Another aspect of gender biasing - Page 11

Originally posted by: chatbuster

hey, great speech. sounds like something hillary might want to use to rouse up the feminists😉😆

don't know about hillary but have heard bush and bill along with lot other politicians as well use lines having similar effect too many times😉......again I hear this word feminist....I have not uttered Male Chauvenists even a single time here....have I😉

ok pulling. not dont beat me up for it😆

nahhh...don't worry yaar...at the end of the day it is still a debate...right😊 Waisey I am glad I don't have to suffer thru those TV dinners. Both my hubby and I are pretty decent cooks and no matter who is bringing in the riches, we both pitch in everyday to put something healthy and yummy on table for the kids......this is the picture you'll see more and more as the mindset changes😃

🤗 no beating for you yaar

Originally posted by: serialbuff

Glad to be of service 😛 Never shy away from hammering it in 😆 Kabhi to dhang ki baat kar hi lengey hamarey faazil "mard" dost!

😆😆 batti laal ho gayee hai huzoor ki😛😆

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

Raunaq, the debate started when in the very beginning someone said that women don't do a good job at any kind of profession because they give more priority to family, quit high profile jobs to be house mommies, whine a lot, shop during office hours, quit high profile jobs because they are desperate to get married, ask for exceptions/undue favorsfrom male colleagues, prefer "soft" posts over challenging ones, use their feminity to get favors, make a mess of their personal as well professional lives by trying to be bindaas etc. etc. etc. Read the back pages...it is all there. I am not making up even a single thing here.........so, in short...certain people thought that either women are not worthy of professional jobs or it will cost the employers too much to weed thru 1000 women to find one single eligible woman That's how the debate progressed and when all queries were answered on white collar professional job front, the military and construction work was dragged in and biological differences were dragged in.

I understand your confusion dear...but should we not leave it to woman to decide whether she wants a particular job or not IF and only IF she is eligible for it rather than leave it on employers to decide whether a woman should be assigned or not assigned on a specific task based on gender only!!!

Once we let others decide what a woman should or should not do....it starts with physically challenging jobs like construction work and combat forces and then keeps on going till some extremist somewhere clads her in a chaddar and puts her behind the four walls of her house....even if she happens to be a doctor, nurse, engineer, accountant. It is the same old mindset that just refuses to go away even when you see so many women making strides in all sectors now a days. your comment has irked me now, there are people who only want to go to female nurses etc. but they dont want females to be one 😡 i have three words for such people you are disgusting!!! 😡 😡 😡 i need to drink something cold to cool down now 😡

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

😆😆 batti laal ho gayee hai huzoor ki😛😆

Hum bhi batti laal kartey hain. Kal subah creative writing ka sabak padhana hai aur yahan raat ke 1:30 baj rahey hain. So, shabbakhair and keep the flag flying!😛

Originally posted by: Maya_M

It shouldn't but it is. When we argue why women with equal qualification and experience as men get paid less or overlooked for higher positions, the truth is sometime it is not feasible for the company to hire women for some positions. The dedication or involvement company demands may not be met by women because of family and other physical incapability. This is not a generalization but something I have learnt from experience.

Yup, and per general notion that men atleast the current times are not so supporting, to balance ot life, its women who bares multiple responsibility hence that demands cannot be fulfilled.

Now scenarios:

1. I have seen women leaving high profile jobs after having a child to be with the baby. They forget how much money is spent by company to hire and meet the requirement of this one particular worker. So will you blame that company for thinking twice before hiring a young woman?

Am not sure, getting mixed in hiring policy and assignment on job. Never mind, well yes gain its more family based decision some do and some don't.

2. I have seen women refusing to take night shifts like the job in post offices here in US where you are given night shift first till your 1 year training is over. Can they be blamed for thinking twice before hiring women with family?

Thats what am saying the such scenario brings predefined notions in minds of decision maker. If someone gets a No for assigned work involving nightshifts, 95% of times, from female members then next time or in future why should he/she consider women in first place.

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

Maya, from your views above, I am getting this feeling that it's okay to discriminate against women who don't have a supporting man at home sharing all household responsibilities like each partner should😊

This finally leads to limited dedication, eliminate few lucky ones - majority face it. Reason for the general blog in mind while making assigments.

Like I said before, there are bad apples in both genders....why penalize only one???

Originally posted by: Maya_M

I am bringing popcorn this time. You make cocktails before Anshu bans alcohol😆

😆😆😆 go team😆

"I also said that it is sad that some bad apples give the entire womankind a bad reputation. " QTji - not some but many, in different other senarios - that gives a wrong impression. I don't blame them also woman have been pillar of supporting the family and they are at it. Not that other side doesn't - as we discussed in Maya posts that Balance is the key in relationships... that seldom works for all.

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

hahahahah Raj....that was sooo cute. Atleast you are reading what we all wrote before coming to debate yaar......waiting to hear from ya.....some new point hopefully 😊 because it now feels like that someone is defending for the sake of it, whether with or without conviction. That's when the fun leaves the debate, because you know you are arguing against a wall which is merely going to ping your ball back at you with no additional contribution.

😉😉...and here, I would like to thank a very special person whose words I reproduced here🤗

Lols - I saw it more as tug of war, constructive flow of thoughts. Would make a generic statement at end but continuing with trigeering more thoughts.

1. Women Manager has picked 30 individuals from the sales task force 20 females and 10, challenging assignment. Nearing the deadline tension is running high. 10 of females couldn't perform as well dues to family commitments, 5 had plans for marraige / planned leaves, 3 left as they couldn't take the pressure. 1 male had family commitment, 2 planned leaves, 1 left. Finally 7 females and 6 men out performed. Practical scenario? this happened 3 more times, not the manager prefers 25 males and 10 females in team - biasing?

2. Its a fact women brain and men brain work differently - mean excel in cracking brainy assignments while women excel in languge or people skilled related jobs. With this known fact will the manager be biased to pick her/his team for a brainy assignment.

3. There is difference in communication level of men and women, if there are already 10 men on the job (male dominated office environment, can be vice versa) manager wants 5 more resource, he/she choosing 4 males and 1 female, dropped 3 females with equal capabilities as males... gender biasing?

4. Culture is changing, is a slow process but as CB mentioned the the very physical /aspects of M and F (pros and cons) whether we can come to equilibrium, from gender stand point?

Some points in everyone's interest - non Topic related but has to be revised here.

Gals / Guys - going over this post it was observed that there was low-medium level of sarcaism / pinch in responses. Any kind of negative pinch results in stress, nature of debates, agreed but if someone is getting overboard and instigating peace of mind:

1. PM the debator and get clarification. Focus on the debate topic. Might not be done purposefully.

2. PM dev to give an unbiased, getting in shoes / sandals of both parties and with all due respect / minus hard feeling, resolve the misinterpretations.

3. Obvious personal attack, needs no consideration. Inform dev, or otherwise also action will be taken. Its hard for dev sometimes to guage personal attacks as debators share rappo with each other, but if offended please please let us know.

4. If Dev member her/himself is offending, don't think twice to escalate it, after a PM him/her - non convincing response.

5. Lastly a general thought, if posting articles or articles from other section make sure the debateble statement is mentioned clearly. hope we all understand this is debate mansion not a getting views/ thoughts section.

Thanks! for everyone's co-operation.Enjoy Healthy debating!!

Originally posted by: raj5000