If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Two Congress-critters think if the Secret Service hired more women, they could hire less hookers. Perhaps that should be rephrased   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 114
    More: Amusing, Carolyn Maloney, house oversight committee, United States House Committee on Homeland Security  
•       •       •

1470 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2012 at 9:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-23 11:40:16 PM
"I can't help but keep asking this question, where are the women? We probably need to diversify the Secret Service and have more minorities and more women," Maloney, a Democrat, said.

You know, if she had only mentioned women, I might think this was a solution proposed out of genuine concern over the "prostitute problem". But when the "and minorities" is thrown in, it sounds more like someone fishing for an excuse to beat the diversity drum.
 
2012-04-23 11:43:14 PM
"I've always said, er-ah...whethah working girl, er-ah, distant relative...or..er-ah...the cleaning woman....simply enter the room wearing nothing but er-ah...a towel and a raging HADD-ON!!!

Ted Kennedy-1977
 
2012-04-24 12:03:22 AM
How about getting them some hookers that aren't going to blackmail them? farking America, land of the prudes and home of the sexless.
 
2012-04-24 12:06:29 AM
So, the military needs less women to prevent the acting upon of sexual urges, but the Secret Service could use more women for the exact same reason? Got it.
 
2012-04-24 12:09:20 AM

ABQGOD: So, the military needs less women to prevent the acting upon of sexual urges, but the Secret Service could use more women for the exact same reason? Got it.


Maybe we could turn them all gay and they could get their pleasure in house.
 
2012-04-24 12:37:25 AM

ongbok: I want her to explain how having women on that detail would have stopped a bunch horny men from getting some strange in a foreign country.


It was a woman Secret Service agent that blew the whole thing open, sent the offenders home and rearranged the security detail with hours to spare.

Link
 
2012-04-24 12:39:09 AM

Corvus: So your work place is fine with guys hiring hookers for team? Your company has no problem with that?


Male employees get celebratory hookers, even when they work with women. It happens, even if we'd prefer to believe it doesn't.

Is this an epidemic that needs to be addressed? If these guys were disciplined, I don't see why it's such a huge deal.
 
2012-04-24 12:48:04 AM
Hey, it worked for Muammar Gadaffi:

s-ak.buzzfed.com
More

...or come to think of it, it didn't really work out so well for him, did it?
 
2012-04-24 12:48:56 AM

quatchi: More female SS agents?

[i293.photobucket.com image 596x329]

Why the fark not?


deliriumclemensdotnet.files.wordpress.com

/sorry first thing I thought of
 
2012-04-24 01:07:36 AM

ongbok: I want her to explain how having women on that detail would have stopped a bunch horny men from getting some strange in a foreign country.


Less, not none.

/fewer
 
2012-04-24 01:36:30 AM

Corvus: Gyrfalcon: Unless your implication was more that men wouldn't hire hookers because the women would rat them out; but I wouldn't do that, either. I just wouldn't cover for them if somebody asked me.

No some people just don't like to be offensive to others even if they are not going to "rat them out". Is not offending people you work with as a common curtsey a foreign concept to you?

The only reason you are not offensive to people is you are afraid they will "Rat you out"? You don't believe in being courteous to you fellow workers just to have a nice working environment? Maybe that's why you are unemployed.


How did this go from "men won't get hookers for the team" to a question of courtesy? What people do in their off time has nothing to do with me.
 
2012-04-24 01:50:54 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, we're talking about vagina gap here.
 
2012-04-24 03:25:32 AM

invictus2: [Ilsashewolfofthenazis/jpg]

/sorry first thing I thought of


I had to stab myself in the stomach with a fork to prevent myself from posting that. It was pretty much inevitable at some point, really.

Corvus: I know you won't this counts either. Because your the "expert" and can't admit he is wrong even though you have no idea what you are talk ...


You are a very silly and angry person, Corvus.

Seek help, man.

HighOnCraic: Probably not "No Nookie." More like, "No Nookie with A Prostitute the Night Before the President Arrives, But If You Do, At Least Have the Sense to Pay Her So She Doesn't Throw A Justified Fit and Get the Cops Involved When You're in A Country with Legalized Prostitution, Because Unlike American* Prostitutes, They CAN Get the Cops Involved."

Something like that. I'm sure they get special lectures on honey traps as well.

*Void in Nevada.


LOL. TY.
 
2012-04-24 03:50:03 AM
Headline reminds me of:

www.sitcomsonline.com


Man, that was short-lived program...
 
2012-04-24 04:17:14 AM
Won't more women as secret service agents be the same as more women in the military: the agents will just end up cheating on spouses with each other, hilarity ensuing?

/if you can be led by your dick
you have zero business being
a bodyguard/Secret Service
 
2012-04-24 04:28:20 AM
huh huh. Liberals.
 
2012-04-24 04:34:46 AM

Ryker's Peninsula: Ladies and Gentlemen, we're talking about vagina gap here.


When it comes to vagina gaps, I prefer less talk, and more action.
 
2012-04-24 04:34:53 AM
I don't believe in judging people, but I especially don't believe in judging people unless I've walked in their shoes. Political correctness is all quite worthy, but in the end, you need the right people for the job. If the psychological flaw of the best agents is that they like banging hookers, but in return, the President stays alive, then how about turning a blind eye to them banging hookers?
 
2012-04-24 05:25:33 AM

quatchi: Well, if they were all women SS agents on the detail then most likely none of them would have been hiring local pros solving the whole whore problem entirely.


I don't believe this for a second. I was once on travel for a field test, and we had some downtime. Our team lead decided to "share" with a male coworker an online quiz about whether or not you could tell breast implants were real. They were trying to hide that shiat right in front of me. It was not the first nor the last time sweaty male types singled me out for being the team woman right in front of me.

The only thing having a woman around will do is having the men make sure there are two teams: the one having fun and the boring one.
 
2012-04-24 05:26:38 AM

quatchi: So, nothing specific then?

I can see candid photos of SS agents having sex with strange women they are not married to being a concern with married SS agents, obviously, but in 2012 is "I'm gonna reveal to the world the fact that you like to fark" really something you can use to blackmail an unmarried agent?


Correct. You can get a security clearance revoked for a ton of things. Is have credit card debt illegal? Nope. Can you lose your clearance because of it. Absolutely, and that people I've known that happened to only had Secret level. It's not that they took a bribe. It's not that a bribe was even offered. The fact that there were conditions that seemed to indicate that person may be slightly more susceptible to a bribe that hasn't even been offered yet is enough to pull a clearance. The level of scrutiny that federal agents get for their clearances is astonishing. "The appearance of impropriety" is absolutely something that can be used for blackmail and political damage. No risk can be taken.
 
2012-04-24 06:26:36 AM
New Secret Service branch: Registered Companions

10.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-24 06:58:07 AM

Six_By_Nine: quatchi: Well, if they were all women SS agents on the detail then most likely none of them would have been hiring local pros solving the whole whore problem entirely.

I don't believe this for a second. I was once on travel for a field test, and we had some downtime. Our team lead decided to "share" with a male coworker an online quiz about whether or not you could tell breast implants were real. They were trying to hide that shiat right in front of me. It was not the first nor the last time sweaty male types singled me out for being the team woman right in front of me.

The only thing having a woman around will do is having the men make sure there are two teams: the one having fun and the boring one.


Think you may have grabbed the wrong part of my quote. My argument there was that an ALL WOMAN DETAIL would have farked exactly zero whores and thus not compromised their image.

In terms of male co-workers hiding things like "real or fake bewb" joke links well what do you expect them to do? If they do it openly you get mad at them for being sexist possibly endangering their careers and if they try to hide it from you then you get mad over that.

In terms of fun versus boring, "sharing hookers and coke" is not really my cup of tea and there are a great many gradients between "boring" and "DPing a Columbian whore while binging on cheap coke and then trying to avoid paying her in the morning"

taurusowner: quatchi: So, nothing specific then?

I can see candid photos of SS agents having sex with strange women they are not married to being a concern with married SS agents, obviously, but in 2012 is "I'm gonna reveal to the world the fact that you like to fark" really something you can use to blackmail an unmarried agent?

Correct. You can get a security clearance revoked for a ton of things. Is have credit card debt illegal? Nope. Can you lose your clearance because of it. Absolutely, and that people I've known that happened to only had Secret level. It's not that they took a bribe. It's not that a bribe was even offered. The fact that there were conditions that seemed to indicate that person may be slightly more susceptible to a bribe that hasn't even been offered yet is enough to pull a clearance. The level of scrutiny that federal agents get for their clearances is astonishing. "The appearance of impropriety" is absolutely something that can be used for blackmail and political damage. No risk can be taken.


Okay, makes sense from that POV even if it's still a little paranoid.

Now, do you think that breaking up the old boys club that the SS have apparently turned into by hiring more women is a good move or a bad move in light of recent revelations?
 
