Sean - Sadly the toxic feminist like Joanne Lipman will always make the same false claims because its all a facade that must be routinely maintained and promoted lest it fall out of fashion or favor. Joanne Lipman is angry that women are being expected to embrace the "equality" they've claimed to be demanding for 100 years. They never wanted equality but equity that we pretended was equality and DEI is the proof. DEI is about advantaging people based on immutable traits and not b/c of anything to do with traditional hiring. That is the absolute real world example if biased discriminatory hiring but it's OK b/c in this case it favors those groups the feminist want favored. If DEI favored men over women then it would be absolutely intolerable.
Feminism has always ben about power and special/preferential treatment. "Equality" was merely the sales & marketing material.
Yes, Never, but that's precisely why feminists and wokers have largely abandoned the word "equality," which means equality of opportunity as measured by personal merit. They have replaced it with "equity." These two words sound the same, but they're not. "Equity" (outside of financial circles) means equality of result as measured by group status (ensured by governmental intervention)--not personal merit.
Sean, another great article with all the factual data needed to mum Lipman and her liberal cohorts (as if anyone can ever stop their predispositioned biases). I like the term you used “selective diversity” in regards to sex. This term can also apply to race, since it purposely, and in some cases ignorantly, divides humans of all kinds politically and socially. I think relative values, where all opinions are all equal longs they don’t hurt another, have a greater propensity to do divide in a culture. When a culture decides absolutes, like “Don’t steal”, the reasonable human minds unite to protect all within the community. Sean, you point out clearly that Lipman ignores the facts and needs to see that both sexes are equal and deserving of all the opportunities we, as a free society, can give them. Thanks!
I encourage you to use the term selective diversity because it gets at the heart of any structural system that makes immutable characteristics the primary beneficiary of support and not humanity.
"...opinions are all equal longs they don’t hurt another, have a greater propensity to do divide in a culture"
That's naive. This idea that as long as they don't hurt others is idealistic dreaming b/c the general decay of societal morality is destructive. Just b/c something doesn't directly impact others negatively that doesn't make it OK or equal. Societies.
Cultures and Races are NOT EQUAL. This trying to pretend that they are is partly why things are such a mess. We lost societal cohesion when morality vacated and it was done under the justification of "as long as it doesn't hurt you". One can argue that allowing gay marriage does not directly harm any heterosexual married couples. However it does cause harm because it lays the groundwork for a change in societal norms and with enough changes over time things turn to shift. Prior to the acceptance of Gay Marriage a group like the San Francis Gay Men's Choir wouldn't have dared make a public video bragging about how their going to gay up peoples kids and there's nothing parents can do to stop them. By tolerating gay marriage societal norms were moved and it emboldened some to push it to the next level. Today we're seeing polygamy make a return b/c what justification do we have to say no to 1 man marrying multiple women if we have no argument why 2 men or 2 women can't get married?
DEI is just "affirmative action quota women" that includes coloured men for some "diversity". You will notice that 90% of DEI are women and 10% are coloured men, if even 10%. DEI is all about women and it is a new way to say "affirmative action quota women".
All women are liars, hypocrites, manhaters, sexists and bigots. There is no point talking to them. Now the process is to simply denounce them....ALL...FOR....EVER.
I completely understand your frustrations Peter. If I were Millennial or later I'd been hopping mad to but I got lucky and came in at the tail end of GenX and thus dealt with a female population that was more stable, not so poisoned by feminist ideology. This however is not something only women caused; men share in the blame b/c past generations of men allowed this to happen when they were in a far superior position to shut it down from the start but chose not to risk upsetting the women and risk loss of sexual access. It was foolish but why so many men went along with it. Women have agency and thus are accountable for their own choices including the bad ones they inevitably try to pass onto men. It is however on men to say NO when women need to be told NO and men failed in that area and the rest of us men in later generations are paying the price for that.
Its not all women but sadly amongst the millennial aged and younger it is an overwhelming majority of them who have been poisoned by feminist ideology and the only way to stop women from unintentionally destroying society is going to be by angering most of them and not by just a little. Even women who claim to be anti-feminist like some of the perks feminism has provided them and they will not give that up w/o a fight. That said, they are biologically not made to lead which means their not made to govern and by allowing them to get involved with governance we've broken what was a functional system.
Men have to not only stop caving to the feminist BS but we have to stay on top of the male cuks who are feminist allies that help keep this problem from being solved and that will include a lot of otherwise traditional men in government, mainly boomers, who still think society today is the way it was when they were young men seeking wives, back when women weren't guaranteed the chance by the system to destroy a man just BC she can.
Just in case you don’t know who I am. This is me collecting the evidence that the divorce courts are a criminal cartel in 2009. I released a proposed remedy for marriage in my free ebook in 2010. Link below. Start on page 52 if you are interested.
Women rejected it and so in 2011 I released the method of unilaterally divorcing your wife and paying her nothing.
You would have thought that men would want to do that, but they didn’t. Men wanted to be criminally abused in the divorce courts and then complain about it.
Men have been able to refuse to pay alimony and child support using a very simple technique that any man can use since early 2009. They are choosing to pay alimony and child support and they deserve everything they are getting.
I have to divert with you there. Islam is not the solution. It will rid of us feminism but bring other problems in its place.
Regardless of what ones belief system or faith is, all are better off under a governance that is based on Christian Nationalism than any other including those who are anti-Christian. A Christian based governance that is a Representative Republic and not a theocracy, is more tolerating of a wider range of difference in beliefs and behavior than any other. For some it may seem worse for if America was Christian Nationalism then 2 men and or 2 women couldn't get married but they also wouldn't be killed as they would in some other cultures. Even some high profile atheists are coming out and saying that purging America of Christian principles was a bad idea. They still are not believers in the faith but they are in the faiths principles regarding family and societal norms.
Importing Muslim men will destroy far more than it would fix. Our problem didn't come from a lack of Muslim men but because Christian men got soft due to bad teachings by church leaders. The men worried more about making the women happy so as to not lose sexual access then they worried about how letting women get involved in governance would destroy society from within. Every generation of men since then has done the same, been more worried with angering women and loosing sex than the negative consequences of toxic feminism and so today those of us in the current generation are faced with nothing but bad choices and even if we can get enough men to come together to do something we have the old cuks, mainly boomers, to contend with because many of them act like as if female behavior today is no different than when they were young men.
There's one Republican in Congress who I like for the most part but who b/c of his generation, is one of these cuks who thinks the women in Congress with babies should be allowed to work remotely. He's the perfect example of what's wrong with many men today; they claim to be for equality and yet still want to afford women special rights & privileges.
"I have to divert with you there. Islam is not the solution. It will rid of us feminism but bring other problems in its place."
Dear NF,
I don't care. You supported the mass murder by proxy of men in the divorce courts. You allied with the women and their government. You are the problem. And Muslim men are the solution.
I have only one minor comment, Sean. The word "discriminate" does not necessarily have a negative moral connotation. People discriminate all the time for purely practical reasons. We could not carry on everyday life without distinguishing between hot and cold, up and down, day and night, expensive and inexpensive, healthy to eat and unhealthy to eat, male and female--let alone true and false or good and evil. In legal terms, however, discrimination has by now come to mean illicit (or immoral) discrimination. This is why an early discriminatory measure was known as "affirmative action," referring to discrimination that was supposed to be morally acceptable.
When I was a lad to say a man was a man of discriminating tastes was a compliment. Like all things women have taken a very positive word and applied to themselves to pretend they are victims.
Un avis français.Les politiques DEI sont appliquées et présentes partout. Je dirais que cela vient du fait que l’égalité féministe et sa construction sociale et sociétale est basée sur la présence du genre féminin ou son nombre. L'important c'est les termes "féminisons" ou "la féminisation de ces domaines professionnels". Une action pour féminiser ou le fait de féminiser serait une égalité c'est pour cela que leur doctrine et leurs normes sont très paradoxal.
Vous prenez l’armée mener deux types de sélection et de notation pour la même unité et fonction et autorisé car c’est le pourcentage du genre féminin qui indique l’égalité. Les adaptations sont une égalité tant que cela vise à augmenter la proportion du genre féminin.
