American businesses support same-sex marriage

[Tsar]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/29/pf/busi ... -marriage/

This also indicates an even greater decline of the business environment and opportunities for men in the West.

The people who are getting the jobs are usually: women, gays, and not men. People who encompass more than one of the special interest groups have an even greater chance of getting employment. Has anyone else noticed how difficult it is for men to gain employment in places like America? I noticed that many businesses in America have special events reserved only for women and gays to come and meet with recruiters. They do not have any such events for men to visit recruiters.

It's not surprising that America is declining. It seems that if men want employment then it is necessary to go abroad.

[publicduende]

I don't see where the problem is. If these corporates want to openly advocate gay rights, it's their choice. They HR, PR and legal department are probably fully aware they will have to face whatever consequences of such a public announcement, whether positive or negative. Chick-Fil-A took the polar opposite side and received a very predictable amount of criticism.

At the end of the day, an employee's sexual orientation shouldn't really matter, as long as they can do the job. The reason why more and more women, gays and foreigners are getting jobs in the US is because the wall of sexist/racist discrimination is being slowly and relentlessly broken down, and if (and I mean if) they turn out to be more prepared and motivated than their white Caucasian counterparts, it's only fair that they get the job instead. Of course, in a society in the middle of a labour crisis of epic proportion, the pool of good job is quite small and the effect of competition can be felt more strongly and dramatically. What do you want to do? Restore racial segregation? Put all the well-educated, keen and motivated women back in the kitchen and throw away the key?

[Tsar]

What I am saying is that the system is stacked against in men in the West. Men are traditionally providers so the jobs should go to men before women. The problem is the business recruiting events I keep seeing that are reserved only for women and gays but nothing for men. That highlights the problem that companies are excluding men and declining to offer work to men because they are men. Men won't have anyone to provide for them. Women will be able to find a man to provide for them if they don't have work. Women's place should be in the homes first and if men have employment then they can get second choice for the remaining jobs. Right now the hiring order is "men last" and that is why employment among men in the Global recession has been the worst.

In many industries women were given the positions of clerks, low level office work, jobs to support men, and help in the general operational duties. In the industries with all those good jobs more have been going to women displacing men and those jobs won't be going back to men.

[abcdavid01]

Bah. Businesses are just doing it because it's popular.

[WiseTruth]

Add the Boy Scouts to that list. They're about to cave in to PC pressure. We should hear reports of boy rape/molestation/seduction in the future.

[abcdavid01]

I believe in meritocracy, but that is by far not the system we have.

[publicduende]

What I am saying is that the system is stacked against in men in the West. Men are traditionally providers so the jobs should go to men before women. The problem is the business recruiting events I keep seeing that are reserved only for women and gays but nothing for men. That highlights the problem that companies are excluding men and declining to offer work to men because they are men. Men won't have anyone to provide for them. Women will be able to find a man to provide for them if they don't have work. Women's place should be in the homes first and if men have employment then they can get second choice for the remaining jobs. Right now the hiring order is "men last" and that is why employment among men in the Global recession has been the worst.

In many industries women were given the positions of clerks, low level office work, jobs to support men, and help in the general operational duties. In the industries with all those good jobs more have been going to women displacing men and those jobs won't be going back to men.

That's not how many company CEOs, managers and HR staff think. True, lots of ancillary jobs go to women, but if a woman is talented, went to the same college and got the same Masters, MBAs and PhDs as their male counterparts, why on Earth would one want to relegate them to a menial job?

What exactly gives you ground to think that companies operate on a "straigh white men last" policy? I have been working for more than 10 different companies in my career and have always seen far more men than women in positions of responsibility and power. In investment banking the only women are found virtually in product control (similar to accountancy), sales, operations, and IT support. A few traders are actually women, and let me tell you - heaven bless them! - because they are high earners, know how to take care of themselves and they look like the hottest creatures ever to grace a Bloomberg terminal!

I call BS on the gay/ethnical minority recruitment fairs. They are usually organised by agencies either on demand or in the hope that they might capture a niche audience better than on the larger, generalist events. When I was studying in London I once came across a recruitment fair meant for Japanese nationals. I could speak a little Japanese and thought it would be cool to check it out. I was stopped at reception and politely told I couldn't get in, because I wasn't Japanese. What should have I done then, scream racism and cry out for the next yellow invasion?

The real reason why men aren't getting jobs is the same reason why women and trannies aren't getting jobs. There aren't any! We're in the middle of a global crisis and good, stable jobs that don't require highly numerate or specialised skills are hard to find anyway. Of course with lots of women in the job market, often with the same if not a better CV than their male counterparts, and a shrinking pool, it's going to get harder for a man to get the job he deserves (or he thinks he deserves)!

