4 ms·
Of course it's a people problem but you have to hire someone, at least for now. Women not only vastly expand the risk of romantic involvement, they're also phy
by blfr 11y ago
Of course it's a people problem but you have to hire someone, at least for now.
Women not only vastly expand the risk of romantic involvement, they're also physically weaker. And you don't get anything in return for taking these additional risks.
- ghaff 11y agoI suspect that it would not be legal to refuse to hire women because "they expand the risk of romantic involvement" and "are physically weaker" (even though they meet the requirements of the position). I don't actually disagree with your points but variations of them have frequently been the excuse for excluding women from a wide variety of jobs.
- agentgt 11y agoI am by no means a strong feminist but I find it pretty stupid to decide whether or not to hire based on gender (unless of course the gender is absolutely required like female lead in a movie). I have seen many women far more physically capable to handle jobs like that then men. Hire the best person for the job regardless of gender.
- jessaustin 11y ago...at least for now. I suspect that when everything is robots, and the judge and jury just press a button and forget about the rest, prisons will be even more horrific than they are now, only it will be 10% of the population in them rather than 1%.
- bruceb 11y agoWomen generally are less conflict prone then men. How many bar fights are between women?