Equal Rights

Double post because you got me while i was typing my last one.

So you're saying an androgynous (someone that has appearance traits of both genders) person can't sue in court for discrimination if they can prove that they were discriminated against based on appearance?

Well for 1: No company would ever say to you, "we aren't hiring you because you have long hair." I think that is where you are getting the most mixed up here. That would indeed be discrimination, but that the simple fact is they don't do stuff like that. They would say something like, "You aren't quite what you are looking for, have a nice day." Which you can brood over and think that it was over your hair (P.S. long hair doesn't make you androgynous), it doesn't mean it was and if you sue the company will win and probably sue you back and win.

Besides if you ever did work for a company that said "We won't hire someone because of long hair" you should probably quit. They won't be lasting much longer, and if you quit you have a cool story to tell your next employer.
 
You're repeating the same backward shit over and over. You misread it and misquoted me to be a dick because you're making a lame attempt at trying to make me out to be a hypocrite. YOU means plural in the context I used it, and you damn well know it. I was not speaking to Excalibur specifically and I wasn't generalizing anyone. I'm not "trying to save face," as you're saying like a fucking parrot over and over. You're not "calling me" on shit, you're making it up as you're going along trying to make a point that isn't there. I'll say it one last time and then you can piss off for all I care: I stand by what I said, and if you think that somehow means I'm backpedaling than you are more of a moron than even I thought you were, and that's saying something.

Actually when you brought in the plural you and then say
zyndara said:
As far as I'm concerned, when you're out in the real world, you want to grow your shit to look like the Unabomber living up in some random log cabin, good for you...
you make a generalization to all the people that made the choice to grow their hair out that they all look like the unabomber because you're not being singular. You're talking to all people as plural means 2 or more. This becomes a generalization. You have been called out. It is time you admit to being a hypocrite.

You can not comprehend your own writing maybe because you have poor skills with english in general, or I was right you are not as smart as I thought you were.
 
Double post because you got me while i was typing my last one.



Well for 1: No company would ever say to you, "we aren't hiring you because you have long hair." I think that is where you are getting the most mixed up here. That would indeed be discrimination, but that the simple fact is they don't do stuff like that. They would say something like, "You aren't quite what you are looking for, have a nice day." Which you can brood over and think that it was over your hair (P.S. long hair doesn't make you androgynous), it doesn't mean it was and if you sue the company will win and probably sue you back and win.

Besides if you ever did work for a company that said "We won't hire someone because of long hair" you should probably quit. They won't be lasting much longer, and if you quit you have a cool story to tell your next employer.

Companies don't say we're not hiring you because you're black. You have to prove discrimination in discrimination cases.

I wasn't saying being long hair= androgynous, but I was making an example of discrimination on appearance. I was too lazy to quote Ravic for my point so that was my bad honestly so I wont hold it against you when it was my fault. The problem with discrimination is that the term is vague and discrimination really applies to everything when it comes to someone having any sort of bias. As I said you'd have to be really desperate for money to not just go fuck it and start finding another job to be filing a law suit for long hair, but saying you can't do it is just silly. You're right I would probably quit working for a place for asinine appearance policy. Being a male with short hair only reflect a professional appearance, but their personality could be complete crap versus someone with long hair that has a positive guns ho personality. I guess you can sum it up to looking professional doesn't equal to actually being a professional.

Edit: Actually it's not even having to prove discrimination. It's whose more credible and believable, but proving discrimination is pretty damn credible imo.
 
Last edited:
You can not comprehend your own writing maybe because you have poor skills with english in general, or I was right you are not as smart as I thought you were.

LOL You aren't calling me on shit. So impressive how you say the same shit over and over again when I've proved you wrong time and again though. And for the record, I couldn't give a shit what you think. So if it'll make your dick feel big to think you're right, you just go ahead junior. I'll just go back to ignoring your idiocy.
 
