Angyson write: Many of you ladies are not aware of the backlash created by feminists to your relationships. It started with equal pay for equal work, which I support. But why hire a guy when a gorgeous woman has the same qualifications? Suddenly, this is inappropriate behavior or politically incorrect.Inappropriate according to whose standards? Politically incorrect according to which political party?
I thought "the boys club" and feminism were to be replaced with the concept of diversity.
Unless your job is specifically about looks, such as being a playboy bunny or a chippendale dancer, it has little to with hiring requirements.
Welcome to the 21st century, we are so glad you could attend...
the gendertraining website is an excellent reference
Angyson write: I beg to differ. If Feminism was merely a theory that women were equal to men, I would be in the front lines. Feminism is a control mechanism for women to control the behaviour of men, period. Just like Fascism and Communism, Feminism seeks to impose control against the will of its citizens.And you ladies are paying for that in your relationships.
Which only proves you know nothing about what feminism is: The radical theory that women are human beings equal to men, human beings who, JUST LIKE MEN, deserve more than to be judged in terms of their worthiness as sex providers/breeders/servers. You've already shown your asz in this regard: You DON'T treat women as equals, in your company or, I suspect, anywhere else. So this "I'm on board with equality" statement of yours is crap.
So, sorry, you're in the heap with all the others - male and female - redefine feminism to suit themselves and their personal agendas. GAH! So banal, so unoriginal, so boring!
Angyson write: I recall as president and CEO being ridiculed by my auditors for having too many attractive female executives on staff. When I invited one to a meeting with our tax partners, the head partner warned me never to bring a woman into his boardroom.You gals have no idea what some men endured to break the glass ceiling for you.
So, do you only hire good looking men?
Kudos for hiring the women, so long as they were competent. But were you even aware of your motives when you originally hired them? Trust me, they probably had nothing to do with feminism.
(So, when they get old, or too sick or injured to please your eye, are you going to "lay them off?")
The day you have a representative number of young, middle-aged, and elderly woman, whether pretty, ordinary, or butt-ugly . . . whether they wear stilleto heels or sensible shoes . . . THEN I'll be impressed.
(Not that you're looking to impress me, but, I'm just sayin'. . . )
Feminism = fascism? You're kidding, right? Feminism is the radical theory that women are human beings equal to men. In most places around the world this theory is rejected. In the US, Canada, and Europe, men pay lip service to the theory, and occasionally act in accordance with it.
I don't know the specifics of your personal employement situation so I can't comment on it.
However, many men feel an affront to their white male privelege when a member of some lower "caste" (such as a dark-skinned man or a woman of any race) gets job they feel entitled to.
It's likely that the woman in question is highly competent. If so, no one should hold her good looks against her.
Then again, perhaps her looks gave her an edge. However, the very fact that a woman may STILL be hired for her looks more than her abilities is just one more sign that the old patriarchal culture is STILL dominant, and we all have a long, long way to go before there is true equality between the sexes.
(So, why did you mention that she was gorgeous? What do her looks have to do with ANYTHING, unless you are referring to an acting or modeling job?)
In any case, don't blame feminism; you are barking up the wrong tree. Blame "lookism," the auxiliary "ism" to the the sexist patriarchy. Patriarchs are the ones hiring the "eye candy," not the feminists.