2012-04-24 07:18:26 AM
I'll never understand why as a society we think its ok if a guy goes to a bar every night of the week and picks up some drunken slut, yet God forbid you simply pay a woman for sex.
 
2012-04-24 07:23:21 AM
I think Farkers are kidding themselves if they think that the first SS agent won't be a tough as nails broad. Think Hillary in a more mannish suit and packing heat.

That's the kind of woman who becomes the first Female agent.
 
2012-04-24 07:37:33 AM

quatchi: Now, do you think that breaking up the old boys club that the SS have apparently turned into by hiring more women is a good move or a bad move in light of recent revelations?


I never agree with hiring or firing someone because of their race or gender. We either decide that those thing don't make the person, or they do. So to answer your question, no I don't think they should hire more women if they're hiring women on purpose because they're women. That still sexism, and sexism is wrong.

But I am in favor of breaking up the frat-like atmosphere that seems to be prevailing in the Secret Service, and there's no real reason that says a man can do the job better. The Secret Service is mostly just another federal law enforcement agency which means that research, investigations, hyper-vigilance, and coolness under pressure are a lot more important that being able to lift heavy stuff. The Secret Service doesn't even really get into that many physical altercations compared to beat cops, which is the prevailing argument against women in law enforcement. So being a female in the Secret Service shouldn't really matter one bit. It doesn't take muscles to camp out on a roof, scan crowds, do background checks, or investigate counterfeiting. And females tend to be better shots with firearms for what it's worth.

But in the end the reason why it's predominately males is probably the same reason construction work and crab fishing are predominately male while nurses and administrative aides are predominately females. Those are the jobs they want. There are probably more guys who want to be Secret Service agents that females. And since basing hiring off of gender is sexism (which is wrong), going out of the way to hire more females when fewer of them are probably actually applying compared to males would also be wrong.

The real question is, why don't more females want to be Secret Service agents?

\Does anyone else find it odd that the initials of the Secret Service is SS?
\\And they happen to be the bodyguards of our leader...
 
2012-04-24 07:48:27 AM

BarrRepublican: That's the kind of woman who becomes the first Female agent.


First female agent?

You do know that there are already females in the SS right?
 
2012-04-24 08:01:26 AM

taurusowner: quatchi: Now, do you think that breaking up the old boys club that the SS have apparently turned into by hiring more women is a good move or a bad move in light of recent revelations?

I never agree with hiring or firing someone because of their race or gender. We either decide that those thing don't make the person, or they do. So to answer your question, no I don't think they should hire more women if they're hiring women on purpose because they're women. That still sexism, and sexism is wrong.


Unless the reason they were never hired in the first place was sexism in which case it would be righting a wrong and the very opposite of sexism. Obviously hiring less than qualified applicants for the job would be unsupportable sexism.

But I am in favor of breaking up the frat-like atmosphere that seems to be prevailing in the Secret Service, and there's no real reason that says a man can do the job better. The Secret Service is mostly just another federal law enforcement agency which means that research, investigations, hyper-vigilance, and coolness under pressure are a lot more important that being able to lift heavy stuff. The Secret Service doesn't even really get into that many physical altercations compared to beat cops, which is the prevailing argument against women in law enforcement. So being a female in the Secret Service shouldn't really matter one bit. It doesn't take muscles to camp out on a roof, scan crowds, do background checks, or investigate counterfeiting. And females tend to be better shots with firearms for what it's worth.

So you agree women aren't incompatable with the job. That's good.

But in the end the reason why it's predominately males is probably the same reason construction work and crab fishing are predominately male while nurses and administrative aides are predominately females. Those are the jobs they want. There are probably more guys who want to be Secret Service agents that females. And since basing hiring off of gender is sexism (which is wrong), going out of the way to hire more females when fewer of them are probably actually applying compared to males would also be wrong.

The real question is, why don't more females want to be Secret Service agents?


As you say it is a male dominated industry. As to how many women want to become SS agents who have been turned away we don't really have any data.

\Does anyone else find it odd that the initials of the Secret Service is SS?...

Little oddish, yeah.
 
2012-04-24 08:04:56 AM

quatchi: Unless the reason they were never hired in the first place was sexism in which case it would be righting a wrong and the very opposite of sexism


I don't agree. You don't move past a problem with revenge or trying to take it to the extreme in the opposite direction. That's like a feud. One side trying to "get" the other by punishing them or wronging them in the same way they got wronged.

