Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Tech Companies Post Men-Only Job Listings, Report Finds (theverge.com)
Major Chinese tech companies like Huawei, Alibaba, and Tencent discriminate against women in their online job listings, a new report from Human Rights Watch found today. Some job postings directly state they are for men only, while others specify that women must have attractive appearances and even be a certain height. The Verge reports: The Human Rights Watch report reveals gender discrimination amongst major tech companies, as in the rest of Chinese society, is common and widespread. Search engine Baidu listed a job for content reviewers in March 2017 stating that applicants had to be men with the "strong ability to work under pressure, able to work on weekends, holidays and night shifts." The conglomerate Tencent, which owns WeChat, the massive game Honor of Kings, and a majority stake in League of Legends, was found to have posted an ad for a sports content editor in March 2017, stating it was looking for "strong men who are able to work nightshifts."
And Alibaba, despite Jack Ma touting the company's inclusiveness, merited an entire case study from the Human Rights Watch report. The report noted the e-commerce giant came under fire in 2015 for posting a job ad on its site for a "computer programmer's motivator" seeking women applicants with physical characteristics like Japanese adult film star Sola Aoi. Alibaba removed the reference to Sola Aoi after media reported on it, but kept the ad on the site. As recently as January this year, Alibaba still mentioned "men preferred" in job listings for "restaurant operations support specialist" positions. Tech companies also often tout the attractive women they've hired as incentives for more men to come on board, according to the HRW report. Both Tencent and Baidu were noted to have posted to their social media accounts interviews with male employees who cited having beautiful women around them as an incentive for working there.
And Alibaba, despite Jack Ma touting the company's inclusiveness, merited an entire case study from the Human Rights Watch report. The report noted the e-commerce giant came under fire in 2015 for posting a job ad on its site for a "computer programmer's motivator" seeking women applicants with physical characteristics like Japanese adult film star Sola Aoi. Alibaba removed the reference to Sola Aoi after media reported on it, but kept the ad on the site. As recently as January this year, Alibaba still mentioned "men preferred" in job listings for "restaurant operations support specialist" positions. Tech companies also often tout the attractive women they've hired as incentives for more men to come on board, according to the HRW report. Both Tencent and Baidu were noted to have posted to their social media accounts interviews with male employees who cited having beautiful women around them as an incentive for working there.
Other cultures are actually different, Euro and Euro derived cultures are shocked to discover!
"This isn't the diversity we had in mind", activists quoted as saying ...
Both Tencent and Baidu were noted to have posted to their social media accounts interviews with male employees who cited having beautiful women around them as an incentive for working there.
That's crazy talk; no way do men like being surrounded by beautiful women!
That sheds an even worse light on chinese programmers than on chinese companies....
It's a sad life if the best thing about your job is the gorgeous.... whatever an software developer motivator is.
bickerdyke
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.
You seem to imply that this is a bad thing. Those vary same things allow for all manner of other ideologies, advocacy groups, or people with other points of view to exist as well, many of which have little or no overlap with SJWs in terms of belifs. It's those same protections that allow you to post about it on the internet without anyone from the government kicking down your door and dragging you off to one of those reeducation camps. I would think that having to listen to some idiots whinge on the internet (where you're just as free to dispute them) is a tiny price to pay for those freedoms.
And yet, the US has Hooters. Hooters gets away with only hiring women as servers because of BFOQ. That's Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications. While they were sued many years ago, they only agreed to put men in other positions but they never agreed to hire men for server roles. How is this different?
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.
You seem to imply that this is a bad thing. Those vary same things allow for all manner of other ideologies, advocacy groups, or people with other points of view to exist as well, many of which have little or no overlap with SJWs in terms of belifs. It's those same protections that allow you to post about it on the internet without anyone from the government kicking down your door and dragging you off to one of those reeducation camps. I would think that having to listen to some idiots whinge on the internet (where you're just as free to dispute them) is a tiny price to pay for those freedoms.
You're the one who seems to be missing the point, the poster was talking about how so many SJWs are ironically ignorant in how they rage against some of the very rights and protections that allow them to exist in the first place.
These adds or requirements are written that way because there is a gain involved.
Even in the West, it is assumed that top female models must be beautiful and shapely. It is so obvious, there's no need to state it in the job description. No one would blink an eye. But in other areas, people are more sensitive. How about the military? Infantry work often requires brute strength. Lifting and carrying 100+ lb artillery shells from a bunker to the gun is a typical job that WILL come up in a genuine wartime situation. And it must be done FAST and SAFELY. There can be NO excuses (or dropped shells - he he). Even young guys have difficulty as it is quite a workout. But try and point that out in our present political environment. A commander would be roasted. There are plenty of other jobs like this. Is it worth bringing them up? Even this example can get some "hot under the collar".
Both men and women have strengths that provide gains, depending on what is being done. People should have the common sense to respect that. In some ways, I think China is simply more honest in this area.
Women are not aggressive and competitive? Are you kidding? They may be more subtle, but if you want to see backstabbing that could teach George R. R. Martin a few things even he didn't imagine possible, watch a few women try to outdo each other for a high level position.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.
You seem to imply that this is a bad thing.
You misunderstood my point. What I said is that SJW couldn't exist without certain set of values in the society, and SJWs are against some of these values.
