>all women are relegated to non-technical jobs and all men to technical jobs...yet they discriminate men for non-technical positions and women for technical ones and some of the women they turned down are 30x times better

​

>great example of how sexism hurts both men and women

​

>stupid comment. this called people in their natural role. and it works.

​

>when did i ever say one should choose them based on the differences in sex?

Okay. Sure thing. The large discrepancy between both sex groups and their roles has a normal standard deviation, not out of bounds at all, nope.

By what measurement are they fit for the role other than an interview? When you choose a candidate based on numbers charts it misses the entire point of statistics, which is observational data. It doesn’t aim to prove but to disprove, in this case any person is viable. You said it yourself, it’s not about their sex.

May be unhealthy but can't blame them. It hasn't been more than 100 years since segregation was fully abolished, by the way. How do you think the next generation feels? How should they move on?

To be fair, when you have one pov that misses the "good ol' days" you're bound to find resistance. It doesn't help this pov has spawned another opposite fringe group.

​

It hasn't been more than 100 years since past segregation, so the next generation is bound to feel the effects.

Non-tech can be anything that's not very physical. The only jobs where these discrepancies realistically exist are firefighting, construction, mining and oil rigs.

​

What is a "natural role's" requirements in a tech company besides having a brain and mouth? Imposing weird limits like yours sets your company to be in a tough position where you have no one to assume leadership in vacant roles, even if just temporary.