311–320 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the legal text supporting this?
There's a lot of countries we're talking about here (and I'm honestly surprised an adult who has hired someone wouldn't be aware) but from a 5 second DuckDuckGo: > The only thing the employer has to do is avoid criteria which touch on race, religion, gender, age or disability. > Allen M., Esq. Attorney
For those interested here is a link to The Code of Federal Regulations: Title 29 (Labor): Part 1604 “Guidelines On Discrimination Because of Sex” which describes the relevant legal requirements/interpretations pertaining to employer sex discrimination. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title29-vol4/xml/CFR-...
" § 1604.5 Job opportunities advertising. It is a violation of title VII for a help-wanted advertisement to indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the particular job involved. The placement of an advertisement in columns classified by publishers on the basis of sex, such as columns headed “Male” or “Female,” will be con…
The placement of an advertisement in columns classified by publishers on the basis of sex, such as columns headed “Male” or “Female,” will be considered an expression of a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on sex.
Facebook publishes the ad, and their target gender option surely falls in under "column classification".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is a publisher? I thought it still operated user content under the DMCA safe harbors.
The safe harbor protects sites whose users infringe copyright, if certain conditions are met. I don't think it applies to advertising. An example of safe harbor protection would be something like a user uploading a copyrighted song without a site's knowledge. If the site did not know about it, did not benefit from it financially, and takes it down when they are told about it, safe harbor protections would probably ap…
You might want to look at USC Section 230 [1] which says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
[0] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html [1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html
And what is wrong? Suppose I have a position already filled by a woman and now, for the sake of diversity, I need to hire a man to balance the world. The real problem here is that some people will always cry and rant, regardless of the situation: - Job ad for women? Sexist! We don't need you to tell us what to do. - Job ad for men? Sexist! We can do that to! - Job ad for both? Sexist! You should prioritize women, we…
There are only a handful of fields where women dominate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's sexist to target men for a job posting. You know the job, you know what it entails and you know what works behaviorally and physically. There are differences between genders. That's okay. I do think it's sexist to not hire a qualified women for the job because she's a women ( esp. in the garbage collector scenario). Like you hate women or something and you don't hire them ( funny story I heard a wo…
"There are differences between genders." For sure. But you're not hiring a sex, you're hiring a person and individuals can match requirements for almost all types of position regardless of sex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, I can't get Facebook ads targeted to a different gender. Actually you can by lying to Facebook. I have been doing this for a long time and the bullshit ads I get are kind of amusing.
Provided that fb is a social network, lying to it must be lying to your environment?
Is why we have species that impersonate other species, or that have camouflage patterning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why ad targeting based on gender is perfectly fine.
well, in this case it isn't perfectly fine because it shouldn't be described as "Gender. Target ads to women, men or people of all genders." if there is only 50/50 chance to display ad to woman. Isn't it just ridiculous and straight lie to potential advertisement buyer?
If they don't, they're going to get their money taken anyway and a lot more savagely than a mistargeted campaign hinged on gender.
I really have to drive this point home. Selecting gender as a target on Facebook isn't actually selecting gender and everybody involved knows it. It's a much simpler way to describe a much more complex set of decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There are differences between genders." For sure. But you're not hiring a sex, you're hiring a person and individuals can match requirements for almost all types of position regardless of sex.
So if i have a job that requires a man, why should i be coerced into paying for showing the ads for women?
And what is wrong? Suppose I have a position already filled by a woman and now, for the sake of diversity, I need to hire a man to balance the world. The real problem here is that some people will always cry and rant, regardless of the situation: - Job ad for women? Sexist! We don't need you to tell us what to do. - Job ad for men? Sexist! We can do that to! - Job ad for both? Sexist! You should prioritize women, we…
In fields that are dominated by women like teaching, they do target men for jobs. It is publicly known. There are only a handful of fields where women dominate.
I was curious if I could find some figures, so I did a quick Google search. While I can't vouch for the data used in this article, it seems your statement is incorrect, and quite strongly so
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce...
It draws data from the U.S. Department of Labor