Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Embodies the Gender Gap in Tech
New submitter chpoot writes: "The Guardian reveals the gender breakdown among Amazon's management 'S Team.' At one end of the team of 132 are 12 secretaries. All are female. At the other end are 12 who report directly to Jeff Bezos. All are male. Of the 119 remaining when Bezos and the secretaries are put to one side, 18 are female. Amazon, of course, grew out of book selling. Book selling, publishing, and writing have all a fairly admirable tradition of employing women. In its attempts to overthrow traditional book selling, Amazon seems to have been particularly successful in subverting that part of the tradition."
And here I'd always heard that Amazon women were particularly cutthroat..
There's also a surprisingly low percentage of female garbage collectors.
Since that particular job requires very little education, it would be far easier to start there when trying to close the gender gap.
Why aren't we?
It is a cut throat business they run
The most qualified people rose to the top, regardless of their sex.
Amazon, nor any other company, owes it to gender ideologies to fulfill their delusion of complete gender equality.
Some genders are more skilled in certain areas and less skilled in others. Deal with it.
My office tries to maintain a gender balance in management... the performance bar is set lower for the women, it's quite obvious.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
about how few females are truck drivers?? or garbage collectors? or oil field workers? or (insert other industry here)
Why does it seem that tech is being unfairly beat up because of a apparent lack of women? the lack of women does not automatically mean that there is some sexist agenda, It could simply mean that there are A - not enough women wanting to be in the field or B - better qualified candidates who happen to be male.
Females wanted equality, I define equality by giving the job to the best candidate, not an artificial quota of genders in each position
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Book selling, publishing, and writing have all a fairly admirable tradition of employing women.
And amazon does only the selling.
Perhaps it's the publishing and writing that have the tradition (?) of employing women?
Seriously, why could this possibly matter ?
This article has one point of usefulness, which is to serve as an example
of how badly this site sucks these days.
Perhaps the person who wrote it does not have English as his(her?) first language, but it does not parse at all. Go read the story the summary is based on if you want to make heads or tails of this.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Amazon is not in the same business as traditional bookselling. Amazon is a tech company which sells books (among other things). As a result, the characteristics needed in its employees are those of a tech company, not those of a book company. I used to work as a bookstore manager. If you look at the types of jobs that are typically dominated by women and the types of jobs which are typically dominated by men, you discover that those jobs require different characteristics. Bookstores and publishers require a mix of those characteristics, as a result, you have a fairly even distribution between the sexes.
I tried to explain why Amazon does not need to have more women executives, unlike bookstores and publishers, but I cannot quite put it into words. I do not think Amazon would be hurt by having more women executives. It is just that the nature of the company is such that men are more likely to have the characteristics which cause them to rise to executive positions.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Try it with startups...
At one end of the team of 132 are 12 secretaries. All are female. At the other end are 12 who report directly to Jeff Bezos. All are male. Of the 119 remaining when Bezos and the secretaries are put to one side, 18 are female.
I don't know what i'm supposed to be picturing here? what is the significance of the ends? are employees implicitly linear? is it particularly damning that the secretaries are all put on one end instead of being allowed to freely mingle with the other 120 team members? Do the 12 team members who report to Bezos somehow balance out the 12 secretaries? why are there 12 of both? Why are they at the other end? do they never get to see the secretaries being so far away? Is this just a super complicated way of saying that out of 132 team members 30 of them are female and the most important 12 members are all male?
Are any of them hot?
Or it could be amazingly appropriate. That corporation wants only females willing to chop their own breasts off to be in the "team".
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
"Evidence shows that more women in senior management leads to better corporate performance, a boost to the bottom line, and allows businesses to tap into new insights about their customers"
Tell that to HP, Yahoo, Gnome, etc. So yeah, citation needed. Oh wait, never mind:
"The Society has been criticised by business groups for comparing average pay for full-time men with average-pay for part-time women to highlight the disparity, and a lack of transparency in making their methodology clear."
the number of top tier women in management is very low. should amazon hire sub-par employees just to please some political correctness ratio? no. if we want to fix these divides we need to push more women into these careers far earlier on than the end game.
