So what?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| linux4567 Apr 26, 2014 8:20 PM EDT |
As long as each position is filled by the best person available for that particular position, that's all that matters. Equality doesn't imply 50% men and 50% women quotas but it simply means choosing the best person for a job regardless of gender/skin colour/religion/political beliefs. It's simple common sense, but that seems to have been lost in the past two decades or so. |
| tuxchick Apr 26, 2014 8:29 PM EDT |
LOL, it's not simple common sense at all. I love when people get all defensive at little doses of reality. |
| linux4567 Apr 26, 2014 8:37 PM EDT |
Defensive? About what? Why attack me rather than my argument? Do you not agree that a position should be filled by the best person available regardless of gender/skin colour/religion/political beliefs? Do you believe 50% women quotas are common sense? TBH I'm very surprised this article even made it on the LXer newsfeed since it has nothing to do with FLOSS and the Guardian is famous for it's 'agenda' when it comes to 'equality' issues. |
| tuxchick Apr 26, 2014 8:43 PM EDT |
A baseless silly argument composed of the flimsiest shopworn strawmen. It does demonstrate that you know nothing at all about the subject, but nevertheless have the unwarranted confidence to advance an opinion on it. I would suggest doing your own homework, but I suspect that no amount of evidence will influence you |
| caitlyn Apr 26, 2014 8:55 PM EDT |
First, sexism is very real in IT and has been documented and written about over and over and over again. Second, Amazon is famous for it's Linux infrastructure and being a FOSS based company, so what happens at Amazon is relevant to LXer.com. Finally, do you really believe there is no glass ceiling at Amazon? Do you really believe there are no qualified women who could lead at that company? |
| linux4567 Apr 26, 2014 9:11 PM EDT |
@tuxchick: I'd quite happily listen to your arguments but sadly all you are doing is attacking me rather than debating the issue or answering my questions. @caitlyn: I don't deny that sexism exists (and it exists both ways) and that there are companies that have a 'glass ceiling' (not just for gender but for many other things such as skin colour or simply nationality) but this article doesn't provide any evidence for that at Amazon. It's a typical 'agenda' article by the Guardian (which is famous for this) full of accusations but very short on facts. |
| caitlyn Apr 26, 2014 9:16 PM EDT |
Translation of your response to me: It's in a liberal paper so I don't believe it. Also, sexism exists both ways? Perhaps, yes, but only one gender has been systematically denied equal pay and equal opportunity, so that is an excellent example of what Carla described as a well worn strawman argument that simply doesn't hold water. |
| linux4567 Apr 26, 2014 9:34 PM EDT |
The Guardian is a champagne-socialist paper, not liberal at all. You seem to be blinded by you preconceptions when you say that "only one gender has been systematically denied equal pay and equal opportunity". I know of a woman who was hired (in an IT role) to work in a team I worked in simply because she was good looking despite there were better candidates for the role (I know that for a fact because my boss confided his motive to me afterwards). This is obviously sexism but in this case it were the male candidates who lost out. Women getting jobs based on their looks are certainly not rare cases. There is plenty of sexism both ways and I think it's wrong regardless who's the victim. |
| jdixon Apr 26, 2014 10:58 PM EDT |
> It's in a liberal paper so I don't believe it. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but... yes. With a long and well established history to back up the decision. Now, that doesn't mean the story isn't factually true in any given detail. Merely that the Guardian doesn't care whether it's true or not as long as it promotes their agenda of the moment. And the agenda of the moment for the liberal media and establishment seems to be the rather nebulous issue of "income equality". All of which has almost nothing to do with the very real problems of hostile work environments for women. |
| BernardSwiss Apr 26, 2014 11:54 PM EDT |
One might be forgiven for assuming that this sort of thing hasn't been -- and continues to be -- thoroughly studied, in many different ways (for example, by sending out paired, equivalent resumes out to various job postings, differing chiefly in whether the name of the "applicant" happens to be 'Richard Jones' or 'Janet Smith', or happens to be Scott Lincoln or Trevon Jefferson or George Li. You don't need to know the details of the resumes to correctly predict which will recieve the most and most favorable responses). Now, I've seen some change since I entered the job market. I generally put it this way -- in many sectors these days, especially at lower and mid-level positions, female employees can get away with being just as incompetent as any male colleague. But the problem hasn't disappeared. And the one thing that remains as true today as it ever was, is that the tired old "if they're equally qualified" mantra simply doesn't hold up to the reality: that the "equally qualified" applicants just aren't perceived as equally qualified when they become identified as part of the discriminated sub-group, as being female, black, or whatever sub-group is being discriminated against. So I guess that, just maybe, a lot of this discrimination stems from unconscious prejudices -- and those doing the discrimination continue to believe that they are quite unbiased and impartial, because they're not consciously or deliberately discriminating against the group in question. |
