#MeToo

Social, economic and environmental issues in our ever-changing world.

Re: #MeToo

Postby Silverstarqueen » Feb 19th, 2018, 11:48 am

dirtybiker wrote:I don't know why anyone didn't think of this sooner.

Segregation.

There, fixed !

Although this campaign was started with what I perceive as an honourable
intent.
Like many things it has grown into it's own rabid beast.
It could set back equality and society as a whole, decades.
ie; why would a male business owner even consider a female new hire ?

TreeGuy wrote:I hired a young girl last year to work for me before all of this non-sense. Sometimes it was three of us working together, sometimes it was just her and I. I was always very careful of how I joked around with her. I love kidding and joking, but I was cautious.

I also checked with Mrs. Tree to make sure she was okay with the situation before I hired her.


How old was this young girl?
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8044
Likes: 832 posts
Liked in: 2118 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 7:02 pm

Re: #MeToo

Postby Silverstarqueen » Feb 19th, 2018, 11:57 am

dirtybiker wrote:Since the beast was unleashed I know a couple people that no longer have one to one
meetings with colleagues of the other gender in their offices.

They are done out in the middle of the workplace.


As opposed to just leaving their office door open?

"Just a minute Ms. Smith, rather than our going over these plans here in my office, let's go out into the middle of operations just to be safe." lol.

At any rate, quite a few offices have interior windows, for a reason, and have had for quite some time.
Last edited by Silverstarqueen on Feb 19th, 2018, 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8044
Likes: 832 posts
Liked in: 2118 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 7:02 pm

Re: #MeToo

Postby dirtybiker » Feb 19th, 2018, 12:00 pm

Laugh away, it's happening....

Sounds just absurd to me too, still happening....I ain't laughin'...
"Don't 'p' down my neck then tell me it's raining!"
dirtybiker
Guru
 
Posts: 6692
Likes: 6393 posts
Liked in: 3017 posts
Joined: Mar 8th, 2008, 6:00 pm
Location: Central OK

Re: #MeToo

Postby TreeGuy » Feb 19th, 2018, 12:52 pm

dirtybiker wrote:I don't know why anyone didn't think of this sooner.

Segregation.

There, fixed !

Although this campaign was started with what I perceive as an honourable
intent.
Like many things it has grown into it's own rabid beast.
It could set back equality and society as a whole, decades.
ie; why would a male business owner even consider a female new hire ?

TreeGuy wrote:I hired a young girl last year to work for me before all of this non-sense. Sometimes it was three of us working together, sometimes it was just her and I. I was always very careful of how I joked around with her. I love kidding and joking, but I was cautious.

I also checked with Mrs. Tree to make sure she was okay with the situation before I hired her.


Silverstarqueen wrote:How old was this young girl?


How is that relevant to the conversation?
User avatar
TreeGuy
Moderator
 
Posts: 2918
Likes: 1555 posts
Liked in: 2951 posts
Joined: Oct 9th, 2005, 9:02 pm
Location: Westbank

Re: #MeToo

Postby Silverstarqueen » Feb 19th, 2018, 1:16 pm

Answering a question with a question is relevant.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8044
Likes: 832 posts
Liked in: 2118 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 7:02 pm

Re: #MeToo

Postby Bigjohn69 » Feb 20th, 2018, 9:36 pm

Christy Clark not only neglected to support women while in power, she also made things worse for them.