It would be nice if the government could promise at least one good job for every household. Of course in 90% cases the job would go to the chosen "provider", the man. But assume a couple has a man who is a factory worker and a woman who is a cardiologist. Man loses his job, as it's tragically the case in manufacturing America. Would you want the woman to give up her job in a hospital so that the job may acquire the right to find another factory job more easily? Wouldn't that be outright insane? And anyway, these are choices made by the couple. Neither you nor the government should stick their noses into this...

[publicduende]

I don't see where the problem is. If these corporates want to openly advocate gay rights, it's their choice. They HR, PR and legal department are probably fully aware they will have to face whatever consequences of such a public announcement, whether positive or negative. Chick-Fil-A took the polar opposite side and received a very predictable amount of criticism.

At the end of the day, an employee's sexual orientation shouldn't really matter, as long as they can do the job. The reason why more and more women, gays and foreigners are getting jobs in the US is because the wall of sexist/racist discrimination is being slowly and relentlessly broken down, and if (and I mean if) they turn out to be more prepared and motivated than their white Caucasian counterparts, it's only fair that they get the job instead. Of course, in a society in the middle of a labour crisis of epic proportion, the pool of good job is quite small and the effect of competition can be felt more strongly and dramatically. What do you want to do? Restore racial segregation? Put all the well-educated, keen and motivated women back in the kitchen and throw away the key?

Both legally and in practice, corporations are extensions of the regime and are simply carrying out the policies they are ordered to in order to destroy society. It is well known how terribly women and loser minorities such as blacks perform in most roles, but as corporations own the planet they can do as much damage as they like and still remain viable.

Where did I hear this before...hmm...
Man, give me some proofs and I will believe you. I don't know what else to add.

[abcdavid01]

The problem is that if you go down that road too far it gives into the worst aspects of Captialism. The alienation and consumerism and materialism. There are not families, only workers. Profit at all costs. It degrades the culture. As a staunch Capitalist myself I still think women should generally be discouraged from entering the workforce - at least in any large capacity. They should not be breadwinners, for example. I say this as someone with respect for Margret Thatcher. You can't run a society on exceptions though.

I'm a Capitalist in my mind and a Socialist in my heart. The key is reconciling the two. Perhaps "traditionalism" is the correct label.

[publicduende]

The problem is that if you go down that road too far it gives into the worst aspects of Captialism. The alienation and consumerism and materialism. There are not families, only workers. Profit at all costs. It degrades the culture. As a staunch Capitalist myself I still think women should generally be discouraged from entering the workforce - at least in any large capacity. They should not be breadwinners, for example. I say this as someone with respect for Margret Thatcher. You can't run a society on exceptions though.

I may find a good point in getting women to stay at home and be the best possible wives, mothers and run the house while the breadwinner man works to provide financial security. This was surely the case until not so long ago (the 60s) even in America. Then things started to change, and not just because women were encourage to develop their intellectual talents, get degrees and aspire to careers and professional achievements on a par with their male counterparts.

The main issue that started to change the physionomy of family anywhere in the world was inflation: the simple fact that, at some point, a single-salary household wasn't enough anymore to enjoy a nice house in the suburb, pay the odd medical bill, send the kids to good schools and colleges and save for the rainy days and the silver years.

If you really want to blame the prime mover of the women-in-the-workplace movement, blame the Fed and other economic agents that contributed to the living costs of a household to skyrocket, while median wages staid the same. It's widely know that when purchasing parity is accounted for, Americans earns the same as they did in the 70's. This despite all the fuzz about the service and information economy, technology displacing hard and stressful labour, etc.

Yes, women do want to learn and excel in the same areas men do. Yet, for those women - and I believe that's a massive figure! - who would rather stay at home and raise two or three all-round solid kids, than having to wake up at 6, take their car and drive to an office, right now they would need to marry a doctor, a lawyer, an entrepreneur to do that and not feel guilty of burning the payheck before the next one is ready.

[gsjackson]

Add the Boy Scouts to that list. They're about to cave in to PC pressure. We should hear reports of boy rape/molestation/seduction in the future.

Oh, it's not a future scenario -- it's very much a part of the Scouts' past, and a big part of the reason for keeping the poofs out. Back in the '50s my father prosecuted a troop leader who molested most of the boys under his charge.

[WiseTruth]

There is a strong correlation between (male) homosexuality and pedophilia. Faggotry is about a lack of standards and boundaries. It's no surprise that those in the forefront to lower the age of consent are male homosexuals, who would love nothing better than having their way with young boys.

[zacb]

To be honest, I think the whole "9-5 manufacturing economy" was just a dream. Dues to there not being any competition after world war II, America was able to be THE WORLD's manufacturer. But that did not hold up for long. When Ford figured it could keep creating cheap crap and not expect competition from Japan, it was in for a rude awakening. So to be honest, I think that the whole post wwII industrial boom was an anomaly, although it was helped by a decrease in taxes and a more hospitable business environment.