That is, SJW when taken to a logical conclusion would change society in a way that would make SJW impossible.
Stop it? Do you really want a woman to have to work crushing hours, 80+ hours per week, night shifts, and weekends? This is inhumane, but men are expendable for society. Men cannot bear children, so they can work in dangerous condition with little danger to the continuation of the society. Women on the other hand are extremely valuable. kill 19 out of every 20 men but leave all the 20 women intact, in 20 years you still have 20 kids to replenish the workforce. Kill 19 of 20 women and leave all the 20 men intact, in 20 years you will have 2 kids to replace the workforce, plus some of the 20 men will kill each other in the mean time.
It is perfectly fine to specify men only when the work include hazardous and inhuman conditions, like the ones outlined. What's the real problem here?
Do you think it is a coincidence that in war women and children are generally off limits and only men are considered enemy combatants and subject to elimination? Wake up. 80+ hour work weeks are war.
Women are not aggressive and competitive? Are you kidding? They may be more subtle, but if you want to see backstabbing that could teach George R. R. Martin a few things even he didn't imagine possible, watch a few women try to outdo each other for a high level position.
And heaven forbid some woman ever gets added to an office that already has a queen bee.
You are not using the same definition of concept.
When people say "women are not aggressive", they refer to agreeableness metric. Or put in other way, how likely are they to initiate direct confrontation. This does not mean not competitive, or not ambitious.
hi, progressive feminist here. No I don't want gender segregation, and you're full of sit for claiming I do.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Case in point below. The founder eventually concluded that it was a bad idea from the standpoint of productivity, but it never seems to have occurred to her that her policy was deeply sexist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem...
I don't think that's necessarily true. An authoritarian state can have just about any kind of party line it wants to and I don't believe there is anything that prevents an authoritarian state from enshrining social justice values as the law of the land and persecuting anyone who goes against them. You can look at North Korea, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Chile under Pinochet as examples of highly authoritarian states that had some very different value sets.
What you probably meant is that those authoritarian states tend to prohibit counter cultures from emerging and taking hold because they're so good at crushing them before they gain any momentum.
I think America needs to have a gender equality tariff, as well as a child labor tariff, and other social engineering that we're doing here at home applied to the possibly advantageous business practices of our international competitors. Those companies found to be doing such discrimination would get the tariff. Tariff by company? Can we do that? Lets try it and see if it flies...
This isn't really news to anyone who has lived in China. Someone has found a tech angle to grab headlines, but a more accurate encapsulation would be, "Labor market discrimination is legal and open in China." I lived in China for four years; I'm white, my wife is Indian. There were all kinds of "hire-a-foreigner" jobs (mostly teaching English but a range of other things) that were open to me but not to her, and they were advertised as such. (As opposed to the West I guess where they just don't call you back -- but still, it's worse.) If you want to see some of these postings. go to thebeijinger.com and scroll through the help wanted ads. Some of these postings are for US-headquartered companies, which possibly makes them a violation of US labor law, if anyone wants to pursue that. In the Chinese-language job boards, things can be even weirder. Even the train system openly said that they were looking for women in their 20s as train attendants for the high-speed railway. And that's the government doing the hiring. There isn't any kind of social consensus that discrimination is a bad thing (though plenty of people think it is), so don't expect it to change soon.
They don't care about workplace sexual harassment or the wage gap in China. This is driven purely by old fashioned ideas about women. You know the sort of thing - meek, emotional, distracting, take a week off every month to menstruate, will probably get pregnant and drop out completely etc.
I know some Chinese women are turning to doing contract work over the internet, software development and that kind of thing, using fake male names. When it's time to get paid they just say "sent it to my wife" and give their real WePay account.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Women are not aggressive and competitive? Are you kidding? They may be more subtle, but if you want to see backstabbing that could teach George R. R. Martin a few things even he didn't imagine possible, watch a few women try to outdo each other for a high level position.
The ideal team size for women seems to be two.
Wherever there are three women, two of them often gang up on and eventually backstab the third.
If more than three, the fights to establish the pecking order can become fierce. It's behavior evolved to increase the chances that they capture hearts of the best providers and the sperm of the men other women are most attracted to.
Men have their own natures that don't align well with workplaces, of course, including a natural desire to copulate with any fertile female they can get away with. But their drive to become the stable and successful top dog that women want to have a fling with is aligned with business interests at least some of the time.
How to design workplaces so they both align with our ideals, including equality and full respect for each other no matter what gender, and also takes into account that we humans have inclinations that will affect behavior on a larger scale than individuals... I have no idea. But I don't think denying the underlying problems are going to make them go away.
You have not provided evidence. Perhaps you do not understand what the word means.
A country with appalling child labor practices, and this is what you have a problem with? Get some god damn priorities, people.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Women are not aggressive and competitive? Are you kidding? They may be more subtle, but if you want to see backstabbing that could teach George R. R. Martin a few things even he didn't imagine possible, watch a few women try to outdo each other for a high level position.
While the fickle finger of blame has always been pointed at men and the patriarchy, my experience and my wife's experience have been very different. The rumor mills, the jealousy, and the general hatred of women toward other people has been breathtaking. Since I'd be accused of mansplaining for my own experiences, I'll talk for my wife.
