But isn’t it a discrimination towards men too when companies hire men for low paying and hard or dangerous jobs presumably that they’ll do it better?
EEOC says “33 qualified women” but did they check how they would perform after a week, a month, a year. Just how they exactly understood that they are qualified?
There is no answer to the root question “why?”. Why it’s a male only position? Did they hired before and had a bad experience? Is just easier for them so that males feel more comfortable connecting? There is no clear dialog about it maybe it’s in the lawsuit but not there.
I see nothing bad in terms of “male only” or “female only” in terms of business. Because why they have to hide it? It’s honest and people don’t have to lose time applying for it because they are not meeting a requirement for that specific company. If I’m a “female only” company and hiring only females because I believe that they are better than men for me and my company then it’s fine but at the same time if I’m a “male only” company it’s they can put a lot of labels on you for that.
EEOC says “33 qualified women” but did they check how they would perform after a week, a month, a year. Just how they exactly understood that they are qualified?
There is no answer to the root question “why?”. Why it’s a male only position? Did they hired before and had a bad experience? Is just easier for them so that males feel more comfortable connecting? There is no clear dialog about it maybe it’s in the lawsuit but not there.
I see nothing bad in terms of “male only” or “female only” in terms of business. Because why they have to hide it? It’s honest and people don’t have to lose time applying for it because they are not meeting a requirement for that specific company. If I’m a “female only” company and hiring only females because I believe that they are better than men for me and my company then it’s fine but at the same time if I’m a “male only” company it’s they can put a lot of labels on you for that.