Navy has a new chief named Lisa

Oh cool. Another LGBT thread. Thought I was gonna find something more interesting

 

That's a club I hadn't heard of before. Is it anything like Alcoholics Anonymous? "My name is John, and I have a tight ass."

 

You have not heard of it because you are a charter member of it.













yiu

 

We were never confused and we still aren't. We made copies of the owner's manual before you burned it. And we aren't asking. We're quizzing you in the hope that it'll all come back to you one day.

 

Yep. We'd be a pile of ashes but they'd be a hate-filled bunch of hateful hating haters.

 

Really. I wonder what they give you after you've loosened up for 30 days.

 

Come on, cf, be honest. That isn't genuinely your hope because if it were, I'd expect you to have something to say about the long history of gender bias (often written into law) that favors men. No?

 

Thanks for challenging my integrity ("be honest") and defining exactly how I am supposed to opine. Got it.

Let's see - for tens of thousands of years males, primarily, foraged and hunted for food. Males were the primary "providers" while females, primarily, took care of the home and children. Fast forward to the last 60 years when birth control is readily available and now you have many females in the workplace - as well as the fact that the "new work" doesn't require days of chasing an animal down or outrunning a hungry predator (both of which males are generally more suited to do).

So, you have tens of thousands of years of experience, habit, behavior and societal norms vs. the last 60 years. Yeah, there's been bias - it is known as survival. Now, the world is markedly different; and, people are responding accordingly. Here's my example: I've found the best salespeople I've hired were all single-mothers or women who were the primary breadwinners in the family. They consistently outproduced most of the men in my industry. So, if I had to choose between two candidates that seemed to be on par in every sense but one was a single mom and the other was a married man I would go with the single mom - not because I felt the need to "balance" some prior bias but because I believe they would be more productive for our company.

Back to the post - Biden has stated previously "I'm going to hire a woman for such and such a position..." Okay; I don't think anyone is impressed with Kamala Harris as VP; so, I simply said I hope Biden is not "Kamala-ing" the Navy. If the Democrats want to fight discrimination and bias by discriminating and being biased so be it; but, it's not a great idea.

 

I accept a lot of people I disagree with. Its the left trying to have a singular narrow minded view here

 

Thanks - Always a visual delight to watch these death defying aerial formations.

 

Meant be honest with yourself. Meant it kind of sarcastically but if you want to interpret it as an attack on your integrity, that's your choice. Didn't mean it as such.

I'd look more into the stereotypes about hunting and gathering. Citing societal norms that are themselves based on the very biases that have been the problem is a form of circular argument.

Same time, choosing to hire a woman for such and such a position--well saying it out loud, I can understand on a some level why it might cause some to be concerned. It's the kind of statement that hits too on the nose. But let's think about this. Throughout history male presidents would never have to say they're nominating a male for such and such a position because nominating a male was the default. It was a given. And thus that default has always been against women while privileging men.

The entrenched nature of such a bias means many men remain blind to the bias because it was the norm and perhaps more so (far more so imo) because men benefit from the bias. This is why when men suddenly want to speak out when that bias is perceived to go against them, I wonder why the sudden concern about bias..or where that concern comes from? Doesn't seem righteous to me.

I don't know the answer to fixing such a problem, but I also don't think it's a bad idea to deliberately select women (or in other situations minorities or LGBT+ "deliberately" to level the field. Men have been privileged for so long and it's been all encompassing in many ways that countless less than or unqualified men basically succeeded in failing upwards. And all men, to some extent have been okay with this condition...again because men benefited from it.

 

Is there a downside, risk in attempting to reverse history and the biases that have come with it?
My problem is that folks like yourself see holes and they shout out to the top of their lungs…unfair! Let’s fix it.
And doing so without thinking it through. What to do with all these “unqualified” males.
Seems like the headlines speak for themselves.
SJWs, Be careful what you wish for…

 

Maybe the first question should be asking what the downsides of having normalized & entrenched these *original* biases?

Follow from that, even if there are downsides--say for instance, a woman appointed to a position in which she doesn't do well or is underqualified (truly or perception thereof)--is that any worse of a problem? If so, why or how?

 

Also, do you really expect to eradicate discrimination by promoting discriminating?

 

Better chance in leveling the playing field by normalizing women/minorities etc. in positions and places they've been historically excluded compared to the zero chance by maintaining a biased status quo.

 

Prescient …

Navy Has Manpower Problem (Published 1955)

 

Zero chance?
Doubtful. You’ll run out of social justice soon if not already. Then what will you do? Lol. Rest easy my libbie friend.
Women and minorities have been leaders in many lucrative fields for a long time. It’s not going to stop either because most people really are color blind. It’s the white libbies who worry me the most. They discriminate for a living.

 

Put it like this, when a conservative makes a rational, informed argument, it will be a first.

That women and minorities have been in lucrative fields does not negate the existence of bias. That's only a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.