Being a male with short hair only reflect a professional appearance, but their personality could be complete crap versus someone with long hair that has a positive guns ho personality. I guess you can sum it up to looking professional doesn't equal to actually being a professional.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. The professional appearance is what the company wants, and if you don't fit the bill the company doesn't hire you. Just like they wouldn't hire a dropout if they needed someone with a PhD. Like i said, you play by their rules. Most people i know with short hair always act like they have a stick up their ass to me. I love people with long hair, and i personally have long hair, but even i know that if i tried to file discrimination based on my hair it would be a lost cause.
 
LOL You aren't calling me on shit. So impressive how you say the same shit over and over again when I've proved you wrong time and again though. And for the record, I couldn't give a shit what you think. So if it'll make your dick feel big to think you're right, you just go ahead junior. I'll just go back to ignoring your idiocy.

You haven't proved shit you idiot. You think you did because you don't want to look like a hypocrite. You're whooshing on my point because you clearly are an idiot. You put on the face of a feminist when someone says shit "Degrading" to women. You put on the face of equality when it comes to race. You try to act so politically correct when you're not.

You are a hypocrite. No you're not just a hypocrite you're the type of person I can't stand. You are one of those people that get offended over every little simple fucking thing. Yet when someone puts the spotlight on you for showing your true colors, well guess what, that makes you a hypocrite. Start admitting to what you are.

Hypocrite

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

You are a hypocrite.
 
Dude, it's hair length. When they start making separate bathrooms for people with long hair and making them sit in the back of the shuttle from the parking lot, then you can fight the good fight. Until then, you need to realize the real world isn't like high school. You can't raise a stink over every little thing because unless it's something that is actually important, no one cares.



Once again, there's no court in the world that would hear the case, and most definitely no company that would even think to settle. You would be thrown out of the courthouse, then counter sued for court costs and for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Claim discrimination all you want, but all you've got is the definition from a dictionary. In the real world, you would have to make the most desperate stretch to get it to play in court, which it wouldn't. Because honesty, by your standard, the high school dropout could sue because the PhD was chosen instead of him.
Actually, the bolded part is not true.

From personal experience, the US is a very hush-hush country. 2 year-old kids are not allowed to run around naked on the beach since its inappropriate, children are not allowed to sleep in their parent's room, etc. While yes, i know the reasons why, it is very different from a lot of other places in the world.

There's a rather popular case going on in Sweden right now. A bunch of women sued some bathhouses and beach owners, because they did not allow women to sunbath topless. Personally, I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed, but I'm a rather open person. Anyway. Their argument was the following: "If men can sunbath topless, so should women. If women are forced to sunbath with tops, so should men" which I think is a very reasonable argument. If they're not ashamed of their breasts, why not. Its not a super-private area like your genitals. And if its supposed to be equal rights, then equal rights should apply to everything.

One case in particular annoys me. Who gets the right to the children in a divorce? A large majority of the time, the woman gets the better deal. Because naturally, the mother is more fit of taking care of the children, because she's a woman. And seriously, what bullshit is that? You know why that's the case? Because its usually women working with those kind of cases, and hence they side with the woman. Women complain a lot about how superior and better men have it. But they completely ignore the cases where they have the upper hand, and think that's completely OK.

However, equal rights should not be mistaken for everything being completely equal. For example, men are better at physical activities due to the way we're built. That's the way it is. Men will get better results at physical sports, as men are stronger and faster and more physical. That can't be ignored. In the same way, women will be better at nurturing and taking care of people, as that's also the way they're built. that's nothing we as humans can prevent, nature built us that way. The sooner people realize that, the better. Which is also one of the reasons women tend to get the upper hand when it comes to taking care of children.

However, I loathe how women get chosen over men for top-positions in companies "just because it needs to be equal, and more women have to be hired". that means not accepting a man who might be more suitable and better qualified for the job, in favor of a woman. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for equality, but everything shouldn't be 50/50. The reason more men get top positions in companies, is because quite often, it requires pretty much giving up your family and social life, which women are less likely to do. So less women tend to go that route. It haven't got as much to do with men being preferred for the positions, and more to do with how men and women work. they are vastly different, no matter how much women want to admit it. They are in no way less intelligent, they're just different in the way they work.