| caitlyn Apr 27, 2014 3:06 AM EDT |
jdixon: Excellent points. It's funny. If I share something from Fox News that matches up with other, less conservative media I'll be attacked by those on the left for using a right wing source. Here the converse holds true. I don't want to get into politics here but let's just say I have plenty of reason not to blindly trust The Guardian. I just found it interesting that this was published the same day I posted about my experiences where I found an IT department of 400 with no, as in zero, women. There is an underlying issue here that can and should be explored. Oh, and yes, I have good reason to believe the story is accurate that I cannot share here just now. Maybe later :) BernardSwiss: Also excellent points. There is an oft repeated claim that if you're African-American or a woman you have to be twice as good as your white, male counterparts to be considered. I've worked in places where that clearly wasn't true and qualifications were all that mattered. I've also worked in places where twice as good was not good enough for some people. When tech is booming qualifications trump all. When there are more candidates than positions then companies start looking for who fits the team best. The old saw of "birds of a feather" starts to trump qualifications. |
| theBeez Apr 27, 2014 9:48 AM EDT |
50% women in ANY workplace is just as stupid as 5% mentally challenged people in Congress. Actually, that last figure is much higher than may be expected. |
| tuxchick Apr 27, 2014 11:32 AM EDT |
No linux4567, you won't listen because you already know everything. I learned a long time ago it's a waste of time trying to have a rational discussion with people who already know everything, so I have a little fun telling you truths I know you're going to reject. |
| linux4567 Apr 27, 2014 11:46 AM EDT |
@tuxchick: excuses, excuses, excuses, everything to avoid actually debating the issue... |
| jdixon Apr 27, 2014 12:02 PM EDT |
> If I share something from Fox News that matches up with other, less conservative media I'll be attacked by those on the left for using a right wing source. Of course. :) And Fox has their biases and agendas. They're just different ones. > Here the converse holds true. I don't want to get into politics here but let's just say I have plenty of reason not to blindly trust The Guardian. No news source can be blindly trusted. Everyone has biases. The best you can hope for is to get multiple source and compare them against each other. That's fairly hard to do though, and most people don't have the time. > Oh, and yes, I have good reason to believe the story is accurate that I cannot share here just now. I don't really doubt the accuracy of the facts mentioned. They're too easy to check, and their being false would detract from the story's usefulness. But I've seen this particular type of agenda being carried out too many times not to recognize it when I see it. But, as I said, that has nothing to do with the real problem we're trying to discuss, which is hostile work environments in general and to women in particular. Unfortunately, I have no offers on solutions to that problem. Since it is tied into basic human faults which appear to have existed as long as people have, it seems fairly intractable. The best solution may simply be to shine a light on the problem when it's found, as you're doing, then let societal forces do their work. |
| lqsh Apr 27, 2014 2:10 PM EDT |
The infant daycare down the street employs 90% women.. it's so sexist against men :) The army is 95% men.. again, so sexist :) Not all industries need to be 50/50 to function well. |
| lqsh Apr 27, 2014 2:28 PM EDT |
Yes, there should be 50/50 equality at all times. Next time a boat is about to sink, no more "women and children first", let half the women drown. Isn't it sexist to have all the women survive and let all the men drown? Why are women so special? Oh, and mothers.. be sure to send your young daughters to fight in the next war, and keep your sons home. |
| tuxchick Apr 27, 2014 2:29 PM EDT |
The dumb moldy old strawman here is the quota argument. Nobody is arguing for quotas. That is a dishonest mis-framing of the issue. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion when the starting point is akin to having to argue "the Earth is a sphere, it's not flat, no really". The issues are well-studied, well-documented, and apparent in daily observation to people who are willing to face reality. Oh I know, expecting informed discussion over a desperate deathgrip on denial is silly, but I always hope. |