She rose to the number two position in her company, and was the highest paid employee there. She had teams of mostly men working for her. There were of course women in her workplace. While there are always personnel issues, the only people that had a problem with her were the women. "Oh, she must be fucking the owner to have got her position. "I wonder if Doggy style is the position she used to get her position?" And on and on. Pleasant to her face, but active undermining the second they walked away. and an unhealthy obsession with sex. Outside of the sexual innuendo, she is tall and slender. So if people think fat shaming is bad, you ought to see the shit women sling at other women if they think a woman is not fat enough.
The men overwhelmingly just loved her.
Meanwhile, here was a place trying to get things done in the construction and home design industry, and had some troublesome employees that were not hard to identify. In a bit of irony, my wife became very reluctant to hire women because of all of the workplace drama.
Her view is that as long as every problem is considered to be the fault of men, the problem will never be fixed. Women need to take some responsibility. Because what they are doing now is a crab bucket. pulling each other down.
I saw this in my own workplace as well, but since I'm a guy, no one would listen to my description.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You are not using the same definition of concept. When people say "women are not aggressive", they refer to agreeableness metric. Or put in other way, how likely are they to initiate direct confrontation. This does not mean not competitive, or not ambitious.
Most doubleplusgood!
Agressive is agressive. direct confrontation is not the only definition of aggression. Backstabbing works for that.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
They are shown annually on TV (IIRC, CCTV3) in China.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Direct confrontation is easier to handle than backstabbing manipulation. Direct confrontation is something you can at least take to HR, try that with a backstabbing mobbing master.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How did you get away with it without a discrimination suit?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Very few college kids are actually "poor". Actual poor people can't afford to attend college. Really poor people don't end up finishing high school (if your father left when you were 5 and your mom can't make the rent payment, it's hard to turn down even a minimum wage job).
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
While true, that's not really and specific reason to EXCLUDE females. It would totally explain a natural discrepancy but they're talking about an actual stated prohibition on female applicants.
In then end though China does indeed have a population problem and though I hate the method the excess males will likely help solve it. Their cultural preference there has led to an imbalance where a lot of their population will never have the opportunity to reproduce.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
SJW when taken to a logical conclusion would change society in a way that would make SJW impossible
Indeed, even unnecessary
Hope I did not misinterpret
It is foolish to think that a logical conclusion of SJW movement is an egalitarian society free of repression where everyone would conclude SJW is no longer necessary. SJW is at its core is anti-liberal and counter-factual to the point of being anti-science (e.g. scientists are all old white guys). So unless your idea of egalitarian society is to see everyone equally living in oppressive and dogmatic society, society without freedom of speech, without freedom from sex or race based discrimination, without presumption of innocence, without regard for freedom of scientific inquiry, then by all means continue supporting SJW.
SJW are a clear case where means don't justify the end. More so, the eventual outcome is not going to be the expected/advertised outcome.
You simply can't get to egalitarianism with divisive identity-based tribalism, retaliatory discrimination, and diminished freedoms for everyone!
The news over the last few days has reported on a women-only co-working space in the Bay Area called "The Coven." Women-only and themed after witchcraft.
If men created a men-only workspace and called it "The Monastery," it would be hated on 24-7 by the self-appointed intelligentsia. Hypocrisy abounds.
So let me get this straight, the AC who promotes gender-segregation gets modded up and the progressive feminist who says nothing more than the non-controversial statement that doesn't want gender segregation gets modded down?
Direct confrontation is easier to handle than backstabbing manipulation.
This statement mostly true for men and mostly false for women.
Almost all of the delusions plaguing the modern world regarding gender difference come from the presence of modern technology.
But imagine if we were all transported into a world where the technological level of civilization is what it was in 2,000 BCE. Who would be best suited for physically demanding tasks like hunting? Who would be best suited for domestic tasks like home care and raising children?
The presence of technology obscures the way things actually are in nature and confuses people as to reality, but it can't change the law of nature. Gender difference is natural and good, no matter what the anti-human technocrats tell us.
The ideal team size for women seems to be two.
Wherever there are three women, two of them often gang up on and eventually backstab the third.
Wow. I've seem some misogynist trolling on Slashdot, but it's far worse when you try to come over all reasonable and matter of fact about it.
People keep telling me we are all equal now and we don't need feminism any more, but then comments like this get modded as "insightful". Lewis' Law still stands.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
An authoritarian state diminishes individual freedoms by definition. It is true, for example, that Soviet Russia, is/was much more progressive than the West in gender equality. In part due to Communist Ideology, in part due to massive casualties in WW2, women worked and had technical careers, including STEM, in USSR long before it was possible in USA.
However, given a choice of oppressive and more egalitarian and liberal and less egalitarian society most people would chose liberal society, even if that lands them in oppressive category.
That is, more freedoms for everyone is still seen by individuals as universally better than the alternative.
Let capitalism determine if it's a good idea.
When has that ever been a good idea?
Capitalism thinks dumping toxic waste in the river is a good idea. Capitalism thinks working people to death, discarding their corpse and replacing them with another commodity labourer is a good idea
That's why every capitalist country has rules to protect people from capitalism. Why should we protect the environment, and employees, and animals, and property from harm but when it comes to women and the disable just leave them to suffer at the invisible hand of the market?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Doesn't seem so old-fashioned when Western countries are constantly adding new regulations requiring employers to pay absent pregnant women, and there are also proposals that women should get paid days off during menstruation. That's bleeding-edge feminism
You are not using the same definition of concept. When people say "women are not aggressive", they refer to agreeableness metric. Or put in other way, how likely are they to initiate direct confrontation. This does not mean not competitive, or not ambitious.