Personally, I think there should be no one person leading a country. It should be one man and one woman, as they complement each other nicely. They're like Ying and Yang. The same goes for top positions in companies.

In conclusion; the reason men have a better salary, is because men built up the business world. It is built in a way that it works excellent for men. The best way to make women more interested in getting top positions, is to make it easier for top position holders. Make them share the burden by employing more, so that they don't have to give up their entire life for it. However, this will also mean companies don't make as much money, which is their number 1 priority. So it is unlikely. Simply hiring more women "just because", or raising their salary "just because" won't make the world any more equal. It'll just be like putting the dust under the carpet, you simply cover up the problem and make your mother more happy. Doesn't solve anything.
 
First: Romper, stop the bizarre fixation on putting words in Zyn's mouth. Just because your reading comprehension fails doesn't mean that she said all long-haired people look like the Unabomber. It can possibly be inferred from context, but to do so would be incorrect.

Second: Affirmative Action has NOTHING to do with leveling the playing field. It's about tilting it in a particular direction, namely towards minorities. Affirmative Action means that if two equally qualified individuals apply for the same job, in areas that have AA laws, you have to take the minority applicant. Which is complete and total bullshit, but that's what you get when you whine loud & long enough.

Third: What's wrong with hitting women? Seriously. If you're so completely and utterly divorced from reality that you're willing (as an average woman) to take a swing at me (a significantly above-average man) then you can expect to get dealt with much the same way as I would deal with a man of your equivalent threat level. Which is probably to laugh my ass off at you, admittedly, but if I think you're genuinely trying to hurt me and may eventually get lucky and manage it, I'll drop you. I've done it before. Being a woman doesn't give you a free pass for physical violence.

Fourth: Equal rights aren't. Remember what I just said about hitting women? That's a not uncommon situation in "domestic abuse" cases. She hits him, he hits back, she calls the cops, he goes to jail. It's FAR from equal.
 
As far as Affirmative action is concerned, no I don't believe the less qualified person should get the job based on them being a minority.

But if it's a tie, fuck them (the non-minority person since I am a minority outside of my home country).


I don't hit women out of proxy, but at the same time that doesn't mean I'm simply going to stand there and let you beat on me.


My old boss got rejected for 'not meeting the requirements' of a position as a night cleaner. While being the boss of a corporation involved with cleaning the entire town where said company was based. At least say the applicant is overqualified...
 
Last edited:
Third: What's wrong with hitting women? Seriously. If you're so completely and utterly divorced from reality that you're willing (as an average woman) to take a swing at me (a significantly above-average man) then you can expect to get dealt with much the same way as I would deal with a man of your equivalent threat level. Which is probably to laugh my ass off at you, admittedly, but if I think you're genuinely trying to hurt me and may eventually get lucky and manage it, I'll drop you. I've done it before. Being a woman doesn't give you a free pass for physical violence.

Fourth: Equal rights aren't. Remember what I just said about hitting women? That's a not uncommon situation in "domestic abuse" cases. She hits him, he hits back, she calls the cops, he goes to jail. It's FAR from equal.


I agree.. for the most part.. I agree. I have stood by that exact arguement for many years, being female or not, if I blast some guy in the face intent on harming him, I should in the least expect a good back hand, (a swift back hand from a very pissed average guy would come close to the strength of my punch). I stand by that, and I stand by anyone who shares that same opinion.




Unfortunate truth is .. your "Fourth" our Justice systems are ass backwards, we all know it, but what.. "fight the system" w/e... just be as fucking logical as you can ppl and life.. will still throw you shit, but shit you can cope with.
 
Thinking discrimination only applies to gender and race is discrimination. Seriously dictionary.com is just a tab away. You don't even have to do it based on appearance, but if you wanted to you could file suit for discrimination based on appearance.

Dictionary entries are cute but they only offer definitions, not how terms are applied within a certain context. Yes an employer who takes your appearance into account is discriminating you from other applicants. But according to your definition, I could say that hiring the civil engineer with a Phd as opposed to the high school drop out is discriminating against their level of education. There is a huge difference between the meaning offered by dictionary.com and how the word is applied within legal parameters.

