Comment on Why is the manosphere on the rise? UN Women sounds the alarm over online misogyny
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 days agoSo if a company traditionally had 10 men employees and now has committed to having gender equality, you see this as 5 jobs where men are no longer considered, rather than it historically being 10 jobs where women weren’t considered?
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 days ago
But that’s not true.
Hire the best person for the job. Period. If the best 10 people for the job - ie the most qualified, the most experience, interviewed the best, the best culture fit, etc - are all men then that should be fine. Hiring less qualified, worse people simply because they’re women or a minority is ridiculous, and it means that more deserving people are missing out.
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
There are absolutely jobs where hiring the most qualified person for the job is critical. There are a lot of jobs where the threshold for good enough is far below that, and most companies are at least as concerned at getting the cheapest labor that can fulfill the position as they are at getting the best person (at that lower rate). Adding additional constraints like diversity isn’t going to affect those jobs any more than the company’s desire to save a buck.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 day ago
Hiring someone over someone else purely because of their race or sex is discrimination, racism, and/or sexism.
It sounds to me like you’re talking about jobs that illegal immigrants do, especially once you brought up cheap labor. Jobs like those don’t have diversity quotas, because they almost entirely hire from the “diversity” pool.