Christy Clark came to power in 2011, taking over the leadership of the B.C. Liberal Party from Gordon Campbell. While Campbell was premier, he cut 100 per cent of the $1.7 million that was allotted to B.C.'s women-serving organizations. That funding works out to one dollar per year, per woman, in B.C. It seems that a dollar year was too steep an investment for Campbell's B.C. Liberals.


http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/wavaw-rape-c ... a-homepage
Bigjohn69
Fledgling
 
Posts: 299
Likes: 146 posts
Liked in: 135 posts
Joined: Feb 6th, 2018, 11:38 am

Re: #MeToo

Postby liisgo » Feb 21st, 2018, 9:46 pm



I just got a chance to read this article.
Very well written and definitely defines the numbers game, obvious gender picking that was played by JT and the picking of our Canadian cabinet.
good post.

rustled likes this post.
liisgo
Fledgling
 
Posts: 233
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 147 posts
Joined: Jan 19th, 2016, 5:25 pm

Re: #MeToo

Postby Silverstarqueen » Feb 21st, 2018, 10:16 pm

From the article above:
" Where a thing is truly important to us — like the national hockey team, or to a lesser extent the Supreme Court — we tend to place relatively greater emphasis on merit."

Odd that they have chosen the example of a hockey team.
Is the women's hockey team based on merit?
Are women olympic swimmers, runners, skiers chosen based on merit?

So now we have here some women politicians chosen. No one has yet pointed out which ones were not qualified for the job. All are highly educated, elected by their constituents to represent their ridings. But somehow because they are female, can't possibly measure up to a male.
Nice circular logic. Women haven't been chosen for many years, because supposedly they just didn't seem to want to participate in politics. Now they are ready and able to participate, but we should not choose them because, we have not had a habit of choosing them in the past.
When more men than women were elected or chosen, no one asked why they their being chosen was not based on merit, it was just assumed they must be competent because they were elected,... and then chosen for some position.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8044
Likes: 832 posts
Liked in: 2118 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 7:02 pm

Re: #MeToo

Postby KiloHotel » Feb 22nd, 2018, 8:04 am

Catherine Mckenna is our environment minister and doesn't know the difference between a puffin and penguin. Just watch some videos of her talking, she clearly has very little idea what she is talking about. So no, I don't think they were chosen for merit.
KiloHotel
 
Posts: 86
Likes: 945 posts
Liked in: 79 posts
Joined: Oct 29th, 2006, 10:04 pm

Re: #MeToo

Postby liisgo » Feb 22nd, 2018, 8:10 am

Silverstarqueen wrote:From the article above:
" Where a thing is truly important to us — like the national hockey team, or to a lesser extent the Supreme Court — we tend to place relatively greater emphasis on merit."

Odd that they have chosen the example of a hockey team.
Is the women's hockey team based on merit? Yes, its based on merit, the best players only, thats how you make the team.
Are women olympic swimmers, runners, skiers chosen based on merit? Off course they are, you have to win with the best times and wins to make those teams. Why even make this a statement?

So now we have here some women politicians chosen. No one has yet pointed out which ones were not qualified for the job. Like many jobs, there is a min. qualification acceptable to apply. Not merit at that point.
All are highly educated, elected by their constituents to represent their ridings. And they should be, but also the best and most qualified.
But somehow because they are female, can't possibly measure up to a male. No, wrong, what has been easily pointed out is that of the numbers not equaling the members chosen. Nothing to do with gender and its only because of the fact that it was numbers showing an advantage for the women. The numbers dont add up, that simple. Not another, "the world is out to make life unfair for women" thing.>
Nice circular logic. Women haven't been chosen for many years, because supposedly they just didn't seem to want to participate in politics. Yes correct, didnt seem to want to participate. Now they are ready and able to participate, but we should not choose them because, we have not had a habit of choosing them in the past. In the past, women did not try for these positions, and if some great, hard working ones did, and the best qualified, they would have got the job.
When more men than women were elected or chosen, no one asked why they their being chosen was not based on merit, it was just assumed they must be competent because they were elected,... and then chosen for some position.
. Really missing the logistics and statistical part of this. Fairness, equality, best for the job, should only be based on merit, not quota's, accommodate, and numbers that are so blatantly to have shown favoritism.

rustled likes this post.
liisgo
Fledgling
 
Posts: 233
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 147 posts
Joined: Jan 19th, 2016, 5:25 pm

Re: #MeToo

Postby Silverstarqueen » Feb 22nd, 2018, 7:30 pm

KiloHotel wrote:Catherine Mckenna is our environment minister and doesn't know the difference between a puffin and penguin. Just watch some videos of her talking, she clearly has very little idea what she is talking about. So no, I don't think they were chosen for merit.


Please explain to me what qualified Peter Kent as a minister of the environment(he was a journalist and news anchorman)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kent
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8044
Likes: 832 posts
Liked in: 2118 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 7:02 pm

Re: #MeToo

Postby MAPearce » Feb 22nd, 2018, 8:51 pm

Silverstarqueen wrote:Answering a question with a question is relevant.


No ... In this case , I think it's baiting .

I wouldn't go near that with your phalu................

Never mind .
I payed attention in High school....But not to what they were trying to teach me..
User avatar
MAPearce
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 11123
Likes: 1658 posts
Liked in: 4144 posts
Joined: Nov 24th, 2009, 5:15 pm

Re: #MeToo

Postby Silverstarqueen » Feb 23rd, 2018, 5:55 am

liisgo wrote:Really missing the logistics and statistical part of this. Fairness, equality, best for the job, should only be based on merit, not quota's, accommodate, and numbers that are so blatantly to have shown favoritism.


You say merit, then you talk "numbers" and "statistics". So why base the choices on numbers? That's not merit based. These men (I noticed you don't seem to be contesting the male choices) AND women were chosen for a reason, by their constituents, and by the highest ranking elected rep, the PM, on the advice I'm sure of his aides as well. This is the system our country endorses. No where does it say each choice has to be the best in your opinion, or my opinion. If you want different choices, vote someone else in, vote a different PM in, run for Prime Minister and make your own choices, vote for a different system that you like better.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8044
Likes: 832 posts
Liked in: 2118 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 7:02 pm

Re: #MeToo

Postby MAPearce » Feb 23rd, 2018, 8:02 am

You say merit, then you talk "numbers" and "statistics". So why base the choices on numbers? That's not merit based. These men (I noticed you don't seem to be contesting the male choices) AND women were chosen for a reason, by their constituents, and by the highest ranking elected rep, the PM, on the advice I'm sure of his aides as well. This is the system our country endorses. No where does it say each choice has to be the best in your opinion, or my opinion. If you want different choices, vote someone else in, vote a different PM in, run for Prime Minister and make your own choices, vote for a different system that you like better.


You're confused .... It doesn't work that way .
I payed attention in High school....But not to what they were trying to teach me..

2 people like this post.
User avatar
MAPearce
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 11123
Likes: 1658 posts
Liked in: 4144 posts
Joined: Nov 24th, 2009, 5:15 pm

Re: #MeToo

Postby zoo » Feb 23rd, 2018, 9:11 am

MAPearce wrote:
You say merit, then you talk "numbers" and "statistics". So why base the choices on numbers? That's not merit based. These men (I noticed you don't seem to be contesting the male choices) AND women were chosen for a reason, by their constituents, and by the highest ranking elected rep, the PM, on the advice I'm sure of his aides as well. This is the system our country endorses. No where does it say each choice has to be the best in your opinion, or my opinion. If you want different choices, vote someone else in, vote a different PM in, run for Prime Minister and make your own choices, vote for a different system that you like better.


You're confused .... It doesn't work that way .


Yes very confused.

Not about gender, its about the numbers, the very well acknowledged drive to have certain representations met and an obvious outcome of that. Men, women, race, what ever, when the numbers show that it was deliberately done to meet that representation then its very apparent that it was not 100% based on the best for the jobs.
They wanted a 50/50 gender role in that cabinet. If only only man OR women was applying they would have got a position.
Just that simple.
Denial is very strong for some.
zoo
Board Meister
 
Posts: 637
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 138 posts
Joined: Jan 12th, 2006, 3:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Social Concerns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests