|
|
|
|
|
|
by btilly
5007 days ago
|
|
|
You've effectively said "I wont hire women because they might go form babbies" on a public forum. That conclusion can only be drawn by people who perform simplistic keyword matching and fail to comprehend what I've actually said. Did you notice that I've also pointed out several times that there is some evidence that companies who are more willing to hire women are likely to financially perform better? And that I've also pointed out repeatedly that discriminating on the basis of gender (either way) is illegal? There is a pretty big gulf between saying, "Here is the standard argument for discrimination" and saying "I advocate discrimination" or even "I would personally discriminate." |
|
|
Sure, I could have misread everything you've posted but imagine the lawyer for a potential failed hire reading your posts and slicing out exact paragraphs of your own wording:
> given biology and current culture, women of child-bearing age clearly are riskier hires
> Women have non-trivial odds of getting pregnant, sometimes unexpectedly
> In the event of pregnancy, moms usually require more time off than fathers, and are more likely to never return to their jobs.
> I personally have seen a couple of situations where a black person had credentials only because of affirmative action and did not deserve those credentials.
> I've also have seen multiple cases where a woman gets hired, gets pregnant, and then you lose that employee in a painful way.
> I have never witnessed anything involving a white person that was anywhere near being similarly egregious.
> white people were not given anywhere near as much leniency.
> Can you really blame an employer for leaning towards being risk adverse in this situation?
Call me full of shit. Say I'm blowing all this out of context. Whatever you want... but realize that those quotes are pretty deadly rounds of ammo to a lawyer. Don't believe me? Forward them to your HR department and see what they think.