You have discrimination confused with differentiation. An employer may want to hire you based on merit, but if you are unwilling to abide by the company's rules then it not only demonstrates that you will be an uncooperative employee, but that perhaps you may not want the job - so just be on your merry way then. Unlike the other forms of discrimination, it is well within the realm of reason for an employer to ask you to cut your hair, and you at least have the choice of complying or leaving. You can't ask someone to change their ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, disability or to abort their baby for a job.

Why is it always the white, heterosexual males between the ages of 18-32 that make such ludicrous comparisons? I find it rich.
 
First: Romper, stop the bizarre fixation on putting words in Zyn's mouth. Just because your reading comprehension fails doesn't mean that she said all long-haired people look like the Unabomber. It can possibly be inferred from context, but to do so would be incorrect.

Second: Affirmative Action has NOTHING to do with leveling the playing field. It's about tilting it in a particular direction, namely towards minorities. Affirmative Action means that if two equally qualified individuals apply for the same job, in areas that have AA laws, you have to take the minority applicant. Which is complete and total bullshit, but that's what you get when you whine loud & long enough.

Third: What's wrong with hitting women? Seriously. If you're so completely and utterly divorced from reality that you're willing (as an average woman) to take a swing at me (a significantly above-average man) then you can expect to get dealt with much the same way as I would deal with a man of your equivalent threat level. Which is probably to laugh my ass off at you, admittedly, but if I think you're genuinely trying to hurt me and may eventually get lucky and manage it, I'll drop you. I've done it before. Being a woman doesn't give you a free pass for physical violence.

Fourth: Equal rights aren't. Remember what I just said about hitting women? That's a not uncommon situation in "domestic abuse" cases. She hits him, he hits back, she calls the cops, he goes to jail. It's FAR from equal.

No my comprehension does not fail. However in the past Zyndara has proved she fails when it comes to comprehension. I suggest you read: http://www.qcdn.org/ffxi/showpost.php?p=747889&postcount=1 (it's easier to read my quotes than digging for them) and http://www.qcdn.org/ffxi/showpost.php?p=747937&postcount=7. She clearly shows she has problems with reading comprehension just as much as Jyako. If you fail to see that you on a plural basis is a generalization in itself; I suggest that you go back to college and take every English course that teaches any form of that teaches the definitions of words as well as their word usage. People are demonstrating that reading comprehension is obviously astoundingly lower than it should be. When you (plural) use you in the plural you instantly start generalizing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=you&x=0&y=0

Dictionary.com said:
You 2.one; anyone; people in general: a tiny animal you can't even see.

I bold "anyone; people in general" as Zyndara even admitted to using the plural you.

Your "point" 2: http://www.answers.com/topic/affirmative-action?cat=biz-fin

answers.com said:
Affirmative action refers to concrete steps that are taken not only to eliminate discrimination—whether in employment, education, or contracting—but also to attempt to redress the effects of past discrimination. The underlying motive for affirmative action is the Constitutional principle of equal opportunity, which holds that all persons have the right to equal access to self-development. In other words, persons with equal abilities should have equal opportunities.

That sounds awfully like trying to even the playing field to make everything equal. You are right that AA says to take the minority over the non-minority if both are applying to the same job even if the non-minority shows a slight edge in qualification which IS discrimination. As I said it's ok because it's trying to right a past wrong which is a load. AA is an ass backwards double standard.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discrimination&x=0&y=0

Dictionary.com said:
Discrimination: 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Third point I agree with if they come at you first equal force back. If she slaps you you have every right to slap back.

Fourth yes our law system is ass backwards and prejudicial, but still remains to be one of the better systems in the world. You have grounds for appeal almost immediately as people already decided your fate right away if the wife is heard first in some in some jurors minds. That is probably the only flaw of jury trials. In a bench the judge is suppose to be neutral and un-bias until the case is heard in full. Harder to appeal if the wife/girl friend wins on a bench trial.
 