I'll just say it out loud for everyone. Most women are not that aggressive. Most men are. Often it's a detriment in the modern world. Where it's not is in leading business. Why are most HR departments filled with women? Because women and men are in fact different and our gender does affect how well we perform and enjoy certain tasks. We have equal opportunity laws because most is not all. There are women that make great executives and they should have the chance to show it. But to expect very specific roles in a single company to be gender equal numerically is just stupid. Are we going to accuse Etsy of sexism because the majority of their customers/stores are run by females?
Until every last man is cast forth into unemployment and dependence on the state, and only women occupy positions of power, it's an endless holocaust against progress!!!
Yes, we all get that in the Mad Men era it was all about white males (non-Jewish) and everything else was second-class. But things have evolved and it's not because of idiots fighting yesterday's battles.
Those people look at existing ratios and make the conclusion that the culture or leadership is somehow wrong. This is bullshit.
Why don't they look at the gender ratio at Curves or at the ABWA. Those places thrive on sexist policy and nobody says a thing, but gay bars catering to a specific subset of the gay community (bears/cubs) and old taverns for men only are the target of public outcry and lawsuits. It's the same with race; who would put "White-owned company" on their website? Total hypocrisy.
lucm, indeed.
there would be more women it IT. Seems that IT is not an attractive career option for the ladies. BFD. Interior design is not an attractive career option for men, BFD. I worked in IT for 30+ years, but wouldn't do it again. Too much sitting, too much listening to incompetent management, too many clueless users who didn't know what they wanted or needed and couldn't be bothered to figure it out ("how do I know what I want until I see what I get"), never-ending software updates, greedy and incompetent vendors. But it did pay pretty well.
the reality is, women are just as capable as men. the _only_ issue is, the _current_ talent pool is deeper on the male side. this is rapidly changing, look at the pipeline. 20 years from now equality will happen organically.
I'm so sick of these articles.
Do you really believe Jeff Bezos has a culture of intentionally not hiring women for his management team? I don't.
In fact, since women tend to be paid .85 cents on the dollar for the same position, it would seem to make a lot of sense to have MORE women, not less. Unless of course this whole thing is bullshit. Senior executives for billion dollar firms have large responsibilities, large workloads, and serious time commitments. Can women do this? Of course. But they CHOOSE not too. Most women prefer to focus on their family. Even if they do want to work, they are typically looking for a job with reasonable hours and flexibility.
There is nothing wrong with this. Get over it already.
enough said
In my last company, a highly technical organization, we had very few women on staff in the technical positions. It's not because we declined to offer them a job because they were female, or because we preferred male applicants. It's because for every 1 female there were about 50 males who applied for a position. That was across the board from junior to senior positions. There are just as many females in the world as males, so what was really going on?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, just questioning the objectivity and usefulness of what is presented here.
There is a documentary from Norway that sheds light on this type of situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
If you are interested in gender differences, it is worth 38 minutes of your time.
Too-long-will-not-read version: There are things we should change now to bring pay into a gender balance, there are vestiges of past practices that will "take care of themselves" over time which will bring gender pay into balance, and there may be things which should not be "fixed" just for the sake of achieving gender balance because the "fix" will be worse than the "disease."
Long version:
The gender gap will only close so far, here's why:
* As long as we live in a society where more women prefer to halt or "downsize" their career in favor of their family than men, women's average career opportunities will be lower.
* As long as we live in a society where child-rearing after divorces falls more on women than on men, the women who have to reduce their work hours or drop out of college so they can raise their kids will drag down the average career opportunities for women.
* It will take generations to "bleed out" the vestiges of past discrimination. If today's boys and girls see that their grandmothers or great-grandmothers were nurses and teachers and their grandfathers and great-grandfathers were doctors and headmasters, they will notice and may choose a career path accordingly.
