OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 29, 2016 8:41:09 GMT -5
I think, as usual, no personal stories, studies or facts will change your mind. So I think I don't understand why you even posted this. Pants I am agreeing with you I most certainly think that they abused. the strong ones find a way around it.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 29, 2016 8:43:29 GMT -5
And you called me out...several times. You aren't suddenly going to change my thinking because you aren't the one in my shoes.
You're completely misunderstanding. I'm not trying to change your thinking (I'm a firm believer with that old Southern saying about never wrestling with a pig, you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it). I'm using your posts to illustrate the issue to others. I'm using you as an example of how people discriminate, why people discriminate and how/why they justify their actions. Understanding how and why discrimination happens is important if we ever want to actually address the issue. As your example shows, few people believe they're discriminating and when they're shown evidence that they are then they can't accept it and instead seek to justify why their actions are appropriate. Very similar to the anti-vaccination crowd who reacts the same way to scientific studies - denial.
We need to understand how and why this happens because current efforts to address the issue - provide evidence and reason - are not going to change beliefs and behavior, as you're demonstrating.
If discrimination is not wanting to take on someone's workload then yes, I discriminate. Until we can solve the issue of extended time off I'm not sure how that won't be considered. We live in a time where corporations want as few people as possible. When it takes months and months to train a person for their position there is no way to easily replace them when they are off. Until we solve that, I don't see how, even in the back of someone's mind, that won't be considered when analyzing two qualified candidates.
I'm tired of this same conversation....I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way, probably not even the only one on this board that feels this way. I'm just the only one that is honest about it!
|
|
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 Mar 29, 2016 8:44:16 GMT -5
Thoughts -
Talent has no inherent link to the drive to succeed, perseverance, lack of issues like depression, etc. I think some people believe the cream rises to the top because it would damage their worldview to realize it isn't as true as they think it is.
Certain personalities are more rewarded and valued in the business world. Miss T. even wrote in a recent post how her personality got her a promotion over someone who knew more. He was considered too nice, so it wasn't his talent that held him back, but simply because he didn't have the desired personality. I think the drive to succeed coupled with certain personalities will do better 90 times out of 100 compared to talent. JMO.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 29, 2016 8:52:08 GMT -5
As for the idea that cream rises to the top, that's a way of saying either there is no issue or that there may be an issue but since it doesn't impact me and I can think of some people who worked around it and it's just plain awkward to talk about and even worse to try to address, we'll just keep pretending that it's no big deal.
If you went to an Olympic race and one of the runners was put in a lane that was twice as long as the other runners, you wouldn't shrug and say "well, cream rises to the top. If that guy is the fastest runner, he'll find a way to win." You'd immediately know it wasn't a fair race if all the runners didn't have to run the same distance. Allowing pervasive discrimination against women (even though much of it is now subtle or even subconscious, not what we'd think of as traditional actions) to persist and then shrugging and saying that the cream will rise to the top is the same thing as setting up an Olympic runner to run a longer distance than the other athletes and just assuming that if he's fast, he'll win anyways so we don't have to worry that the race is a different distance.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 29, 2016 8:52:50 GMT -5
OK, Swamp you seem to be doing well, I think it has to do with the talent you have, loftier goals. I don't believe this because someone gave this out of the bottom of their heart. I also think you are one of the smarter poster here! If you recognize this talent, why have I been told that I should stay home with my kids, or confused with the secretary, or treated like I'm dumb? That is not me, I help help everyone one that shows talent man or woman, But then again good talent is hard to find, As I pointed out before on one of the threads, When hiring trying to find some one that has a drivers licence, has transportation, is not using drugs, not abusing alcohol, hashad some kind of stable work history, is trainable. And will actually show up for work on time.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 29, 2016 8:57:53 GMT -5
Thoughts -
Talent has no inherent link to the drive to succeed, perseverance, lack of issues like depression, etc. I think some people believe the cream rises to the top because it would damage their worldview to realize it isn't as true as they think it is.
