Turn on thread page Beta

Should jobs be given to men first watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    End of world war 2, when the men came home from fighting, they retook the jobs women were doing in their absence.

    If we had another major war and all men had to go and fight,(and yes more men would fight than woman in numbers) then came back they would expect the jobs to go to them first. I wonder how the equality laws would handle this.

    If I was forced to go and fight for this country, and I came back I would expect the job to be given to me over the woman, since I was put in the most danger.

    A society which has a larger male unemployment would be more unstable than if it was the other way around, with large unemployed women.
    Due to the attitudes of women....women view unemployed men has having low status and not worth anything.
    But men do not look down on unemployed women in the same negative way.

    A woman would never buy a man drinks or nice gifts and let him stay at home if she had a job and he did not. She would mentally put him down and make him feel worthless.

    But a woman without a job does not carry the same stigma. Men are willing to buy women drinks, gifts, let them stay at home ect. This is due to evolution.

    My dad was always more generous than my mum, he always brought me toys but my mum always said no, I guess men are more generous than women in general. Men tend to giver better tips than woman. So I rather have the man controlling the money than the woman.

    Should jobs be given to men first, then whats left over given to women, if equally qualified.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Men evolved to buy women drinks? lel
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't get this equal rights talk. Men and women are biologically different. Women have kids, periods, and are go through more depression/menopause and often take the role in looking after kids.

    So i think more support thus, needs to be given to women to find jobs and support them while they do these jobs.

    If men return back from war, then i don't know. A lot of men don't return, so it's not like all the females need to be replaced, maybe the organisations reshuffled to accomodate?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think equality laws would have much of a problem giving a job back to someone who was forced to leave it. Look at maternity leave, for example, your job held open for up to a year, and that's a choice, not a war.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    OP... Your post was so full of unsubstantiated, BS generalisations that it hurt to read.

    Prove that women would not be conscripted in even numbers.

    Prove a society would be more unstable with more men unemployed.

    Prove women and men have such different attitudes towards unemployment.

    Prove all women (since that's what you said, not some) would put a man down for being unemployed and never buy him anything.

    Prove men evolved to buy women drinks.

    Prove men tip more.

    Aww, well YOUR dad and YOUR mum were like that, so I guess it must be true of ALL men and women. Give me a break, you're a joke.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, it's simply not true that men are more generous than women. Fine if you can show scientific studies, but at the moment you've only given an anecdote - there is nothing to say whether men or women are better at dealing with money.

    This actually highlights another point - are you saying that if the man earns the money the man controls the money, regardless of the fact the woman was unable to get a job due to your law? Surely this means most women are doomed by law to be dependent financially on a man, which both discriminates against Lesbians, and contradicts the idea of personal freedom?

    In a war situation I think you do have a valid point. I actually think women should be conscripted in that situation - this would double our army (which is really just cannon fodder in a WWII scenario). Of course I don't want to be conscripted - nobody does - but if I fight for equality I do it in every area of life. However, in a situation where just men are conscripted I do think jobs should go to them on their return.

    However, in a normal state of peace jobs should go to the best person, because;

    1. This increases the pool of talent.
    2. We have shown it works perfectly well.
    3. Forcing women to be dependent on men is immoral.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ssxx)
    End of world war 2, when the men came home from fighting, they retook the jobs women were doing in their absence.

    If we had another major war and all men had to go and fight,(and yes more men would fight than woman in numbers) then came back they would expect the jobs to go to them first. I wonder how the equality laws would handle this.

    If I was forced to go and fight for this country, and I came back I would expect the job to be given to me over the woman, since I was put in the most danger.

    A society which has a larger male unemployment would be more unstable than if it was the other way around, with large unemployed women. Why would it be more unstable?

    Due to the attitudes of women....women view unemployed men has having low status and no worth anything. That's a generalization and a bad one at that, that is not at all how I would think of a man due to his lack of a job, nor do I know any women who would think such stupid things.
    But men do not look down on unemployed women in the same negative way. Another generalization some men may look down on women some men might not, just as is the same with women.
    A women would never buy men drinks or nice gifts and let him stay at home if she had a job and he did not. She would mentally put him down and make him feel worthless. Complete rubbish, where is your evidence that a woman would NEVER allow this, I certainly would. If I had the money I'd buy my boyfriends gifts all the time and I'd treat him to whatever he likes, and if I had a job and he wanted to stay at home I would not look down on him for that. And I would never make him feel worthless for being unemployed I may just be talking on behalf of myself here, if you disagree please do find me evidence of a large portion of women who disagree with me. Without a large sample size it would prove nothing of the overall effect of your argument that it would be worse for men to be unemployed than women.

    But a woman without a job does not carry the same stigma. Men are willing to buy women drinks, gifts, let them stay at home ect. This is due to evolution. People are so quick to pull the evolution card without even understanding what they are saying. Please do find evidence for this if you're going to say this rubbish.

    My dad was always more generous than my mum, he always brought me toys but my mum always said no, I guess men are more generous than women in general. Men tend to giver better tips than woman. So I rather have the man controlling the money than the woman. Tell that to your future girlfriend/ wife I'm sure she'll be pleased.

    Should jobs be given to men first, then whats left over given to women, if equally qualified.
    No, the person best able or qualified for the job should get the job. I know you said if they are " if equally qualified" though usually if job candidates are equal in qualifications and experience etc the interview will determine who is best or most likable.

    I disliked your entire argument, it was nothing but rash over-generalizations many of which I do not agree with mainly due to your lack of evidence and my common sense.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It is true that society is much more stable when young men are in work. Nothing rips through society like young men having nothing to do but riot and pillage.

    Women have never been known to riot and destroy society. Just look at things like the Arab uprising. When things get violent it is always unemployed men there.