* If today's boys see elementary-school-teaching as female-dominated, they are more likely to grow up thinking that the job is "beneath them" and not worthy of being paid well.
* Some jobs, such as being an administrative assistant or schoolteacher, are much more tolerant of long career breaks than others, such as science and engineering. They are also much easier to get into as a second career. This means the talent pool of those who could become trained for the job in less than 2 years if they wanted to resume that career or switch to that career is larger, which in turn means wages may be lower.
Here are some other factors that are likely to give one gender an advantage over another but the advantage could just as easily be a women's advantage as a man's.
* As long as we live in a society where girls are "steered" towards certain career fields and men towards others, then unless by chance the average salaries and other career opportunities in "women-dominated careers" is the same as in "men-dominated careers," one gender or the other will have a statistical "advantage" at any given time.
* If - and I'm not saying there is, but if - there is a gender-specific biological preference for certain types of work and that preference isn't countered by some other force such as encouraging people to have careers outside of their gender's statistical preference, there will likely be one gender with a more average pay and career opportunities than the other at any given time.
* There are certain jobs that women, on average, are simply more qualified to do than men, and vice-versa. Fortunately, many of these, such as being a professional football player or professional soprano vocalist, are so low in numbers that they don't sway the averages. Others, such as certain jobs in the military and law enforcement that require strength and endurance standards that men on average are better able to meet, are common enough that the lack of a 50/50 balance in these careers will affect the "average" ratio of pay for men and women. If jobs that are male- or for that matter female-dominated are stepping-stones to other careers, such as becoming a General in the Army, then the effects will be felt for a much longer period of time.
These lists are by no means complete.
Some of these things will take care of themselves over time. Others will require deliberate effort to overcome. Others, such as the (hypothetical?) gender-specific biological preferences for certain types of work, should probably be accepted as not worth "fixing" as the "fix" - encouraging people to take on career paths that would not naturally be their first choice, merely to achieve some statistical balance - is probably worse than the "disease" - having a small, permanent imbalance in male- to female- average earnings.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I think this comment thread does a great job of proving the point TFA was trying to make.
Of course, chanting "women are no good at IT" often and loud enough will cause women to shy away from IT as a career. Using that mantra as justification to not hire those foolish enough to continue pursuing it solves that problem too.
The reality is different. Plenty of women were programmers in the 1980s. Thousands of girls learned Pascal in the high schools of the late 1980s / early 1990s. That females are capable of being technologically savvy is indisputable.
The truth is, for a number of self-interested male reasons the IT of the last couple decades has drifted toward misogyny rather than away from it, like the rest of corporate culture. Why? Well, brogrammers, aspies and hustlers, for a start, each for their own reasons, don't like collaborating with women, out of fear of conflict, or the risk of feeling humiliated if shown up. They need to man up, but as long as the industry at large permits them to have their little male-only clubhouses they won't make any effiort to change,
You do a Naturalistic fallacy[1]. Only because it is natural for something, it does not mean that it's a valid excuse. By the same argument you could argue that racial discrimination is natural and therefore it's not a problem. What you described is exactly why we have laws against discrimination of minorities, i.e. precisely because minorities are perceived as something different and get a different treatment for no valid reason.
Now there are valid reasons to have a special treatment for woman, for example, in the field of sport, or in case of the workspace, in heavy lifting. There is an anatomical difference between woman and man's bodies, that's why it's perfectly reasonable to have woman and man compete separate or to hire male workers. But there is no such difference in mental capabilities.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
All the studies I have seen on gender, race, sexual leanings, age or any other attribute all make the basic assumption that all the qualified individuals, from all groups, all want the same things and are equally motivated to get it. And therefore any discrepancy between the number holders of those positions and the size of the group they came from *must* be due to some sort of discrimination or favouritism.
Has anyone seen any contemporary (within the last 10 years or so) studies that can assert the validity, or otherwise, of this basic assumption?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
This is management. What does that have to do with IT?
Is hiring someone because they have a vagina any less sexist than NOT hiring them because they have one?
