|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:48 PM November 20th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
My only surprise was at the fact that they reported it at all. It's been de facto policy for decades.
Look at the fact that everyone but white men are labeled as "disadvantaged". How does a disabled white man (who isn't in a wheelchair) get a job, exactly, without advertising his shortcomings and losing out immediately? It's not like he can walk in and automatically be seen as being in need of assistance as he would be if he had long hair and breasts, or darker skin.
Or the fact that most civil servants are already female, as are most students in professional schools. But if any group other than white males is "disadvantaged", even if it's because women are "advantaged" (they are a majority, not a minority, despite marxist-feminist rantings to the contrary and their instant over-identification with any groups with an actual disadvantage), only men pay the price.
Apparently, we're only capable of binary logic in Canada: white men bad, everyone else good.
While I have no interest in racial issues, I do see why it is occasionally necessary to provide special measures for members of visible minority/cultural groups to join mainstream society, due to particular cultural or social barriers they might have to overcome. But this does not apply to women, who are members of all social groups, and are a numeric majority of the population, even if they do only contribute 30% of its taxes and labour.
You see, hiring a company of all black men is OK. Hiring a company of all women is fine too, even if every last one of them is as white as the driven snow. Again, I agree that members of many visible minorities do require assistance to get a government job because (as an example), it is harder to get an education when you're born into poverty and generations of despair on a reservation - aboriginal/First Nations Canadians certainly face unique barriers, but how is it that a government service where 70% of the funding comes from men, with a majority of its employees already being female can decide that the way to ensure more minorities are hired is to exclude men only?
Can someone please explain this bullshit to me?
How about a positive intervention in the community to encourage people from minority groups to overcome social obstacles to education and employment, rather than legislated/policy-based racism and sexism? Isn't that what we were trying to do away with, girls? Thank you for proving to me that women are just as sleazy as men in every way. More so in some.
Welcome to the great white north. Allow me to suggest a sex-change operation and some serious sun-tanning before you consider travel here, otherwise you're just a cross between a beast of burden and an evil political oppressor, all in one.
RandomMan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:30 PM November 20th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
ONTARIO: An equal opportunity employer.----> This slogan is on all job offers printed in the newspaper in Ontario and couldn't be farther than the truth.
I live in Northern Ontario and had been applying for years to be an emergency firefighter because it's a summer job, pays damn well and would let me afford university.
I was told when applying at Ministry of Natural Resources that at the time, they weren't looking for white males. I'm not shitting you, he said this to my face. He was just the messenger though, no use getting pissed at him. He asked if I knew somebody cause that could help get me in. Keep in mind that I had more qualifications than most who apply and was second in my class for my Firefighter's certificate. I was First Aid trained and an instructor, chainsaw certified, WHIMIS, TDG, CPR which are all things that are supposed to increase you chances of getting hired. Most people only had 2 or 3 of the certificates I previuosly listed. I can understand prefrence for Native men (much of it is their turf also they're tuff workers out there) but not for women. The physical test they take is about half as hard as the mens.
Anyways to wind down this long-winded diatribe I knew two women who were hired within a week. One had asthma and was overweight and the other didn't even pass written test, she satyed behind with the instructor and he helped her with it. They got the job cause of their tits and had the audacity to berate me for not getting hired.
Makes me wonder how many more unnecessary hectares were burned, houses distroyed and wildlife killed because they didn't hire the best person for the job. Makes me wonder how many men got fucked over, burnt-out, and hurt because they had to pick up the slack for people that didn't cut it and had no business being there.
Paul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:29 AM November 21st, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I hear you Paul. I applied for a job with a federal agency a few years back in my specialty, which is a mathmatically intense, and therefore male-dominated field. When I arrived for the interview, we took a quick tour of the building, and the only man on the site was the janitor. Keep in mind that women average about 10% of the people in my field, where I have two advanced degrees, licenses and I have published in several major periodicals.
At any rate, I didn't get the job, which was well beneath my skill level, although I'd have been happy to have it. When I pressed on the follow-up, a friendly receptionist told me that the all-woman interview panel hired a minority woman. So, men's tax dollars continue to deny the top performers in their field access to the only work in the country because they have the wrong genitals, all in the name of "equality". This story has been repeated at every government agency and outpost of ideology formerly known as "academia" in the land.
Women average 10% of the people in my field, yet in recent years in Ontario, 60% of the people hired as full professors are women. It could have something to do with the fact that NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council), the main funding body, only gives "new faculty" grants to women. Like the civil servant you dealt with, the application paperwork explicitly says that "men need not apply".