Certain personalities are more rewarded and valued in the business world. Miss T. even wrote in a recent post how her personality got her a promotion over someone who knew more. He was considered too nice, so it wasn't his talent that held him back, but simply because he didn't have the desired personality. I think the drive to succeed coupled with certain personalities will do better 90 times out of 100 compared to talent. JMO.
opt4ft, sometime having luck is better than a licence to steal.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 29, 2016 8:59:51 GMT -5
As for the idea that cream rises to the top, that's a way of saying either there is no issue or that there may be an issue but since it doesn't impact me and I can think of some people who worked around it and it's just plain awkward to talk about and even worse to try to address, we'll just keep pretending that it's no big deal.
If you went to an Olympic race and one of the runners was put in a lane that was twice as long as the other runners, you wouldn't shrug and say "well, cream rises to the top. If that guy is the fastest runner, he'll find a way to win." You'd immediately know it wasn't a fair race if all the runners didn't have to run the same distance. Allowing pervasive discrimination against women (even though much of it is now subtle or even subconscious, not what we'd think of as traditional actions) to persist and then shrugging and saying that the cream will rise to the top is the same thing as setting up an Olympic runner to run a longer distance than the other athletes and just assuming that if he's fast, he'll win anyways so we don't have to worry that the race is a different distance. If it is Olympic each lane is the same distance, the faster runner wins.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Mar 29, 2016 9:05:36 GMT -5
We need an emoji where something just goes right over the little emoji-person's head. Perhaps with a whistling sound.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Mar 29, 2016 9:08:20 GMT -5
As for the idea that cream rises to the top, that's a way of saying either there is no issue or that there may be an issue but since it doesn't impact me and I can think of some people who worked around it and it's just plain awkward to talk about and even worse to try to address, we'll just keep pretending that it's no big deal.
If you went to an Olympic race and one of the runners was put in a lane that was twice as long as the other runners, you wouldn't shrug and say "well, cream rises to the top. If that guy is the fastest runner, he'll find a way to win." You'd immediately know it wasn't a fair race if all the runners didn't have to run the same distance. Allowing pervasive discrimination against women (even though much of it is now subtle or even subconscious, not what we'd think of as traditional actions) to persist and then shrugging and saying that the cream will rise to the top is the same thing as setting up an Olympic runner to run a longer distance than the other athletes and just assuming that if he's fast, he'll win anyways so we don't have to worry that the race is a different distance. If it is Olympic each lane is the same distance, the faster runner wins. OK, the guys are running on the high tech spongy tracks with the appropriate spiked footwear. The women are running on cinders. Barefoot.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 29, 2016 9:15:33 GMT -5
Thoughts -
Talent has no inherent link to the drive to succeed, perseverance, lack of issues like depression, etc. I think some people believe the cream rises to the top because it would damage their worldview to realize it isn't as true as they think it is.
Certain personalities are more rewarded and valued in the business world. Miss T. even wrote in a recent post how her personality got her a promotion over someone who knew more. He was considered too nice, so it wasn't his talent that held him back, but simply because he didn't have the desired personality. I think the drive to succeed coupled with certain personalities will do better 90 times out of 100 compared to talent. JMO.
The same thing often applies to the way one looks, unfortunately.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 29, 2016 9:18:23 GMT -5
As for the idea that cream rises to the top, that's a way of saying either there is no issue or that there may be an issue but since it doesn't impact me and I can think of some people who worked around it and it's just plain awkward to talk about and even worse to try to address, we'll just keep pretending that it's no big deal.
