zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 11:42:27 GMT -5
Or it's aimed at me, who has openly said we couldn't afford maternity coverage and leave when we first started our business.
|
|
Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Abby Normal on Feb 6, 2015 13:01:04 GMT -5
I've worked in an extremely male dominated industry for over 20 years. I ran into a lot of issues when I first started. I was told I was "pretty smart for a woman" and that it was too bad my biological clock was ticking. Being a small company, the men got bosses day, the woman got secretaries day (as it was still called then).
It took a lot of putting certain people (men) in their place and a lot of pulling my big girl panties on to change the culture here. Our latest new female hires can't imagine it being like it was- which is good. It means I did my job.
But oddly enough, I had one female employee who didn't like me at all. She seemed to think that because I was female, I should support her no matter what. When she pulled a bone head move and one of the male supervisors was pissed- she felt that just because she was female I should give her a pass. Yeah- that didn't fly.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Feb 6, 2015 13:09:31 GMT -5
Suppose you had hired the male, and he got prostate cancer (choosing a male-only illness here) and was out 4 months. Would you have used this as a reason to hire only women going forward?
I'm guessing it's not the latter, which goes to the point of this thread:
A man losing work time due to a condition that only affects men -- seen as a bad situation but does not impact future hiring decisions. A woman losing work time due to a condition that only affects women -- seen as valid justification for not hiring women in the future.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Feb 6, 2015 13:23:10 GMT -5
I've worked in an extremely male dominated industry for over 20 years. I ran into a lot of issues when I first started. I was told I was "pretty smart for a woman" and that it was too bad my biological clock was ticking. Being a small company, the men got bosses day, the woman got secretaries day (as it was still called then). It took a lot of putting certain people (men) in their place and a lot of pulling my big girl panties on to change the culture here. Our latest new female hires can't imagine it being like it was- which is good. It means I did my job. But oddly enough, I had one female employee who didn't like me at all. She seemed to think that because I was female, I should support her no matter what. When she pulled a bone head move and one of the male supervisors was pissed- she felt that just because she was female I should give her a pass. Yeah- that didn't fly. So then....reverse descrimination is ok? Exactly what is a man's "place"? If a man had said, I had to put this women in her place, peoples' heads here would have exploded. It's not ok for a man to say it and it's not ok for a woman to say it. I'm just wondering why no one points that out when, had the situations been reversed, people would have been typing so fast, the board would probably have blown up.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 6, 2015 13:29:21 GMT -5
I've worked in an extremely male dominated industry for over 20 years. I ran into a lot of issues when I first started. I was told I was "pretty smart for a woman" and that it was too bad my biological clock was ticking. Being a small company, the men got bosses day, the woman got secretaries day (as it was still called then).It took a lot of putting certain people (men) in their place and a lot of pulling my big girl panties on to change the culture here. Our latest new female hires can't imagine it being like it was- which is good. It means I did my job.But oddly enough, I had one female employee who didn't like me at all. She sappeeemed to think that because I was female, I should support her no matter what. When she pulled a bone head move and one of the male supervisors was pissed- she felt that just because she was female I should give her a pass. Yeah- that didn't fly. So then....reverse descrimination is ok? Exactly what is a man's "place"?If a man had said, I had to put this women in her place, peoples' heads here would have exploded. It's not ok for a man to say it and it's not ok for a woman to say it. I'm just wondering why no one points that out when, had the situations been reversed, people would have been typing so fast, the board would probably have blown up. Speaking for me, I think the two contexts are generally different. In this case, putting certain people in their place meant telling them they are wrong.
Often when it involves putting women in their place it is telling them they are wrong with an add on. You are wrong and you won't be promoted, only men can have this job, you belong in this female type job or home, etc. There are probably instances that does happen to men, but it likely rare for cases like wanting to take Home Ec or be on a girl's sports team. I'd be surprised if it happened often in the workplace to actually limit their options or push them into some job ghetto.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Feb 6, 2015 13:32:01 GMT -5
I've encountered no "barriers" because I'm female. I've encountered barriers because of my lack of knowledge is some areas. I've encounted barriers because I do not toe any party line - regardless of who is drawing it. I've encountered barriers because I was just downright stupid sometimes. But none of that had to do with me being a woman. It had to do with me being me...which is not always a good thing. The barriers I've encountered - as someone said - were self-constructed. My experience isn't everyone's experience, but an experience still worth noting. Not all women feel they have gone through life with a foot across the back of their neck, trying to pin them down.