| flufferbeer Apr 27, 2014 3:19 PM EDT |
@lqsh +1 >> Yes, there should be 50/50 equality at all times. Next time a boat is about to sink, no more "women and children first", let half the women drown. Isn't it sexist to have all the women survive and let all the men drown? Why are women so special? Oh, and mothers.. be sure to send your young daughters to fight in the next war, and keep your sons home. also parents, be sure that your fully adult, post-collegiate daughters make it into the upcoming professional contact sports for women, like the Women's NFL and NHL, why don't you? Hey, fair is fair! 2c |
| caitlyn Apr 27, 2014 4:52 PM EDT |
Geez, some guys are really threatened by equality, aren't they? Who on earth asked for 50/50? Equality of opportunity is all anyone asks for, and that does not exist. |
| caitlyn Apr 27, 2014 5:02 PM EDT |
To those who always try to claim there is no sexism, or to blame women, or who troll, perhaps you really should read this from last month: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes... The problems are real, and it's easy just reviewing this thread to see the kind of people who create them. |
| lqsh Apr 27, 2014 5:45 PM EDT |
>> Geez, some guys are really threatened by equality, aren't they? Who on earth asked for 50/50? Doesn't equality mean equal, as is 50/50? Women can't have equality only when it works in their favor, meaning they want the same "opportunities" but don't do their share in other areas. Equality means that more women should pay for dates and that more men should stay home while their wives work. It also means that men should have doors opened by their wives and have the right to complain if they aren't. Equality doesn't mean men feel threatened, it means they want equality. Back to the article though, maybe the best people for the job just happened to be men? |
| gary_newell Apr 27, 2014 5:49 PM EDT |
I think the point isn't really that anybody expects 50/50 but most large companies have boards of directors that are made up of men. When I look at any news story whether it is Fox News, The Guardian newspaper or The Sunday Times I always look for who benefits from this article. The Guardian is a well known supporter of the Labour Party and a common theme this year is that Labour are attacking the Conservative party for having a cabinet full of men. The Guardian article in this case is clearly trying to continue to make the case that the conservatives actively promote all male boards and discrimination against women. The Times and Daily Mail keep coming up with anti UKIP articles. It is all party politics being played out in the written press. Having said that as a socialist there is a clear disconnect between men and women in high paid positions and within IT. There is also a huge disconnect between the number of white and black football managers in the football league. Do companies and football clubs deliberately discriminate? Probably not. They just go for what they have always gone for in the same way IT Managers always plump for Windows despite there being a clear alternative. It isn't right but is positive discrimination the way to go? |
| lqsh Apr 27, 2014 6:13 PM EDT |
Many of these sexist claims against women are nonsense and tiring. Some professional men make more then women in the same position - it's a fact. Most women take time off work to have children. So, the man works 20 years and the women works 17, taking 3 years off for children. The woman then complains that she earns less. Well of course, she spent less time in the workforce and perhaps missed opportunities because she chose to have children. It's usually the women who pushes for this situation (having children). Want equal pay - don't take time off work to have kids. If money is that important to you, don't have a family. But don't worry women, Obama will make the pay equal, even though the women has less experience. Oh wait, this is another case for sexism against men! Want equality women.. demand that men also get these undeserved handouts from the government. The whole point of unequal pay is silly anyway, since the husband and wife's income end up in the same shared bank account anyway. Much of his income becomes her's, since it's a fact that women spend most of the money in the household, including what he earned. That's unfair to the man, but accepted. Sexist. Do we really need to continue these complaints about how tough women have it? If you want to be productive, discuss the inequality towards women in developing countries. |
| mbaehrlxer Apr 27, 2014 6:50 PM EDT |
children need male and female role models, so 50/50 in childcare and schools is even more important than in IT or anywhere else! caitlyn: i am not just asking for equality of opportunity. we need diversity in all areas of life and work. it helps us make better choices and decisions. i agree that quotas are not a good solution, but an equal split should still be the goal and ways should be found to get there. greetings, eMBee. |
| albinard Apr 27, 2014 9:28 PM EDT |
Jesus H. Ballmer, what a bunch of half-witted male apologists! |
| lqsh Apr 27, 2014 9:58 PM EDT |
A half-wit is someone who resorts to name calling instead of defending their position. |
| theBeez Apr 28, 2014 4:14 AM EDT |
@mbaehrlxer " it helps us make better choices and decisions". Where has it been researched? Which methods were used? What was defined as "better"? Was it confirmed in other studies, using the same methodology? Or is this just another ideological fueled statement? |
| gary_newell Apr 28, 2014 6:18 AM EDT |
"So, the man works 20 years and the women works 17, taking 3 years off for children. The woman then complains that she earns less. Well of course, she spent less time in the workforce and perhaps missed opportunities because she chose to have children" That is a very bizarre thing to say. A woman doesn't choose to have a child. A woman and a man choose to have a child. If men were the ones having children the rules would be very different |
| Jeff91 Apr 28, 2014 6:31 AM EDT |
Gary I disagree that his example is a poor one. It should be cut and dry that pay is based on experience and someone at the same company with less experience should make less than someone at that company with more experience in the same position. It shouldn't matter why that person has less experience. |
| gary_newell Apr 28, 2014 8:24 AM EDT |
A woman should not be penalised because she has taken time off to have children. It takes 2 people to make a baby, why should the man get to carry on working and gain more experience while his partner raises the child. Extra experience doesn't necessarily make you better at your job. Your pay reward should be based on your ability to do a job rather than the amount of time you have been at a company. Somebody going back to work after childbirth should be rewarded not penalised. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 28, 2014 8:49 AM EDT |
As a man who stayed home to take care of the kids, helping his wife with her career thus her going into management at her company (and well deserved), while when I re-entered the workforce I did so at less than half the nominal wage (not adjusted for inflation) at which I left, I find this whole argument insane. What company is going to pass up the opportunity to hire equally qualified people at (what's the fashionable rate today? 17%? 23%?) substantially lower salaries? For that matter, if DVORAK was so much more efficient than QWERTY, back when steno-pools were so incredibly important, what company would pass up a (insert fashionable percentage here) increase in productivity? Why did a black neighborhood recently force out a Trader Joe's market that was doing well? Too many white people coming into the neighborhood to shop. Does "discrimination" exist? Yep. People are biased. They're all biased, everyone is biased. From sexual preference to food preference, everyone is biased. Everyone is also unequal. Get over it. So you don't like Amazon's hiring practices? THEN DON'T BUY FROM AMAZON. Amazon will reform to meet demand, or they will go out of business. It really is that simple. In the mean time, rather than fighting over everyone else's biases, teach the young to code. Or to sew. Or to shoot. Or whatever else they wish to do or are good at. There will be no equality of opportunity until everyone gets over their own pet peeves and focuses on the individuals involved as individuals. Not groups. |
| jdixon Apr 28, 2014 9:40 AM EDT |
> ,,, why should the man get to carry on working and gain more experience while his partner raises the child. If you choose to take time off work to raise the child, that's your decision. You don't get to make that decision for others. And normally the woman has taken off because she's the one best equipped to deal with a new born child. She has certain, erm, "capabilities" that the man lacks. > ...Your pay reward should be based on your ability to do a job rather than the amount of time you have been at a company. So experience doesn't affect job performance at all? Somehow I don't find that to be the case. > Somebody going back to work after childbirth should be rewarded not penalised. But someone who doesn't take time off work should accept lesser or equal pay to someone who does? Yeah, that's fair. Pay equality is also a thorny issue, but it is a separate one from actual job discrimination, which is what Caitlyn was discussing. |
| gary_newell Apr 28, 2014 10:10 AM EDT |
"But someone who doesn't take time off work should accept lesser or equal pay to someone who does? Yeah, that's fair." No. But if somebody comes back to work and does exactly the same job then they should get the same level of pay, reward, opportunities. If somebody works at their company for 8 years, takes 1 year off to have a baby and then comes back, does experience really matter compared to the guy that has worked 9 years straight. Experience doesn't always mean somebody is better at a job. Intelligence, skill, work ethic etc, they all have a part to play as well. |
| jdixon Apr 28, 2014 10:21 AM EDT |
> ...does experience really matter compared to the guy that has worked 9 years straight. That would largely depend on how many changes took place in that year the person took off, now wouldn't it? |
| Jeff91 Apr 28, 2014 10:33 AM EDT |
