4 ms·
as a non-US, these topics are beyond ridiculous to me. some initial disclaimer - i am not very fond of usual loud-screaming-around feminists... nobody is for th
by saiya-jin 11y ago
as a non-US, these topics are beyond ridiculous to me. some initial disclaimer - i am not very fond of usual loud-screaming-around feminists... nobody is for that matter, not even my fiancee.
if I ever witnessed any kind of discrimination in my 11 year long career, in 3 different countries, working for... 7 employers? but many more customers, if was POSITIVE discrimination against women. they were strongly welcomed into teams, cherished (in a positive way), their opinions mattered (if expressed, of course), they worked hard as hell, kudos to all of them. no idea how things work outside IT, but that's not the topic here.
equivalence between men and women in WHAT? I am not same as my male colleague next to me, we're far from equivalent, and anybody with at least a hint in team management knows that damn well. equivalence in thinking? no way, and I would call it a benefit. But only thing that matter job-wise is performance for tasks given, and in that, there should be rough equivalence. if not, somebody, doesn't matter who and what gender, is incorrectly hired.
pfff, US and your funky over-correction issues...
- astazangasta 11y agoI don't know where you live, but the US is incredibly backwards in many ways. Odds are you've had a female prime minister, you have paid maternity leave, etc. Yell at us about overcorrection when we can say the same.
- jazzyk 11y ago1. The US had 3 females as Secretary of State almost in a row (M. Albright, C. Rice, H. Clinton). In the US, Secretary of State has a much higher significance/gravitas than Foreign Affairs. 2. The US is worker-hostile (no law-mandated vacation), not selectively female-hostile (lack of law-mandated maternity leave). 3. Most US companies have maternity leaves (typically 3 months). Not near quite enough, but not "incredibly backwards"