ETA: Evidently, another of my self-constructed barriers is my spelling. I wish I could blame it on my vagina, but I can't!
|
|
Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Abby Normal on Feb 6, 2015 13:37:25 GMT -5
I've worked in an extremely male dominated industry for over 20 years. I ran into a lot of issues when I first started. I was told I was "pretty smart for a woman" and that it was too bad my biological clock was ticking. Being a small company, the men got bosses day, the woman got secretaries day (as it was still called then). It took a lot of putting certain people (men) in their place and a lot of pulling my big girl panties on to change the culture here. Our latest new female hires can't imagine it being like it was- which is good. It means I did my job. But oddly enough, I had one female employee who didn't like me at all. She seemed to think that because I was female, I should support her no matter what. When she pulled a bone head move and one of the male supervisors was pissed- she felt that just because she was female I should give her a pass. Yeah- that didn't fly. So then....reverse descrimination is ok? Exactly what is a man's "place"? If a man had said, I had to put this women in her place, peoples' heads here would have exploded. It's not ok for a man to say it and it's not ok for a woman to say it. I'm just wondering why no one points that out when, had the situations been reversed, people would have been typing so fast, the board would probably have blown up. It is not reverse discrimination to remind a male coworker that you are not inferior to them and establish yourself as equal. What is a man's place- in our company it means you are not above me in rank simply because you have a penis. That was the general idea. When I first started - men were taken out to lunch on bosses day. Women were taken out on secretaries day (still called that then). Regardless of their positions.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 6, 2015 13:41:55 GMT -5
I don't think discussing remaining underlying gender biases in society is somehow blaming the world for any problems I encounter in life or using my vagina as an "excuse". As far as I know, I haven't personally experienced any obstacles put into my path because I am a woman.
But that doesn't mean they don't exist and that I should pack my feminist bags and go home.
As I pointed out in the "definition of feminism thread" over and over again MULTIPLE studies have shown that gender (and ethnicity too depending on the study) change how people view prospective clients. The EXACT SAME RESUME is given out each time, the only difference is one has a woman's name on it, the other a man's. Without fail the moment the woman's name is put on the resume things that were considered positive traits in the male client become negative ones for the woman. The initial salary offer goes down. The "woman's" experience is considered lesser value than when it was under a male name.
How do you explain that? How do you explain the fact that there was a major discrepancy in the amount of female PIs who received NIH funding UNTIL it was decided names would be removed and grant submissions would be given numerical identifiers. The only thing htat changed was now grant approvers couldn't guess the sex of the applicant.
Nothing against you personally GEL but I get REALLY tired of the position that since someone has not personal had an issue and they don't "blame having a vagina for everything" that means that anyone who does say something is a bitch who wants to blame the world rather than take responsibility for herself.
While we've made great strides legally when it comes to gender equality there is still a long way to go. What needs to be taken on is the much deeper issue of gender bias in the way we think and view the world. That hasn't gone away and been proven in multiple studies.
People are people. You can legislate all you want but you can't control how people think and at the end of the day your thoughts control your actions. The surprising thing is many people who openly say they support gender equality still devalue the "female" resume. Whether we want to admit it or not underlying cultural bias towards women still exists
Unfortunately you can't control people's thoughts and nor should you. But we CAN discuss the issue and hopefully start turning more heads until one day a study appears that shows both resumes were treated equally by everyone.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Feb 6, 2015 13:54:31 GMT -5
Scientific evidence... is that something men create?
*goes back to playing with my hair*
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 6, 2015 13:55:51 GMT -5
Scientific evidence... is that something men create
No that is something the government creates with the help of aliens to keep us from knowing the truth.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 6, 2015 13:55:53 GMT -5
I've encountered no "barriers" because I'm female. I've encountered barriers because of my lack of knowledge is some areas. I've encounted barriers because I do not toe any party line - regardless of who is drawing it. I've encountered barriers because I was just downright stupid sometimes. But none of that had to do with me being a woman. It had to do with me being me...which is not always a good thing. The barriers I've encountered - as someone said - were self-constructed. My experience isn't everyone's experience, but an experience still worth noting. Not all women feel they have gone through life with a foot across the back of their neck, trying to pin them down.ETA: Evidently, another of my self-constructed barriers is my spelling. I wish I could blame it on my vagina, but I can't! I'm glad it worked out for you GEL. My first job while in high school the girls worked in the front and the guys worked in the back. The guys of course got paid more. I never did ask to work in the back, but I listened to the owner's daughters who were older than me, use me as an example of someone who could have done the more physical work in the back. Going into engineering I encountered some as well. I'll skip the stories, but I noticed too at certain workplaces dress was more codified for women if you wanted to do well compared to the men. Not all men try to hold you back nor all women bosses. Just some. They can be memorable.