I've since left science completely, and I wouldn't contribute another syllable to benefit this gynarchy if you put a gun to my head. I hope they enjoy their up-and-coming third-world status, because the top performers in every field are leaving, or just not playing anymore.
I suggest re-reading George Orwell's Animal Farm when it comes to a feminist's idea of "equality". We're all created equal - it's just that some of us are more equal than others.
RandomMan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 08:22 AM November 21st, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I hope they enjoy their up-and-coming third-world status, because the top performers in every field are leaving, or just not playing anymore.
Things are beginning to sound more and more like the theme of Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged', where all the doers go on strike and leave the looters to rot in their own mess. Who is John Galt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:50 AM November 22nd, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Bullets will solve this.
One could go it and MURDER those women.
Marc! Marc! We love you :D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:36 AM November 22nd, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Shut up troll. Go find some feminists to annoy for a change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:28 PM November 22nd, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"Oh, my god! they killed Kenny!
You Bastards!"
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:44 AM November 21st, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
you may be interested to hear that in Ottawa a few years back the city paid for "sensitivity training" for the firefighters while money was short for desperately needed equipment.
The feminist wingnut who conducted these sessions told a newspaper that she "finally realized" that it was counterproductive to ARGUE with the men only after many sessions of doing so!
-nutboy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:29 PM November 22nd, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Nutboy!
Where ya been?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by zerostress on 10:51 AM November 21st, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
According to a recent French-Canadian newspaper article, here is the breakdown of the 392 students hired this summer by the city of Montréal:
- 309 women
- 51 visible minorities
- 30 ethnical minorities
- 2 native
- 0 white men
And the councilman was proud of the success of his hiring strategie. No doubt he is going to get reelected indefinitely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:55 PM November 21st, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. 45% of the population represent 0% of the hires. And this is a "success"? (I know this is what you were driving at, I'm just agreeing whole-heartedly).
RandomMan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:59 AM November 21st, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
We must put an end to this type of discrimination. We need some ballsy guys, who can stand up to the attacks, to get organised and fight this bullshit. Its not going to end on its own, folks!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:12 PM November 21st, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of hard to fight when you're lined up for welfare money because you can't get a job in the first place. It doesn't matter that it's wrong, that it's racism and sexism, that it's complete discrimination. In Canada, you have absolutely no legal footing to even mount a challenge. The Supreme Court has already ruled that discrimination is OK if it's a bona-fide occupational requirement (as long as the requirement is for women of course), or if it attempts to address perceived problems experienced by "traditionally disadvantaged groups".
My only question is how long men have to be denied employment, civil rights and human rights in order to be considered "traditionally disadvantaged".
So glad we decided to sort all this shit out during my generation. I've never denied a woman anything, or made a decision based on race, nor have most of those feeding at the trough of goodies from these "affirmative action" programs ever suffered from those problems, yet here we sit with me unable to get a job and women/minorities being hired because I'm an evil white oppressor. The fact that I and most of my generation have never oppressed anyone is apparently irrelevant.
My advice? Start your own business. Hire only men (I don't care about race at all - we're all equally useless in my opinion!). When you get big enough to qualify for employment equity audits and quotas, hire one disabled woman to put you over the top. When they show up to audit you, fire the nice disabled woman (give her a huge severance, I mean really huge, like she could retire on it kind of huge, she shouldn't suffer for the cause, ideally), and tell the asshole from the government's Department of Not Hiring Men (Ministry of Labour) to go fuck herself, and that she just cost a disabled woman her job. Sue me and I'll fire everyone and lock the doors. It's called free enterprise, and freedom of association. I'm still entitled to both, despite what the matriarchy says.
It's too bad. I'd never hired anyone out of the dozens I have hired based on anything but qualifications. Now I won't even interview anyone but men, and I refuse to deal with government agencies unless required to do so by law. You want my tax dollars, then suck it up, girlz. Feminists always forget that their pork comes from men's taxes, and that they are a drain on the economy they leech off. Good luck without us starting businesses and taking risks.
Phew. Sorry, I got ranting there...
RandomMan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:40 PM November 22nd, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
That's okay.
Good rant.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:53 AM November 25th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I would be more suspicious of who they actually hire. Womyn hve been using the justice department and legislature for years to place the "right" people in public service jobs. Control through the bottom, secretaries, clerks, aids, (Monica Lewinsky) and so on. We are in the middle of an all out class war, and the 4% sit back and collect the profits. Thankfully there are good Women out there that want things the way they should be, natural, and equal. My kingdom for just one good Woman? Or should I say, the right one for us all individually/
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "