Page:
ben-ja-menGOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia


Posted:
so aaron lex and myself went into the realestate agents today to sign our lease for our swanky new apartment and part way through the realestate agent said to lexy

"so which one do you belong to"

footinmouth eek

but heres the jaw dropping bit ..... the realestate agent was a woman.

this was the first time i had come across this sort of attitude/comment i thought stuff like that only happened in movies. do other ppl encounter this sort of attitude or did we just draw one that evolution forgot?

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?


SDLWSILVER Member
Member
326 posts
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: polarity


I worked in childcare for 6 months, and there was rule that male workers could only have minimal physical contact with the kids. If a child came to me crying for some reason wanting a hug and some comforting I had to turn them away to one of the female workers. That's just cold.





Having worked with children since i left college yeah the attitude towards men in child care is one that makes it truly harsh for men to get a job ive worked places were the staff have literally gone man in the place woa never and that bloke never got the job ive been in places were its like wow that will look good for ofstead the last place i worked they had a male there and he also wasnt allowed to cuddle the children but this was nothing to do with company policy to begin with he had been but one of the parents had seen a child on his lap completely inocently and complained to the owner about it. I also now work with a male nursery nurse and hes damn good at his job and accepted so in general i think it depends on people and how they view stuff till that changes dont think anything else will if that makes sence

Tell me and I forget, Show me and I remember, Involve me and I understand


IcerSILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand


Posted:
anthropology is the science of humans; especially, the study of humans in relation to distribution, origin, classification, and relationship of races or ethnicity, physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture. so its a social science, but i would never call myself a scienctist, i dont think any social science is a 'real science'. but that is b/c my first degree was in zoology and ecology, a physical science, and that still shapes the way i look at academia, which is why, even though im now a 'social sciencist', i still dont consider myself a scientist. our own respective fields will shape the way we observe and interpret the same data.
didnt think the tiolet seat thing meant anything either, thats why it was in the chat section not discussion. but then again, it just might have made even just one person question the way they behave, and set them on the path towards refecting on deeper things, which is a good thing. when we conduct studies and research we always strife for a high degree of reflexivity, which is one step on from reflectivity. if more ppl were refelctive and reflexive i think that would be a positive step towards removing some of the prejudices that pervade every facet of human interaction.
fortunately i have had plenty of oppotunity to refect on myself, and i know im full of it, i know im not perfect and i know i dont have all (or any of) the answers, but im trying.

It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.


RoziSILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia


Posted:
Written by: Icer


i know i dont have all (or any of) the answers, but im trying.




Once again, elegantly put smile I know mine is only a personal mission in trying to understand. I like to seek something that feels "right" or "true" to me (with full awareness of the subjective nature of those concepts). It is only through having that can I move forward. The essence of learning to me is to make a connection, to test it, revise and then apply it. I tend to feel discomfort if a connection or idea is not fully tested, meaning that I cannot rely on it or build on it. So yes, I try. Cos not trying is worse.

But back to the subject. Something I always found interesting was humankind's tendency to attribute gender to animate objects and to concepts. For example, in the art world, curvy lines may be described as feminine. Or in nautical terms, a boat is a "she". Our notions of gender go well beyond the human, and into how we make sense of the world around us.

I am not going to make a judgement on the right or wrong of it. I am just going to say that it

Has implications for how we define the genders in culture
Says a lot about the importance of gender in our frame of reference
Can allow us to explore the values we associate with genders, without getting into the men vs women debate

It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.

What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...


PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:
lexy shoulda replied;

"one...or the other...both...depends on my mood really" smile

but then again, you might not have got the apartment had she said that smile

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:
yeah right guys - even in the most 'equal' countries on earth women are still disadvantaged. Look at the boards of directors of big companies - almost all male. Look at politics - even with affirmative policies there is still a majority of men. All industries including nursing and teaching and care work have a greater proportion of males in upper level jobs than at the base levels. AND its not because women arent qualified - they actually graduate from school and university with on average higher grades than men.