Quoting:No. But if somebody comes back to work and does exactly the same job then they should get the same level of pay, reward, opportunities. What world are you living in/jobs have you worked where this is the case? This is even less true in regards to technology than it is to other less fast paced areas. If you take a year off of keeping up with the latest technologies in most areas you are going to be very, very behind. |
| theBeez Apr 28, 2014 10:49 AM EDT |
"A woman doesn't choose to have a child. A woman and a man choose to have a child". Whatever, it's a choice. And every choice has its consequence. Nowadays it seems like people claim the RIGHT to have it all and. That's not how it works. A kid costs about $100,000 during its lifetime with its parents. That's $100,000 you cannot spend elsewhere. Bad luck. That's the choice you made. You wanted a kid and you wanted to be part of it. So, you're not the best candidate than someone who wants to dedicate his/her life to it. Bad luck. You choose the kind of life you wanna have. That's the bottom line. I didn't make your choice, I made mine, so don't come whining to me if you don't like it. |
| pmpatrick Apr 28, 2014 10:57 AM EDT |
For those of you fellas having a hard time understanding why this is a problem, I have some advice. Grow up, get married, and be lucky enough to have a daughter to raise. You will be amazed how your perspective changes when you have the responsibility of raising, protecting and seeing to the welfare of your child. As your daughter grows to adulthood, you will be able to discern all too clearly how societal attitudes and expectations exert a pressure that seeks to limit the opportunities available to your daughter, no matter how bright, talented or "qualified" she may be. |
| lqsh Apr 28, 2014 11:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:For those of you fellas having a hard time understanding why this is a problem, I have some advice. Grow up, get married, and be lucky enough to have a daughter to raise. You will be amazed how your perspective changes when you have the responsibility of raising, protecting and seeing to the welfare of your child. As your daughter grows to adulthood, you will be able to discern all too clearly how societal attitudes and expectations exert a pressure that seeks to limit the opportunities available to your daughter, no matter how bright, talented or "qualified" she may be. What makes you think we aren't married with adult daughters? Societal attitudes and expectations, as in having children? You mean young adult women really don't want to get married and have children? Come on... that's the dream/goal of most girls. Maybe these women that have kids aren't hard done by, but understand that family is more important than a fractional pay difference. |
| mbaehrlxer Apr 28, 2014 11:29 AM EDT |
theBeez: if you search google you'll find plenty of articles supporting that theory. but really, to me it's kind of obvious:
if you need to solve a problem, does it help to have 10 people working on it who are all the same? only if the solution is already clear and the result is a factory job. one of the things commonly done to approach problem solving is to do a brainstorming. throw out as many ideas as you can think of and then pick out the good ones. again, which team will have more ideas? the one where all members are the same, with the same background, level of experience, etc, or the one where everyone is different? i don't know how anyone can even think that the diverse team would fare worse here. the next question would be, when it comes to diversity, take a group of man and women all with the same background and level of experience, is there any difference between the men and women in that group? another research topic which has plenty of published material to support it. and again, something that should be obvious. greetings, eMBee. |
| gary_newell Apr 28, 2014 11:33 AM EDT |
"Whatever, it's a choice. And every choice has its consequence. Nowadays it seems like people claim the RIGHT to have it all and. That's not how it works" This sort of argument is used by conservatives who complain at having to pay the less well off in our society benefits. People still need to eat, clothe themselves, heat their homes etc. We are only as strong as the lowest common denominator. Society doesn't work if you say well I work harder therefore I deserve more money, or I am more skilled so I deserve more money. Based on that theory every single city centre would be devoid of a hospital because no nurses would ever be able to afford to live anywhere near them. A society needs a mix of people from all backgrounds. Teachers for instance are usually less incentivised by money but take rewards from their chosen career, If you don't give benefits to the people who really need them (the people who weren't so lucky in their upbringing and who no matter what education you give them will never be A grade students) then whilst you are out earning your precious fortune they will be climbing a ladder helping themselves to your valuables. We need mothers and we need women in the workplace. Decisions should not be based on testosterone but based on common sense. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 28, 2014 11:46 AM EDT |