-Styopa
Where are the male grade schools teachers? Arguably a teacher is much more important to society as a whole than another code monkey. Call centers are another notable example of few men in the job.
Why does it seem that tech is being unfairly beat up because of a apparent lack of women? the lack of women does not automatically mean that there is some sexist agenda ...
In many politically liberal circles in the U.S. such a statistical shortfall in the number of female employees (or any minority group actually) is defacto evidence of such an agenda, of discrimination.
In my CS class of about 50 there were 2 females of U.S. citizenship, about 6 more were foreign students. Based on grades the former two were OK, but not anywhere near the top of the class. Yet on career day when the recruiters were visiting campus they were the most heavily recruited, damn near had a bidding war. Who were these companies? They were U.S. government contractors, the government evaluates them in part by their percentage of female employees. It was an amazing and amusing thing to witness.
And no I was not jealous, they were friends and I was happy they were landing jobs. I was sure they would do their jobs well its just you don't expect to see such competition over the "B" students (3.0 GPA). They were fully aware of the special treatment that they were receiving and were mildly concerned they would be stigmatized somehow as "political correctness" hires.
Book selling, publishing, and writing have all a fairly admirable tradition of employing women.
And amazon does only the selling. Perhaps it's the publishing and writing that have the tradition (?) of employing women?
Book selling is heavily female, at least in academic circles. I was once involved in the development of a college textbook. When at the annual meeting of the sales force where the new textbooks were introduced it was quite obvious that most sales representatives were female and tending to the younger. When I commented on this I was told that this is pretty normal in the college textbook companies, that young women have an easier time getting some time from the college professors.
Tradition of dearth of women in tech = bad
Tradition of myraid of women in book selling = good
When will this horseshit end?
https://flashcomindonesia.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/kursus-web-di-surabaya/
The Venn diagram for "WOMAN" && "STRONG" && "NO EDUCATION" is smaller than the same for "MAN".
And?
Our garbage collection service has a truck that hooks into an arm on the large garbage can they give us. The truck picks it up with the garbage person only jostling it into place slightly (sometimes not even that).'
Anything very large or heavy, they just leave behind... there are union rules on what they can lift you know.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Traditional book selling" has "a fairly admirable tradition of employing women," while secretarial work does not? I'm trying to find the "thesis statement" in this paragraph and can't.
It's sad, but I'm developing a filter for this throwback dinosaur-feminist stuff. Explain what you want and how to get it. This is what I'm hearing: "I want there to be more women here. I want them to be making more money. I don't know why they're not. I have a bunch of flamebait assumptions which don't hold up, but that's not really the point because the problem is clear and needs to be solved. We've come a long way but we have a long way to go."
This boils down to, "we want more of everything for women and don't care how we get it." Well, fuck you. No.
This parent comment, or more detail on it, would be interesting and motivating than the simple counting done by TFA.
TFA applies just as well to Google which has the same predomination of men if you just count heads, single-digit percentages restricted to relevant subareas, and I believe they work very hard to get gender-welcomingness right, on organization-level, on individual-level, and on philanthropy-level (giving to effective early-educational charities and not to showy counterproductive ones like Ada Initiative).
I am concerned that fools trying to appease TFA will overpromote women or hire less competent ones, which seems likely to lead to a sexist workplace in the medium term, or even an entire sexist industry. It's analagous to what I've seen in social life among nerds: there are so few women that everyone pays a lot of attention to them, so if a person has a reputation, or cred, or knows a lot of people, or is getting talked up and complimented while they're not present, if they're a man I assume it's because they're smart, friendly, or productive, while if it's a woman I have very low expectations of the person because you can get all these things in a social circle of nerds just by being a woman and not leaving. It was pretty easy for me to see immediately why this dialectic isn't entirely a good thing for the women. TFA doesn't seem to have gotten that memo.