So yeah have a whinge about the feminists - its exactly what the capitalist fat cats have programmed you to do.

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


The Tea FairySILVER Member
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...


Posted:
Yay, another anthropologist! I'm still finishing my anth. degree, did modules on gender last semester studying Ortner's female/male - nature/culture paradigm.

I agree with the postmodernists when it comes to gender inequality and the subordination of women, all women and men are different and relate to their gender differently, we'll never be able to judge if women are universally worse off because each culture has so many different criteria that this can be judged by...

'How much weight do we attach to absence of gang rape versus relative control over the food supply versus freedom to choose sexual and marital partners versus public political voice? Thus the positive and negative evaluation of women's lives elsewhere will always be partial and selective' (di Leonardo, 1991, p.17).

By the way, I don't remember the quotes by heart I just happen to have a very good essay I wrote on feminism and anthropology in front of me!

p.s. Icer, I'm starting my dissertation soon on the use of complementary therapies in palliative care, do you happen to know any ethnographies about this? So far i've only found one by Kaja Finkler.

Idolized by Aurinoko

Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....

Bob Dylan


BirgitBRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)


Posted:
Pyrolific, I AM a woman and I still am complaining about women who put everything down to them being female. They make everything harder for women who actually are discriminated against. Fat capitalist pigs? Didn't tell me anything, I just look at the way some people don't want to take responsibility for themselves and blame it on circumstances they can't influence.



Feminism in my opinion too often takes the form of women not wanting equality but to pay men back everything they've done since stone age. It won't get the machos though, but it might really hurt the nicer men.

"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half


brodiemanold hand
1,024 posts
Location: london


Posted:
Written by: Pyrolific


All industries including nursing and teaching and care work have a greater proportion of males in upper level jobs than at the base levels.




I donno about teaching but its not true about nursing, about 80% managers in regards to nursing are female. but that is in the uk, but this sonthing im writing a study on, so would be intrested where you got your stats from , please pm them to me it would be verry helpful smile

PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:
so in nursing 80% of managers are female but what proportion of all non-managerial nurses are female? if its less than 80% I'll eat my proverbial hat! smile I'll raid my sisters (Shes a Gender Studies Grad) bookshelf and get back to you. actually I think this has come up before on HOp and I've had a similar outburst. I guess a Durbs is in order. smile

And yes Birgit, I knew you were female smile I believe one of the greatest barriers between women and equality is women who dont even see the glass ceilings or the fact they do more house work, child rearing, or any number of indicators of inequality. It has been shown that in Oz (and I bet elsewhere eg uk and us) Women are actually sliding back towards greater inequality - partly because there are so many (especially young) women who seem to think feminism is something for dykes, and that they are already equal, and that the battle of the sexes waged in the 60s and 70s was won by women.

Surely absence of gang rapes isnt given as an indicator of sexual equality?

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


BirgitBRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)


Posted:
Right... I'm not sure if you understood my point and just wanted to make yours clear or if I come across as a "feminism is for dykes" person... so I'll just try and state my point differently smile

I don't think I'm considered equal - I've been not taken seriously in science often enough and people have just ignored what I said while talking to men who had much less of an idea, and I know about the gap in pays etc. I've also been discriminated against as a disabled person, as a (if slightly) overweight person and as a German in a different country. I'm not saying we have equality, or that anyone shouldn't be upset about discrimination.

I'm just generally annoyed at people (not only women!) who prefer to blame others for things they could improve if they'd get off their arses. And about people who want to see discrimination in places where it isn't, or wasn't intended, or wasn't perceived by the person who did it, but who might actually understand someone felt hurt when they'd explain it. There are enough problems in the world without people making the little ones bigger just to get some attention while not actually doing anything about it.