You move past a problem by doing just that. Moving past it. Is using race or gender as a basis for hiring wrong? Yes. So stop it. It's that simple.
 
2012-04-24 08:19:12 AM

quatchi: Why the fark not


Female body guards are only a good idea in movies (preferably kung-fu) and in the heads of African dictators.
 
2012-04-24 08:45:00 AM

taurusowner: quatchi: Unless the reason they were never hired in the first place was sexism in which case it would be righting a wrong and the very opposite of sexism

I don't agree. You don't move past a problem with revenge or trying to take it to the extreme in the opposite direction. That's like a feud. One side trying to "get" the other by punishing them or wronging them in the same way they got wronged.

You move past a problem by doing just that. Moving past it. Is using race or gender as a basis for hiring wrong? Yes. So stop it. It's that simple.


Hiring more women who are qualified for the job is neither revenge nor "trying to take it in the extreme in the opposite direction". It's simply addressing an imbalance. It's identifying and fixing a problem. It is, in fact, not "using race or gender as a basis for hiring" in the sense that it is not giving preference to male applicants. I'm not saying 50-50 is the ideal or should be stated goal here merely that having more women in the SS ( they do have some now, ya know) would do more to help break up the current boy's club culture that's led to this scandal. It's that simple. Speaking of simple...

liam76: quatchi: Why the fark not

Female body guards are only a good idea in movies (preferably kung-fu) and in the heads of African dictators.


I'm sure the Farkettes will view your concerns appropriately and in the spirit intended.
 
2012-04-24 09:09:19 AM

HighOnCraic:
I'm sure anyone with access to information about the President's travel schedule gets warned to avoid situations like this.


Do you think? I am sure they gave it lip service.
/teehee, lip service, get it?
But in a culture that embraces and indeed rewards hypocracy, duplicity, corruption and misrepresentation, what exactly do you expect?
When all of your politicos, celebrities and "leaders" demonstrate lack of morals, dicipline, self control and integrity that is the "HERO" image you set for your "Best and Brightest".
Amazing is it not?
No
 
2012-04-24 09:13:01 AM

liam76: quatchi: Why the fark not

Female body guards are only a good idea in movies (preferably kung-fu) and in the heads of African dictators.


Nobody recognizes theatre any longer.
Another byproduct of the rush to fascism we are wading thru?

Bullchit is bullchit, no matter how you dress it and lipstick it.
Unless it is AGW, that looks good in red.
 
2012-04-24 09:21:00 AM
As long as they can fulfill all the requirements of the job, sure.
But any physical requirements shouldn't be lowered just so that women can compete for positions.

I'm reminded of a report on women trying to become firefighters and complaining about the unfairness of the physical requirements.
If you can't perform the physical tasks that the job requires, too bad. If nature deems that men are generally larger have more upper body strength and are therefore better for some very physical jobs, oh well. When we're talking about carrying people from burning buildings or acting as a human shield for the President, your concerns about gender equality become lower priorities.
 
2012-04-24 10:00:33 AM

quatchi: Hiring more women who are qualified for the job is neither revenge nor "trying to take it in the extreme in the opposite direction". It's simply addressing an imbalance. It's identifying and fixing a problem. It is, in fact, not "using race or gender as a basis for hiring" in the sense that it is not giving preference to male applicants. I'm not saying 50-50 is the ideal or should be stated goal here merely that having more women in the SS ( they do have some now, ya know) would do more to help break up the current boy's club culture that's led to this scandal. It's that simple. Speaking of simple...


You shouldn't be hiring "more women who are qualified". You should be hiring the most qualified who apply.
 
2012-04-24 10:06:19 AM

liam76: quatchi: Hiring more women who are qualified for the job is neither revenge nor "trying to take it in the extreme in the opposite direction". It's simply addressing an imbalance. It's identifying and fixing a problem. It is, in fact, not "using race or gender as a basis for hiring" in the sense that it is not giving preference to male applicants. I'm not saying 50-50 is the ideal or should be stated goal here merely that having more women in the SS ( they do have some now, ya know) would do more to help break up the current boy's club culture that's led to this scandal. It's that simple. Speaking of simple...

You shouldn't be hiring "more women who are qualified". You should be hiring the most qualified who apply.


That's probably been the rationale to date and quite frankly the results sucked.

You're just trying to rationalize your sexism.
 
2012-04-24 10:12:34 AM

GhostFish: When we're talking about carrying people from burning buildings or acting as a human shield for the President, your concerns about gender equality become lower priorities.