Dictionary entries are cute but they only offer definitions, not how terms are applied within a certain context. Yes an employer who takes your appearance into account is discriminating you from other applicants. But according to your definition, I could say that hiring the civil engineer with a Phd as opposed to the high school drop out is discriminating against their level of education. There is a huge difference between the meaning offered by dictionary.com and how the word is applied within legal parameters.

You have discrimination confused with differentiation. An employer may want to hire you based on merit, but if you are unwilling to abide by the company's rules then it not only demonstrates that you will be an uncooperative employee, but that perhaps you may not want the job - so just be on your merry way then. Unlike the other forms of discrimination, it is well within the realm of reason for an employer to ask you to cut your hair, and you at least have the choice of complying or leaving. You can't ask someone to change their ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, disability or to abort their baby for a job.

Why is it always the white, heterosexual males between the ages of 18-32 that make such ludicrous comparisons? I find it rich.

/sigh

I use definitions because that is the word's meaning. AA is suppose to end discrimination and make an equal level playing field for everyone.

Also discrimination is making a differentiation. They're fucking synonymous. Jesus people really need to start learning to use words properly.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/discrimination#sharethis
Roget's New Millennium Thesaurus said:
Main Entry: discrimination
Part of Speech: noun 2
Definition: particularity
Synonyms: acumen, acuteness, astucity, astuteness, clearness, decision, difference, differentiation, discernment, distinction, judgment, penetration, perception, percipience, perspicacity, preference, refinement, sagacity, sense, separation, shrewdness, subtlety, taste, understanding

When you can't realize that words are synonymous or use words properly; I stop taking you seriously.
 
Oh yes "a definition is a word's meaning" - a gold star for you. Another astounding example of synonyms at work, that thesaurus is serving you well.

You obviously have no comprehension of what Affirmative Action entails. You aren't aware that although synonyms have similar definitions, they aren't exactly completely interchangeable. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between "discrimination" as a common noun and "discrimination" as a legal term, then there is no hope for you. Furthermore if you use your little dictionary to look up both "discrimination" and "differentiation" you would discover that (gasp) they are not in fact the same word.

Oh and I don't need a spiel on proper word usage by some retarded kid with an inferiority complex, who thinks he can supplement his lack of intelligence by googling words and concepts well beyond his reach. The adults are talking here.
 
When you can't get a job for over a year, when you're not able to make a living because of it, yes, it's a big fucking problem.

That sounds like a personal problem to me, but since I'm such a humanitarian, I'll solve your problem in 3 words. Ready? Cut. Your. Hair. And all was right in the world (sun breaks through the clouds, birds chirp, etc.).

As to the discrimination. I'll explain the reason you could never get that to fly in court. The simple reason is that if they don't want you to have long hair, they will tell you in the interview, assuming you qualify for the job. And if they don't hire you because you don't agree, there's nothing you can do about it. Why, you may ask? Because you cutting your hair is a condition of getting the position. The same principle applies to having to work weekends or long commutes to work. It's a part of the job.

Hell, when I started my job, I had to drive an hour to and from the hospital I worked at, every day. (That's 2 extra hours for those of you who aren't math majors.) And I had to be available to work on any day of the week. If I didn't want to, my choices were suck it up or look somewhere else for a job. I couldn't sue them for discriminating against me for living farther away than other employees, or for wanting to have weekends off. It was a condition of getting the job.

So if they want you to cut your hair before hiring you and you don't want to, go file a 3T form then break out the classifieds again.
 
There's a difference between saying "If you want to look like the Unabomber" and "All long-haired men look like the Unabomber". You can dress it up, and play Clinton-esque arguments over the definition of the word "is", but the fact of the matter is that you're (omg look it's a specific you! TWICE EVEN!) arguing a bad position. What Zyn said, in effect, was this: "If you go into a potential employer's office looking unkempt and undisciplined, don't expect them to hire you."

As for Affirmative Action... It is impossible to end discrimination by simply changing the groups you discriminate against.

