An organization that marginalizes someone purely because that person is a minority gender needs to watch this video, especially the capstone advice at the end: ‘Collaborate with the best hard-working others regardless of their gender or ethnic class group’. If they don’t change this thinking then balancing a workforce with half women and half men to achieve a gender quota will just have two groups attempting to marginalize each other rather than working together to be productive.

Sounds like a good smoko room conversation 😊

agree i did a bit of research do you need to purchase a gimble ?

Very well said! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

I wonder if you are missing the point or simply not looking for it.

And the ball strikes people because of an inadequate fence

Thanks bud!!

That's so alt-right-wrong :D should have watched more

*"we spent decades protesting apartheid and quotas based on the colour of your skin in South Africa"* What quotas were in place in South Africa under apartheid? Wasn't apartheid the antithesis of quotas?

@@mattygroves21478 Good point .... there were most likely no quotas other than that which 100% excluded one skin colour from the opportunities another had full access to. But nevertheless, we now find ourselves with quotas for how many of one colour will balance the mythological exclusion of another and that means excluding our greatest resource :- Talent.

@@sovietunionjack1505 It's quite a stretch to call that a quota in action, but I realise you're only kidding. So setting aside apartheid Africa as the red herring it is. Have you any examples to offer, of current quotas based upon skin colour? One caveat though, the example must exist in reality.

@@mattygroves21478 Yes. My friends kid was prevented from joining the polo team at his school near Durban. Only reason - he's white. My friend pulled his kid out of the school joking to the head saying ... how about if I bought a black horse ... will that suffice?

Good luck! We were being a bit dramatic about the exposure but it’s not that bad. The summit is really rewarding

@@Zoukmazing looking forward to it. Hopefully the weather plays nice this week. 👌

What he’s saying is men tend to interested in fields like this more than women because it’s a ‘things’ related field. Doing surgery on someone uses your hands and tools like a mechanic fixing a car uses tools. That’s why more men than women apply. Compensating by lowering competency targets for women only ends in trouble (surgery going wrong and people dying etc). Encouraging more women to get into Medicine and STEM is a bit safer, but really what’s the point, just because it is a high-status career? (that’s a big yes to that answer by the way since you don’t see a big push for women to be car mechanics). A good example to flip it is to use an example of a ‘people’ related high-status career like psychology in which more women are interested in. Imagine if we said men don’t have to get a pHD to become psychologists but women still do (so we can achieve equality of outcome and satisfy gender quotas)? What if we didn’t actually even go to that extreme but merely put out campaigns and incentives to encourage men, and only men to leave their blue-collar trade jobs and take up a higher-status psychology career? There would be an uproar from women for sure. ‘That’s not fair’ they’d say. They’d be right.

@@fryguy3432 Thanks for the reply, but I was being sarcastic trying to emulate Cathy Newman.

so you mean to tell me that you should get paid as much as me when you don't do the same amount of work as me while we work the same jobs? fair where????

@@mxntalduck I provided synomyms for two words. *"work"* is merely you trying to shoehorn in your prejudice and ideology with an irrelevance. As you've decided to raise the matter of *"work"* , 20 years ago I oversaw the manufacturing floor of a company that produced satellite recievers, and employed 500 staff. There were three final assemblies lines. By far, the 30 ladies on LINE1 were the fastest, often their throughput was 50% higher than the men on LINEs 2&3. All production operatives were on the same wage. Good luck trying to pay wages in your meritocratic utopia. With a brain, and a mean streak, like yours I doubt you do much work of value for anyone. I've taken the advantage of some preventative treatment by blocking your a$$. Your reply will be self indulgant onanism. Never argue with an idiot, they beat you by making you endure the sheer weight of their stupidity.

@@mattygroves21478 love that generalization Because you worked in some place 20 years ago all of them are the same right? Because thats very logical?? No heres the kicker not all workspaces are the same Secondly i like how you assume like a big manchild that i believe all workplaces are currently fair They're not but nobody should be boycut to make it "fair" everyone should earn their moneys "worth" Because if we decided to use your dumb logic That everyone one should earn the same wage no matter what Then there shouldn't be rich people and there shouldn't be poor people right? Because thats not fair why should i be poor but rich people should be rich? Hey heres the kicker if i wanted to live miserable i'd live in a communistic state which is a great system if it you know actually "worked" You never took any preventatives you just proved that you are a big manchild and that you are intellectually incapable of having a civil and grownup discussion but yeah have a nice day keep using that "brain" of yours wink wink it seems to do you alooot of good lmao

Equality of outcome is more along the lines of ”If person A has to use a wheel chair then so does person B”

@@shgalagalaa Oh is that a fact? Sounds terrible. Thank goodness then that 'Equality of Outcome' is a BS phrase used by Jordan Peterson types to promote the status quo, and by extension nothing that exists outside the mind of JLPbots.

@@mattygroves21478 I have no clue what a JLPbot is so I can't really comment on that. Also there isn't a single country on the planet nor has there ever been a country that has tried to force equality of outcome. That is how incredibly unpopular your ideals are. The nation that tried to enforce equal outcome the most was cambodia and even they never intended to achieve complete equality of outcome. There is pretty much no scenario where equality of outcome is better for the society than equality of opportunity with subsidies and social safety nets in place to stop people from falling through the cracks of society. Also equality of outcome isn't a phrase used only by Jordan Peterson nor is it a phrase invented by him. It has been a topic of discussion especially among economists for decades and has always been considered subpar and unfair among the larger portion of scholars.

@@shgalagalaa *"Also there isn't a single country on the planet nor has there ever been a country that has tried to force equality of outcome"* Like I've said already, it's because 'Equality of Outcome' doesn't exist as a goal for anyone (atleast not in the sense that I believe you mean). Noone is pushing for it, but feel free to name a person of import who does. There are of course hand-wringing reactionaries that say it's a thing to rail against. We're told ad nauseum that it, and political correctness, stifle societal growth. Terrifying stuff indeed. *"Also equality of outcome isn't a phrase used only by Jordan Peterson nor is it a phrase invented by him."* Oh I know, but I think it's fair to say that he has brought it into the wider public lexicon. Now let's say that I have a group of 6-12 year olds. I'd like them to be tutored in such a way as all achieve literacy in English to a set minimum standard. One could reasonably say that I'm pushing for equality of outcome. It's not the EoS that you're bemoaning, but it has the advantage of being a real world example of EoS, rather than the red-scare quackery that Nietzsche first dreamt up.

@@shgalagalaa JLPbots are simulacra that churn out JordanLeePeterson talking points.

and illegal.

It's disaster

Nah, these are special folding crates. 30x30x5cm each, and weighing in at 200g. Carrying three is no problem, fitting them in the car equally so. Ever tried putting a stepladder in a car in the rain? It's a nightmare.

Males and females won't choose the same jobs most of the time if they are given the chance to make their own choices. Why would you create special policies to try to "fix" what is not broken in the first place? Feminists love to cry about this, trying to portrait it as some sort of prejudice against women, completely ignoring the fact most women don't give a shit about STEM in the first place (and the ones that do have been able to work in such fields for centuries already, absolutely nobody is stopping them) while having the audacity to blame men for most women's lack of interest in science. My classroom had a 50% distribution of males and females, we received the exact same education and yet there was like 2 or 3 women that went to STEM while most of the boys chose STEM. There is absolutely nothing unfair about it. It's a personal choice, that simple. The problem is that feminists seem to regret their decision later in life and then, as they do with everything, try to blame men for their own bad decisions in life.

You should totally test these theories of yours. It's the open-minded thing to do. Screen cap your post and tweet it to Gloria Steinem or Naomi Wolf or Ash Sarkar or Akala. Failing (or including) that have your Mum read it.

@@mattygroves21478 I assure you it's not a theory. Oh and what did you hope to accomplish by bringing up my mom exactly? Let me guess was it a not so subtle attempt at shaming. Typical female shaming tactics. It won't affect me cuz I do not crave external female validation. I have internal validation.

​@@neogamest123logic2 I don't think you know what a theory is. I presumed that your Mother is the most important female in your life. Surely she's the first person that you could run these theories of yours past? Look at it this way, it's not about validation. It's about testing whether you're ideas can be improved upon, to make them even more sound.

@@mattygroves21478 @Matty Groves Definition of theory 1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena the wave theory of light : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn 2a b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -often used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all 3a b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject theory of equations 4: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory 5: abstract thought : SPECULATION 6: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another  Synonyms  Choose the Right Synonym  The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory  Two Related, Yet Distinct, Meanings of Theory  More Example Sentences  Learn More About theory Keep scrolling for more Synonyms for theory Synonyms hypothesis, proposition, supposition, thesis Visit the Thesaurus for More  Choose the Right Synonym for theory HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation. a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth. the theory of evolution LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions. the law of gravitation The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis. A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested. A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory. Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is. In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice. Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts-or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories. The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted-and sometimes even gleefully seized upon-to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.) Don't assume my mother is the most important person in my life. I wasn't raised by my mother. You have no idea who's important to me whether or not I have anybody important. I have years of observable truths when it comes to feminism the ideology that was influenced by socialism and Marxist theory. Socialism and communism has failed before and regardless of whether or not is gender-based or the same old bourgeoisie versus the proletariat the ending result will be the same. Equity does not exist in nature and it cannot be sustained in the long run in society before it's inevitable collapse.

@@neogamest123logic2 Whether you know what a theory is or not, no one can argue that you can't copy & paste. You provided a comparison between a hypothesis and a theory, is that because you believe your opinions not to be factual but instead, tentative assumptions? So would you say that your opinions follow acceptable general principles which explain reality? *”Don't assume my mother is the most important person in my life. I wasn't raised by my mother.”* I didn’t say that she was the most important person in your life, I wrote “I presumed that your Mother is the most important *female* in your life” . Surely you recognize that it’s not an outlandish assumption? *”You have no idea who's important to me whether or not I have anybody important.”* Of course I don’t, but in fairness you’ve no reason to get triggered by anyone thinking that your Mother plays an important part of your life. I’m only asking questions. You really went from 0 to 100 there. Gender dimorphism to societal collapse in a few sentences. Serious question, how long ago would you say it was that you first realized that you’re a nihilist and a misanthrope? If I might also be so bold, what age were you at the time? I doubt you're going to like this but I'm only making observations and asking questions.... I don't think you know what Marxist theory is. You don't have to if you don't want to obviously, but can you give a brief synopsis of Marxist theory?

This is worse than communism.

It's not even Communism, Karl Marx rejected Equality of Outcomes 😂 At least read up something on ur own before u go typing Peterson's bs 😂😂 *To each according to his contribution* the official motto of Socialism and Leninism by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin 😂 Now don't confuse it with Communism 😁😂

@@rishabhtiwari2390 bro what

@@dae1925 What what?

@@rishabhtiwari2390 Finally! You're the rare person in the comment section that isn't talking utter nonsense. Kudos.