Liberal Forum

FOS » 28 Jun 2022, 3:58 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 3:58 pm

Um...Kamala Harris was selected because she is a black woman and it clearly had nothing to do with skill. 

What you are saying is the total opposite of the truth. Politics favors women over men. If men are selected then it is because they have skill.

Women are selected for politics.

In my case, there are 26 "top admin" jobs for the state of NV... prior to this newest governor, on average 22 of the 26 were filled by men. These are mostly appointed and frequently.. they did not possess the so-called minimum qualifications such as a certain degree, x years of experience, etc. 

impartialobserver » 28 Jun 2022, 4:07 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 4:07 pm

In my case, there are 26 "top admin" jobs for the state of NV... prior to this newest governor, on average 22 of the 26 were filled by men. These are mostly appointed and frequently.. they did not possess the so-called minimum qualifications such as a certain degree, x years of experience, etc.

But that doesn't imply anything. It may simply be a fact that the most talented people tend to be men. 

FOS » 28 Jun 2022, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 4:10 pm

But that doesn't imply anything. It may simply be a fact that the most talented people tend to be men.

Or not. In our case, my guess is that they think that men will be tow the party line better. The relatively lower pay in the public sector typically keeps the most talented folks away. My private sector counterparts in NV earn between $35,000 and $50,000 more than myself. 

impartialobserver » 28 Jun 2022, 4:13 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 4:13 pm

Or not. In our case, my guess is that they think that men will be tow the party line better. The relatively lower pay in the public sector typically keeps the most talented folks away. My private sector counterparts in NV earn between $35,000 and $50,000 more than myself.

Lol what do you mean or not. 

Think of how many great men there were in history compared to great women. 

It's like a 100:1 ratio lol..

And again...as I already pointed out...because feminism is so psycho today it actually is harmful politically to hire men men high profile stuff. Your suggestion is clearly the opposite of the truth. 

No company would ever get in trouble for hiring too many women...or too many blacks...or too many homosexuals. That would never happen. 

But companies absolutely will get in trouble for not hiring enough of them. 

So how on earth does your speculation make any sense?
 

FOS » 28 Jun 2022, 3:58 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 3:58 pm

Um...Kamala Harris was selected because she is a black woman and it clearly had nothing to do with skill. 

What you are saying is the total opposite of the truth. Politics favors women over men. If men are selected then it is because they have skill.

Women are selected for politics.

Her skills are what got her elected by the people over the years. Since we have a diverse population and always have, we should also have diversty in public service employment at all levels.

FOS » 28 Jun 2022, 4:19 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 4:19 pm

Lol what do you mean or not. 

Think of how many great men there were in history compared to great women. 

It's like a 100:1 ratio lol..

And again...as I already pointed out...because feminism is so psycho today it actually is harmful politically to hire men men high profile stuff. Your suggestion is clearly the opposite of the truth. 

No company would ever get in trouble for hiring too many women...or too many blacks...or too many homosexuals. That would never happen. 

But companies absolutely will get in trouble for not hiring enough of them. 

So how on earth does your speculation make any sense?

I am not sure why I think that you are worth my time. However, I digress. You clearly skipped over a certain element in my second post... 

"prior to this newest governor"

Yes, the newest governor has definitely went the other way hiring/appointing women. I am referring to times before him... in other words before 2019. Before him, there was an obvious bias towards males. Have the women hired by the newest governor done better? That is  a matter of opinion being that one can't really measure their performance like you can with a coach (wins and losses) or CEO (profit or loss). A lot of them were put in no-win situations. State got shut down and afterwards, the demands on their respective depts increased greatly but their budgets/staff shrank. 

In construction a large company has a handful of multi-million dollar jobs going at all times.
They have a handful of their most productive workers who rose through the ranks to run these jobs.
The large jobs will have 1 or 2 General Foremen and a ratio of about 1 Regular Foreman to every 10 "Peons".
So..the company has lots of data coming in that they can compare the performance of one crew against the other crews with.
To these companies it doesn't matter what color or gender you are ...if you can produce results on a consistent basis they will treat you like THE GOOSE THAT LAYS THE GOLDEN EGGS...and compensate you accordingly.

impartialobserver » 28 Jun 2022, 4:28 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 4:28 pm

I am not sure why I think that you are worth my time. However, I digress. You clearly skipped over a certain element in my second post... 

"prior to this newest governor"

Yes, the newest governor has definitely went the other way hiring/appointing women. I am referring to times before him... in other words before 2019. Before him, there was an obvious bias towards males. Have the women hired by the newest governor done better? That is  a matter of opinion being that one can't really measure their performance like you can with a coach (wins and losses) or CEO (profit or loss). A lot of them were put in no-win situations. State got shut down and afterwards, the demands on their respective depts increased greatly but their budgets/staff shrank.

You don't seem to be hearing the most important point I made to you. You are just ignoring it. 

Hiring too many men is a liability. Maybe you can get sued for sexism. Indeed you might as well try it...you wouldn't have to prove anything. 

on the other hand if you explicitly discriminate against men...like say some ceo says I'm not gonna hire men cause I think men are subhuman...you will face absolutely no punishment for that. 

in this legal environment you can expect that any male who is hired has talent. 

likewise you can expect that the legally protected classes do not.

FOS » 28 Jun 2022, 4:39 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 4:39 pm

You don't seem to be hearing the most important point I made to you. You are just ignoring it. 