Les réglementations américaines ont imposé à partir du 01 janvier 2016 d’ouvrir tous les postes en faite c'est plus adapté les postes de l’armée américaine (USMC, US Army, USAF, USCG, USNG) aux femmes sans restrictions autres que satisfaire les prérequis et réussir les stages. Si une femme et un homme ont les mêmes notations, les mêmes tests et le même "sans distinction de genre" peu importe le pourcentage de féminisation les féministes ne seraient pas contentes. Le féminisme comme pour le civil nivelle les exigences par le bas. En plus "d'ouvrir" les postes comme on féminise on va faire de la sensibilisation, des objectifs de féminisation par force armés et spécialité (infanterie, char,...), réseau de femme ou association.
Un entretien avec l’amiral Vaujour Marine Française
Amiral « Ce que je tire de la féminisation de la Marine c’est que cela marche remarquablement bien et que l’on en est extrêmement satisfait. Pour être clair, cela a permis de rehausser, je pense, le niveau de l’ensemble de nos équipages. En fait, plus rien n’est fermé aux femmes dans la Marine, aucune spécialité, y compris les commandos marine. Ce sont les mêmes critères de sélection, il n’y a pas de différence physique sur les critères de sélection. Dans les fonctions forces spéciales d’assaut, il n’y en a pas à ce jour car nous n’avons pas encore eu de femme sélectionnée, mais on pense que ça ne va pas tarder. Et je n’ai aucun complexe avec ça. »
Moi
Il n’a pas le droit de dire rabaisser. La marine a des objectifs de genre. Les postes doivent être féminiser. Ce sont les mêmes critères de sélection, il n’y a pas de différence physique sur les critères de sélection. C’est la première fois qu’il n’y aurait pas de différence dans les critères de sélection ou physique. Il a raison sur "le plus rien n'est fermé" tout est adapté.
Amiral « Sur les sous-marins, ça fonctionne plutôt bien. Là, ce ne sont pas des restrictions ce sont des sujets techniques. Grosso modo, on attribue une chambrée à bord, ce qui veut dire six femmes, donc c’est par paquets de six que l’on féminise les équipages de sous-marins. Le retour d’expérience est très bon et, si certaines abandonnent, nous avons des femmes qui continuent et veulent continuer. »
Moi
Il ne faut surtout pas dire le contraire que ça fonctionne bien. Il en faut six obligatoirement toujours sans objectifs de genre dans la sélection et la formation.
Appliquer ces normes ne fait-il pas fondre de vivier de recrutement ? Il aurait peut-être fallu garder des politiques neutres et ne pas chercher la représentation. 20 % de femmes mais en gardant un nombre d’hommes élevés
Pour une armée de terre vous pouvez descendre à moins de 5 % de femmes et pour l’armée de l’air et la marine vous pouvez divisez par deux facilement tous dépend l’égalité et les normes de réussite souhaité. Visitez le site de l’OTAN vous avez l’idéologie et les normes féministe. Le "service militaire" a été réintroduit en France. Il est accepté par la presse en partie parce qu’il est mixte il n'y a pas de critère de sélection physique.
C’est valable dans l’armée comme pour le civil, les écoles comme les entreprises et les administrations sans compter la législation, index, charte diversité, tout est basé en fonction du genre féminin.
Un recrutement sur le genre est interdit sauf s’il est féminin, on a un plan filles pour les maths, des activités codage réservés aux filles, des visites d’entreprises réservées aux collégiennes et lycéennes, des associations pour augmenter la proportion du genre féminin, des objectifs de recrutement et de nomination féminin dans toutes les entreprises.
Quand la charge de Trump contre les politiques DEI en France n’a eu le droit que l’on n’applique pas de discrimination sur le genre et positive. Le chef de la charte diversité nous a expliqué que c’étaient des politiques basées comme sur les handicapés. Vous avez une différence, les handicapés c’est 6 % et homme comme femme. Les chartes c’est 10 à 50 % minimum et basé sur le genre féminin.
Demander la fin des objectifs de genre et des politiques plus neutres devrait être un droit et un objectif. Un droit des femmes qui impose un pourcentage de genre féminin et ses adaptations ou une égalité basée et en fonction du nombre de femmes n’est qu’au mieux un égalitarisme de genre qui ne peut être une égalité, une liberté, et ne peut basé l’homme et la femme comme le garçon et la fille comme un égal en droit et dans la pédagogie.
Le féministe c'est quatre plus gros défaut est l'égalitarisme que l'on pourrait qualifiait de totalitaire son communautarisme et sa construction sociétale que je qualifierais "objectif de féminisation" le fait de baser son égalité sur le nombre ou le pourcentage femme montre que le féministe c'est être sexiste et discriminant quand ça l'arrange il a besoin d'un discours pour nourrir son idéologie c'est différent points constitue son erreur et ils sont tous les quatre reliés.
Les Républicains abolir les objectifs de genre et les adaptations spécifiques aux genres. Le choix de l'égalitarisme c'est politique et idéologiques ça rien de neutre. "Les hommes n’étant pas dotés des mêmes capacités, s’ils sont libres ils ne seront pas égaux, et s’ils sont égaux c’est qu’ils ne sont pas libres. (Alexandre Soljenitsyne)"). Le fait que le féministe soit si présent peut nous questionner sur le fait que l'Occident était-il encore libéral. Quel type de libéralisme souhaitons-nous et notre rapport à la liberté.
Vous avez fourni un excellent résumé de la manière dont la diversité sélective érode la civilisation occidentale et de pourquoi ses critiques y voient une hypocrisie flagrante.
DEI is just "affirmative action quota women" that includes coloured men for some "diversity". You will notice that 90% of DEI are women and 10% are coloured men, if even 10%. DEI is all about women and it is a new way to say "affirmative action quota women".
All women are liars, hypocrites, manhaters, sexists and bigots. There is no point talking to them. Now the process is to simply denounce them....ALL...FOR....EVER.
Sean - Sadly the toxic feminist like Joanne Lipman will always make the same false claims because its all a facade that must be routinely maintained and promoted lest it fall out of fashion or favor. Joanne Lipman is angry that women are being expected to embrace the "equality" they've claimed to be demanding for 100 years. They never wanted equality but equity that we pretended was equality and DEI is the proof. DEI is about advantaging people based on immutable traits and not b/c of anything to do with traditional hiring. That is the absolute real world example if biased discriminatory hiring but it's OK b/c in this case it favors those groups the feminist want favored. If DEI favored men over women then it would be absolutely intolerable.
Feminism has always ben about power and special/preferential treatment. "Equality" was merely the sales & marketing material.
Yes, Never, but that's precisely why feminists and wokers have largely abandoned the word "equality," which means equality of opportunity as measured by personal merit. They have replaced it with "equity." These two words sound the same, but they're not. "Equity" (outside of financial circles) means equality of result as measured by group status (ensured by governmental intervention)--not personal merit.
Exactly!
Sean, another great article with all the factual data needed to mum Lipman and her liberal cohorts (as if anyone can ever stop their predispositioned biases). I like the term you used “selective diversity” in regards to sex. This term can also apply to race, since it purposely, and in some cases ignorantly, divides humans of all kinds politically and socially. I think relative values, where all opinions are all equal longs they don’t hurt another, have a greater propensity to do divide in a culture. When a culture decides absolutes, like “Don’t steal”, the reasonable human minds unite to protect all within the community. Sean, you point out clearly that Lipman ignores the facts and needs to see that both sexes are equal and deserving of all the opportunities we, as a free society, can give them. Thanks!
I encourage you to use the term selective diversity because it gets at the heart of any structural system that makes immutable characteristics the primary beneficiary of support and not humanity.
"...opinions are all equal longs they don’t hurt another, have a greater propensity to do divide in a culture"
That's naive. This idea that as long as they don't hurt others is idealistic dreaming b/c the general decay of societal morality is destructive. Just b/c something doesn't directly impact others negatively that doesn't make it OK or equal. Societies.
Cultures and Races are NOT EQUAL. This trying to pretend that they are is partly why things are such a mess. We lost societal cohesion when morality vacated and it was done under the justification of "as long as it doesn't hurt you". One can argue that allowing gay marriage does not directly harm any heterosexual married couples. However it does cause harm because it lays the groundwork for a change in societal norms and with enough changes over time things turn to shift. Prior to the acceptance of Gay Marriage a group like the San Francis Gay Men's Choir wouldn't have dared make a public video bragging about how their going to gay up peoples kids and there's nothing parents can do to stop them. By tolerating gay marriage societal norms were moved and it emboldened some to push it to the next level. Today we're seeing polygamy make a return b/c what justification do we have to say no to 1 man marrying multiple women if we have no argument why 2 men or 2 women can't get married?
DEI is just "affirmative action quota women" that includes coloured men for some "diversity". You will notice that 90% of DEI are women and 10% are coloured men, if even 10%. DEI is all about women and it is a new way to say "affirmative action quota women".
All women are liars, hypocrites, manhaters, sexists and bigots. There is no point talking to them. Now the process is to simply denounce them....ALL...FOR....EVER.
I completely understand your frustrations Peter. If I were Millennial or later I'd been hopping mad to but I got lucky and came in at the tail end of GenX and thus dealt with a female population that was more stable, not so poisoned by feminist ideology. This however is not something only women caused; men share in the blame b/c past generations of men allowed this to happen when they were in a far superior position to shut it down from the start but chose not to risk upsetting the women and risk loss of sexual access. It was foolish but why so many men went along with it. Women have agency and thus are accountable for their own choices including the bad ones they inevitably try to pass onto men. It is however on men to say NO when women need to be told NO and men failed in that area and the rest of us men in later generations are paying the price for that.
Its not all women but sadly amongst the millennial aged and younger it is an overwhelming majority of them who have been poisoned by feminist ideology and the only way to stop women from unintentionally destroying society is going to be by angering most of them and not by just a little. Even women who claim to be anti-feminist like some of the perks feminism has provided them and they will not give that up w/o a fight. That said, they are biologically not made to lead which means their not made to govern and by allowing them to get involved with governance we've broken what was a functional system.
Men have to not only stop caving to the feminist BS but we have to stay on top of the male cuks who are feminist allies that help keep this problem from being solved and that will include a lot of otherwise traditional men in government, mainly boomers, who still think society today is the way it was when they were young men seeking wives, back when women weren't guaranteed the chance by the system to destroy a man just BC she can.
Just in case you don’t know who I am. This is me collecting the evidence that the divorce courts are a criminal cartel in 2009. I released a proposed remedy for marriage in my free ebook in 2010. Link below. Start on page 52 if you are interested.
Women rejected it and so in 2011 I released the method of unilaterally divorcing your wife and paying her nothing.
You would have thought that men would want to do that, but they didn’t. Men wanted to be criminally abused in the divorce courts and then complain about it.
Men have been able to refuse to pay alimony and child support using a very simple technique that any man can use since early 2009. They are choosing to pay alimony and child support and they deserve everything they are getting.
Court room video: https://peternolan.com/likes/CourtRoomVideo
Court room transcript: https://peternolan.com/likes/CourtRoomTranscript
Living Free eBook: https://peternolan.com/likes/LivingFree
"Men have to not only stop caving to the feminist BS but we have to stay on top of the male cuks"
Nope. We can simply import more muslim men and impose Sharia Law FG1776.
I asked men for the help I needed to stop this nonsense and they said no.
I have to divert with you there. Islam is not the solution. It will rid of us feminism but bring other problems in its place.
Regardless of what ones belief system or faith is, all are better off under a governance that is based on Christian Nationalism than any other including those who are anti-Christian. A Christian based governance that is a Representative Republic and not a theocracy, is more tolerating of a wider range of difference in beliefs and behavior than any other. For some it may seem worse for if America was Christian Nationalism then 2 men and or 2 women couldn't get married but they also wouldn't be killed as they would in some other cultures. Even some high profile atheists are coming out and saying that purging America of Christian principles was a bad idea. They still are not believers in the faith but they are in the faiths principles regarding family and societal norms.
Importing Muslim men will destroy far more than it would fix. Our problem didn't come from a lack of Muslim men but because Christian men got soft due to bad teachings by church leaders. The men worried more about making the women happy so as to not lose sexual access then they worried about how letting women get involved in governance would destroy society from within. Every generation of men since then has done the same, been more worried with angering women and loosing sex than the negative consequences of toxic feminism and so today those of us in the current generation are faced with nothing but bad choices and even if we can get enough men to come together to do something we have the old cuks, mainly boomers, to contend with because many of them act like as if female behavior today is no different than when they were young men.
