/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14846823]

Why is it generally illegal to not be allowed to have a "no hiring women" policy? Scientifically speaking here me out please.

A person shouldn't be denied access to a public service like a restaurant or a store because of their race, sex, sexuality, or gender bending.

However, given
>companies are generally setup to maximise a profit and thus want competent humans to bring in results, and thusly the more competent a person is, generally speaking the more results he brings in
>females in general, are cognitively inferior to males, in general
Given these two things, how does it make any financial sense for a company to hire a women?

[Anonymous No.14846827]

>>14846823
Judges and the police that enforcers their orders

[Anonymous No.14846875]

>>14846823
>hire a women
>a women
It's always funny to see competence brought up in the same sentence as someone's common ESL fuckup.

[Anonymous No.14846888]

>>14846823
PR

That and there are plenty of women in the nth percentile, if not as many. If you can meet the qualifications and do the work, you get the job, simple as.

[Anonymous No.14846891]

>>14846823
Our corporate overlords decided to force women into the labour market to halve our salaries while getting double the productivity.

Everything else is stockholm syndrome cope by lower class peasants who thought it was by their choice in any way shape or form.

[Anonymous No.14846909]

>>14846891
Then the peasants are replaced by immigrants willing to take a shit pay. The rest of the cannonfodder slowly acquiesces to the same fate.

[Anonymous No.14846928]

Most jobs are for dull midwit NPCs and require only a minimum of cognitive skills. It is then profitable for companies to hire women because women are very obedient NPCs.

The only place where a "no women" policy could make sense is in research. Pic related, NASA.

[Anonymous No.14846955]

>>14846891
>>14846909
Evidence that there is actually intelligence to be found on /sci/

[Anonymous No.14846956]

>>14846823
Why do you think women used to (and still do, to some extent) earn less?
A less productive individual will be paid less for his/her work.
So long as the pay is proportional to the value the worker adds, there is no problem in hiring women or, more generally, in hiring people who aren't nearly as competent as you would hope to.
That has been changing lately since women have been complaining about the "gender pay gap", as they call it.
If history is any indication, this won't end well. It is similar to the heyday of unionism. In the post-war period, labor unions became increasingly vociferous and asked for collective contracts that would guarantee the same wage both for the most skilled workers and for the least skilled ones. Basically this encouraged laziness since skilled workers saw no point in putting in the extra effort if there was no financial reward for it. This led to gross inefficiencies and ultimately there was an overhaul of the role played by trade unions in the Thatcher era. The welfare state was scaled down and collective bargaining was weakened. Competent workers went back to getting paid well, while incompetent workers were paid less or they were out of a job altogether.
We are currently experiencing another era of inefficient employment of the labor force. You can already see the consequences in the number of men who have decided to drop out of society altogether, or to put in the bare minimum of effort (The Economist ran an article about "quiet quitting" just recently). There simply aren't any meaningful financial rewards anymore now that women and minorities ask for the same pay as white men even when they do not contribute as much. So we will either see a conservative reaction to this tendencies or our societies will slowly crumble to dust over the weight of "equality" and "diversity".

[Anonymous No.14846963]

>>14846823
Technically it isn't however in order to do business with the omnipresent government a company needs to comply

[Anonymous No.14846965]

Imagine not having women at your workplace
Sounds a bit sussy tbqhfam

[Anonymous No.14846982]

>>14846956
>Why do you think women used to (and still do, to some extent) earn less?
They don't, according to most studies. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.14846991]

>>14846982
>according to most studies

[Anonymous No.14846994]

>>14846956
>Competent workers went back to getting paid well, while incompetent workers were paid less or they were out of a job altogether.
Horseshit lol, the end result of paying people like shit is that Thatcher butchered Britain's industry in a delusional push to turn the country into Singapore and now there are vast legions of auditors have nothing to audit and the bankers have no developments to finance. The UK has the lowest wages for professionals in the West and even the financial sector still doesn't measure up to Wallstreet.

You're trying to turn this into a gender issue when it's actually families vs. employers and childless politicians.

[Anonymous No.14846997]

>>14846991
Yeah, according to Google's study.

[Anonymous No.14847003]

>>14846823
>A person shouldn't be denied access to a public service like a restaurant or a store because of their race, sex, sexuality, or gender bending.
why not? this is a stupid breach of our liberties and it is very arbitrary. these so-called "immutable characteristics" are none of my concern. you are born with what you are born, and we will not pretend that difference does not exist. surely women in dating do not, the same should hold for the market. we should be able to discriminate on any basis whatsoever. if you believe discriminating against blacks or women (for example) is not beneficial, then go on and hire them. but do not force me to.

>females in general, are cognitively inferior to males, in general
im really not sure this is true. say it was, women are quite good in the client facing positions. if I was an employer, I would try to get most of the client facing positions filled by driven and positive women, and all of the other positions by driven men. but if you are in an industry that rarely has to interact with clients/public, then obviously hire men (and this is already the case).

[Anonymous No.14847006]

>>14846997
if you simply read the abstract and came here to claim "studies show X" then its not very convincing. you must at least read the study, the methodology, the results and its limitations. this also just one study, you should also read meta analyses, and get a grasp with most of the famous papers and literature in the subject. only then can you really make a claim like that. if you haven't, you and a person unacquainted with the study are no different.

[Anonymous No.14847033]

>>14847006
>You have to move numbers around until you make the wage gap appear to fit my narrative
Unlike you I've critically read the supposed "methodology" by femimist authors and they purposely avoid comparisons of compensation differences between employees with the same years of experience (which is not the same as their prefered metric of biological age), qualifications and performance metrics. They avoid it because women have a huge advantage here since companies offer higher wages to boost to attract women to boost their diversity ratings. This is what Google and other major companies have shown.