It's first-order bad because it's harder for them to get good work recognized (though, to be fair, much easier for them to get it judged, encouraged, or collaborated), but it's also second-order bad because if I say to a man, "yeah I don't actually give a shit what you've 'done'. I hang out with you because you're sane and fun," this is pretty easy to understand, "yeah I am pretty burned out talking about this crap, too. We all hate the NSA and read the same clickbait, now can I just have a fucking beer?" However if you say this to a woman it's hurtful. It makes it difficult for them to form normal social relationships because they have to segregate geek friends from normal friends more so than someone on the populous side of the gender imbalance. On the bright side though they get a LOT more social relationships, like stupdly more.
I can't really attempt this kind of empathy, though (whether I'm succeeding or not), when people are clawing like rats for personal advantage. Fuck that with a chainsaw, seriously.
Correlation is not causation.
Percentages of men vs women employed do not prove sexism exists, much in the same way that finding sick people in hospitals does not prove hospitals are making people sick. You wouldn't just walk up to someone and call them a White Supremacist, Anti-Semitic or Pedophile without clear evidence of their bigotry or perversion because those are vile slanderous labels which can damage careers: The same goes for the label of "Sexist Women Hater" too -- Or are we trying to normalize that label by over using it until it means nothing, hmmm? Responsible and honest people would want to ensure their perception of the situation at Amazon actually showed sexism or hatred of women before attempting to slander and shame their business practices. I don't see any evidence of sexism at all, all I see is more social justice shame being heaped for political reasons. To say that Amazon is a Book Seller which is traditionally Women Territory and ignoring how sexist that sounds and how unlike a book store Amazon is would be fucking insane, and yet there it is, right in TFS!
If there is sexism let's root it out, fine, but before we go sensationally bat-shit crazy and jump the gun let's just do a quick informal reality check: Ever try talking tech to women? What's your experience, do equal percentage of women vs men enjoy really geeking out about technology? It's my experience that more men do than women. OK, take a deep breath. Now, let's just ENTERTAIN THE CONSIDERATION that men and women may like doing different things; Disproving that is key to proving sexism exist... So, why isn't the professional offense league trying to do just that? It's just like when social justice warriors drone on and on about the lack of minorities in positions of influence and then forget to correct for the fact that 77% of the USA is white: You get out what you put in, geniuses. If women have equal opportunities but are not applying for the jobs that they don't want to do then you won't find them in said workforce. That's not sexism, it's free will.
Where's the ONE STUDY, just ONE flipping survey even that shows the degrees that women vs men enjoy and desire various jobs? Mightn't that be the FIRST FUCKING STEP to showing whether or not society is sexist or people just want to do different things? There are very few male romance novelists -- You can even use a pen-name, so there's no barrier to entry -- but it's not sexist that more women want to do that job than men... 40 years of feminism, but they still don't have any evidence that women aren't just exercising their right to select the more people friendly jobs they typically prefer. What are they trying to say? That decades of the social justice war have been completely pointless? Really? "Let's test the Null Hypothesis before being heinously slanderous," said no social justice warrior ever. Equal opportunity won't produce equal outcome because behavioral sex differences exist. Notably: Women are more extroverted (outgoing, socially interactive) than men and more developed and more egalitarian societies yield greater sex differences. The greater behavioral difference is probably because the people are freer to choose what they want to do instead of what they have to do to make money.
The gender pay gap doesn't exist, and it hasn't existed for around four decades. There's also no shortage of STEM workers. You see, if Amazon and other companies are shamed into having a 50/50 M:F hiring ratios regardless of the percentage of q
She probably bought the sandwiches with your daddy's child support after the gold digging bitch slapped a harness on his neck and dumped his sorry ass so she could date some useless unemployed clown. You want to play this game? Fuck you, let's play. Personally, I don't want to play it.
That's the situation we have at work. I work at an IT department, and we are all men. Why? Because that's basically all that apply. In the last round of hiring there weren't any women. Ok well I could be clear that I can't say that for sure: The three candidates we picked to interview were all men, and the names on the resumes of the other 20-ish that made it past HR sounded male. We don't ask for pictures or anything so there could have been women in that mix, I don't know. Also I don't know who HR filtered, as they don't pass those on (hence the filtering).