I think the rules of success tend to be different depending on your gender and sometimes ethnic background. Workplaces of course vary on this. If you are a male from a more laid back culture like say Chinese you might need to act more aggressive than is typical of your culture to stay even with Americans and most men from India. In some work cultures women have to be outwardly feminine to do well. They have to use feminine ways and styles to do well and the men have to use masculine ways and styles.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 6, 2015 13:59:36 GMT -5
This definitely still happens. You can also add in age and race. I think if you really want to do badly you can change the name to Shaneeqa or something similar. Its possible male Indian names on IT resumes are considered better than any other too.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Feb 6, 2015 14:03:33 GMT -5
This definitely still happens. You can also add in age and race. I think if you really want to do badly you can change the name to Shaneeqa or something similar. Its possible male Indian names on IT resumes are considered better than any other too.
I was considering just using my first initial on my resume, and taking off some older information. I'd have to set up a new email for it too, since my first name is part of the address. Maybe I'll do that if I come across a better job opportunity.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 6, 2015 14:03:40 GMT -5
I think that article makes a good point. No guy wants to be seen as being someone trying to stand in the way of a female president. Nobody wants to be labeled as a "woman hater". It's a short term issue though. Once we have some women in power like that, I think that goes away. It's diminishing over time. You don't want to oppose the first woman president from happening, but probably dont' care about opposing the 2nd one...you're not standing against what others view as "history". It's like if anyone says Jackie Robinson wasn't as great a player as people said "oh you're such a racist"...nobody cares if you make the same argument about any black player today. Sometimes this stuff just has to happen, even if it's unfair at the time to some. no one seemed to care about standing in the way of us electing the first black president, so I'm not getting behind that angle. Is being the first woman president more historic than being the first minority president? I think the difference is that in 2008 nobody had any idea who Barack Obama was, he wasn't seen as the likely candidate/frontrunner. I would say he was no different than any other minority or female candidate that we've had in both parties before. The difference here is that Hillary Clinton is almost a presumptive frontrunner for candidacy. I think there's this expectation that if she wants to be the nominee, she can. I think that's far different than looking at a blank canvas of no frontrunner and saying "meh, I'll throw my hat in the ring". While I think it's mostly perception, I think the issue is that in 2008 it was "I'll run", today it would be viewed as "I'm going to oppose Hillary" (very similarly to how I think opposing an existing President would likely look when they run for re-election). It very much has to do with the public perception of how likely a person is to be the nominee prior to the primaries.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 6, 2015 14:11:22 GMT -5
Suppose you had hired the male, and he got prostate cancer (choosing a male-only illness here) and was out 4 months. Would you have used this as a reason to hire only women going forward? I'm guessing it's not the latter, which goes to the point of this thread: A man losing work time due to a condition that only affects men -- seen as a bad situation but does not impact future hiring decisions. A woman losing work time due to a condition that only affects women -- seen as valid justification for not hiring women in the future. Except one happens far more often than the other. It's relatively predictable that most females of a specific age range will have a pregnancy. Possibly multiple. And it's completely by their choice to have maternity leave. Cancer isn't a choice. Nor is it nearly as common in men as pregnancy is in women. The only valid comparison is whether you'd treat a male only cancer the same as a female only cancer. Comparing something that women choose and which occurs fairly regularly in the population isn't a valid comparison to something which is not a choice and does not happen with nearly the same regularity. If people viewed women having uterine cancer as a reason for not hiring women, then I'd agree with you.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:48:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 14:12:01 GMT -5
I think a lot of this is based on your experiences. If you've experienced positive driven women, you'll have positive feelings about them in the work force. If you've experienced lazy men, you're not going to have positive feelings toward them, anywhere. I don't think so. If a man is a bad boss people tend to say he is an asshole. If a woman is a bad boss people tend to say all women are bad bosses. Conversely if a woman is a good boss people tend to say she is an exception.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 6, 2015 14:15:42 GMT -5
::Whether we want to admit it or not underlying cultural bias towards women still exists::
Absolutely, and underlying cultural bias towards men still exists. And underlying cultural bias towards pretty much all ethnicities and sexual orientations still exists.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 6, 2015 14:18:16 GMT -5
I think a lot of this is based on your experiences. If you've experienced positive driven women, you'll have positive feelings about them in the work force. If you've experienced lazy men, you're not going to have positive feelings toward them, anywhere. I don't think so. If a man is a bad boss people tend to say he is an asshole. If a woman is a bad boss people tend to say all women are bad bosses. Conversely if a woman is a good boss people tend to say she is an exception. If a man is a bad boss people tend to say all men are assholes trying to prove who has a bigger penis. If a woman is a bad boss people tend to say that it's because the people under her are the problem because they can't handle having a female boss. People say all kinds of stuff, pretending they only say bad things about one gender simply isn't true.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Feb 6, 2015 14:19:54 GMT -5
::Whether we want to admit it or not underlying cultural bias towards women still exists:: Absolutely, and underlying cultural bias towards men still exists. And underlying cultural bias towards pretty much all ethnicities and sexual orientations still exists. True, there's no group that's completely exempt from bias. But some biases are much more pervasive and harmful than others. E.g. the difference between "African-American men are deadbeat dads" and "Asians are good at math." Both are biases/stereotypes, but which one hurts the subject group more?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 6, 2015 14:24:17 GMT -5