"We are only as strong as the lowest common denominator. Society doesn't work if you say well I work harder therefore I deserve more money, or I am more skilled so I deserve more money." Society works very well when what is rewarded is individual effort and individual talent. That's why poverty drops fastest where private property and contracts are respected, and poverty stagnates or grows where it is not. It's called the "profit motive", and it works very well indeed. I recommend Adam Smith, "The Wealth Of Nations", as an introduction to the idea. Or anything by Frederic Bastiat. |
| theBeez Apr 28, 2014 11:49 AM EDT |
@mbaehrlxer I'm not going to do you work. You have a theory, you provide the proof. And as far as your "brainstorming" theory goes, most of the time you have a problem, you hire an expert. When you're sick, you go to the MD. It's that easy. 10 monkeys in a room don't start all of a sudden start writing Shakespeare just because there now ten of 'em. Whatever gender or race. Note the Manhattan project was not solved by putting a lot of people in a room: they put the BEST people in the room. |
| theBeez Apr 28, 2014 11:58 AM EDT |
@gary_newell "This sort of argument is used by conservatives who complain at having to pay the less well off in our society benefits". This sort of argument is usually used by hippies who are at a loss of arguments. Put another wise crack here and see how it carries the discussion. " Society doesn't work if you say well I work harder therefore I deserve more money, or I am more skilled so I deserve more money". FYI, it doesn't work that way. You get more money because people are prepared to pay more money for your products or services. It's basic economics. "Based on that theory every single city centre would be devoid of a hospital because no nurses would ever be able to afford to live anywhere near them". Based on economics, if someone would be willing to pay for a hospital in the middle of a city, others would pay to have the nurses close. In the old days, it was just like that - until the nurses wanted to live elsewhere. "We need mothers and we need women in the workplace". Again, a statement without any supporting arguments. It doesn't become more true if you write it more frequently. "Decisions should not be based on testosterone but based on common sense". Who says they are? And who says that common sense is either "common" or "sensible"? Quantum mechanics doesn't work very well with "common sense". |
| jdixon Apr 28, 2014 1:04 PM EDT |
> Society doesn't work if you say well I work harder therefore I deserve more money, or I am more skilled so I deserve more money. And people don't work unless you do. Or at least they don't work harder and don't try to become more skilled. If what you want is mediocrity, that's an excellent recipe. > We need mothers and we need women in the workplace. And what do you do when the two aren't compatible. Which is more important? I think the answer to that should be obvious to most people, and the simple fact of the matter is that for a significant chunk of a woman's life, they're not compatible. But again, none of this has anything to do with the original story, which dealt with job access, not compensation. They're completely different problems, and the latter isn't even an issue until the former is dealt with. |
| skelband Apr 28, 2014 1:52 PM EDT |
Sorry, but I'm having problems getting to the gist of Caitlyn's actual point in the article. She applied for a job, was offered it and she turned it down. Well, that happens. Thing is, I never felt the need to post an article about it on t'Interwebs. Was there evidence of sexism? Was the atmosphere in the place a bit off? At one interview I went to, there were no programmers in evidence anywhere. Rang alarm bells for me. There may have been a very good reason, but the place felt wrong. Caitlyn, what are we to take away from this experience that you had? I'm a bit confused. |
| jdixon Apr 28, 2014 3:45 PM EDT |
> Was there evidence of sexism? Define evidence for your purpose. Court acceptable evidence? Probably not. However, 400 male employees with no women. Well, that's pretty convincing to your average person. Could there be other explanations? Sure. But the odds don't look good. |
| kikinovak Apr 28, 2014 4:18 PM EDT |
This article link is so full of hits. |
| dinotrac Apr 28, 2014 4:54 PM EDT |
@JD - The only people who won't be convinced are those determined not to be convinced. |
| skelband Apr 28, 2014 7:37 PM EDT |