Most doubleplusgood!
Agressive is agressive. direct confrontation is not the only definition of aggression. Backstabbing works for that.
Aggressive has multiple definitions. If your definition includes indirect social manipulation in addition to one on one direct confrontation, then women are as aggressive as men. However, such view lacks nuance.
You do realize that muddying and stretching definition leads to loss of meaning, not equality? For example, if I redefine equality to include slavery, that results in loss of meaning and not increase in equality (using traditional definition).
Noone for example allows distressed minorites ( or anyone else) a mechanism to create new laws that forbid authoritarian Gub'mnt behavior.
Republic, at least in principle, creates laws that limit power of government over everyone, and that includes minorities. For example, Civil Rights movement and MLK activism was only possible because there are laws that limit what government could do. At the time, US government, if it was possible, would very likely permanently jailed MLK and anyone participating in the movement. They did try to, but it was declared unconstitutional. So minority benefited from society-wide freedom.
A though experiment. SJW advocate for hate speech laws. Do you think if such law existed during Civil Rights Movement, there is even a small chance it would not be used against civil rights activists?
Who gets to define what constitutes progress?
Wrong question, you're making an appeal to authority, an assumption that some *person* should be doing the deciding. That's a bad approach. Of course you're not really asking the question, you know it's a bad approach and you know that anyone reading it will know it's a bad approach, so you're asking the question rhetorically in an effort to discredit the notion that any decision is right. That's underhanded argumentation. Say what you mean.
The right question is what *principles* should be used to decide. Obviously, not everyone will agree on the principles, which is why we fall back on democratic ideals. To avoid tyrannies of the majority, we use democratic processes to decide broad, high-level principles rather than to answer specific questions. Then we apply reason and debate to those principles.
In this case, the core principle is that of freedom. Cultures are free to do what they want, but that freedom ends where it begins infringing on the freedom of individuals (of course, we make exceptions where to allow too much individual freedom causes bad outcomes for society as a whole -- there's a balance to be found. Yes, this is hard.). The notion that women are morally equal to men (which isn't saying they're the same as men) means that they should have the same opportunities to compete for the jobs based on their ability to do the job.
I argue that this freedom for women trumps the freedom of Chinese culture to restrict their role in society. Do you actually disagree? On what basis?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
We tell girls that life is all about their appearance. This is a cruel message but is probably pretty accurate. We tell boys the sweet like that the world will value them based on their accomplishments. This leads to them studying hard subjects (like engineering and computer science), building careers, and expecting their reward. But they don't get attention from women (Most of us wouldn't win a beauty contest) and then feel resentful.
Those negative feelings get channeled as misogyny which is a shame. I guess if every woman needs a man for economic survival, their chances of finding girlfriends might be trivially higher. But not much. If I were a woman, I'd rather try to change the social norms than date some of the /. crowd!
What about Saudi Arabia, where you wouldn't even be allowed t drive, much less have many other rights? ... I think it is massively wrong to have "men only" jobs.
It may be my little corner of the western World (Germany), but "Man Jobs" and "Woman Jobs" certainly exist here. It's not just the commonly sited professions of computer programming, primary school teaching or garbage collection, either. Where I work, we have "Programmers" (75 employees, one woman) and "Account Managers" (100 employees, maybe 5 men).
I made a very interesting discovery when I had kids and my wife and I decided that I should be the primary caregiver while my wife be the primary earner (she's a nurse and earns more than a programmer). I needed a part time job. I started applying for things with "flexible hours" in the job description; mostly secretary jobs. I never got a single offer. After a while, my total lack of income put us in a hard situation and I went back to working full time as a programmer while my wife started looking for work a secretary. She got lots of job offers and even started at one job, but when she went to actually negotiate her "flexible hours" she discovered that she was actually expected to work _more_ than as a nurse. We could not figure it out, and frankly it was a pretty big stress on our marriage for a while.
We have a friend who works in HR who we were talking to about this. It turns out, "Flexible hours" is code in Germany for "Women only". "Challenging" is code for "Men only".
TL:DR; It is nice to live in the west in this day and age, but don't walk around criticizing other cultures like your shit don't stink.
Outside of the sexual innuendo, she is tall and slender. So if people think fat shaming is bad, you ought to see the shit women sling at other women if they think a woman is not fat enough.
That is so true. My wife is short and slender (Asian) and women at her work and in her friend circle use mock "concern" for her weight and exercise habits. She's 5'2" and 110lbs, about 30lbs. north of anorexia and definitely not "skinny". But the fat women will make sure she's "okay", make sure that her husband isn't forcing her to exercise hard and eat less, etc. It's crazy how jealous they get and then pretend that they're really concerned for her.
Do you have ESP?
I'm pretty sure you could come up with data that shows that attractive people produce greater levels of customer satisfaction, higher sales, and so on, so why isn't being good looking a BOFQ for a lot of jobs?
