Women on top

[Cunt]

Yeah, I inhabit the rational and intelligent part of the political spectrum because it's easy. It couldn't possibly be because I think it is the rational and intelligent part of the spectrum.

Yeah...but just a little while ago you were saying it wasn't safe...it really is. You stay bravely on the safe side, though.

Great job on getting logged in again, so proud of you!

[Cunt]

Are people allowed to refuse to hire someone based on their being a self-described racist?

[Forty Two]

In the US, yes, in every jurisdiction I'm aware of and under federal law, yes. Not hiring someone for being a racist is legal. Also, for the vast majority of employees, it would be fine to fire them for being a racist too.

[Cunt]

So firing for beliefs is ok...if they aren't the right beliefs.

[Forty Two]

So firing for beliefs is ok...if they aren't the right beliefs.

O.k. in the sense of legal, yes. And, generally speaking I would say, in my view, it would be a bad road to go down to say that you can't fire someone for their beliefs. I mean, you're going to have folks from antifa arguing that the company wouldn't hire him because he's an antifa activist?

It's one thing to protect against invidious discrimination based on irrelevant factors that a person cannot control. It's another to make one associate with communists, Marxist socialists, postmodernists, Nazis, and Klan members and other sundry ne'er-do-wells.

Generally speaking, just firing someone for "not fitting in" or "because I don't like you" should be fine. The protections should be for issues that demonstrably require government intervention because of significant problem. I don't think there is a real issue with people firing or not hiring people because of their political beliefs in general. But if a Leftist Progressive with man-bun, sandals and skinny jeans doesn't want to hire a button-down, hair parted to the side conservative Rush Limbaugh devotee for his internet start up company, I don't think he ought to be forced to do so...

[Cunt]

Generally speaking, just firing someone for "not fitting in" or "because I don't like you" should be fine.

This has been my experience of reality. If a place can't fire you for 'cause', they simply give you proper notice and fire you anyway.

Except in government and some not-for-profit places. (Fantasyland in a lot of ways)

[Rum]

Somebody left the door open and the Conservatives have taken over!

[Forty Two]

Generally speaking, just firing someone for "not fitting in" or "because I don't like you" should be fine.

This has been my experience of reality. If a place can't fire you for 'cause', they simply give you proper notice and fire you anyway.

Except in government and some not-for-profit places. (Fantasyland in a lot of ways)

Well, it all boils down the the facts of a given situation. There are times when an employer tries to say they are firing someone for just not being a good fit, but the facts and circumstances show a different motivation.

[Sean Hayden]

Somebody left the door open and the Conservatives have taken over!

I crushed this thread early. Cunt's like a chicken runnin' round without its head.

[Rum]

Somebody left the door open and the Conservatives have taken over!

I crushed this thread early. Cunt's like a chicken runnin' round without its head.

Now he's firing everyone just cos he doesn't like how they look!

[Cunt]

Somebody left the door open and the Conservatives have taken over!

I crushed this thread early. Cunt's like a chicken runnin' round without its head.

You mean where you posted examples of sports where women consistently outperform men in fair competition?

I must have missed it in your exceptional examples of women who occasionally excelled...

So far, I have not one single example of a sport where women can show their greater strengths against men.

It's almost like you guys don't have such an example to offer...

Of course, lots of folks will tell you that sport skills don't translate into real life skills. If they do, check out their waistband. See what they really know about sport and the skills on display.

[Rum]

What on earth sort of point are you trying to make? If it is just that men are stronger than women physically - then on average they are. So what?

[Rum]

-DOUBLE POST- (for some reason)

[Seabass]

What on earth sort of point are you trying to make? If it is just that men are stronger than women physically - then on average they are. So what?

He's bravely sticking it to the libs and/or PC crowd. So courageous...

[Cunt]

What on earth sort of point are you trying to make? If it is just that men are stronger than women physically - then on average they are. So what?

That it isn't just strength. It's any sport at all. Speed, strength, decision-making, collaboration...the skills exemplified in sport are overwhelmingly dominated by men.

I was looking for examples of the contrary, because I DO want to celebrate female athletes, and I definitely want to know where they outperform men.

If we can't figure one single example out, it kind of changes my view a bit. |Just one sport, where females clearly have (and use) their superiority...

A weird example from my hazy memory...there was this kind of test, where you place an armchair against a wall. Have both males and females try to lift it a certain way, and only females can. (I think it had to do with different hip shape or something)

Anyway, it looks an awful lot like I won't find an example here. I'm reluctant, but I may look for one on /fit/. They are (more openly) assholes, but at least they might have an answer...

I'm told over and over that this doesn't mean that men are superior, and to hold that women are every bit as good on the job as men, but the broad variety of demands of the different sports are far from limited to the physical...it just seems like a better performer in sport, would be likely to be a better performer in many other ways. That's not hard to wrap your head around (because it is about one individual)

But where does it start to apply to groups? Should we shame the (physically demanding) cement finishing industry because they don't employ more women? Or accept that it is going to mean women don't have as many opportunities (because their competition for jobs is stronger/faster)?