As for the root of this whole argument.... Yes it's silly. There's no real reason why a man can't have long hair, as long as it's well-kept and well-groomed, and not look professional. I myself had long hair (before I started to lose it) and kept it in good shape, etc etc. But employers certainly have the right to impose whatever dress code they find conducive to a professional environment, and a lawsuit on a CIVIL RIGHTS violation is doomed to failure. Perhaps if long hair were a part of your religion, you might be able to make a poor case of it; as it is, your chances are somewhere between none and finding a jury stupid enough to give you money for spilling coffee on your lap.
 
I'm going to ignore the seven pages of Romper/Zyn/Unabomber and go to the OP directly.

Excalibur said:
Ever since those dizzy bitches tried to pass that ERA in the 70's and started whining about "equal rights"
Believe it or not, it was a bit different in the 1970's. If you were a woman and wanted to work, it was okay. Oh, wait, you don't want to be a secretary, teacher, nurse, stylist, etc? You want to be an engineer? Yeah, good luck with that lady. My mother graduated from (public) high school in the 70's and it was expected that the girls would wear skirts to school. Even in the winter. I'm not sure if it was strictly enforced, but it wasn't the expected jeans and t-shirt of today.

Excalibur said:
If a girl can have long hair in school, so can a guy. If a girl can have piercings, so can a guy. If a girl can wear a skirt, so can a guy. And I'm not just talking in the context of school here either. I think the woman should sometimes pay for MY meal when we go out, SHE should hold the door open for ME.
I fully agree that in public schools and other public places similar hair and dress is perfectly fine. Piercings (aside from the ears) tend to get looked down on no matter the gender though. While I believe people should simply be polite and hold doors for whoever is behind them, I hate it when I'm out with a guy and they rush forward to get the door. It's the same with paying for meals, in most cases I just prefer to go Dutch (split it 50/50). (In my case, its not feminist outrage, I just don't see why one person should have to foot all the bills.) Hell, if you go out with a girl and she automatically assumes you're paying for every thing and doesn't even bring a bit of money, I wouldn't hesitate to call her a dumb c*nt. (But, uh, the guy probably shouldn't say that to her face. Also, language filter automatically changed that word to ****, lame.)

Excalibur said:
Men should also have the same right to hit woman as woman do to hit men. When you hear about a woman slapping a man it's always because "oh he must have deserved it", but when a guy slaps a girl suddenly he's a monster and an evil terrible person and the police must be called! And I don't want to hear any bullshit about how women are more fragile(unless you really wan't to say you're the weaker sex), I don't buy that for a second.

First, no one should be slapping anyone, male or female, unprovoked.
Second, if you run across a bitch that does, I can guaranfuckingtee that a full-force slap from the average woman won't hurt as much as a full-force slap from the average man. You can try and argue as much as you want, but we're simply not equal physically. It sucks, but that's just how it is. Grabbing her wrist or arm would probably be a better idea. Preferably only her wrist, while still standing a bit away. If you look calm and nonthreatening, people are probably less likely to yell for the cops to come and arrest you. Yeah, yeah, it's not really fair that they'd assume the male is the bad guy in the first place, but how many assault cases do you hear of where the woman attacks the man?

Excalibur said:
Same goes for men though, men should be able to cook and clean and raise the kids. Personally I cook and clean for my household all the fuckin time, and no one gives me shit for doing "womens work". If people want equal rights, it's gotta be equal across the board, you can't have the best of both worlds. Either accept this or learn your place.
Damn straight. The cooking and cleaning is actually rather common now though. There's many male chefs, look at Emeril Lagasse. If you watch a lot of remodeling/redecorating shows you'll also see plenty of men, and not just ones there to work on the plumbing or electricity.

Personally, I don't want complete 50/50 equality. I have no desire to be drafted, or asked to help the neighbors carry their furniture in, or whatever (ok its late and i cant think of decent examples) and all those smaller details people don't really think of and some women take for granted. I'd be happy with 45/55.

