Maybe they're onto something?

if the woman is more competent, why shouldn't she get the job?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/QqP38kZC1QA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

because they almost never are more competent

>independent

Shouldnt interviews weed out all the weak people? This "research" is going to be laughable.

>london school of economics

If she's so competent, why need a quota?

If the woman is competent why couldn't she get a job in the first place?

And any time you replace incompetence with competence things imorove. It doesn't have Aany bearing from the sex involved. Flawed and pointless "study".

This. The fact that a quota is imposed indicates that the women were unable to compete with men on the basis of their merits and tits.

Because they aren't more competent. Women are hired over men to fulfill a quota, just the same as shitskins are hired to fill a quota. Unless the man is the best performer in the place by a country mile, he will be replaced by a woman to fill that quota.

>if the woman is more competent, why shouldn't she get the job?

If a woman was more competent the government wouldn't have to force someone to hire her, they would do it of their own free will because she made money for them.

>if the woman is more competent, why shouldn't she get the job?
Because they never, ever are.

Remember how you've been told for your entire life that women make less than men? So if that's true, why wouldn't every corporation replace every man with the cheaper woman who is theoretically just as competent?

Because
1. Women don't make less than men. They are worse employees that take more time off and interrupt their careers more often. This is after they choose to go into lower paying fields.
2. They're terrible at their jobs. Even if you could convince women to not take off every other day for their sick kids, their periods, and other bullshit, they're plain bad at their work. Women don't have to be competent employees, they just have to fill a quota.

>if the woman is more competent
That's a big IF there my bong friend.

I just read up on their study.

It only measures the competence of the male cohort, not the entire organisation.

>get told you have to fire X men and replace them with women
>fire the worst men (obviously)
>replace them with women who are even less competent
>overall organisational competence goes down
But the study would only capture the increase in competence that results from the men being fired.

And you know how they measure competence?

Salary.

Which brings me to the second flaw: this only measures some dumbfuck Swedish progressive political party, not an actual business. A worker is "more competent" if they earn more money privately. That makes intuitive sense but not so much when you realise I could make $350,000 a year as a specialist doctor and have the social skills of Chris Chan and thus not be a very good politician.

This study is garbage from the ground up. But I knew that going in. See:

Joke's on you, we have equality law that gives the UNDERREPRESENTED SEX applicant the job if there's two equally merited applicants of opposite sexes. So a male nurse would get the job just as fine as female engineer in proper conditions.

P.S. it wouldn't surprise me if the study was designed by women that the LSE hired to fill a quota.

Lol this is so opposite of reality

Half the things the women at my job are supposed to be able to do need help from their male coworkers to do them

Funny how they word this : no shit discluding men removes incompitent men

Lets try banning women, muslims, and niggers too, so we have no incompitent women, muslims, or niggers.

>study finds

Sure it's legitimate and not at all designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.

The same Jew response to all questions of meritrocry vs quotas applies;

youtu.be/QqP38kZC1QA

>The (((study)))
>The (((research)))
Yes this sounds credible.

Just to reiterate and explain the video I just posted;

>Women are as competent as men!
>If you gave us a chance in the organization you built, you would see!

If women were as competent as men, they would have been the ones who built the organization, not men, and they wouldn't need to ask us for permission to partake.

It's pretty straightforward.

Because she won't actually do the work?

Because they're not you subhuman bong

>fire X-Men

>if
/thread

If you actually read the description of the study, you'll know why sociology is considered a joke. Seriously, you have to wonder what kind of incompetent asshats who thinks this study is valid.

>On average, a 10 percentage point increase in female representation raised the proportion of competent men by 3 percentage points. The researchers observed little discernible effect on the competence of women.

>Competence was measured by comparing the private incomes across people with the same education, occupation, age, and residence in the same geographical region. Those with higher incomes were deemed more competent.

I mean... how goddamn stupid are they?
If you have 100 men, and remove the worst 10% of them and replace them with women, then obviously the remaining men are more competent as a group because you removed the worst.
For fuck's sake. How the fuck is this news? How is this a fucking study?

>if the woman is more competent, why shouldn't she get the job?
Gender quotas are the opposite of that you mong. Literally: it doesn't matter if the candidate is less competent if we need more of their gender.

fuck quotas just hire the best candidate
quotas are just more regressive left bullshit

((((research))))

(((objective))) (((research)))
goyim

we have always been at war with eastasia

forced gender quotas are meritocracy

as I expected

FAKE SCIENCE
FAKE NEWS
FAKE RESEARCH

actually, overall competence went up as well.

furthermore, the effect was consistent with other competent metrics such as education and IQ

stay mad white boi

How come most HR are women and don't hire women themselves? Is it patriarchy?

>Workplace gender quotas weed out incompetent men and make businesses less efficient by introducing even more incompetent women

I work for the National Park Service. Every summer we get a wave of seasonal employees. ALL of the women in my department "got hurt" within their FIRST WEEK and had to be put on light duty while the men picked up the slack.

I talked to my supervisor about it and he said "That's just the way it is."

Female privilege is 100% real, but never talked about openly.

>no citations
>no successful businesses participated in the study
WOW

...

(((study finds)))

I think global warming has proven that studies mean fuck all

So take away their job from the people who already have them so you can pass it on to some one else who doesn't know how to good logic
>woman very smurt