If you went to an Olympic race and one of the runners was put in a lane that was twice as long as the other runners, you wouldn't shrug and say "well, cream rises to the top. If that guy is the fastest runner, he'll find a way to win." You'd immediately know it wasn't a fair race if all the runners didn't have to run the same distance. Allowing pervasive discrimination against women (even though much of it is now subtle or even subconscious, not what we'd think of as traditional actions) to persist and then shrugging and saying that the cream will rise to the top is the same thing as setting up an Olympic runner to run a longer distance than the other athletes and just assuming that if he's fast, he'll win anyways so we don't have to worry that the race is a different distance. If it is Olympic each lane is the same distance, the faster runner wins. Let's hope you're being sarcastic here.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 29, 2016 9:26:58 GMT -5
I think, as usual, no personal stories, studies or facts will change your mind. So I think I don't understand why you even posted this. Pants I am agreeing with you I most certainly think that they abused. the strong ones find a way around it. So it's OK for women to have to "find a way around it" or "rise to the top" (but only if they're cream!), but somehow not fair if you're asking an athlete to run a different distance?
|
|
chen35
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 19:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,312
|
Post by chen35 on Mar 29, 2016 9:29:00 GMT -5
You're completely misunderstanding. I'm not trying to change your thinking (I'm a firm believer with that old Southern saying about never wrestling with a pig, you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it). I'm using your posts to illustrate the issue to others. I'm using you as an example of how people discriminate, why people discriminate and how/why they justify their actions. Understanding how and why discrimination happens is important if we ever want to actually address the issue. As your example shows, few people believe they're discriminating and when they're shown evidence that they are then they can't accept it and instead seek to justify why their actions are appropriate. Very similar to the anti-vaccination crowd who reacts the same way to scientific studies - denial.
We need to understand how and why this happens because current efforts to address the issue - provide evidence and reason - are not going to change beliefs and behavior, as you're demonstrating.
If discrimination is not wanting to take on someone's workload then yes, I discriminate. Until we can solve the issue of extended time off I'm not sure how that won't be considered. We live in a time where corporations want as few people as possible. When it takes months and months to train a person for their position there is no way to easily replace them when they are off. Until we solve that, I don't see how, even in the back of someone's mind, that won't be considered when analyzing two qualified candidates.
I'm tired of this same conversation....I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way, probably not even the only one on this board that feels this way. I'm just the only one that is honest about it!
I think this is the real issue. Corporations run so lean, there is no contingency plan when someone needs any sort of significant time off. It's the same issue when someone quits. It takes me so long to hire someone, then get them fully trained, I may as well had someone out on maternity leave. I try to run my department differently. I have three or four really efficient employees. I try to keep their standard workload at around 30 hours a week. This way they have time for projects, time to cross train, and time to cover when someone quits. Despite having 50% of my staff be women of child bearing age, I haven't had anyone take maternity leave. But if it happens, because of the way we're set up, it won't be that big of a deal. The only reason I am able to do this is the efficiency of those top employees. They get more done in 30 hours than most people do in 40, so it doesn't appear to anyone that I am not running lean enough. I realize most people aren't able to do this, so I see where it can get frustrating. I find it disappointing that we live in a work culture where we are cutting it so close to the edge staffing wise that it's a huge hardship on everyone for a woman to have a baby.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 29, 2016 9:33:23 GMT -5
Thoughts -
Talent has no inherent link to the drive to succeed, perseverance, lack of issues like depression, etc. I think some people believe the cream rises to the top because it would damage their worldview to realize it isn't as true as they think it is.
Certain personalities are more rewarded and valued in the business world. Miss T. even wrote in a recent post how her personality got her a promotion over someone who knew more. He was considered too nice, so it wasn't his talent that held him back, but simply because he didn't have the desired personality. I think the drive to succeed coupled with certain personalities will do better 90 times out of 100 compared to talent. JMO.
But it does take a certain personality to be a leader. That isn't discrimination, it is just a fact. So yes, certain personality types are valued over others for certain positions and there is nothing wrong with that.
|
|
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 Mar 29, 2016 9:41:54 GMT -5
Thoughts -
Talent has no inherent link to the drive to succeed, perseverance, lack of issues like depression, etc. I think some people believe the cream rises to the top because it would damage their worldview to realize it isn't as true as they think it is.
Certain personalities are more rewarded and valued in the business world. Miss T. even wrote in a recent post how her personality got her a promotion over someone who knew more. He was considered too nice, so it wasn't his talent that held him back, but simply because he didn't have the desired personality. I think the drive to succeed coupled with certain personalities will do better 90 times out of 100 compared to talent. JMO.