[Andrewww]

What I am saying is that the system is stacked against in men in the West. Men are traditionally providers so the jobs should go to men before women. The problem is the business recruiting events I keep seeing that are reserved only for women and gays but nothing for men. That highlights the problem that companies are excluding men and declining to offer work to men because they are men. Men won't have anyone to provide for them. Women will be able to find a man to provide for them if they don't have work. Women's place should be in the homes first and if men have employment then they can get second choice for the remaining jobs. Right now the hiring order is "men last" and that is why employment among men in the Global recession has been the worst.

In many industries women were given the positions of clerks, low level office work, jobs to support men, and help in the general operational duties. In the industries with all those good jobs more have been going to women displacing men and those jobs won't be going back to men.

That's not how many company CEOs, managers and HR staff think. True, lots of ancillary jobs go to women, but if a woman is talented, went to the same college and got the same Masters, MBAs and PhDs as their male counterparts, why on Earth would one want to relegate them to a menial job?

What exactly gives you ground to think that companies operate on a "straigh white men last" policy? I have been working for more than 10 different companies in my career and have always seen far more men than women in positions of responsibility and power. In investment banking the only women are found virtually in product control (similar to accountancy), sales, operations, and IT support. A few traders are actually women, and let me tell you - heaven bless them! - because they are high earners, know how to take care of themselves and they look like the hottest creatures ever to grace a Bloomberg terminal!

I call BS on the gay/ethnical minority recruitment fairs. They are usually organised by agencies either on demand or in the hope that they might capture a niche audience better than on the larger, generalist events. When I was studying in London I once came across a recruitment fair meant for Japanese nationals. I could speak a little Japanese and thought it would be cool to check it out. I was stopped at reception and politely told I couldn't get in, because I wasn't Japanese. What should have I done then, scream racism and cry out for the next yellow invasion?

The real reason why men aren't getting jobs is the same reason why women and trannies aren't getting jobs. There aren't any! We're in the middle of a global crisis and good, stable jobs that don't require highly numerate or specialised skills are hard to find anyway. Of course with lots of women in the job market, often with the same if not a better CV than their male counterparts, and a shrinking pool, it's going to get harder for a man to get the job he deserves (or he thinks he deserves)!

It would be nice if the government could promise at least one good job for every household. Of course in 90% cases the job would go to the chosen "provider", the man. But assume a couple has a man who is a factory worker and a woman who is a cardiologist. Man loses his job, as it's tragically the case in manufacturing America. Would you want the woman to give up her job in a hospital so that the job may acquire the right to find another factory job more easily? Wouldn't that be outright insane? And anyway, these are choices made by the couple. Neither you nor the government should stick their noses into this...

There's a reason why women are not into investment banking or trading. It's a high stress job that requires a lot of quick decision making and long hours. Women want the cozy jobs, the 9-5 where they put in maybe 3-4 hours of work daily and spend the rest in the bathroom, on facebook or chatting with their colleagues.

Feminists demand that employers change their work environments to accomodate women and investment banks are not going to do that anytime soon.

Recently I read an article about how the European Union is thinking of putting more women on the boards of directors by introducing some stupid law. If women are so capable why would they need government backing to become decision makers ?

[publicduende]

There's a reason why women are not into investment banking or trading. It's a high stress job that requires a lot of quick decision making and long hours. Women want the cozy jobs, the 9-5 where they put in maybe 3-4 hours of work daily and spend the rest in the bathroom or chatting with their colleagues.

I have seen more than enough in 15 years of profession and never saw a clear pattern that pointed at women being generally lazier and less productive than men. I would say it's just a big stereotype.

For what it's worth, I have seen lots of men on easy 9-5 office jobs taking any chance to slow down and generally slack off. The ladies have restroom breaks, we have coffee breaks, cigarette breaks, gym and footie breaks, and countless chit-chat that happens at least once every hour. Surely, if a woman has a family to attend - kids, tidying up, cooking dinner - she will tend to save some of her energies for her second job, that of a wife/mother/housewife. I see nothing wrong with that. In more structured societies like the Japanese, women who put too much effort and long hours into their jobs and are known to be married, are automatically frowned upon and considered bad examples of wives and mothers.

Feminist demand that employers change their work environments to accomodate women and investment banks are not going to do that anytime soon.

This is a trend that's been happening a lot in the larger companies. You will be surprised to know that investment banks and large financial institutions have been among the first and the quickest to implement policies and initiatives specific to women. I don't think has much to with feminism, though. More with the usual "global citizenship" initiatives that on one half pander to the gods of political correctness, on the other half try to improve the image of financial firms, pretty battered of late.

Recently I read an article about how the European Union is thinking of putting more women on the boards of directors by introdusing some stupid law. If women are so capable why would they need government backing to become decision makers ?

The current employment situation is stacked against men no doubt about that.

I read that piece of news, and actually wrote a post about that a few months ago. I am completely against it, this is a form of affirmative action that will only push forward mediocre leaders and hinder true competition for the best job. If women want to compete in the same job market, they will have to play fair. I frankly don't think that EU bill will pass at all.