::Whether we want to admit it or not underlying cultural bias towards women still exists:: Absolutely, and underlying cultural bias towards men still exists. And underlying cultural bias towards pretty much all ethnicities and sexual orientations still exists. True, there's no group that's completely exempt from bias. But some biases are much more pervasive and harmful than others. E.g. the difference between "African-American men are deadbeat dads" and "Asians are good at math." Both are biases/stereotypes, but which one hurts the subject group more? Yes, but there are plenty of positive biases towards women. There are both positive and negative cultural biases against most groups. Asians are good at math, but they're terrible drivers. African American men are deadbeat dads but amazing at sports. It goes both ways for almost all groups.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Feb 6, 2015 14:24:14 GMT -5
I can say that one of my biggest supporters, from the very beginning of my career, is also probably the most male-chauvinistic person I know. He has openly said that women don't belong in my field. He has also said that I'm an exception. Why? Because even though he's a former logger, if he sees someone come in and pull their weight, not act "special", and do their job, he's cool with them.
In my experience, the worst guys have been the one who openly announce that "women are equal" and there aren't any issues with them working here, because everyone will be treated based on their abilities. Those have been the most threatened, insecure guys I know, who, the second a woman accidentally reveals that she might be better at something than they are, freak out and try to undermine her in any way possible.
I'd rather work with people who speak what they really believe, even if there belief isn't popular or PC. At least you know where you stand with them, and they aren't being fake.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Feb 6, 2015 14:29:25 GMT -5
True, there's no group that's completely exempt from bias. But some biases are much more pervasive and harmful than others. E.g. the difference between "African-American men are deadbeat dads" and "Asians are good at math." Both are biases/stereotypes, but which one hurts the subject group more? Yes, but there are plenty of positive biases towards women. There are both positive and negative cultural biases against most groups. Asians are good at math, but they're terrible drivers. African American men are deadbeat dads but amazing at sports. It goes both ways for almost all groups. I think for the non-privileged groups (upper-class/upper-middle class, whites, males) the negative biases often outweigh the positive ones. I don't really care if someone thinks I'm a "better nurturer" because I'm a woman if it means they also think I deserve 20% less pay than a man (or simply don't hire me because they're afraid I'll pop out a kid and quit). The positive bias has a neutral effect, the negative one is actively harmful. ETA -- There are some cultural biases against men that are actively harmful as well. Child custody is a good example. But that's not the subject of this thread, and the fact that we're now discussing bias against men and other groups in a thread titled "what barriers still face women?" really says it all.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 6, 2015 14:43:10 GMT -5
Yes, but there are plenty of positive biases towards women. There are both positive and negative cultural biases against most groups. Asians are good at math, but they're terrible drivers. African American men are deadbeat dads but amazing at sports. It goes both ways for almost all groups. I think for the non-privileged groups (upper-class/upper-middle class, whites, males) the negative biases often outweigh the positive ones. I don't really care if someone thinks I'm a "better nurturer" because I'm a woman if it means they also think I deserve 20% less pay than a man (or simply don't hire me because they're afraid I'll pop out a kid and quit). The positive bias has a neutral effect, the negative one is actively harmful. People tend to underestimate the positive biases of their own group. As a female, you're a better nurturer, but you also are "less violent" which clearly comes into place in domestic violence situations, you're a better parent which comes into place in child custody, you're not a child molester, you're not a rapist, you're not a pedophile, etc. I can't be left alone with children in some places because I'm a male and therefore might be a pedophile.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 14:49:49 GMT -5
I think a lot of this is based on your experiences. If you've experienced positive driven women, you'll have positive feelings about them in the work force. If you've experienced lazy men, you're not going to have positive feelings toward them, anywhere. I don't think so. If a man is a bad boss people tend to say he is an asshole. If a woman is a bad boss people tend to say all women are bad bosses. Conversely if a woman is a good boss people tend to say she is an exception Unfortunately, I haven't had good female bosses. That being said, the men weren't so hot either but they didn't try to sabotage my career the way the women did.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 6, 2015 15:31:26 GMT -5
Suppose you had hired the male, and he got prostate cancer (choosing a male-only illness here) and was out 4 months. Would you have used this as a reason to hire only women going forward? I'm guessing it's not the latter, which goes to the point of this thread: A man losing work time due to a condition that only affects men -- seen as a bad situation but does not impact future hiring decisions. A woman losing work time due to a condition that only affects women -- seen as valid justification for not hiring women in the future. And the % of 30 year old males going out on disability versus women having babies? In all of my years of working I can only remember one young guy going out versus dozens of women having babies. When I was in public accounting it didn't matter as much as we always had people coming / going. Now that I'm in finance it was a huge hit and one that my children had to endure. If given the chance, I will always put my kids first and that included not hiring skmekne that will be dumping their work off on me for 4 months
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 6, 2015 15:37:34 GMT -5
I have to ask, would it be acceptable if an employer decided not to hire you Miss T because you are a woman? Women are having babies later and later nowadays, especially with advancements in technology.