But it does take a certain personality to be a leader. That isn't discrimination, it is just a fact. So yes, certain personality types are valued over others for certain positions and there is nothing wrong with that. It goes to my point that it is often not talent that makes someone do well.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 29, 2016 9:44:51 GMT -5
But it does take a certain personality to be a leader. That isn't discrimination, it is just a fact. So yes, certain personality types are valued over others for certain positions and there is nothing wrong with that. It goes to my point that it is often not talent that makes someone do well. I think management skills are part of your talent. You can be taught the basics of your job but it is very difficult to change a person's personality to make them a good leader. I think you are discounting that.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Mar 29, 2016 9:45:10 GMT -5
Thoughts -
Talent has no inherent link to the drive to succeed, perseverance, lack of issues like depression, etc. I think some people believe the cream rises to the top because it would damage their worldview to realize it isn't as true as they think it is.
Certain personalities are more rewarded and valued in the business world. Miss T. even wrote in a recent post how her personality got her a promotion over someone who knew more. He was considered too nice, so it wasn't his talent that held him back, but simply because he didn't have the desired personality. I think the drive to succeed coupled with certain personalities will do better 90 times out of 100 compared to talent. JMO.
But it does take a certain personality to be a leader. That isn't discrimination, it is just a fact. So yes, certain personality types are valued over others for certain positions and there is nothing wrong with that. AGreed.
However, prevailing opinion used to be that this certain personality type needed to be coupled with a penis, and those with vaginas and that type of personality are just bitchy. It is getting better, but the attitude is still there.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 29, 2016 9:47:22 GMT -5
But it does take a certain personality to be a leader. That isn't discrimination, it is just a fact. So yes, certain personality types are valued over others for certain positions and there is nothing wrong with that. AGreed.
However, prevailing opinion used to be that this certain personality type needed to be coupled with a penis, and those with vaginas and that type of personality are just bitchy. It is getting better, but the attitude is still there.
Probably. I'm thinking back to my bosses over the years. I have always preferred working for men. It always seemed women managers believed they had to be an uber-bitch to get performance out of me. So it is that women are perceived as bitchy or women actually were bitchier because they thought they had to be?
I honestly don't know...
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 29, 2016 9:50:30 GMT -5
Thoughts -
Talent has no inherent link to the drive to succeed, perseverance, lack of issues like depression, etc. I think some people believe the cream rises to the top because it would damage their worldview to realize it isn't as true as they think it is.
Certain personalities are more rewarded and valued in the business world. Miss T. even wrote in a recent post how her personality got her a promotion over someone who knew more. He was considered too nice, so it wasn't his talent that held him back, but simply because he didn't have the desired personality. I think the drive to succeed coupled with certain personalities will do better 90 times out of 100 compared to talent. JMO.
But it does take a certain personality to be a leader. That isn't discrimination, it is just a fact. So yes, certain personality types are valued over others for certain positions and there is nothing wrong with that. Totally agree. Some people are better leaders than others.
The problem arises when management views the same actions characteristics differently if they're exhibited by a woman than by a man. To keep with the video in the OP, I'll use the first example from the video. Most people would say they want a leader to be assertive, confident and willing to take control. Very reasonable and not at all discriminatory.
The problem arises because study after study have shown that if a man and a woman do THE EXACT SAME THING, in this case use the example of stepping forward in a group, proposing a solution and directing people to take certain actions then:
- If a man does that, he's perceived as assertive, confident and willing to take control; therefore he is perceived as being a "leader". - If a woman does that, she's perceived as bossy and not a team player; therefore she is perceived as "not leader material."
That is the crux of the problem. It's not discriminatory to expect a leader to behave a certain way or to want certain traits in a leader. But if we perceive those traits as different in men than in women, then women have no chance to be leaders because if they exhibit those traits or behaviours, then they are viewed poorly instead of positively.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 29, 2016 9:53:57 GMT -5
But it does take a certain personality to be a leader. That isn't discrimination, it is just a fact. So yes, certain personality types are valued over others for certain positions and there is nothing wrong with that. Totally agree. Some people are better leaders than others.