There's one Republican in Congress who I like for the most part but who b/c of his generation, is one of these cuks who thinks the women in Congress with babies should be allowed to work remotely. He's the perfect example of what's wrong with many men today; they claim to be for equality and yet still want to afford women special rights & privileges.
"Christian men got soft"
Yes, Christian men got soft.
And the answer is to kill them off and replace them with muslim men.
There are plenty of muslim men to replace Christian men.
Are you a Christian man NF?
"I have to divert with you there. Islam is not the solution. It will rid of us feminism but bring other problems in its place."
Dear NF,
I don't care. You supported the mass murder by proxy of men in the divorce courts. You allied with the women and their government. You are the problem. And Muslim men are the solution.
"Its not all women"
Yes. It is.
I am 62 by the way. I put my DOB on my profile.
I have only one minor comment, Sean. The word "discriminate" does not necessarily have a negative moral connotation. People discriminate all the time for purely practical reasons. We could not carry on everyday life without distinguishing between hot and cold, up and down, day and night, expensive and inexpensive, healthy to eat and unhealthy to eat, male and female--let alone true and false or good and evil. In legal terms, however, discrimination has by now come to mean illicit (or immoral) discrimination. This is why an early discriminatory measure was known as "affirmative action," referring to discrimination that was supposed to be morally acceptable.
When I was a lad to say a man was a man of discriminating tastes was a compliment. Like all things women have taken a very positive word and applied to themselves to pretend they are victims.
Yes, Peter. It meant discernment, the ability to choose wisely. But there's no place for choosing, let alone wisdom, if the goal is to "have it all."
Great point, Paul.
Well, women have no wisdom which is why discernment is so abhorrent to them.
Un avis français.Les politiques DEI sont appliquées et présentes partout. Je dirais que cela vient du fait que l’égalité féministe et sa construction sociale et sociétale est basée sur la présence du genre féminin ou son nombre. L'important c'est les termes "féminisons" ou "la féminisation de ces domaines professionnels". Une action pour féminiser ou le fait de féminiser serait une égalité c'est pour cela que leur doctrine et leurs normes sont très paradoxal.
Vous prenez l’armée mener deux types de sélection et de notation pour la même unité et fonction et autorisé car c’est le pourcentage du genre féminin qui indique l’égalité. Les adaptations sont une égalité tant que cela vise à augmenter la proportion du genre féminin.
Les réglementations américaines ont imposé à partir du 01 janvier 2016 d’ouvrir tous les postes en faite c'est plus adapté les postes de l’armée américaine (USMC, US Army, USAF, USCG, USNG) aux femmes sans restrictions autres que satisfaire les prérequis et réussir les stages. Si une femme et un homme ont les mêmes notations, les mêmes tests et le même "sans distinction de genre" peu importe le pourcentage de féminisation les féministes ne seraient pas contentes. Le féminisme comme pour le civil nivelle les exigences par le bas. En plus "d'ouvrir" les postes comme on féminise on va faire de la sensibilisation, des objectifs de féminisation par force armés et spécialité (infanterie, char,...), réseau de femme ou association.
Un entretien avec l’amiral Vaujour Marine Française
Amiral « Ce que je tire de la féminisation de la Marine c’est que cela marche remarquablement bien et que l’on en est extrêmement satisfait. Pour être clair, cela a permis de rehausser, je pense, le niveau de l’ensemble de nos équipages. En fait, plus rien n’est fermé aux femmes dans la Marine, aucune spécialité, y compris les commandos marine. Ce sont les mêmes critères de sélection, il n’y a pas de différence physique sur les critères de sélection. Dans les fonctions forces spéciales d’assaut, il n’y en a pas à ce jour car nous n’avons pas encore eu de femme sélectionnée, mais on pense que ça ne va pas tarder. Et je n’ai aucun complexe avec ça. »
Moi
Il n’a pas le droit de dire rabaisser. La marine a des objectifs de genre. Les postes doivent être féminiser. Ce sont les mêmes critères de sélection, il n’y a pas de différence physique sur les critères de sélection. C’est la première fois qu’il n’y aurait pas de différence dans les critères de sélection ou physique. Il a raison sur "le plus rien n'est fermé" tout est adapté.