We have had a woman work for us before. Our previous web dev was a woman. She was the only woman to apply, and she was hired (not because she was a woman, because she was the best). However, after about a year her fiance took a job in New York and she moved off with him. In the next round of hiring for that, it was all men.
We can't hire people who don't apply. We really don't have the opportunity to discriminate based on gender because there are just almost no female applicants. I suppose, in theory, HR could be discriminating on our behalf but I find that unlikely because:
1) We are a large state agency and thus have very strong anti-discrimination/EEO rules.
2) HR has quite a few women on staff, perhaps the majority.
3) Most importantly: All HR really does is check qualifications and pass on resumes that seem to meet the minimums for the job. They tend to know fuck-all about the position, it is just match our minimums list vs the resume.
So ya, 100% of the IT people in our college are male, and about 90% of the secretaries are female. Well, in the case of IT, that's because of who applies. We can't go and make women apply.
Just wondering what the racial breakdown comes out to be. I mean, if we're so concerned about equality, shouldn't we also be concerned with racial makeup and, hell, sexual orientation/gender identification as well?
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
* It will take generations to "bleed out" the vestiges of past discrimination. If today's boys and girls see that their grandmothers or great-grandmothers were nurses and teachers and their grandfathers and great-grandfathers were doctors and headmasters, they will notice and may choose a career path accordingly.
Our grandmothers were programmers, that doesn't really seem to have made a difference.
Men need to quit starting these companies and women need to start making them. For some odd reason there's a huge gender gap with women working in their basement or garages creating the next tech innovation. Wonder who's stopping them there?
Tech had a boom back in the 90s to early part of the millennium. During that time a lot of people came into the field because they thought it was stable and paid well. That period ended and then we just had people who wanted to be in the field regardless. It's not surprising people would leave the field who were not really into it. People drop out of college across the board and people change interests. I know quite a few people who don't work in their field they went to school for.
The best candidate can mean a bunch of different things. Some companies value people skills over knowledge. Some are going to go for the candidates who are are the most flexible (more available, willing to travel, etc.). The idea of getting the best candidate by equality of outcomes is probably the least likely way to find the best candidate. Inevitably you're going to have to find people to fill gender gaps who are less qualified for no other reason than gender.
One of the primary reasons for lack of male teachers (at least at the grade school level) is that a lot of guys are worried about potential accusations. By the way, I don't find the solution to the problem to be to lower standards to fill quotas. I don't find anything wrong with trying to encourage women to go into tech. I'm personally a fan of the Alice software which teaches girls to program by writing stories. I do have an issue with being forced to accept less qualified people to fill quotas.
The biggest issues I've always found with the gender argument in tech is that I never hear of women creating their own software or gadgets in their own garage/basement where there's no hierarchy to deal with. You can make your own software and release it on your own and make money that way or at least release it as open source/freeware. Look at the women who wrote Harry Potter. The lack of interest in doing this signals to me that either there are no women who want to make stuff themselves or maybe they lack the passion to make something themselves. I tend to believe people with passion tend to be better than people who do it for a paycheck. The other argument I have is that if companies thought they could pay women 75% or 81% of what they pay men why hire men? Companies are not in the business of being charitable. They could hire nothing but women, look like progressive heroes, and still pay them shit because there would be no men making more than them.
Nice comment! Couple points though. The best way women can change perception is starting their own tech companies and becoming successful. I almost never see women starting any tech business where they work in a tech position themselves (a lot of times they're on the business end). There's no hierarchy in your garage/basement so if women aren't doing this I have to believe they don't really want to. You can then hire nothing but women and prove yourselves. The woman who wrote Harry Potter wrote it under another name to hide her gender to prove women could write fantasy. Women can do the same. The fact I've never seen it makes me think they don't want to do it. The other thing is that women like to claim they're paid less than men which begs the question why would companies hire men if they could pay women less?