The reason the wage gap exists is because women have less experience due to often taking years off to raise children, there are other minor factors such as being more hesitant to hop between jobs or hesitancy to apply for posts without meeting the qualifications. It is fair to pay these women more and most sane people in society would agree to that.

However, by far the most overpaid people in society today are childless/single career women who have no value to society whatsover other than being a diversity token for more investment credits from Wallstreet. These women should be paid less while the women who raise children should be paid more/given special pensions. Families that live traditional lives should not be punished so that these leeches can force housewives into the labour market.

There is more to life than serving your corportate overlord who will abandon you the second you turn 65.

[Anonymous No.14847038]

>>14846823
Because we live in society and you must share!
But u cant ask/demand woman for anything, than you are incel

[Anonymous No.14847088]

>>14847033
They abandon women as soon as they find out about a pregnancy within the states. They're required to adhere to laws allowing a minimum of a 6 week period postpartum, and this keeps their position for them. They're not required to provide compensation during that period (which is arguably fair when one isn't using short-term disability benefits, they aren't working), so there's pressure to immediately come back. That's going to be difficult on a two-income household, plus a lot of time off is required during pregnancy for doctor's visits, more for birth, even more days for all of the infant to toddler doctor's visits. That sits poorly with employers, as time is money. I think a lot of couples that would have loved to have started a family when younger decide to end up putting it off until more financial security is acquired.

[Anonymous No.14847113]

>>14846994
Things weren't that bad before Brexit.
After 2016 there was a plunge in foreign investment and many firms relocated to Dublin or Frankfurt. Look it up.

[Anonymous No.14847122]

>>14847113
>Things weren't as bad back when we were Jews who could move money around and leech off of actual productive continentals

No fucking shit?

[Anonymous No.14847156]

>>14846823
>Given these two things, how does it make any financial sense for a company to hire a women?
In the US at least, there's the EEOC. Once you hit 50 employees they make you start submitting demographic data: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo-1-data-collection

[Anonymous No.14847195]

>>14846823
>A person shouldn't be denied access to a public service like a restaurant or a store because of their race, sex, sexuality, or gender bending.

They absolutely should though as restaurants and stores are privately owned. The ONLY thing they shouldn't be denied access to is truly publicy or government owned (as long as they are citizens)

[Anonymous No.14847447]

>>14847195
If they aren't paying taxes they should be denied access to that as well.

[Anonymous No.14848039]

bump

[Anonymous No.14848055]

whats up with incel posts on /sci/?
go back to
>>>/pol/
>>>/b/
>>>/r9k/

[Anonymous No.14848063]

>>14848055
>has no way to refute the fact that females are inferior to males
>resorts to schoolyard bully exclusion tactics
Typically roastie

[Anonymous No.14848068]

Civil rights in the USA apply not only to the government, but also private entities. If you do not restrict private entities (which have far greater reach and presence in the lives of everyday Americans) from enacting the same sort of discrimination, what really changes when you pass a civil rights law?

[Anonymous No.14848082]

>>14848068
But if restaurants are forced to allow black customers into their building, that puts the company and its customers at risk of violent attacks. Obviouisly not all blacks are violent negros, but enough are that it is a risk.

Similarly forcing companies to hire females put them at risk of not optimal business, thus reducing their profits.

Is civil rights really more important than the safety of the public and the autonomy of private business owners?

[Anonymous No.14848120]

>>14848082
Yeah, pretty much.

[Anonymous No.14848482]

>>14846891
>halve our salaries while getting double the productivity.
lolno
it just reduced average wages while increasing tax revenue, there's no massive evidence of increased productivity

[Anonymous No.14848517]

>>14846823
Generally, most jobs don't require as high level intellect as you'd like to believe your job requires. most office type jobs are straightforward and don't require too much problem solving skills- and when they do, there is usually a man in the office to bounce ideas off of, so they don't struggle too much.

The higher the requirement for strength and competency, the fewer women you see in that field. The fields with the fewest women are jobs like pipefitters, construction workers, stuff like that that needs honest to goodness strength. But mixed in there are aircraft pilots, engineers, production managers, etc. - shit that needs absolute competency to do. Those are all highly skewed to men.

But in the long run, for maybe 80%~ of jobs, both men and women are similarly capable of handling them.

[Anonymous No.14848934]

>>14846823
>Why is it generally illegal to not be allowed to have a "no hiring women" policy?
>Given these two things, how does it make any financial sense for a company to hire a women?
you answered your own question

[Anonymous No.14849018]

>>14846823
>A person shouldn't be denied access to a public service like a restaurant or a store because of their race, sex, sexuality, or gender bending.
you lost me. No one has an obligation to do business with you

[Anonymous No.14849149]

>>14848517
I will accept this answer

[Anonymous No.14849203]

>>14846875
If he's an ESL, at least he can proficiently and comprehensibly speak a language other than his first. Can you say the same, retarded faggot?

[Anonymous No.14849222]

>>14849203
>defending google translate posters
Oh, the hills we will die on.

[Anonymous No.14849407]

>>14849018
This, what the fuck. Since when are we bringing slavery back after we fought for two centuries to eradicate it?

If someone doesn't want to work for someone else who offends them the state should not be forcing anyone to do labour against their will.

[Anonymous No.14849409]

>>14846823
judeo-masonic feminist laws

[Anonymous No.14849475]

>>14846823
THATS RACIST

[Sage No.14849621]

The only reason you say this is because you think women shouldn’t be hired, not because you have any real legal, moral, or practical argument against civil rights.

[Anonymous No.14850855]

>>14849621
I think the non smart ones shouldnt be hired on the mere basis that they are women

[Anonymous No.14850876]

>>14846956
I mean, most of those answers were technically correct except for the third one.