In the admittedly limited number of feminists I've met, the predominant thing they got across to me was that they liked complaining a lot and didn't like men very much, which is fair enough, but won't get anyone anywhere. And most of them were really only looking for advantages for women, not equality, and I don't think that is fair, either. Some examples of how useful some things favoured by the feminists I know are:
In a local charity I worked, 40% of people on the council had to be women. There were 16 applicants, 4 of them women, and 2 of those absolutely incapable, but they all got on the 10 people council just to fill the quote, leaving at least 1 guy I knew and who would've been quite good at the job without a place on it even though he would've been in from the count of votes.
Another, political, council had 5 places, but only 3 could be filled (though there were lots of applicants), because only 1 girl applied and there had to be 33% women, so basically 3 people had to do the work of 5 because of that.
And my favourite example of equality was my friend who went to study in California for a year, and the uni made HIM call his medical insurance company to make sure they'd support HIM in case HE got pregnant. He was trying to tell them they were a bit silly, but they said they had to because of equality laws.

I also think that if women are content with the inequality (like some housewives actually are) then it's their business; I couldn't be a housewife, but I won't make anyone who enjoys being one go on the barricades for more equality.

Having said that, I do understand where you're coming from, and I agree that it's right to make women aware of how much work they're actually doing even if they "only" stay at home smile

"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half


jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
There are lot of people confusing feminism with man-hating, including people who call themselves feminists. Feminism is defined as the quest for equal rights for women. I'm not sure what the word for inverted misogynism (not sure how to spell it) is but I feel it should be remembered that it is a completly different thing from feminism. That said I think misogynism is far more prevailant in society right now than it's reverse so we need to be careful about knee jerk reactions against misguided p.c. policies.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


BirgitBRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)


Posted:
misandry probably...

and I reserve the right to criticise misguided policies, because they are an important factor that increases misogynism. Even if it wasn't, if I were a female rep on a council and I'd only gotten in because of the quote, I would probably step back, or at least feel very bad about it. If you're trying to get equality and use laws for it that prefer women (cause there are very few places that say a council HAS to have 30-50% men at least) you're not going to succeed, you might get the percentages right but it's not going to make most men respect women's equality more.

"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
There's two sides to the quota thing though- those examples show where it can get silly, there could easily be an equal, or greater, number of instances where quotas do work well and help to ensure equality.

Many jobs traditionaly are unbalanced in terms of gender or ethnic minority, and it is a problem that those under-represented will tend not to apply in great numbers.

To an extent though, it's down to the people advertising the position to go out of their way to maximise applications for those groups; otherwise things will never change.

If the positions have to be filled by inept applicants because the quotas weren't filled, then, rather than just reflecting on the stupidity of it, it's important to work out what to do next time to ensure that a greater number of under-represented individuals apply.

-----------

Concerning the rest of the thread- it's true that women are discriminated against, but I feel it's important to acknowledge that there is equal discrimination against men (some of the childcare/nursing examples given on this thread illustrate this).

It's been by opinion for some time now, that where-ever one group is subject to discrimination, the other group is equally reaping negative consequences.

A simplistic example being that, during the times when women in the west were denied the vote and restricted to tight social roles; young men of every new generation would be compelled to subject themsleves to the horrors of war.

ie, it was bad for women then, but would you really want to be a man in that situation? It was bad for everyone.

In that scenario, both genders were responsible for maintaining that status-quo (men who refused would be seen as cowards by most women, and subjected to humiliating pressure to fight), and both genders suffered.

Of course, women were absolutely right to fight tooth and claw for their rights to vote, and for equality- I just think that, in the long term, recognizing that, when inequality and oppression is rife- everybody suffers.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: Birgit



Some examples of how useful some things favoured by the feminists I know are:
In a local charity I worked, 40% of people on the council had to be women. There were 16 applicants, 4 of them women, and 2 of those absolutely incapable, but they all got on the 10 people council just to fill the quote, leaving at least 1 guy I knew and who would've been quite good at the job without a place on it even though he would've been in from the count of votes.
Another, political, council had 5 places, but only 3 could be filled (though there were lots of applicants), because only 1 girl applied and there had to be 33% women, so basically 3 people had to do the work of 5 because of that.





There's two sides to the quota thing though- those examples show where it can get silly, there could easily be an equal, or greater, number of instances where quotas do work well and help to ensure equality.