Amiral « Sur les sous-marins, ça fonctionne plutôt bien. Là, ce ne sont pas des restrictions ce sont des sujets techniques. Grosso modo, on attribue une chambrée à bord, ce qui veut dire six femmes, donc c’est par paquets de six que l’on féminise les équipages de sous-marins. Le retour d’expérience est très bon et, si certaines abandonnent, nous avons des femmes qui continuent et veulent continuer. »
Moi
Il ne faut surtout pas dire le contraire que ça fonctionne bien. Il en faut six obligatoirement toujours sans objectifs de genre dans la sélection et la formation.
Appliquer ces normes ne fait-il pas fondre de vivier de recrutement ? Il aurait peut-être fallu garder des politiques neutres et ne pas chercher la représentation. 20 % de femmes mais en gardant un nombre d’hommes élevés
Pour une armée de terre vous pouvez descendre à moins de 5 % de femmes et pour l’armée de l’air et la marine vous pouvez divisez par deux facilement tous dépend l’égalité et les normes de réussite souhaité. Visitez le site de l’OTAN vous avez l’idéologie et les normes féministe. Le "service militaire" a été réintroduit en France. Il est accepté par la presse en partie parce qu’il est mixte il n'y a pas de critère de sélection physique.
C’est valable dans l’armée comme pour le civil, les écoles comme les entreprises et les administrations sans compter la législation, index, charte diversité, tout est basé en fonction du genre féminin.
Un recrutement sur le genre est interdit sauf s’il est féminin, on a un plan filles pour les maths, des activités codage réservés aux filles, des visites d’entreprises réservées aux collégiennes et lycéennes, des associations pour augmenter la proportion du genre féminin, des objectifs de recrutement et de nomination féminin dans toutes les entreprises.
Quand la charge de Trump contre les politiques DEI en France n’a eu le droit que l’on n’applique pas de discrimination sur le genre et positive. Le chef de la charte diversité nous a expliqué que c’étaient des politiques basées comme sur les handicapés. Vous avez une différence, les handicapés c’est 6 % et homme comme femme. Les chartes c’est 10 à 50 % minimum et basé sur le genre féminin.
Demander la fin des objectifs de genre et des politiques plus neutres devrait être un droit et un objectif. Un droit des femmes qui impose un pourcentage de genre féminin et ses adaptations ou une égalité basée et en fonction du nombre de femmes n’est qu’au mieux un égalitarisme de genre qui ne peut être une égalité, une liberté, et ne peut basé l’homme et la femme comme le garçon et la fille comme un égal en droit et dans la pédagogie.
Le féministe c'est quatre plus gros défaut est l'égalitarisme que l'on pourrait qualifiait de totalitaire son communautarisme et sa construction sociétale que je qualifierais "objectif de féminisation" le fait de baser son égalité sur le nombre ou le pourcentage femme montre que le féministe c'est être sexiste et discriminant quand ça l'arrange il a besoin d'un discours pour nourrir son idéologie c'est différent points constitue son erreur et ils sont tous les quatre reliés.
Les Républicains abolir les objectifs de genre et les adaptations spécifiques aux genres. Le choix de l'égalitarisme c'est politique et idéologiques ça rien de neutre. "Les hommes n’étant pas dotés des mêmes capacités, s’ils sont libres ils ne seront pas égaux, et s’ils sont égaux c’est qu’ils ne sont pas libres. (Alexandre Soljenitsyne)"). Le fait que le féministe soit si présent peut nous questionner sur le fait que l'Occident était-il encore libéral. Quel type de libéralisme souhaitons-nous et notre rapport à la liberté.
Vous avez fourni un excellent résumé de la manière dont la diversité sélective érode la civilisation occidentale et de pourquoi ses critiques y voient une hypocrisie flagrante.
Mercy
DEI is just "affirmative action quota women" that includes coloured men for some "diversity". You will notice that 90% of DEI are women and 10% are coloured men, if even 10%. DEI is all about women and it is a new way to say "affirmative action quota women".
All women are liars, hypocrites, manhaters, sexists and bigots. There is no point talking to them. Now the process is to simply denounce them....ALL...FOR....EVER.