Hiring too many men is a liability. Maybe you can get sued for sexism. Indeed you might as well try it...you wouldn't have to prove anything. 

on the other hand if you explicitly discriminate against men...like say some ceo says I'm not gonna hire men cause I think men are subhuman...you will face absolutely no punishment for that. 

in this legal environment you can expect that any male who is hired has talent. 

likewise you can expect that the legally protected classes do not.

You do have a point when it comes to the "private sector".

Public sector not quite so cut and dry. get as philosophical as you want but the data does not match up with your rhetoric. Being that salaries in the public sector are almost always less than the private  and there is no real incentive to be a better worker.. the issue of talent is not as relevant. I keep my public sector job because I like it and it pays enough. 
 

impartialobserver » 28 Jun 2022, 4:42 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 4:42 pm

You do have a point when it comes to the "private sector".

Public sector not quite so cut and dry. get as philosophical as you want but the data does not match up with your rhetoric. Being that salaries in the public sector are almost always less than the private  and there is no real incentive to be a better worker.. the issue of talent is not as relevant. I keep my public sector job because I like it and it pays enough.

Well you know...in my opinion our government is totally fake. Every politician is a puppet controlled by someone invisible. 

So it goes without saying that people high up are largely going to be selected for by trust...not skill.

There could be various reasons a man would be easier to trust than a woman. Status and sex matters more to men...and it is safer for a man to have a social relationship with a man man with a woman. 
 

FOS » 28 Jun 2022, 4:56 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 4:56 pm

Well you know...in my opinion our government is totally fake. Every politician is a puppet controlled by someone invisible. 

So it goes without saying that people high up are largely going to be selected for by trust...not skill.

There could be various reasons a man would be easier to trust than a woman. Status and sex matters more to men...and it is safer for a man to have a social relationship with a man man with a woman.

It is my opinion that men strive to be part of a group more. Most can't be on an island, figuratively speaking, and not be a cog in some greater group.. Republican party, gun owners, etc. Hence, why they are more likely to be loyal and follow instructions to the highest degree possible. Can't be severing that link to the group. I am not one of those types. I work on an island, so to speak, and so do not need nor want the approval of someone other than my direct supervisor. 

impartialobserver » 28 Jun 2022, 5:06 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 5:06 pm

It is my opinion that men strive to be part of a group more. Most can't be on an island, figuratively speaking, and not be a cog in some greater group.. Republican party, gun owners, etc. Hence, why they are more likely to be loyal and follow instructions to the highest degree possible. Can't be severing that link to the group. I am not one of those types. I work on an island, so to speak, and so do not need nor want the approval of someone other than my direct supervisor.

Well women can't be an island either. But sexual dimorphism is just biology.

For any social animal...including humans.. the alpha is male. And he is the one that gets to breed. This is obviously because you only need one man to get many women pregnant.

so we are innately programmed to seek alpha status.
 

FOS » 28 Jun 2022, 5:10 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 5:10 pm

Well women can't be an island either. But sexual dimorphism is just biology.

For any social animal...including humans.. the alpha is male. And he is the one that gets to breed. This is obviously because you only need one man to get many women pregnant.

so we are innately programmed to seek alpha status.

That runs contrary to men needing the comfort (real or perceived) of the group. My job is processing data. 140050010000000 becomes  14   005    001    000000 which then becomes Georgia   county    Floyd County  Total, All industries and on down the line. There is a defined end result to come out of the raw data. As long as I produce the desired decoded data and report... all is fine. No need to say the right thing to someone... no need for loyalty. 

Holdor » 28 Jun 2022, 3:50 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 3:50 pm

Well you took the time to type the above, My question was Rhetorical, I know that is big word.

RHETORIC MEANS
lacking in sincerity or meaningful content

YOUR QUESTION IS VERY MUCH RHETORICAL

 

impartialobserver » 28 Jun 2022, 5:16 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 5:16 pm

That runs contrary to men needing the comfort (real or perceived) of the group. My job is processing data. 140050010000000 becomes  14   005    001    000000 which then becomes Georgia   county    Floyd County  Total, All industries and on down the line. There is a defined end result to come out of the raw data. As long as I produce the desired decoded data and report... all is fine. No need to say the right thing to someone... no need for loyalty.

And that is probably why you will never reach the higher levels of 'public' employment. At that point loyalty becomes more important than results.
 

FOS » 28 Jun 2022, 5:26 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 5:26 pm

And that is probably why you will never reach the higher levels of 'public' employment. At that point loyalty becomes more important than results.

And you assume that is what I want.. It is not. Why? 80 hour work weeks are not conducive to a healthy family life. Also, I like to go work and then leave it behind. 

impartialobserver » 28 Jun 2022, 5:29 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 5:29 pm

And you assume that is what I want.. It is not. Why? 80 hour work weeks are not conducive to a healthy family life. Also, I like to go work and then leave it behind.

no I didn't assume that. I assume you are like most humans and don't care about such stuff. 

FOS » 28 Jun 2022, 7:55 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022, 7:55 pm

no I didn't assume that. I assume you are like most humans and don't care about such stuff.

Besides 80 hour weeks, some of these top admin jobs (dept chair and so on) open one up to scrutiny.. most of which is undeserved. So, you are working 80 hours a week, most likely commuting 90 miles round per day, and now have idiots following you in social media and in daily life. All of this for between $55K and $68K.. not worth it to me. I do not crave the prestige of knowing that I led the dept of taxation or such.