Many jobs traditionaly are unbalanced in terms of gender or ethnic minority, and it is a problem that those under-represented will tend not to apply in great numbers.

To an extent though, it's down to the people advertising the position to go out of their way to maximise applications for those groups; otherwise things will never change.

If the positions have to be filled by inept applicants because the quotas weren't filled, then, rather than just reflecting on the stupidity of it, it's important to work out what to do next time to ensure that a greater number of under-represented individuals apply.

-----------

Concerning the rest of the thread- it's true that women are discriminated against, but I feel it's important to acknowledge that there is equal discrimination against men (some of the childcare/nursing examples given on this thread illustrate this).

It's been by opinion for some time now, that where-ever one group is subject to discrimination, the other group is equally reaping negative consequences.

A simplistic example being that, during the times when women in the west were denied the vote and restricted to tight social roles; young men of every new generation would be compelled to subject themsleves to the horrors of war.

ie, it was bad for women then, but would you really want to be a man in that situation? It was bad for everyone.

In that scenario, both genders were responsible for maintaining that status-quo (men who refused would be seen as cowards by most women, and subjected to humiliating pressure to fight), and both genders suffered.

Of course, women were absolutely right to fight tooth and claw for their rights to vote, and for equality- I just think that, in the long term, recognizing that, when inequality and oppression is rife- everybody suffers.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
I think the problem is that someone has fixed on the idea that employers should use percentages to work out the proportions of male/female/white/black/asiatic etc etc that they employ.

This is stupid.

Point A is that the people employed by a company should be PROPORTIONAL to the population from which they are drawing the recruits. Asking for 8% of people who aren't white in a job where I live is stupid, because 99.6% of the population is white.

Point B is in total agreement with a statement on the first page of this thread, that true equality is not established by the percentages of your employees, but that you simply employ the people best qualified. If the person is adequately able to fulfill the requirements of the job then they should get the job. You shouldn't have to tick a box stating your ethnic origin or gender to maintain some average decided by the policy makers.

On the note of ethnic origin, I get annoyed by things like this:

Headline of Article: "Soldiers addess found 'at home of terrorist'"

Police raided the flat of an Islamic person, and found the name and address of a soldier who had been decorated for bravery. There was no explanation for why they decided to raid his flat, nor was there any evidence that he was a terrorist or indeed meant the soldier any harm. Despite this, BEFORE the trial he has been labelled as a terrorist, put in prison and named in a national newspaper.

That same week, on the local news, there was a story about a white UK national (i.e. One of "us") who was found to have 3 rooms FULL of explosive material, including plastic explosives and homemade cocktails. He was not imprisoned, simply given a caution and had his explosives confiscated and cautioned not to make any more.

Can there be any higher evidence of the Xenophobia creeping into our society in the wake of September 11th? And on a side note, I'm going into teaching, and if any child comes to me in tears I will *not* stand by and watch them cry when I could give them a hug. If they fire me, then I'm not the one who has a national male teacher shortage.

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


SpannerBRONZE Member
remembers when it was all fields round here
2,790 posts
Location: in the works... somewhere..., United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: polarity



But when it does go to court it's biased, and even when it doesn't the man is obliged to take pains to ensure that what remains of the relationship doesn't turn sour, so it doesn't end up in court. (answering your second question).






If the mother is behaving unreasonably, then yes, the father unfortunately would be obliged to "take pains". But if she isn't, then all the father is obliged to do is to behave reasonably in turn.



It goes both ways - many reasonably behaving mothers feel obliged to "take pains" to ensure that fathers who aren't behaving reasonably don't put them and the children through a needless court ordeal.

"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"


GherkinGOLD Member
Inventor
117 posts
Location: Australia


Posted:
Written by: Sethis


I think the problem is that someone has fixed on the idea that employers should use percentages to work out the proportions of male/female/white/black/asiatic etc etc that they employ



I agree. Employing someone because they're male/female/white/black/asiatic is as bad as excluding them for the same reasons. It's not equality.