    For example the Iraq occupation went wrong when the Americans stopped paying Iraqi soliders. This left a huge amount of young men without jobs. The men without work turned violent and started to set off bombs and work against the Americans.

    So yes, as a point of maximising social welfare men should be given jobs over women.

    We know this already though because men have a higher preference towards being employed compared to women. Evidence of this is their willingness to travel to work and work in dangerous environments.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Surely the issue is that women would not be conscripted in equal numbers? If they were, this would solve the problem with no discrimination.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    If two people are really equally qualified for a job (which is pretty unlikely I'd say) you flip a coin:
    Heads hire the man.
    Tails hire the woman.
    On its edge hire them both. :cool:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    Surely the issue is that women would not be conscripted in equal numbers? If they were, this would solve the problem with no discrimination.
    Good point, I agree. I hadn't thought about the actual conscription only about the aftermath.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    It is true that society is much more stable when young men are in work. Nothing rips through society like young men having nothing to do but riot and pillage.

    Women have never been known to riot and destroy society. Just look at things like the Arab uprising. When things get violent it is always unemployed men there.

    For example the Iraq occupation went wrong when the Americans stopped paying Iraqi soliders. This left a huge amount of young men without jobs. The men without work turned violent and started to set off bombs and work against the Americans.

    So yes, as a point of maximising social welfare men should be given jobs over women.

    We know this already though because men have a higher preference towards being employed compared to women. Evidence of this is their willingness to travel to work and work in dangerous environments.
    You make good points.
    It is true men do chose to work in dangerous environments.
    I saw a documentary where men were so desperate to feed their family, they worked in toxic mines, knowing it will kill them slowly in few years.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you think in general men are not more generous than women. Then you are very naive and need to learn more about society than post politically correct BS.

    Go get a job as a waitress and you will find that in general, Women would demand more service from you and tip you less than men.
    Yes, I can say general because there are patterns in male and female behavior.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ssxx)
    End of world war 2, when the men came home from fighting, they retook the jobs women were doing in their absence.

    If we had another major war and all men had to go and fight,(and yes more men would fight than woman in numbers) then came back they would expect the jobs to go to them first. I wonder how the equality laws would handle this.

    If I was forced to go and fight for this country, and I came back I would expect the job to be given to me over the woman, since I was put in the most danger.

    A society which has a larger male unemployment would be more unstable than if it was the other way around, with large unemployed women.
    Due to the attitudes of women....women view unemployed men has having low status and not worth anything.
    But men do not look down on unemployed women in the same negative way.

    A woman would never buy a man drinks or nice gifts and let him stay at home if she had a job and he did not. She would mentally put him down and make him feel worthless.

    But a woman without a job does not carry the same stigma. Men are willing to buy women drinks, gifts, let them stay at home ect. This is due to evolution.

    My dad was always more generous than my mum, he always brought me toys but my mum always said no, I guess men are more generous than women in general. Men tend to giver better tips than woman. So I rather have the man controlling the money than the woman.

    Should jobs be given to men first, then whats left over given to women, if equally qualified.
    Trolling?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Um... women can now serve in the armed forces? They would now also be bound by conscription, so this whole idea is meaningless.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    In the same way the radical feminist's ridiculous ideologies make non-feminists think all feminists are bad, OP's post is the type of garbage that makes feminists think all anti-feminists are misogynistic idiots. Societies biased prejudices to unemployed men compared to unemployed women does not mean men have more right to a job because they get the sympathy vote.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ssxx)
    A society which has a larger male unemployment would be more unstable than if it was the other way around, with large unemployed women.
    Am I the only one who read this, erm, 'differently'?...
    A vision of rather rotund ladies charging down a road brandishing rolling pins and the like...

    (Original post by The_Duck)
    Um... women can now serve in the armed forces? They would now also be bound by conscription, so this whole idea is meaningless.
    Tbf, if he's likening this to a WWII-ish situation, they could - and did - serve then, too.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    OP... Your post was so full of unsubstantiated, BS generalisations that it hurt to read.
    Prove that women would not be conscripted in even numbers.
    Valid point. I believe OP has a rather 20th Century attitude to this, judging by what was the norm in WW1 and WW2. HOWEVER, Women still fought on the fields (in my opinion) as they were nurses who often put their lives at risk to save soldiers. Also not all men who were conscripted chose to fight. Some worked on the home front. They had no choice but to do so, otherwise they faced arrest. Unlike today where I believe it is more mixed. I expect there probably are more men than women troops in Afghanistan at the moment, but women have done significant things during the 2nd Gulf War and the Afghanistan war, so I do believe slowly but surely the military will achieve full equality. The question is when.

    Prove a society would be more unstable with more men unemployed.
    Again, another stereotypical point he gave. There are many successful stay-at-home father stories these days. However, OP feels that it is a threat to traditional values.


    Prove women and men have such different attitudes towards unemployment.
    agree with you here

    Prove all women (since that's what you said, not some) would put a man down for being unemployed and never buy him anything.
    I would emphasise on some, as some women, even though they want their independence for some reason they feel being married to a man with a good job gives them a sense of security. Personally, I would never depend upon my spouse in case things go wrong in the relationship and certainly during this recession it is not appropriate to knock them whilst they are down.

    Prove men evolved to buy women drinks
    We didn't. It's just a tip some guys use, thinking they will 'pull' that way. Depending on the woman, it may work, it may not.

    Prove men tip more.
    I'm neutral on this one, I have no idea as to who tips more. What does it matter anyway?

    Aww, well YOUR dad and YOUR mum were like that, so I guess it must be true of ALL men and women. Give me a break, you're a joke.
    I think you will find that true of most couples, going back a generation or two. However, not all of us men think that way
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    PSSSSHT, I ain't havin' no leftovers

 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.