ae0f99 No.3
This is kind of how I am looking at "gender equality quotas" in employment.
Original feminism sought out to make it possible for women to apply for jobs without being judged for potential future pregnancies and children at home – understandable.
Women are now hired often to meet a generally healthy male to female ratio within a company so said company can avoid being called a sexist and biased company and lose its consumers. So, rather than not being hired due to gender, women are being hired due to their gender instead of people being hired due to their work ethic and what they have to offer.
Is this a board that sort of runs along the same lines as this viewpoint?
a5f8fc No.5
The second point you make is pretty good. But The second is messy.
Financially, it isn't a better investment between giving a job to a man rather than a women when dealing with reproduction systems.
Then there's certain jobs that is heavy in physical condition that would obviously place males at the functionally better position.
Depending on the job, it may not factor in pregnancies as a liability but I'd imagine that it would even if the jobs wouldn't require it.
I'd rather not use an example like this, but imagine a person prone to disease and extra medical costs. It wouldn't be better to invest in such economically. Sorta like cancer and what not. And while pregnancies aren't a biological disability, it is a financial one.
But each case is examined individually so perhaps a disability in reproduction may prove a financial advantage. Yet even merit can compensate for this.
I'd argue that it isn't the innate predisposition that defines us but rather out ability to overcome it through the power of action and merit of the individual.
Even so both sexes have advantages over the other in other ways as well, not just financial.