If someone wants to hire only people of one gender, what's the harm in that?
There are other places to work.
I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume
231–240 of 391 posts
Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the way things are going, it is not an irrational or unreasonable fear that something you (as a man or a woman) do/say is going to offend someone (man or woman) and land you in trouble. This has nothing to do with man vs woman. Badclient said nothing of men or women... just "sexist remark". Nor was there any mention of anything that would fall under any reasonable definition of misogyny . Your response only furt…
To be fair he wrote one line which in the context of the thread could easily be perceived as defending sexist hiring practices. He may not have said "man or woman" but he responded to a comment I made where I described a manager of mine who was fond of making sexist jokes and refused to take women seriously as job candidates. In his position if I wanted to make a more general point about the court system I would have…
It would be really awesome if when people read/hear stuff that can easily be perceived in more than one way... they went with the better choice than the worst one. Not everyone perceives things the same way.. so why always assume they meant it the bad way you perceived it rather than finding out what they meant first? I think a lot of this trouble would go away.
Also, badclient wrote exactly one sentence: It is a problem when "sexist remark" has a much more vague definition in court than in everyday life. This is a true concern that does not infer anything about which sex did which sexist thing... only that the definition of "sexist" is dangerously vague. If you think that translates to a "hate of all women", you have projected that upon badclient.
Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I missed it, where did he say his name implied he had kids?
"If they did read further, the next thing they saw (as politeness declared at the time) was a little personal information, and that declared I was married with kids."
Your marital status and whether or not you have kids should NOT be on your CV. It's illegal for an employer to even ask about it in an interview.
Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's even sadder is that there's no obvious or easy way to fix it. There is no easy way to fix it, but there is a way to fix it. I won't go so far as to say that it's obvious to many people. The way to do it? Work to change men's attitudes and biases towards women. It can definitely be done, but it takes hard work and cultural change. I would recommend the book "The Macho Paradox" by Jackson Katz for anyone inter…
One of the things which stuck with me from my social psychology class in college was a comparison of gender discrimination in hiring practices comparing male interviewers with female interviewers. The take away was that female interviewers were more likely than male interviewers to end up with sexist hiring results. Their were a number of possible justifications given, such as that the women interviewers felt threate…
> women interviewers felt threatened by having another women take their job
my anegdotal evidence is most women I knew found female peers a pain in the ass and explicitely admitted they in general prefer to work with men.
Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
It saddens me to know there are people who think the presence of women infringes on their right to make sexist remarks. And that making sexist remarks is such a vital part of their everyday life that hiring women is the unacceptable route. It is a problem when "sexist remark" has a much more vague definition in court than in everyday life.
Wherever you work, whatever you do, you have to trust the people you work with for that relationship to be ongoing and productive (i.e. staying out of court). It sounds like you have a problem trusting women not to take you to court rather than a problem with the court system. Which sounds an awful lot like misogyny.
One shouldn't have to rely excessively on trust or luck just to keep himself/herself out of legal trouble.
Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If they did read further, the next thing they saw (as politeness declared at the time) was a little personal information, and that declared I was married with kids."
Your marital status and whether or not you have kids should NOT be on your CV. It's illegal for an employer to even ask about it in an interview.
> It's illegal for an employer to even ask about it in an interview.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find such a law. What you will more likely find that it is illegal for an employer to discriminate in hiring based on that information, and an employer asking the question in an interview is quite likely to be used in any lawsuit over alleged discrimination as evidence that they were, in fact, discriminating in hiring based on the information, since asking a question in an hiring interview is pretty compelling evidence of an intent to use the response in making hiring decisions.
Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And the worst part is, it's surely conscious on nobody's part. There have even been studies showing this effect. There are studies showing that the unconscious effect exists. But it's definitely conscious at times. I know a few people in HR in Silicon Valley, and here are a few things they've heard from actual hiring managers: "You don't have any kids? Great, we can work you harder!" "If he had to reschedule the ph…
Those seem like caricatures of what an HR person would say, rather than what was actually said. I work at a company notorious for poor work\life balance, and nobody has ever said to me 'we can work harder' in any context. They say things like 'We value people who are commited to growing the company. If a candidate shows us he's willing to go the extra mile to finish the project he's working on, that's a definite posi…
Ironically, the "we can work you harder" one was the one that I actually saw the email for. :) The others, I admit, may have been paraphrased.
Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. I worked at a company where my CTO said "Well we couldn't seriously consider hiring a woman for this team" after interviewing a female developer. I couldn't believe what I was hearing and it was a pleasure to leave the company shortly thereafter. It saddens me to know there are people who think the presence of women infringes on their right to make sexist remarks. And that making sexist remarks is such a vita…
It saddens me to know there are people who think the presence of women infringes on their right to make sexist remarks. And that making sexist remarks is such a vital part of their everyday life that hiring women is the unacceptable route. It is a problem when "sexist remark" has a much more vague definition in court than in everyday life.
Is this based on actual court proceedings you've encountered, or the "OMG saying 'hi' will be treated as a sexual advance!" boogyman?
Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not call it bigotry, but rather stupidity. They are not the first people ever thinking the idea of separating female and men, or suggested that some benefits can be achieved that way. Schools like to separate girls from boys, and points towards improved and safer environment. Conferences like to create women only sections, in the idea (with some irony) that it would improve gender equality, and like schools,…
> Schools have almost gone through this stage and fully gone over to mixed classrooms. To their detriment. As a product of both coed and all boys private schools, there is a stark difference in teaching and disceplin in single sex schools that research shows improves outcomes. Hit http://scholar.google.com/ with "single sex education." There is a huge discrepancy in male performance especially that most teachers admi…
> Being a women of breading age, she was specifically asked if she intended to have children in the next 5 years which was a non-starter. These were small firms that couldn't afford to have a junior partner off for maternity leave
That's sexism, plain and simple. Who are they to assume she's going to take extended maternity leave and be the primary care giver? They would never ask that of a man (most male law partners are married and have kids), because they would as assume that his wife would take care of the kids. That's sexism.
Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It is true the author became aware or more aware of gender discrimination because of his name, but he still doesn't have the experience of living in a society where gender discrimination is a daily occurrence. All genders face gender discrimination. For example, the country I live in is a Nordic country often hailed for equality, but the state forces all men to do slave-labour for the government. Men and women face…
> All genders face gender discrimination. This is true, but it should be noted that gender discrimination is fundamentally related to patriarchy and misogyny. > For example, the country I live in is a Nordic country often hailed for equality, but the state forces all men to do slave-labour for the government. I don't know anything about this so I can't really comment. > Men and women face about the same amount of gen…
>This is true, but it should be noted that gender discrimination is fundamentally related to patriarchy and misogyny.
I don't agree with your definition.
>I'm from the US, so I can't speak for every place, but that is most certainly not true here. Women and trans* folks are far more likely to experience sexual assault and violence compared to men and generally women face systemic issues revolving around family and work that men do not.
I disagree, even with US. Men face more violence than women, for example.
>In the US lack of "father's rights" is a red herring. Men have a high success rate in getting custody in family court when they pursue custody, however men do not pursue custody nearly as often. Also, any kind of bias or discrimination in favor of women in family court is rooted in misogyny in the first place.
Ah, so discrimination against men is actually discrimination against women? I disagree with your invented definition.