One thing that I would be interested to hear would be Caitlyn's commentary on exactly what it was that she found distasteful about the company. It may well be true that the culture would not suit her and this may indeed be the cause of the high-male demographic. My point was that the article was thin on actual commentary as to what she felt the situation there was that lead her to believe that it would not be a good place. Clearly, they called her back and asked her to reconsider her refusal of their offer. They clearly want her to work for them. If the high male proportion is also a factor, what does Caitlyn think that they could do practically to fix the situation? As has been mentioned by others, a male dominated environment is going to be a barrier to any "correction" regardless of the intent of the hirer. @dinotrac, @jdixon I don't deny that sexism is rife in our industry and in some aspects, getting worse. However, I have been lucky enough to work in a number of environments where this is most certainly not the case and we have a healthy mix of both sexes. So excuse me if I don't just take someone's word in this particular case on the flimsy evidence presented thus far. Just because a hospital is full of female nurses does not suggest to me that the place is fundamentally anti-male. Sometimes, that's just the way it is. |
| theBeez Apr 29, 2014 12:29 AM EDT |
@dinotrac Believers that are determined to believe are no better. If it doesn't stand in court, the whole thing is moot to begin with. |
| dinotrac Apr 29, 2014 12:47 AM EDT |
What the hell is this "stand in court" crap? That matters only when you are in court. Doesn't mean you aren't the scum of the earth the rest of the time, but... And, in terms of employment discrimination on the basis of gender, complaints don't start in court anyway, but with the federal or state agency charged with enforcing the anti-discrimination laws. Those people can be like wolves if they sense (note I didn't say prove) a problem. |
| gary_newell Apr 29, 2014 3:34 AM EDT |
"One thing that I would be interested to hear would be Caitlyn's commentary on exactly what it was that she found distasteful about the company" Maybe it was when they asked her to make the tea for everyone and not to worry her pretty little head about the fact that there were 400 male employees and no women. The wolf whistling and cartoon dog like tongue rolling probably wouldn't have helped either. :) |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 29, 2014 6:59 AM EDT |
To theWho? Quoting: I'm not going to do you [sic] work. You have a theory, you provide the proof. [...] Hmm, that never seemed to slow your output on many topics. Oh, unless implicitly your having the opinion (albeit objectively unproven) means it is beyond criticism. As always*, YBT * I think I am kidding. |
| lqsh Apr 29, 2014 10:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:Maybe it was when they asked her to make the tea for everyone and not to worry her pretty little head about the fact that there were 400 male employees and no women. Maybe it's your preconceived view of how most men view and treat women that's the real issue here? Most men don't treat women like you've described here. What nonsense.. |
| dinotrac Apr 29, 2014 12:13 PM EDT |
@lqsh - Would I be correct in assuming that English is not your first language? Or smilies? |
| skelband Apr 29, 2014 12:35 PM EDT |
> Maybe it was when they asked her to make the tea for everyone and not to worry her pretty little head about the fact that there were 400 male employees and no women. > The wolf whistling and cartoon dog like tongue rolling probably wouldn't have helped either. :) I get the sarcasm ;) In all seriousness, it was probably a lot more subtle. So Caitlyn, more details please! No names, no packdrill as they say, but what really happened? I'm genuinely interested. |
| gary_newell Apr 30, 2014 3:46 AM EDT |
"Maybe it's your preconceived view of how most men view and treat women that's the real issue here? Most men don't treat women like you've described here. What nonsense.." It was just a joke taking all the most obvious traits associated with male chauvinists and applying them in one statement. If you don't get this I would steer clear of South Park, Family Guy and most British comedy series. |
| theBeez Apr 30, 2014 5:19 AM EDT |
@dinotrac "What the hell is this "stand in court" crap?" It prevents people to act or judge on nothing more that a bunch of hunches, preconceptions or prejudice. If you want to make a point, provide the proper facts, proof or other valid arguments. Otherwise, it's even less than an opinion and sensible, educated people just shrug their shoulders on anything that may come next and move on. |
| theBeez Apr 30, 2014 5:22 AM EDT |
@TxtEdMacs In this case, I'm not the one making a case. I just have to put up "reasonable doubt". |
| dinotrac Apr 30, 2014 8:22 AM EDT |
@Beez Something needs to stand in court only if it goes to court. You can make many logical arguments and present many facts without worrying about court standing. You can also get action because "standing" in court has a very limited meaning and is easy to achieve. |
| theBeez Apr 30, 2014 11:52 AM EDT |
@dinotrac "You can make many logical arguments and present many facts without worrying about court standing." True. But one one doesn't. That's the problem you continue to ignore. |
| tuxchick Apr 30, 2014 11:57 AM EDT |
Wrong thread, do not read. |
| dinotrac Apr 30, 2014 2:17 PM EDT |
I'm not ignoring any problem. A claim was made that somebody should have a court case before they speak. Pure male bovine droppings. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!