Should women be allowed on interview panels when for jobs where men are applicants?

[Anonymous]

There is an apparent gender conflict going on that has polarised men and women with non binary usually tending toward the women's end that has created a lot of toxicity and relationship challenges that has seen a rise of things MGTOW and 4B away from interaction between the members of a social species because of political leanings about how society has treated and perceived injustices between each side that seem to ignore the others points of view.

Given that women tend to be the victims of sex based crime but men are of crime in general (while also ignoring reasons why it's also men who end up in a life of crime as well as making up most of the low status positions and as victims of societies lack of provisions for those in need such as homelessness, poverty, destitution, domestic violence, etc.) the current narrative is that women negatively prejudice against men they don't know as threatening or risky until a man proves himself to not be so while women are not regarded similarly.

So should employment be restricted in a similar way that women can request a female doctor for consultation, that men should therefore be appraised on their suitability for jobs by other men instead of having mixed or women only employment panels. (One could use the same notion that women getting jobs over men because they're more appealing to the eye and thus able to use that attraction for a business as being a valid reason for employing them in the first place)

Yes, women by nature are objective in their ability to appraise individuals in workplace scenarios and can be trusted to not prejudge men on their prior experiences with men

Yes, women have a sense that men are bad and will therefore be better at choosing the right man in a workplace scenario because he has the right qualities in her mind

No, women have an inherent fear of men that they subconsciously harbour and will prejudge men who "look" creepy, predatory, like previous partners, have something about them

No, men should be given the option of being interviewed for jobs solely on their capacity and qualifications to carry out the job by peers without the risk of their appearance, voice, height, fashion sense or eye colour

Neither, men and women are just as likely to judge men equally suitable for a role as criteria for jobs are pretty clear cut and superficial factors aren't taken into account by employers

[Dargil]

Only if the men that they interview are going to work in a same department over which they will have authority. Otherwise, they have no standing.

[Asker]

So women shouldn't be able to interview men they will work with?

[Dargil]

I think not. Women who would be in a position to interview are brainwashed in the university. And those women tend to be notoriously feminist whether anyone wants to admit it or not. I have sat in front of a very attractive, articulate, well dressed HR female being interviewed. And I could feel her distaste by how she phrased questions. She did not like me. So I got up turned around, said "have a nice day" and walked out of her office.

In a professional setting, I think most men who are interviewed by a female in HR have two strikes against them before they even sit down in the chair. And after this insane Woke/DEI mentality goes away, I think provision should be made that no woman should interview a man she is not going to directly supervise. And even then, it's one strike.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Imagine were you a black man such as I !!! Feminists loathe us worse than the Klan !!!

[Dargil]

"Only if the men that they interview are going to work in a same department over which they will have authority. "

[Dargil]

@beefcakebradybatson I know we rarely agree on anything, but feminists hate men more than the worst Ku Klux Klan hates Jews and black people. And that is a damn fact. I avoid working with or for women at every chance I get. And what I'm going to be in a Ccnfined situation with them I use a body cam Tie tak so that I can monitor whatever happens in that elevator.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

man I miss MGTOW!

to answer your question, I believe they should. lets not forget that is also women who like to stir the pot in workfields. at my job for example women think that our company is tinder. they want to flirt, socialize with me and other male employees despite our company having a strict code for professionalism

[Agape93]

It's literally my job to hire and fire. The fact I have a pussy doesn't preclude me from doing my damn job correctly.

[Asker]

Since one argument against men being in the position you're in is that they will hire based on "looks" not competence is unfair or that men will pick women because they're more compliant, are there similar arguments against women (since they prejudge men as threatening in public) being criticised for unsubstantiated decision making in employment? Like would women look out for each other in a professional sense?

[Agape93]

Huh? I can't speak for others but if you can do the job well enough, I don't give a fuck about if you have a dick or pussy, hot or ugly. That's irrelevant

[Asker]

IF you can do the job isn't the question in most interview situations. You wouldn't get there if you couldn't.
Men in hiring positions have been accused of hiring hot women just because they're hot yet women refuse to be held to the same accusation as if they're somehow immune to attractiveness or CREEPINESS
Why this double standard?

[Agape93]

I don't give a fuck because I can't speak for them. I handle my business how I'm supposed to. If others hire or act in creepy ways or whatever, that ain't my problem

[Asker]

You're taking this personally which is not what it was about. The question poses a realistic scenario that is contemporary in it's nature because men have been accused of employing women based on superficial "benefits" while no one EVER questions whether women would use their same prejudices in employment situations of men.

[Agape93]

I'm getting annoyed, not taking it personally.

[Asker]

You literally did with your first sentence in this thread.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Are you an evangelical "Christian"or Islamic fundamentalist?

[Asker]

Neither. Nothing to do with religion just someone who has been around the blocks a bit and sees the wood for the trees.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Are you 71 as I am?

[Asker]

Not quite but have worked on 4 continents worked in 8 countries and seen a bit of the world.

[DrPepper12]

Why? Just why?

[Asker]

Why not?
There is reasoning "WOMEN fear men in public" so applying that to the opportunity market, they'd prejudice negatively the chances of "creepy, predatory" presenting candidates,

[DrPepper12]

Who hurt you?

[Asker]

It's addressing an age old myth that men will employ women below them because the women are attractive because men are weaker in the mixed workplace because they prejudice based on appearance, here the tables are switched to see if women can have similar weaknesses based on preconceptions society places on them (as the example of men lusting after women).

[Anonymous]

Go touch grass you incel.

[Anonymous]

Yes they should.

[Asker]

Why?

[Opinion Owner]

I think they would be objective.