There would never be as much women as men in high-paying/prestigious professions.

[Inbuddhist]

And the reason for that is very simple : Women don't need to workcel to get mates.

A lot of what motivates men to work their ass off for their job is to workcel to get laid/get a wife/be desired by women for social status. Intelligence or capacity isn't enough, you also need motivation. A lot of intelligent capable men would've prefer a profession that pays less but allows them free time/laying in the beach and fucking girls than a profession that pays waaay much but doesn't let them enjoy life as much.

But for the majority of men, having a good job is a necessity to attract women.

Women don't have theat need, all the advocacy/positive discrimination/epowrement bullshit won't change this simple, objective, obvious fact.

I'm not EVEN assuming that females are dumber/less capable than men, and the conclusion still stand.

 

[Crustaciouse]

If the government didn't regulate gender quotas in workplaces then woman would have no high paying jobs at all.
I remember when Australia applied an anonymous employing survey where the employers had no information on the potential employees race, or gender.
So it was completely unbiased and only relied on work experience and education level.
I think the amount of men that got hired compared to woman was like 95%, so they had to cancel the idea because it is sexist to have unbiased hiring practices where you don't even know the person's gender.

 

[Redpill Robert]

True, but women also just aren't as capable.

 

[Inbuddhist]

True, but women also just aren't as capable.

That's debatable, most people here might agree with you, but it would be always hard to prove whether it's 100% genetic or societal.

What i'm saying is that EVEN IN THAT CASE, women would still not access as much to high paying job. As long as there is such discrepancy in the sexual market, there will always be a difference in the high paying jobs market.

 

[WarriorSkull]

That's debatable, most people here might agree with you, but it would be always hard to prove whether it's 100% genetic or societal.

What i'm saying is that EVEN IN THAT CASE, women would still not access as much to high paying job. As long as there is such discrepancy in the sexual market, there will always be a difference in the high paying jobs market.

What I find funny is that even if women were the most capable of doing the most difficult jobs, then it is even a bigger waste to society for that woman not to stay home and have lots of children. No amount of work a high IQ woman could do is as valuable to the human species as her producing more high IQ humans.

 

[Inbuddhist]

What I find funny is that even if women were the most capable of doing the most difficult jobs, then it is even a bigger waste to society for that woman not to stay home and have lots of children. No amount of work a high IQ woman could do is as valuable to the human species as her producing more high IQ humans.

I'm an antinatalist so i despise having children, i don't see it as valuable at all, any insect or dumb animal can multiply its DNA for the sake of multiplying it, there is nothing valuable about being a slave to your genes, perpetuating genes that use you as the vessel for the mere sake of multiplication. Having children is what leads to inceldom and every other evil.

But i'm not gonna debate it any longer in this thread.

 

[The End]

I can imagine the government demanding that 50% of all jobs go to women, trying to split things fairly.

That'd mean a lot of qualified men couldn't get employment, and a woman could get nearly any job she wanted and be completely incompetent. Of course everything in life for all of us would get worse, but that's progress I guess.

 

[Inbuddhist]

I can imagine the government demanding that 50% of all jobs go to women, trying to split things fairly.

That'd mean a lot of qualified men couldn't get employment, and a woman could get nearly any job she wanted and be completely incompetent. Of course everything in life for all of us would get worse, but that's progress I guess.

But in that case the economy would crash. So i don't think it would be allowed by the powerful elite.

 

[Evidential]

If the government didn't regulate gender quotas in workplaces then woman would have no high paying jobs at all.
I remember when Australia applied an anonymous employing survey where the employers had no information on the potential employees race, or gender.
So it was completely unbiased and only relied on work experience and education level.
I think the amount of men that got hired compared to woman was like 95%, so they had to cancel the idea because it is sexist to have unbiased hiring practices where you don't even know the person's gender.

LMAO. Experiment gone wrong!

 

[FeminismsCancer]

True, and this is one more reason why there should be a wage-gap (but there isn't actually despite feminist claims).
There is no pink tax, but there is a blue tax under the form of mate attraction requiring money for a man, not a woman.