It's funny, but in IT the majority of women sales people I encounter are way better looking than the male sales people. I had to sit through a sales meeting the other day and the 4 women there were all super attractive -- I don't just mean well dressed, or slim, etc, but were 5/5 on all the sub measures -- great figure, great hair, great outfits, it was like they could have gone out and gotten modeling jobs, but instead they sold IT stuff for major companies you have heard from and used.
I can't decide what drives this. It could just be the people who do the hiring had the pick of the litter and chose the best looking among otherwise equal candidates. It could be some kind of self-selection bias, where people who go into sales have high levels of self-esteem and this biases the pool towards attractive women who would tend to be more confident and outgoing among all women. It could be that they were merely average looking but above average in personal presentation, and being women, better at personal grooming on average than most men (especially men in IT, even sales), thus making them only appear to better looking.
Maybe I'm just stupid, but I can't help but think it's not just a coincidence, and that they were actually selected based on their appearance and they get sent in as eye candy or "closers" to motivate certain clients based on their appearance. I would think this would be a long-term problem/discrimination complaint risk or just ineffective (many IT buyers are working with budgets that don't move because the salesperson has a great ass, or insulted because they're into the technology and feel they're being manipulated).
I wonder what would have happened if he were full of stand.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
...and there are also proposals that women should get paid days off during menstruation. That's bleeding-edge feminism.
No pun intended?
I bet those dirty Chinese are absolutely shaking in their boots right now. Oh goodness, someone is telling them that they're not being fair! Quick, take to twatter oh ye warriors of feminism, shame those industrious bastards back to the rice fields! Oh, what's that, they don't care? Better call the wambulance.
The Department of Mathematics at the University of Melbourne posted and filled a women-only faculty position in 2017. Of course, no headlines were made.
Wow. I've seem some misogynist trolling on Slashdot, but it's far worse when you try to come over all reasonable and matter of fact about it.
People keep telling me we are all equal now and we don't need feminism any more, but then comments like this get modded as "insightful". Lewis' Law still stands.
As I said, I don't think denying the underlying problems are going to help. Pretending that there aren't any biological baggage that need addressing, and that we can get to full equality, trust and respect through fiat is like sticking your fingers in your ears and go NA-NA-NA.
The biological imperative will always be a factor, and we cannot reach equality unless we take it into account.
Chinese people will walk up to a black person on the street and say "why are you so black, get out of our country, criminal," and not think twice about it. Ask anyone who lives there.
Lots of Chinese women get pregnant and quit their jobs. It's not considered a bad thing there. The idea that a woman's career is more important than her family has only taken hold among high-achieving women - most of whom can't find husbands because their standards are unrealistically sky-high.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I agree with you, but I think the problem is deeper. Capitalism (or really free-market) doesn't "think" anything. Its just a optimization engine for profits / economic output. Sometimes that is a really good thing - cars, pencils, and microwave ovens are surprisingly cheap. Other times, as you mention, pollution, and other externalities are not correctly costed.
Worse, maximizing profits is really not in the public interest. Executing everyone at retirement age would increase total economic output, but I'm really not in favor of it.
Separately free market isn't perfect. Discrimination is inefficient, but not so inefficient that it can't survive for a long time in the market.
So white Westerners get to judge Chinese society and decide what's best for it? Jesus Christ, do you people even know the history of you doing this? It wasn't pretty. China had a revolution and kicked you people out and began deciding for itself what was best. Notably, they decided that collectivism was preferable to individualism. You're preaching individualism as a one-size-fits-all solution for every culture. Typical know-it-all Westerner, sitting in judgment of 'inferior' cultures.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
> When has that ever been a good idea?
Most of the time.
Leave regulated non discrimination to governments and monopolies. Let normal people have freedom of association.
Discrimination is inefficient, but not so inefficient that it can't survive for a long time in the market.
Unfortunately, I don't think that this is true at all. It's something that we would *like* to believe. If there is a company that is racist or misogynistic, that company would lose to a more enlightened competitor who would treat their workforce much better. This probably does happen in the very long term but we are talking about timelines on the same order as that of a human life. And during the transition, even though the women and minorities get to work for the more enlightened company, they have less salary negotiating power and, therefore, suffer economically even though they are in the workforce. If this was a problem that would self-correct quickly, there woudln't be nearly the need for intervention and it wouldn't be so hard to find evidence of it still existing. I wish your comment accurately represented the economic situation. It fits neatly in to some nice economic models. But the real-world data contradicts. It's not that this shouldn't or wont' happen just that it's not a fast enough process to affect those who are alive today.
In other words, both men and women engage in bad behavior when given the chance and the exact nature of that bad behavior is influenced both by their personal circumstances as well as pressure from society. Nobody is saying that will ever change and there's no reason to believe that any equality measures would change this. Just that women should get the same opportunities to misbehave as men.
On the opposite extreme is gender quotas. Lowering requirements in hiring for one sex, yet still calling it equal opportunity while enforcing a double standard.
The issue with the physical requirements for NYC firemen is an example, with women failing the exam but still being given the job. So in theory, a person can burn to death in a house fire because of political correctness that put people unsuitable for job in a position to rescue them, due to some unwritten formula for the ideal combination of genitals among firemen.
That seems just as counterproductive and detrimental to the society as unfettered capitalism. If jobs exists that are unsuitable for the disabled, or women who lack the physical strength do a fireman carry, why should laws exist to enforce their participation?
I'm sure they'll be breaking through the Great Firewall of China any day now.
China is brilliant in many ways, they're also backwater hicksville in many others.
The question of how one can fill jobs seems like it may become a vast differentiator in how powerful the businesses of different nations can be. On the one hand, an encouraging approach seems likely to pay off in the long term. On the other, there are lots of jobs with specific needs, and a lot of hiring managers feel they could get efficient results by narrowing their search.
The potential for these systems (either the American or the Chinese) to be twisted could grow as more distinctions become evident. It's one thing to screen for gender and work permit status; to also go on height, political inclination, and more is a version of this that seems more and more plausible. Conventional wisdom suggests that these tactics would pay off in the short term, but not over the long term. Things that can't bend will eventually break.
So how does one wean private businesses off of the lollipop before it rots their teeth? I think flipping a coin could be a surprisingly effective equalizer. If you have a man and a woman who can both do a job, rather than picking a gender, just flip a coin. Even if this approach is only used occasionally, it's better than heterodoxy.
...the country that doesn't have two shits to give about civil rights. Why is this news?
China's One Child Policy, is now a Two Child Policy
The one-child policy, a part of the family planning policy, was a population planning policy of China. It was introduced in 1979 and began to be formally phased out near the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016. ... According to the Chinese government, 400 million births were prevented.
... men with the "strong ability to work under pressure, able to work on weekends, holidays and night shifts."
Obviously, women are not idiot enough to apply for such a job.
At some point, to progress human rights, we must be willing to draw a line and say 'this cannot be tolerated'. Intolerance such as this lies on the far side of such a line, and most reasonable people would understand the important contradiction inherent in 'absolute tolerance'.
I think tolerance is better understood as a sort of a peace treaty, rather than a moral principle. That is, I'm not obligated to show you tolerance because I'm a moral person, rather, I'm obligated to show you tolerance if I'd like you to show me tolerance -- and to show it to others, too, because what goes around comes around. If someone breaches the tolerance peace treaty by deciding it's okay to be intolerant, then that person has lost any right to expect tolerance from others, at least with respect to things related to their intolerance.
So, for example, if a Nazi would like tolerance of their anti-semitic views, they must treat jews with respect and toleration, including not doing or saying anything anti-semitic. Clearly that's a contradiction, so there's no way within this model for Nazis to hold anti-semitic views while expecting others to tolerate those views. Note that this does not mean that it's okay to punch Nazis.
In this case, to the degree that Chinese culture is intolerant of women we have no responsibility to tolerate Chinese culture. That doesn't mean we denigrate all aspects of it, but it does mean that we have no obligation to respect the misogynistic bits.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
according to you, a progressive feminist saying that they don't want something is not evidence that progressive feminists don't want it.
That's literally a piece of evidence on what progressive feminists want. I note you didn't demand evidence for the original claim.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Capitalism is the BEST thing we got. Not perfect but it is what works and makes our society prosper. Capitalism has rules to follow and the government is there to enforce most of the rules of the game. Capitalist DOES NOT dump toxic waste or work people to death. The alternative is socialism/communism and that ideology no doubt killed more people in the twentieth century than all wars put together.
Both sides get down modded. Your alt-right paranoia just shows how insecure you are (modding shouldn't bother you one way or the other.)
In fact, a bit of patience and you would have seen her original post is at a +4
I can't tell if you are joking but I really hope you are.
Female only places are ok because women need safe spaces? Do you realize how condescending that sounds? The hypocrisy is pretty self evident which you tried to address by being condensing.
I'd say, simply, that my freedom to choose who I associate with trumps the right of anyone to associate with me and I'll support the right of others to choose who they associate with, even if I disagree with their reasons for doing so.
see here.
That said if you're not good looking you probably aren't going to make it there, or anywhere, as a waiter or waitress. Your money is made on tips, and the best way to get tips is flirting.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
there's always a way to regress. We've only been without slavery in America for a few hundred years, and we dabble in it with private prisons. Blacks and Women haven't had the right to vote for very long and it's only recently that being gay wasn't a death sentence (ask Alan Turing).
As the saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I suppose it's not a much of a war when you've won, but you're still on the defensive. At least for the several thousand years it takes for human civilization to fundamentally change to the point where everyone agrees on what is barbarism.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Both sides get down modded.
These things are not equivalent. One post got modded up for posting made up facts and the other got modded down for pointing they were made up facts.
In fact, a bit of patience and you would have seen her original post is at a +4
It is now, but it was not. It being modded down was a definite abuse of mod points. Apparently pointing out blatant mod abuse counts as trolling too now.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
In my experience at North American companies, Chinese women are more likely to get hired for pure tech roles than white women because the stereotype "Asians are good at tech" balances out the stereotype "women are bad at tech". I'm not sure if two wrongs make a right in this case.
Cultures compete. The winners set the rules. That's how it's always been.
Now, I strongly prefer when values change to what I consider more moral, but I don't have a whole heck of a lot of influence here.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
With Communism in practice, you get things like the Soviet nomenklaturi instead of actually wealthy people. Of course, the way to get on that list is normally not to push social justice.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You get away with it one by one. Document bad behavior for each problem individual. GP said they were fired for bad performance and insubordination, and if you nail that down by recording specifics you're fine.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I've employed over 100 people of the last 20 years.