Would it be acceptable for a potential employer to discriminate against you because there is always the off chance you may decide to have a baby? Unless you're going to bring in a note from your doctor saying you're thru menopause or had your tubes tied there is always the chance.
I'm just curious because you've said you discriminate against women of child bearing age because you know they'll screw you over. I want to know if it would be acceptable to have that same attitude applied to you.
Or are you somehow the exception to the rule?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 15:42:11 GMT -5
The smart women I know mention up front they have daycare and backup daycare. It may be wrong and illegal to ask but volunteering that info makes a huge difference to a potential employer. Yes, it's wrong that men don't suffer the same bias but I do know a guy who got fired because he took too many days off for sick kids. So it happens. Employers want you there, period.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Feb 6, 2015 15:46:23 GMT -5
Why not bring in a temp to cover maternity leave? I can't understand why my company didn't do this either. They have the money to overpay salespeople... I know that not everything is easily trained in a short amount of time, but some of it is. Actually, in the case of my 2nd pregnancy (both of which happened after over a decade working there), they should have just hired a 2nd person. The problem was, they were trying to get away with paying out the absolute minimum they could get away with, instead of investing in their growth.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,152
|
Post by giramomma on Feb 6, 2015 15:50:28 GMT -5
Would it be acceptable for a potential employer to discriminate against you because there is always the off chance you may decide to have a baby? Unless you're going to bring in a note from your doctor saying you're thru menopause or had your tubes tied there is always the chance.
It's not impossible for women who have their tubes tied to get pregnant. Abstinence is the only guarantee of not getting pregnant. Making abstinence a condition of employment wouldn't be discriminatory then as long as it could be enforced equally on either sex. I'm not quite sure we want to go there, but..at least it's not just a women's issue... ETA: But then, just think, a benefit might be having work provide some rooms for self-loving...I can think of worse employer benefits.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Feb 6, 2015 15:53:58 GMT -5
Well, nice. We've gotten a good demonstration of the barriers facing women. I really would like more push on parental leave for both women and men, and I love that men are more and more often taking that leave. The more this happens, the less people will grumble about "women of childbearing age", because ALL new parents could and would be seen as likely to take up to 12 weeks off...or more, depending on company policy. Kind of an example of how loosening up gender roles in ways that benefit both genders (both parents taking leave) benefits feminism (less singling out women in the workplace for taking leave to be parents). It really is harder now because legally, this is in place: FMLA IS available to fathers AND mothers, but socially, fathers less often take time. I don't think it would be right to force fathers to take time off, anymore than it would be right to prevent mothers from coming back early, but since we can't do that, we gain by inches as society's expectations change...way too slowly. DQ's example is great, and great that a solution was found to remove names, so there aren't any artificial measures that can really be complained about...false advantage, or whatever, granted to women. It would be great, and I know some bigger companies might have a similar policy when it comes to doing a first pass at reviewing resumes (the last company I worked for did not, but did have a policy of making sure minority resumes were included in the interview list.) Still, we have face to face interviews, which can't be engineered to take away the prejudices of gender, race, or class. Wish I had an answer to that one. If we have a second child, and FMLA is available to my husband, I think I need to push him to take the full time off. To be a drop in the bucket.
|
|