
>>16906963
Feel free to. You have no idea what you are talking about.