Does anyone really give a shit about this?
What about the horrible gender gap in, say, coal mining?
I too notice a lack of male secretaries in my office. When will men get a fair shot at that position! Also the PC term is administrative assistant, "secretary" has a female bias in it and dissuades men from going in to the field.
And just like racial affirmative action, it will always take just a little longer before we can get rid of the special help.
Or, to put it in terms understandable on this site:
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Hi, Guess I missed the "Amazon declares itself a Democracy" memo.
Here in the USA in 2014 we have an African American President, several Female Supreme Court justices, numerous female senators, congressmen, judges, and other staff. We have female Generals and Admirals in most branches of the service, and people of every race creed and color working everywhere.
Yet still some complain and bemoan this "horrible injustice" facing "minorities"
What is the point here? In the USA you can do anything you put your mind to. I am a white male, I am a minority with no recourse for that. I am over 40 with no recourse for that. I have no special advocates, programs, etc that cater to me, I have basically the "starting opportunity" that everyone who is a "minority" has, yet my only option is grabbing my bootstraps and pulling myself up everyday.
I too pay 3.50 for gasoline, confiscatory taxes, and frankly way too much tribute to the government which turns around and gives it to foreign countries.
I agree, we need to fight inequality, where can I sign up to get MY card??? Well the simple answer is no where! Revisionist history paints people like me as the "problem" that created this entitlement society. Mind you all based on MY skin color.....what does that have to do with my "culpability for slavery and the injustices to the native americans?" answer, my ancestors came to this country after the USA Civil war (for the most part)....so shouldn't I get a "get out of racist jail free card here?
This whole argument and entitlement program is out of control and sucking mud. Sure at one time it had a point, but even the supreme court says that we don't need biased minority college entrance standards anymore. We should be banning foreign students and placing our own youth in college. The net result for our country would be far better.
I'd much rather see us break the spiral of poverty "white, black, Native American, etc) than continuing to allow foreign students into our colleges and universities then taking the knowledge home and using it against the USA
... which is that Amazon is a bookseller, publisher, etc. but it's nothing of the kind. It's well known in the book industry that Jeff Bezos chose books for selling initially only because they were already well described, for free, by cataloguers, and so made for a convenient starting point for online selling. Amazon is a technology and marketing company, and nothing else.
Yes; because the numbers appeared skewed, Amazon needs to be placed under the thumb of thought police and forced to replace 60% of its male workforce with women! regardless of qualifications. They must also be the highest paid to work there (might as well address the pay equality issue right off the bat). Next, take a look at the ethnic makeup and ensure there are as few whites working there as possible; create a plan to reduce them out of the workforce. This is the only fair thing to do, especially since this company no doubt planned for their workforce to be mostly male. It isn't possible that the people working there grew I to their positions, or that unqualified candidates have applied, or that stronger candidates already have positions they like. Matter of fact, to be fair, maybe the government should just survey all companies and decide who to move around so that we get a representative distribution of these groups. That way, everything is fair and equal across the board.
Our recycling truck has that, but they just got it last year and they can't use it on the narrow streets in the township. It's a recent development, and it let them reduce the workforce - not exactly an opportunity for all those educated women to line up for trash jobs :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I disagree, it isn't a myth, it's an outright lie and they know it. http://www.humanevents.com/201...
Gender baiting along with race baiting from this administration.
ALL 12 secretaries are women??? Clear discrimination. They need to hire more male secretaries to promote a better workplace where more ideas and voices can be heard. I have worked as an administrative assistant before and faced this very same discrimination, such a horrible demeaning experience. All the women do is sit around looking at honeymoon photos talking about babies, sick relatives, and take 3-hour long lunches at Olive Garden.
Solution: fire 9 of the secretaries and hire males.
Problem solved!
Solution: Fire 9 of the secretaries. Hire males.
Problem solved!
But some office work and management has to do with mental ability, and so far we don't have female chess champions...
Another no substance fart of a reply from gmhowell!