Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that women are stupid or anything "cavemanish" like that. I mean women are smarter when it comes to taking care of a baby, or cleaning the house, or cooking a dinner (I don't that that we can deny that). But when it comes to the world of business, is it hurting our country when a business is REQUIRED to hire certain amount of women (Affirmative Action), or other people that are incompetent? Should we let intelligence and design tell us where our place should be? Should women stay at home, and men stay in business?
2007-03-13 02:40:41 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
It is simply government controlling what a company can and can't do. They are also required by government to hire "minorities". Personally I don't think the government should be able to tell a company who they can & can't hire. (I'm sure I'll get alot of thumbs-down for this one) This is our government on the slippery slope towards socialism.
Both women and men of any color should have the opportunity to work anywhere they want to, given their individual qualifications. If the govt. controls that, is it truly freedom?
P.S. For example, Hillary Clinton is a complete socialist. What's all this "stop thinking about the individual" crap?
2007-03-13 04:29:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It can go either way. No it isn't hurting our country by hiring a certain amount of women for particular jobs. What that has to do with is trying to give women a chance to succeed in life but when you run into the mentality that women are smarter than men at taking care of babies and doing things around the house, well u know thats almost bias. You seem to think women shouldn't work or that we are incompetent already so why even ask? Intellect should tell us where we need to be and anyone can stay at home.
2007-03-13 02:51:58 · answer #2 · answered by nay 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
they shouldn't make companies hire a certain amount of women... they should hire women, and men, only when they have what they need.... if there's only one woman who is good enough... then only that one. If there's only one man, then only that one and let the rest be women....
This kind of politics affect in a bad way the companies, who don't get the best cause they are required to hire a determinate number of people who are not the best, and only fullfill the gender requirement.
2007-03-13 05:14:09 · answer #3 · answered by User 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You just said you weren't asking a cavemanish question, and yet you did. But, did you know that cooking dinner and taking care of children aren't natural essential things that are women are born with? Nobody is ever born knowing how to cook, clean, sew, raise children and any other "womanly" jobs. Women have to learn from somebody how to do all that stuff. They take advice from others on how to raise children. And what career or employer is required to hire women? I know of no job where women get hired because they are women. If anything, women have to work harder, be smarter and more vicious in their career in order to surpass men because there seems to be a natural tendency to hire and promote only men. And let's see: one of the founders of Ebay was a woman, there are women executives at Sony Music Label Group, women singers, actresses, all my professors are women. Wow, and that's just a small handful of professiona working women
2007-03-13 05:22:26 · answer #4 · answered by nicoleblingy2003 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because some people (like you, as I can see) still think women are less competent when saying that
"...women (Affirmative Action), or other people that are incompetent?"
But this is wrong. In average, women are equally competent, intelligent and capable for the same jobs men do, but the fact is that they do not get the equal opportunities. We all know that equally competent woman will have less chance to get the job if her concurrent for the same position is man, even the less competent one. Also, we all know that women, in average, have lower salaries for the same jobs their male colleagues do. These reasons make the "necessary quotas" needed for achieving the equality and to fix social injustice. And the most important thing, it is not about hiring less competent people. Only because a person is woman, it does not automatically mean that she is incompetent. Furthermore, no one has a right to decide where men or women "should stay", especially in America, which is considered democratic, liberal and progressive country.
2007-03-13 04:20:24 · answer #5 · answered by Aurora 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Because it is not true that women should stay at home and like the minorities women has lesser rights, so action has to be taken to help women to level up. Think of an ethnic race that is prevalent yet discriminated against in society, to help them there may be a policy to ensure a few of them have places in a particular company. The same reasoning goes. It's not because it's anti-men. Men shouldn't feel threatened by this..it has got to happen someday
2007-03-13 04:41:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Everything is wrong with America. This once glorious country is now all ****** up.
It sucks that you have to hire a certain amount of women for a job. What if they do not want to be a plumber, police officer, firefighter, electrician, engineer, etc... ? You can't hire men instead or more qualified men instead. It sucks big time.
2007-03-13 03:24:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I believe in hiring whoever is best for the job, regardless of gender or race. If you have 99% males, so be it. If you have 75% Asians, so be it.
I still agree that women are better off at home with the children--and the children are better off too; they won't get shuttled off to some daycare.
2007-03-13 05:12:59 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
ahh, another tricky one. my feeling is this....we have to hire a certain number of women so that the men have someone to bend over the desk every once in a while. some women are even too dumb to take care of the children. those are the women that should be out in the workforce. also, for any woman in the workforce they should have mandatory testing for std's (they should perhaps also be steralized or at least on birth control). if it comes up positive that is grounds for termination. so, if i am reading you correctly i think i slightly disagree with your stance on this one.
2007-03-13 06:56:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Women dont like obstacels or risk, they need handhouts. To push women at large in the cheaper jobs to make them work for cheap money (along with the men) a few need to be put in the juicy jobs as an incentive, to make them apply they need all sorts of green lights else they are not going to risk rejection or dissapointmen.
2007-03-13 02:58:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