(typing all this at like 5:30 in the morning, so expect errors and unclear phrases or something)
 
Oh yes "a definition is a word's meaning" - a gold star for you. Another astounding example of synonyms at work, that thesaurus is serving you well.

You obviously have no comprehension of what Affirmative Action entails. You aren't aware that although synonyms have similar definitions, they aren't exactly completely interchangeable. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between "discrimination" as a common noun and "discrimination" as a legal term, then there is no hope for you. Furthermore if you use your little dictionary to look up both "discrimination" and "differentiation" you would discover that (gasp) they are not in fact the same word.

Oh and I don't need a spiel on proper word usage by some retarded kid with an inferiority complex, who thinks he can supplement his lack of intelligence by googling words and concepts well beyond his reach. The adults are talking here.

Facepalm.jpg



You sir have absolutely no fucking clue do you? None. Affirmative action was implemented to end discrimination to any gender, any race, any religious background, sexual orientation and any disability. However it is naive to think that appearance is not included in there. Is discrimination based on race not an appearance issue? Take away skin color what is the difference between a black and a white person if they're both clear? Hell there have been cases where a person of Indian, not a Native American, people were denied jobs because people thought they were middle eastern. Even to an extent handicap discrimination is appearance. For all we know a person with an amputated arm could do the job as well if not better than a person with 2 arms. Perseverance does go quite a long way.

Go read the dictionary learn the meaning of words then go get a god damn clue if you really think affirmative action creates equality based on MERIT. However being the double standard AA is it says you have to take the minority or woman to right a past wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger see how discrimination works for both ways? See I do my home work unlike you. Of course this will probably woosh over your head

Also I don't use google you fucking idiot I went right to my sources because I know URLs. Now keep sucking on the bull shit that people feed you because you're just oh so fucking stupid.
 
That sounds like a personal problem to me, but since I'm such a humanitarian, I'll solve your problem in 3 words. Ready? Cut. Your. Hair. And all was right in the world (sun breaks through the clouds, birds chirp, etc.).

I've got three words for you too. Suck. A. Dick. I shouldn't fucking have to cut my hair, that's the whole point of this thread you idiot. If girls can wear their hair long, so can men.

Personally, I don't want complete 50/50 equality. I have no desire to be drafted, or asked to help the neighbors carry their furniture in, or whatever (ok its late and i cant think of decent examples) and all those smaller details people don't really think of and some women take for granted. I'd be happy with 45/55.

(typing all this at like 5:30 in the morning, so expect errors and unclear phrases or something)

First of all, thank you for staying on track. Second, my whole point is that it needs to be 50/50, not 45/55. If you want the same pay as men and the same perks, then you should be willing to accept the fact that you might get drafted (if we still did that). You should be asked to move furniture. I agree that women aren't as physically capable as men, but that's just something you're going to have to deal with if you want equality in the work place. What I'm saying is you shouldn't have equality in the business world if you can't handle equality in the rest of the world, all those smaller details matter.
 
Last edited:
I've got three words for you too. Suck. A. Dick. I shouldn't fucking have to cut my hair, that's the whole point of this thread you idiot. If girls can wear their hair long, so can men.

My oh my. Temper temper, you'll burst a blood vessel. Complain all you want, but the fact is that while its true you shouldn't have to cut your hair to get a job, no employer has to hire you if they want you to cut your hair and you refuse. Cry, bitch, and moan all you want but if getting your ears lowered is a part of the job, well, I think I've made your options abundantly clear by now. And also, that's "idiot with a job," thank you very much.

And like I've said before, it's not discrimination in anything but the most literal sense of the word. And if you put your higher brain functions to work here you'd realize that in the most literal sense of the word, the entire interview process is discrimination. In this case, discriminating the more suitable candidates from the lesser ones.

If you want another example, in the hopes you'll put 2 and 2 together, think if you went to an interview and you were told you could have the job, but you had to move to another state. You don't want to move, so you don't get the job. Are you going to sue them for discrimination based on residence now? Think about that one real hard now.

(And before anyone asks, the second part was for Romper. Just to lazy to quote. :thumbsup:)
 
Back
Top