The danger of gender inequality

[Liliana1304]

Well, depending on the job, but if the CMD knew he was going to give to the male, he should have indicated that the position would be for guys so the woman won't have applied because it would only leave the impression that the man's biased.

Well, inasmuch as a woman's place is at home, according to @BaDecker, it doesn't stop her from excelling in the secular world. Since people feel women should not struggle with men all in the name of gender equality because her place is the home front, then I see no reason for educating the girl child.

[Wakate]

Two candidates visited my office two days ago to submit their applications for the position of a health assistant. I had the honor of taking part in the interviews with them.After the interview, the candidate did very well, but the CMD chose to hire the male candidate because of his physical strength and height as the best contender for the position.He didn't even give the female applicant a chance to demonstrate her qualifications.What do you think about this?

What ever the CMD thinks about the best gender for the position is what will make that position more active like the job descriptions. I don't even see a need for  woman to handle that position if the company needs someone that is strong and  muscle to do the job. Sometimes there are some type of jobs that women would never fit in well that is why men is most preferable to handle that position. That is the same way I prefer women to be in the position of a nurse then seeing a man handling that position so I will never blame the CMD for taken that decision that will be suitable for the job.

[Hamza2424]

Two candidates visited my office two days ago to submit their applications for the position of a health assistant. I had the honor of taking part in the interviews with them.After the interview, the candidate did very well, but the CMD chose to hire the male candidate because of his physical strength and height as the best contender for the position.He didn't even give the female applicant a chance to demonstrate her qualifications.What do you think about this?

So do you really think women can match the physical strength of men? This is a shit card of gender inequality brother if you really think the Boss chooses the Man on his physical strength so what, he did the right in my view because the Boss needed the Physical strength and Man had that. If you are thinking that Wonman should complete the Man in physical strength buddy why don't you endorse Man vs Woman Olympic Physical Strength Championship? You can because both have different characteristics and physical strength is by nature Man's attribute.

There are some superiorities in Man and some in Woman, so this nature (This is how Allah Almighty) created them.

[Jawhead999]

Every company will want to hire the best candidate to work for them, it's all depends on the skill they have, their personality and how much they willing to get paid. If the female candidate accept to get paid 20% lower than the male candidate, your CMD will think twice and he might choose the female candidate. It's fair because female is weaker than male, so they should get paid less, isn't?

Anyway don't forget with their money, their rules.

[BADecker]

The danger of gender inequality


The genders are NOT equal. And the danger is this:

Monsanto is spraying poison weed killer on our fields of grain, etc. In addition, they have convinced us all to use their poisonous weed killer. What does Monsanto have to do with gender inequality?

Women are more easily swayed in politics than men are. So, what Big Business wants is a bunch of women in government. That way they can sway government into their lines of thinking easier.

You might say, Men in government seem to be swayed as easily as women! But that's because the Monsanto weed killer - that we eat, because it's on our food - ALSO makes men more feminine (besides making us all sicker).

Our sissy men in government have been made sissy by Monsanto, just to please the rest of Big Business. And since women are made to be women, they can handle the weed killer poison better than men can. So, it looks like the women are stronger than men.

[BADecker]

The danger of gender inequality


The genders are NOT equal. And the danger is this:

Monsanto is spraying poison weed killer on our fields of grain, etc. In addition, they have convinced us all to use their poisonous weed killer. What does Monsanto have to do with gender inequality?

Women are more easily swayed in politics than men are. So, what Big Business wants is a bunch of women in government. That way they can sway government into their lines of thinking easier.

You might say, Men in government seem to be swayed as easily as women! But that's because the Monsanto weed killer - that we eat, because it's on our food - ALSO makes men more feminine (besides making us all sicker).

Our sissy men in government have been made sissy by Monsanto, just to please the rest of Big Business. And since women are made to be women, they can handle the weed killer poison better than men can. So, it looks like the women are stronger than men.

The point is, if the genders weren't so unequal naturally, Big Business wouldn't have to go through all that trouble to make us equal, by making the men more feminine. We wouldn't get poisoned by BB, because they wouldn't have a need to poison us into being equal... if we were equal already. So, it's dangerous to be unequal.

[Ozymon]

Two candidates visited my office two days ago to submit their applications for the position of a health assistant. I had the honor of taking part in the interviews with them.After the interview, the candidate did very well, but the CMD chose to hire the male candidate because of his physical strength and height as the best contender for the position.He didn't even give the female applicant a chance to demonstrate her qualifications. What do you think about this?

If that what the company needs, just let them be. That's the perk of being a man, but also women have their own advantages too, like when it comes to a job which require them to speak to people, women are more needed because they appear to look more charming, friendly, and preferable. Well, a lot of you might disagree with me, but in my country, that's what happens.

My point is both gender has their own advantage and disadvantage, I know it feels suck when I lost the opportunity to get a job because what appears to be unfair nowadays, but here we don't deal with such problem like the west countries have experienced.

[Juse14]

I agree with gender equality, everyone has the same rights and opportunities to do what they want. I also agree that women's representation must exist in every sector, especially in the government and education sectors. and this equality must and continues to be voiced to uphold what is meant by social justice.

But it is very unfortunate that women always demand gender equality but forget what is their obligation. Often after they get the equality they dream of, this can make their ego increase, especially in the household sphere, this often happens when the husband's income is less than himself, the wife often looks down on her husband and does not respect him. she, even though household matters are handed over to her husband, however the husband is still the head of the household who must be respected and the household chores that must be shouldered and lived together.

[Abu-Naim]

Two candidates visited my office two days ago to submit their applications for the position of a health assistant. I had the honor of taking part in the interviews with them.After the interview, the candidate did very well, but the CMD chose to hire the male candidate because of his physical strength and height as the best contender for the position.He didn't even give the female applicant a chance to demonstrate her qualifications.What do you think about this?

You have already stated that both of them performed well in the interview, but the male applicant was granted the opportunity due to his physical strength, which I am sure is part of the physical criterion in addition to qualification.


If the female candidate possesses such abilities, she should have been given the opportunity, based on the circumstances. I don't believe there was any unfairness in this case because you confirmed that the male candidate possessed some qualities that the female applicant lacked.

We have many roles that should be held by men but are being run or controlled by women owing to whatever influence they have in that position, not because men cannot do the job.

[uchegod-21]

Two candidates visited my office two days ago to submit their applications for the position of a health assistant. I had the honor of taking part in the interviews with them.After the interview, the candidate did very well, but the CMD chose to hire the male candidate because of his physical strength and height as the best contender for the position.He didn't even give the female applicant a chance to demonstrate her qualifications.What do you think about this?

Are you talking about gender inequality in general sense or base on job specifications only. Some job roles are suitable to a particular gender. No right thinking employer will employ a beautiful female model in a role that requires strength and agility. He needs to employ a muscular man and I see no gender inequality issue there.

But where it is very obvious that a particular person was rejected or prevented from doing something simply because his/her gender despite the fact that they can actually perform that role, then such excesses should be checked.

If people are prevented from doing what they love or know how to do best, they might become mentally, socially and morally paralysed and  rendered incapacitated.

I know some will say the man and the woman can never be equal  but hey! Everyone should be given a chance to grow normally without any fear of victimisation or oppression.

[Asiska02]

Two candidates visited my office two days ago to submit their applications for the position of a health assistant. I had the honor of taking part in the interviews with them.After the interview, the candidate did very well, but the CMD chose to hire the male candidate because of his physical strength and height as the best contender for the position.He didn't even give the female applicant a chance to demonstrate her qualifications.What do you think about this?

This has nothing to do with gender inequality in my opinion. They both had interview with the CMD and have examined them both. If the work is for only one person and the male candidate has extra qualifications for the job because of his physical strength and ability then the work should go to him. Wanting to get the experience of the female candidate will only give are a false hope of being accepted, and if she doesn’t do well, she can still later be sacked. I think this is a fair interview and the male candidate should be the right person for the job if physical strength and height is amongst the criteria of getting the job.

[Wiwo]

Two candidates visited my office two days ago to submit their applications for the position of a health assistant. I had the honor of taking part in the interviews with them.After the interview, the candidate did very well, but the CMD chose to hire the male candidate because of his physical strength and height as the best contender for the position.He didn't even give the female applicant a chance to demonstrate her qualifications.What do you think about this?

To me that is a bad signal,  and with the the human resource department really has a lot of work to be done bexausutheir will recruit a lot of staff without any competency or capabilities for the job since the guy at the decision-making end has blatantly refused to hire based on qualification but adopting sentiments.

I don't know what the nature of the job, is but if it is not a physically involving job,  the employers should have hired the female if she is most qualified for the role.

[BADecker]

We are forgetting one major thing. What if the employer wasn't looking for the most qualified person for the job? What if the employer was looking for a medium qualified person who he could train to be better? Why might he do that? A personally trained employee might become, ultimately, as good as the qualified woman, but way more loyal to the company.

How did the employer get into the position of being an employer? He got there because he had something on the ball thinking-wise. If any of us advised the employer that he should have hired the woman, okay. But if the employer was making a mistake this time by NOT hiring her, don't we all reject good advice from others at times?

What this is all about is employer freedom. Sometimes such freedom includes the right to make a mistake. None of us likes to be dictated to, if we are employers or not. We all operate using logic, hunches, random roll-the-dice or coin-tosses now and again. We all suffer from our mistakes, and we all are benefited from our wisdom. But the point is, we are free to make our own choices. Why shouldn't the employer be free in choosing who he hires and who he doesn't hire?

[Frankolala]

There are certain jobs that best fit a male,especially when the job will be tedious and needs physical strength to get it done. The CMD has already kept that position for a male and that was why he gave it to the guy and not the lady.

If it is a secretary job,do you think that he will give it to the guy,I doubt that. So don't see it as gender inequality. Since you where also part of the interview, why after the guy has been given the job,you didn't ask the CMD what happened that made him not give the lady the chance to prove herself. Maybe,you would have learnt from him because there must be a reason for it.

[DireWolfM14]

What's the point of having a poll if the answers are the same, or too vague to even know what the options mean?

Is it fair to give a physically demanding job to a small MAN who can't preform the duties required of the job, and expect his collogues to pick up the slack?  If you answered no, then you're thinking clearly and without bias.

If I changed the word "MAN" to "WOMAN" in the statement above, would your answer be any different?  If so, then you're a bigoted activist, and not at all interested in "equality" but some corrupt notion of "equity."

[Compromise me]

Two candidates visited my office two days ago to submit their applications for the position of a health assistant. I had the honor of taking part in the interviews with them.After the interview, the candidate did very well, but the CMD chose to hire the male candidate because of his physical strength and height as the best contender for the position.He didn't even give the female applicant a chance to demonstrate her qualifications.What do you think about this?

Opportunities should give to the males because they handle all family and their duty is to work an earn money. Females duty is not good for our society because their duty should be take care of house and babies. Their duty is only maintenance of house. This is best for our society. Females should get knowledge of Quran and hadees because these give all necessary things to our society. With doing practical on Quran, we can get success because this a true message of God. Males also should get knowledge of Quran. Physically, males are strong and they deserve jobs and they are eligible for jobs. Allah make a male body strong for hard work. Doing job for money is not good for our society because it causes destruction in our
society.

[Smartgoat]

I think it depends on the type of the job. if is the type of job that has to do with strength, I think the  guy will scare true. but if it's a job that needs brain,  is then you will look into there qualifications.

[Pilgrimazra]

Gender shouldn't be a concern here. I think if Mr A and B applied for a certain job both should be given equal chances to participate because both saw the vacancy before applying. With their performances you can pick without sentiment and gender preference.

[BADecker]

Half the reason for all the 'trans' people is, they want to be able to do something that people of the other gender do. The danger of this is that you can't really do a good job of making people into the other gender. People really need to sit down and simply accept their gender position in life.

[sunsilk]

I think it depends on the type of the job. if is the type of job that has to do with strength, I think the  guy will scare true. but if it's a job that needs brain,  is then you will look into there qualifications.

Really differs and depends on the type of job and what type of employee that the company thinks that will suit that opening.

But if it's possible that there's no gender preference on that duty and can be done by both man and woman, they have to filter the best candidate through series of interviews for both of them.

In the end, this isn't just a matter of gender but also on how the companies are picky and choosy with their next hiree.