We would have close to 50% men women. Here are some of my observations:
-In 25 years (50 hires) we have never had one woman apply for an engineering role (mech, electrical, electronic, programming), except for last week when my bus partners daughter took on a mech eng role.
-We have mostly women in our production department (purchasing, stores, assembly) and both accountants are female.
-We are hyper aware of staff with attitude problems and are very proactive to correct their behavior or move them on.
-We have had to move on both men and women in equal numbers for poor performance/attitude issues.
-We use an interview technique that is effective at weeding out people with obvious bad attitudes.
-I have multiple times received unsolicited praise for how great a workplace culture we have.
So, while I'm sure some workplaces can turn into 'Lord of the Flies', and women are certainly more emotional communicators, if you have management that actively manages the underlying relationship culture, you can create a workplace where people thrive.
46137
There are a few jobs that do require pretty ladies. Aside from that, if the man doing the hiring is not the owner, that person is harming the company by hiring people for reasons other than being good at their jobs and working well together.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you're saying that capitalism is a good basis for an economic system, yes. However, unregulated capitalism will dump toxic waste and work people to death. This is why every advanced country nowadays has capitalism at the base of its economy and has regulations on what companies can do.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Outside of the sexual innuendo, she is tall and slender. So if people think fat shaming is bad, you ought to see the shit women sling at other women if they think a woman is not fat enough.
That is so true. My wife is short and slender (Asian) and women at her work and in her friend circle use mock "concern" for her weight and exercise habits. She's 5'2" and 110lbs, about 30lbs. north of anorexia and definitely not "skinny". But the fat women will make sure she's "okay", make sure that her husband isn't forcing her to exercise hard and eat less, etc. It's crazy how jealous they get and then pretend that they're really concerned for her.
I hear ya brother. We hear continuously how men have to change in order to accommodate women in the workplace. Perhaps women in general have some changes to accomodate each other. Backstabbing was a big problem at work. Men had a tendency to have a quick argument and it was over with. Many of the sweet to their face but the minute the other woman walked out of the room "I hate that bitch" situations justy led to complicated drama.
The women scientists and engineers were largely lacking in that problem. And many of the administrative women also. But just like my wife, guess who were the subject of slanderous attacks. And guess who performed them? Wasn't the men.
This is why social media projects like #mentorher won't work. Watch how I'm jumped on for saying that both sexes need to compromise and fix their problems. How can we mentor someone who is likely to take the mentoring as mansplaining and complain to HR about it?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What about the freedom of the employer to hire whom he wants for the job?
there will be bears (with balalaikas).
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.
You seem to imply that this is a bad thing. Those vary same things allow for all manner of other ideologies, advocacy groups, or people with other points of view to exist as well, many of which have little or no overlap with SJWs in terms of belifs. It's those same protections that allow you to post about it on the internet without anyone from the government kicking down your door and dragging you off to one of those reeducation camps. I would think that having to listen to some idiots whinge on the internet (where you're just as free to dispute them) is a tiny price to pay for those freedoms.
Quite agree. You might want to tell the UK though, where you can be arrested for posting a video of your dog.
It's always amusing to get modded down for posting literal facts.
Better than getting arrested, I guess.
I am a fit, muscular, good-looking guy with a full head of hair so I applied as a model for Victoria's Secret, but they rejected me because I'm a man. It's discrimination!
Wrong question, you're making an appeal to authority, an assumption that some *person* should be doing the deciding. That's a bad approach. Of course you're not really asking the question, you know it's a bad approach and you know that anyone reading it will know it's a bad approach, so you're asking the question rhetorically in an effort to discredit the notion that any decision is right. That's underhanded argumentation. Say what you mean.
Okay I'll make it simple. I won't cherish cultures that brutalize women as an integral part of that culture. Howbow dat? Clear enough?
The right question is what *principles* should be used to decide. Obviously, not everyone will agree on the principles, which is why we fall back on democratic ideals. To avoid tyrannies of the majority, we use democratic processes to decide broad, high-level principles rather than to answer specific questions. Then we apply reason and debate to those principles.
I don't support or cherish cultures that brutlize women as an integral part of that culture. At it's simplest, the golden rule. Bill and Ted "Be excellent to each other."
In this case, the core principle is that of freedom. Cultures are free to do what they want, but that freedom ends where it begins infringing on the freedom of individuals (of course, we make exceptions where to allow too much individual freedom causes bad outcomes for society as a whole -- there's a balance to be found. Yes, this is hard.). The notion that women are morally equal to men (which isn't saying they're the same as men) means that they should have the same opportunities to compete for the jobs based on their ability to do the job.
Now since I simplified what I wrote - howbow you do it?
I'll try to write this at the lowest level I can:
I do not support or cherish Chinese culture having male only jobs.
I do not support or cherish Saudi Arabia culture burying women up to their neck and killing them for adultery. Especially when the man in the tryst isn't punished. Or preventing them from exercising the same rights as males.
I do not support or cherish the fact that in many African cultures young girls are mutilated by cutting off their clitorises.