That's a non sequitur. Nearly all firefighters will have to break down doors as well as carry hose, ladders, and injured people in their careers, and they'll do it often. But the average Secret Service agent won't even be on the "protective shield" part of a protection detail, much less have to actually dive in front of someone. Most SS agents will be doing background checks and interviews, research into areas of travel, take part in advance teams that review security procedures, general crowd control far away from their principle, and be part of tactical response teams. A large portion will have nothing to do with protection details, and will instead do anti-counterfeiting investigations. ALL of those things can be done just as well by a woman as a man.
 
2012-04-24 10:14:37 AM

quatchi: You shouldn't be hiring "more women who are qualified". You should be hiring the most qualified who apply.


Hiring someone because they're a woman is sexism. You can say it's good sexism and post arguments all day why you think it should be practiced, but it' still sexism.

Sexism = making decisions/judgments about someone based on their gender.
 
2012-04-24 10:21:09 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-24 10:21:43 AM
Why is it whenever we notice a profession which has a greater proportion of males to females we instantly go into "panic must hire more women" mode? I'm sure the Secret Service has no problem hiring women. My guess is that fewer women are interested in the job. I get the same thing in my profession (IT / Software Development). Women just don't seem to be overly interested in the profession, but we get VPs commenting on how we lack diversity.

If a competent women is best qualified for the job she'll get hired, but she has to be interested in the job and also has to meet the criteria. Given what the Secret Service does, I'm certain they have the same mindset. If not then that's something to correct. True nondiscrimination is hiring the best regardless of any other factors, and is what we should be striving for.

In this case, some Agents screwed up and ended up in a situation which could have compromised their ability to do their job. The Agency needs to make it clear that is unacceptable regardless of gender. But to say a gender gap is part of the problem with no other evidence is silly.
 
2012-04-24 10:33:34 AM

taurusowner: quatchi: You shouldn't be hiring "more women who are qualified". You should be hiring the most qualified who apply.

Hiring someone because they're a woman is sexism. You can say it's good sexism and post arguments all day why you think it should be practiced, but it' still sexism.

Sexism = making decisions/judgments about someone based on their gender.


Not hiring someone because they are a woman is sexism as well.

Hiring a woman who is completely qualified to do the job but who may have been held back by antiquated patriarchal notions of which gender is more capable of executive protection details is, once again, the opposite of sexism.

Trying to argue that making an effort to increase the number of qualified women in the SS is sexism is, quite frankly, pants-on-head retarded.

Saying "women tend to have larger breasts than men" is a statement about the sexes but it is not a sexist statement.
 
2012-04-24 10:43:03 AM

quatchi: Trying to argue that making an effort to increase the number of qualified women in the SS is sexism is, quite frankly, pants-on-head retarded.


No, because you're performing an action where the motivation and primary criteria for the decision is gender.

Hire a qualified woman because she's qualified. That's great. Hiring a qualified woman because she's a woman is sexism. You're performing the action with the gender as the focal point.
 
2012-04-24 11:58:58 AM

quatchi: taurusowner: quatchi: You shouldn't be hiring "more women who are qualified". You should be hiring the most qualified who apply.

Hiring someone because they're a woman is sexism. You can say it's good sexism and post arguments all day why you think it should be practiced, but it' still sexism.

Sexism = making decisions/judgments about someone based on their gender.

Not hiring someone because they are a woman is sexism as well.

Hiring a woman who is completely qualified to do the job but who may have been held back by antiquated patriarchal notions of which gender is more capable of executive protection details is, once again, the opposite of sexism.

Trying to argue that making an effort to increase the number of qualified women in the SS is sexism is, quite frankly, pants-on-head retarded.

Saying "women tend to have larger breasts than men" is a statement about the sexes but it is not a sexist statement.


He's blind to gender differences, mainly because of his large moobs.
 
2012-04-24 12:29:11 PM

quatchi: You are a very silly and angry person, Corvus.

Seek help, man.


You asked for the the clause. I give it to you and you insult me for giving you what you ask for and call me "angry"? Pathetic.

People like you who can't admit when they are wrong or talking about something they don't have any knowledge of.
 
2012-04-24 12:34:04 PM

CorporatePerson: Male employees get celebratory hookers, even when they work with women. It happens, even if we'd prefer to believe it doesn't.


Nice hasty generalization there. Saying because something happens sometimes doesn't mean it happens all the time or even most of the time.

Some black people steal. Then according to you logic we should never hire a black person because some of them steal just like we shouldn't hire women because sometimes it doesn't help.