The Tea FairySILVER Member
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...


Posted:
The gang-rape mention in the quote by Di Leonardo... she wasn't talking about the status of women in terms of equality, but in terms of trying to make judgements about what some feminists see as the 'universal subordination' of women. Hope that makes the point clearer to you. smile

Idolized by Aurinoko

Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....

Bob Dylan


MiGGOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia


Posted:
I'm going to stand behind Gherkin on this one. Feminism, anti-sexism, whatever you want to call it, it should be about being equal.

I'm all for being equal. Bring it on. But equal should be equal. None of the laws that state that females can't lift over X many Kg. It should be up to the person lifting to decide what they can lift. I could put a healthy amount of money on the table, saying that i bet there is a stronger woman than me somewhere in NSW (one example of where that law exists. I can't remember the exact figures or anything, i'll try to find it at tafe.) And yet, i'm allowed to lift an unlimited amount, yet a female of my age is limited to under 30 Kg. (again, i can't remember the exact figure)

No females saying 'i can't do that because i'm a girl' (got a fair bit of that at my last job). What is stopping you? You applied for this position, knowing that you'd be lifting stuff, knowing you'd get dirty. Why can't you do it again, and why the hell is 'because i'm a girl' a reasonable reason?

Exactly the same as i think it should be regarding race. why the hell are there boxes on almost every single application form saying 'i am of aboriginal or torres strait islander descent'? IT SHOULDNT MATTER!!

The other thing regarding race that annoys the crap out of me is people being put in positions that specifically mention the fact that they're aboriginal. Why is the need to state that there?

Sorry for the language, but it's something thats been narking me for some time now.

Oh, and has anyone else seen/heard of the trend that females of the younger generation (<20 or something) are actually looking to have less career and more home life? or was that something my head made up?

"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA

"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie


spiralxveteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK


Posted:
Men are stronger on average than women... but as with pretty much everything it's all on a bell curve with plenty of overlap. Perhaps if there was more understanding of the fact that both men and women have a range of abilities it'd help.

"Moo," said the happy cow.


IcerSILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand


Posted:
this is a very tricky and often sensitive topic. men and women are different, no one can argue against that. there is stacks and stacks of quantitative and qualitative data to support that, so is equality a reasonable expectation. im not sayin either way b/c im not sure.
perhaps the answer is to take each person on their own merits, leave crude and overly simplistic catergories such as gender or ethnicity (which is btw an extremly undefined and misused term) to catergorise ppl.
if ppl starting assessing other ppl on their own individual characteristics, i think they would a positive step towards removing discrimination, it may not achieve equality of genders, or ethnicities or wotever, but that idea still relies upon those drude and simplistic distinctions, even if only to say that they are equal. when we achieve equality of INDIVIDUALS then, i think, we will have removed much, if not all, of the discrimination present in modern societies.
the problem with that is that the resources required to assess accurately each individual is far more than the resources needed to provide a box on an application form to tick male or female.
i think my point after all that is that we need to stop thinkin in terms of male, female, black, white, asian etc, but in terms of individuals.

It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.


RoziSILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia


Posted:
What I am getting from this discussion is that essentially everyone is saying the same thing. We are saying that in this flawed world which we live, people are stereotyped based on gender. This leads to disadvantages for both, and also both sexes trying to exploit the stereotype to their advantage.



We are also saying that in an ideal world people should be judged based on their character, not on the contents of their underpants (to paraphrase a great man). wink

It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.

What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...


PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:
yeah but Rozi - the current system championed by a few people here ie' everyone on their own merits' is demonstrably failing to produce equitable outcomes. That's the whole point of affirmative action, to artificially overselect underrepresented groups in the hope that the existing unequal status quo is upset.

Guys - saying that people should select just on the basis of who is good for the job just doesnt work! people still select by stereotype, and there are only two ways to change that, change the perceptions through education (and anyone who has been to schools recently will probly agree with me that that system is drastically underresourced for that kind of work) or by forcing people to accept it through legislation. In Oz we've had quite good sex and race discrimination laws for 2 working age generations and we still havent seemed to get it yet.

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Well wouldn't it be simple enough to apply for all jobs postally? And then the company simply selects the applicant with the most relavent qualifications?

I agree that if the job involves talking to customers/representatives etc then the person should be interviewed, but only AFTER they have been confirmed as a possible candidate, and they should have the right to appeal if someone is chosen over them who is less qualified.

I agree that teaching in this area is woefully inadequate, as are the laws.

The problem with "overselect[ing] underrepresented groups in the hope that the existing unequal status quo is upset" is that it simply causes further resentment against the minority (they're stealing our jobs! etc etc) How would you feel if you applied for a job and *this is NOT MY VIEW* it got stolen by an immigrant from another country, just cos he/she fulfilled a % point on the roster?

Oh, and is it actually legal to have limits on what people can lift?? That seems blatently discrimmatory to me, especially if you look at the logic of "The heavier the stuff someone lifts is, the stronger they'll get" ergo, the more weight they'll be capable of carrying. That law makes NO sense.

And about the >20s wanting to spend more time with family? That's if you consider getting pregnant at 16, getting a council house, working in a supermarket, marrying your current boyfriend (who then panics, divorces you and runs away) and getting few if any qualifications as "spending more time with your family", then the answer is yes. I find this incredibly disturbing...

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: Sethis



The problem with "overselect[ing] underrepresented groups in the hope that the existing unequal status quo is upset" is that it simply causes further resentment against the minority (they're stealing our jobs! etc etc) How would you feel if you applied for a job and *this is NOT MY VIEW* it got stolen by an immigrant from another country, just cos he/she fulfilled a % point on the roster?





And the problem with not doing so is that discrimination continues.

Generally, any 'solution' to an unsatisfactory situation will create other problems of its own- this does not invalidate them, but is an indication that some tweaking is required.

Also an assessment of whether the new problems caused by the solution, are greater or lesser than those than existed prior to it.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Can anyone see problems with what I proposed in the first place?

"Well wouldn't it be simple enough to apply for all jobs postally? And then the company simply selects the applicant with the most relavent qualifications?

I agree that if the job involves talking to customers/representatives etc then the person should be interviewed, but only AFTER they have been confirmed as a possible candidate, and they should have the right to appeal if someone is chosen over them who is less qualified."

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


RoziSILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia


Posted:
Written by: Sethis


Can anyone see problems with what I proposed in the first place?

"Well wouldn't it be simple enough to apply for all jobs postally? And then the company simply selects the applicant with the most relavent qualifications?






I like the fact that you suggested a solution, as that is so rare. I do see some problems with it, which I will outline below, however please take it as "how can we address the issues with it and make it work?" rather than a "that doesn't work."

With most modern roles there are no set qualifications that you have to have and a lot of skills are transferrable. In order to assess this properly, we have to introduce the human element and get someone to view the resumes.

I have worked in recruitment in the past, and also worked alongside people on selection committees in different roles. They all view resumes and "cull" them to a shortlist. Most of them are not overtly prejudiced (more to come on that below), however because they are human they "read between the lines" and interpret what is put in the resume. That is their job. But it does lead to odd situations, a classic example being one where a person who listed their hobbies as "riding horses" was not shortlisted because "horsey people are mad" (direct quote from the person).

Recruitment of employees relies on assumptions, assumptions about whether someone will fit in, about whether they will work well. And it is here that the problem with prejudice lies. We are asking the selection committee to make assumptions in selecting, their natural assumptions based on gender will come into play.

Half of the problem with prejudice in either direction is that most of it is not overt. Things go unsaid. People make assumptions which they never challenge. For example, an employer may be unsure of a female employee's commitment to the job because she is of an age where women often start families. This is never said out loud, and may not even stop the female employee being hired, but it is just a suspician hiding at the back of the employer's head, and in later days they don't give the female employee quite as many opportunities, as they have a suspician about her dedication to her role.

Alternatively, it can be even more underground. An employer might have a major personality clash with a male employee, questioning his work performance etc. It is only if you step back, that you see that this particular employer has a pattern of personality clashes with male employees of a certain age.

Sometimes it is structural. An accounting firm might expect their people to work really long hours. It might not even be necessary, as the work really could be done in a shorter time. But for whatever reason, in the culture of this organisation showing that you are dedicated to your role is done by staying at work until 8pm. The employees who are best able to do that will be promoted. coincidentally, it is hard to do that if you have a family that you have a large role in taking care of directly. So single people will advance (although there is often other barriers to them), men who have partners who look after the home will advance, and mums and dads who take an active role in parenting (needing to pick up the kids from school, etc) will be less likely to advance.

For these reasons we cannot play a game of blame. Prejudice is part of how we make decisions and therefore survive in our surrounds. Prejudice is subconscious, universal and often structural. We cannot point the finger and say "you are responsible for all the prejudice in the world". What we can do is what Sethis is doing, we can challenge our individual assumptions and try and change the structures in small ways to make the world different.

It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.

What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...


RoziSILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia


Posted:
Oh, and all that leads back nicely to the quota system, as that is a way people have used to try and change the structures.

We have boths sides represented here, so why do you think it works/does not work? Can you suggest a different or more effective method?

(Can't tell I'm a trainer, can you? wink )

It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.

What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...


SpannerBRONZE Member
remembers when it was all fields round here
2,790 posts
Location: in the works... somewhere..., United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: MiG


Oh, and has anyone else seen/heard of the trend that females of the younger generation (<20 or something) are actually looking to have less career and more home life? or was that something my head made up?




Yes, I've heard something along those lines. I think it was inevitable because not only does the trend of "women having it all" sound easier than it actually is, but also some women have been there, done that and decided that it's not for them, their family or both, for many and various reasons.

Written by: Sethis


And about the >20s wanting to spend more time with family? That's if you consider getting pregnant at 16, getting a council house, working in a supermarket, marrying your current boyfriend (who then panics, divorces you and runs away) and getting few if any qualifications as "spending more time with your family", then the answer is yes. I find this incredibly disturbing...




Why?

And what's the connection between becoming pregnant under the age of 20 and the rest of the things you mention?

smile

"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Thank you for the admirably constructive evaluation Rozi, and for not simply saying "Nope, Don't work".

I'm worried about your horseriding example, because if "horsey people" are crazy, what are Fire Spinners? THAT's in my resume and I thought it would show that I had some originality (cos it's not something you see every day) rather than costing me a job... So, any advice on what most people want to see? rolleyes

I am about to get slapped for saying this, but this is simply the case *where I live* and what I see on the streets and hear about from my friends every day. It isn't about personal opinion, just what I see and hear.

First, MiG's statement about people wanting families earlier coincides neatly with the fact that Britain has the highest rate of teen pregnancies in Europe. Because these teenagers are still in school, this imposes several restrictions on them:

1. They do not have a full time job that makes adequate money to be able to rent or purchase a "real" house. Therefore the only option for accomadation is living with their parents or living in a council house.

2. Their grades will suffer, as taking care of a child is incredibly demanding, especially in the first 5 years of life. Getting 2 hours of sleep a night will not be conducive to good learning. They may even drop out entirely to look after their child, sometimes before GCSEs. (I know someone who has done this, and I understand why she did it, so it's not a condemnation)

Finally, it's disturbing because you're parents are your role models. 1/4 children being born at the moment do not have fathers. This is bad enough without the added fact that your mother is still young enough to be going to parties and getting drunk while you're in primary school. Bearing in mind that my parents divorced when I was in Primary school, I have a perspective on the situation, but I will be the first to admit that I am an unusual case because I have regular visits to my Dad (I'm going to be staying with him before and after Falmouth 4) and I love both of my parents equally much. I admit this is unusual for someone in a single parent family.

Also, the fact that most of the parents are Chavs, and smoke and Drink WHILE PREGNANT makes me pity the children.

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


Page:
HOP Newsletter
Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...