I do not support the cultural practice in places like Yemen where prepubescent girls are forced into marriage to old man. Here id part of a culture we are supposed to Cherish http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... Seriously - 8 freaking years old. And not as a crime, but a part of the culture. People can argue about the age of consent being at puberty, but 8 year old girls are not mechanically ready for sex. At all.
And I don't support the Chinses Men only jobs
Now back to the way I normally write.
I believe that men and women are equal. And the dversity people who want me to cherish all of the above cultures, but are having shitting hemmorage over China and their male only jobs are suffering from some severe magnitude issues. "It's okay to be in an outrage about who can fill out a job application, but let's go on the downlow about clitorectomies. Don't want to offend the culture." Fuck that - it's wrong and it will always be wrong. Damn - I gotta question the moral compass of people like that.
Back to simple: Come back and lose y'all's shit over Job Applicatinos after you save some women's lives.
I'll give up on my equality is superior to diversity and my right to point out the hypocrisy of Diversity supporters when they excute me - perhaps by the cultural tradition of public beheading as practiced in Saudi Arabia. That would be somehow fitting.
>
I argue that this freedom for women trumps the freedom of Chinese culture to restrict their role in society. Do you actually disagree? On what basis?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It was a reply to someone asserting that 3.5 billion humans have identical opportunities.
Oh good. Look like the time for the Anglo-American domination of culture is at an end and the Indo-Chinese time is coming.
If nothing else, I'll not miss the constant morality signalling of the SJWs competing with one another over who can be more offended.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
So white Westerners get to judge Chinese society and decide what's best for it?
We get to decide what we think of it and how we are willing to interact with it. We have every right to criticize, and even to refuse to buy Chinese goods or sell our goods to China. China can decide how it chooses to respond to our criticism and related decisions.
This really isn't complicated.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
What about the freedom of the employer to hire whom he wants for the job?
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12023151&cid=56495869
You can choose to abide by the treaty, or not.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
That is, I'm not obligated to show you tolerance because I'm a moral person, rather, I'm obligated to show you tolerance if I'd like you to show me tolerance -- and to show it to others, too, because what goes around comes around.
The problem with tolerance is the moving of the goalpost. Tolerance used to mean "live and let live", now it's used to mean "celebrate & embrace".
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
"strong ability to work under pressure, able to work on weekends, holidays and night shifts." So they want a robot that doesn't have any life of its own, obviously. They should have said so.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
That is, I'm not obligated to show you tolerance because I'm a moral person, rather, I'm obligated to show you tolerance if I'd like you to show me tolerance -- and to show it to others, too, because what goes around comes around.
The problem with tolerance is the moving of the goalpost. Tolerance used to mean "live and let live", now it's used to mean "celebrate & embrace".
Nonsense. Sure, people might ask you to celebrate and embrace, but you're not going to be considered intolerant for failing to do so, not by anyone remotely reasonable, and if someone does you should feel fully justified in telling them that they have broken the tolerance peace treaty by demanding that you express positive support for something you don't agree with. Of course, this assumes that you're quietly failing to celebrate and embrace -- if you're openly criticizing or especially if you're trying to stop them, then you are being intolerant and deserve to be labeled as such.
Note, however, that there are some subtleties here. For example, though we're not fans of gay marriage[*], when my wife and I attended the marriage of my brother-in-law to his husband, we celebrated and embraced it. I offered to be their wedding photographer, and my wife toasted them. We were celebrating and embracing their happiness, not gay marriage. Both of them understood and respected the nuances of this position, and were pleased we were there.
.
[*] I predicted 30 years ago that the US courts would force it and that attempts to define legal marriage as between a man and a woman were doomed. My suggested solution was civil unions for everyone, thereby removing government from marriage and effectively redefining it as a purely religious and/or cultural ceremony. That would have ensured legal equality for heterosexual and homosexual partnerships, but allowed church and cultural groups to retain the definition of marriage that they preferred (and allowed other churches and other cultural groups to redefine it as they saw fit).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
So white Westerners get to judge Chinese society and decide what's best for it?
Ummm, yes? They're also free to disagree with my society and criticize what they think I'm doing wrong and refuse
Jesus Christ, do you people even know the history of you doing this?
And I should give a shit?
And how strange, I don't remember going over there and helping set up a some colonization industry, or going over to kill communist sympathizers, or anything like that. You would think that such a big event in my life is something I would have remembered. Or are you talking about people who aren't me?
As I recall, you're responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths around the world with your failed collectivist experiments. Yes, you. After all, we're not individuals. You're just a part of the collective, and every piece of the collective is responsible for the collective's failing.
"Misogynist — A man who hates women as much as women hate one another." -- H.L. Mencken, 1949
I looked up some Mencken quotes, and came up with this one - "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." Useable by any political persuasion.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Comfort women...with Chinese Characteristics?
(whoo, have some more fuel for the flames!)
So, you get to sit in judgment of the Chinamen. Your hood is over there, Grand Wizard. "But I'm not racist!" And yet, you're saying the same things that they do. Not so different.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
How does the moderation work here? It's current scored:
30% Insightful
30% Troll
20% Interesting
Yet the modifier is -1. Seems like it is 70% good and 30% trigger warning, so surely should be at at least +1...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So, you get to sit in judgment of the Chinamen.
Yes, absolutely. You have to be one insanely racist cunt to believe that skin colour disqualifies one person from judging another.