In general it does help. I have worked at places with 50% women and 0% women. The environment in the 0% women is completely different and would not fly if it was 50% women.
Right?
 
2012-04-24 12:36:02 PM

quatchi: liam76: quatchi: Hiring more women who are qualified for the job is neither revenge nor "trying to take it in the extreme in the opposite direction". It's simply addressing an imbalance. It's identifying and fixing a problem. It is, in fact, not "using race or gender as a basis for hiring" in the sense that it is not giving preference to male applicants. I'm not saying 50-50 is the ideal or should be stated goal here merely that having more women in the SS ( they do have some now, ya know) would do more to help break up the current boy's club culture that's led to this scandal. It's that simple. Speaking of simple...

You shouldn't be hiring "more women who are qualified". You should be hiring the most qualified who apply.

That's probably been the rationale to date and quite frankly the results sucked.

You're just trying to rationalize your sexism.


I think I have found the problem.

Sexism is giving someone preference based on sex, not hiring the most qualified person.

If there are two people who are both "qualified" and you pick one based on sex instead of who is most qualified, you are being sexist.
 
2012-04-24 12:58:31 PM

liam76: If there are two people who are both "qualified" and you pick one based on sex instead of who is most qualified, you are being sexist.


Not hiring hookers when you should be concentrating on your job isn't an advantage? See you don't believe women bring any good qualities. Having a more diverse workplace is an ADVANTAGE so hiring that to make it happen makes a person MORE qualified. You seem to believe women are inferior to men.
 
2012-04-24 01:16:28 PM

Corvus: liam76: If there are two people who are both "qualified" and you pick one based on sex instead of who is most qualified, you are being sexist.

Not hiring hookers when you should be concentrating on your job isn't an advantage?


Do all men hire hookers?

Are hookers the only thing that can distract you from your job?


Corvus: See you don't believe women bring any good qualities.


Where did I say that?



Corvus: Having a more diverse workplace is an ADVANTAGE so hiring that to make it happen makes a person MORE qualified.


If you were going to have a team of surgeons work on you, which would you prefer the most diverse group, or the group who is the most objectively qualified?

Diversity at the expense of qualifications is not an advantage. I am not anti diversity, but I don't but this nonsense that a lot of people have been peddling that it is automatically an advantage.


Corvus: You seem to believe women are inferior to men


Second time you have said that. And the only person here who has implied it is you. If you think that hiring the most qualified people means that women won't be hired, then you think women are inferior.
 
2012-04-24 01:47:35 PM

Corvus: CorporatePerson: Male employees get celebratory hookers, even when they work with women. It happens, even if we'd prefer to believe it doesn't.

Nice hasty generalization there. Saying because something happens sometimes doesn't mean it happens all the time or even most of the time.

Some black people steal. Then according to you logic we should never hire a black person because some of them steal just like we shouldn't hire women because sometimes it doesn't help


That's not my logic at all. By your logic, if a group of employees were primarily black and got caught stealing stuff, the solution would be to hire a bunch of white people to change the culture.

I'm saying if there's a deep-seated corruption in the Secret Service, then sweeping changes may be necessary, but this seems to be a rather harmless incident where they guilty parties were swiftly disciplined, so a dramatic change in the culture seems more like a knee jerk reaction than a necessary solution.
 
2012-04-24 02:51:53 PM

liam76: Corvus: See you don't believe women bring any good qualities.

Where did I say that?


So then women do have some good qualities? Then if you believe that you won't mind hiring some so that those qualities can be added to the group. That's the point! You said you were against that. So which is it?

liam76: If you were going to have a team of surgeons work on you, which would you prefer the most diverse group, or the group who is the most objectively qualified?


If the surgeons were going out before my operation having sex parties with hookers - YES!

Because surgeons and secret service agents are the same thing right? Oh wait they aren't.

They aren't the skill sets a different. Now lets take that another way if you had an OBGYN clinic would you think it might be good to have some woman OBGYNs who worked there? Or would an all male staff be ok and no patient should ever complain?
 
2012-04-24 02:54:39 PM

liam76: Second time you have said that. And the only person here who has implied it is you. If you think that hiring the most qualified people means that women won't be hired, then you think women are inferior.


Well you said there is no reason to hire a woman over a "more qualified" man. So you make it sound that women don't bring extra qualifications. Which is it?

If a woman has other things she brings to the table (from the fact of her being a woman) shouldn't we count those as part of her qualifications?
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report