The problem arises when management views the same actions characteristics differently if they're exhibited by a woman than by a man. To keep with the video in the OP, I'll use the first example from the video. Most people would say they want a leader to be assertive, confident and willing to take control. Very reasonable and not at all discriminatory.
The problem arises because study after study have shown that if a man and a woman do THE EXACT SAME THING, in this case use the example of stepping forward in a group, proposing a solution and directing people to take certain actions then:
- If a man does that, he's perceived as assertive, confident and willing to take control; therefore he is perceived as being a "leader". - If a woman does that, she's perceived as bossy and not a team player; therefore she is perceived as "not leader material."
That is the crux of the problem. It's not discriminatory to expect a leader to behave a certain way or to want certain traits in a leader. But if we perceive those traits as different in men than in women, then women have no chance to be leaders because if they exhibit those traits or behaviours, then they are viewed poorly instead of positively.
And I agree with that completely. So how do change the perception of women? What is causing the negative perception of women? Are we doing it ourselves (by being overly aggressive and bitchy thinking that is how you get ahead versus being true leaders) or are we judged differently?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Mar 29, 2016 9:58:27 GMT -5
Totally agree. Some people are better leaders than others.
The problem arises when management views the same actions characteristics differently if they're exhibited by a woman than by a man. To keep with the video in the OP, I'll use the first example from the video. Most people would say they want a leader to be assertive, confident and willing to take control. Very reasonable and not at all discriminatory.
The problem arises because study after study have shown that if a man and a woman do THE EXACT SAME THING, in this case use the example of stepping forward in a group, proposing a solution and directing people to take certain actions then:
- If a man does that, he's perceived as assertive, confident and willing to take control; therefore he is perceived as being a "leader". - If a woman does that, she's perceived as bossy and not a team player; therefore she is perceived as "not leader material."
That is the crux of the problem. It's not discriminatory to expect a leader to behave a certain way or to want certain traits in a leader. But if we perceive those traits as different in men than in women, then women have no chance to be leaders because if they exhibit those traits or behaviours, then they are viewed poorly instead of positively.
And I agree with that completely. So how do change the perception of women? What is causing the negative perception of women? Are we doing it ourselves (by being overly aggressive and bitchy thinking that is how you get ahead versus being true leaders) or are we judged differently? probably a little both, but my opinion is that it's more skewed towards being judged differently. And my opinion and $2 will get you a cup of coffee. .
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 29, 2016 9:59:40 GMT -5
And I agree with that completely. So how do change the perception of women? What is causing the negative perception of women? Are we doing it ourselves (by being overly aggressive and bitchy thinking that is how you get ahead versus being true leaders) or are we judged differently? probably a little both, but my opinion is that it's more skewed towards being judged differently. And my opinion and $2 will get you a cup of coffee. . Well I can really use a coffee....do you deliver??
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 29, 2016 10:11:46 GMT -5
It's not an earth shattering, sudden change kind of thing, but I believe that simply making people aware of issues can help.
Nothing any of us do is going to change the hardcore, see-no-evil-hear-no-evil types who see no issue with women just having to "find a way" to "rise to the top"; just like the anti-vax parents who harden their anti-vax stance in response to scientific evidence a person who has long standing discriminatory reactions and no desire to change is not going to change.
But, for the other people who have good intentions and just haven't been as aware of certain things... talking about issues like this can help them be more mindful in the future.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Mar 29, 2016 10:16:08 GMT -5
Yes, it technically is. Avoiding hiring a woman because a woman could get pregnant and take time off is discrimination, especially since you don't know if that woman is even planning to have children.
My guess is that most of the idiots who have said the discriminatory things in the ad example probably don't think they're discriminating, either and that's a big part of the problem. I'm sure that they don't think it's discrimination to call an assertive woman bossy - they're just being honest. They don't think it's discrimination to tell a potential female manager she's just not as powerful as the men - hey, how could she - all 5'2" of her be? They don't think it's discrimination to tell a female that she just doesn't look like a CEO - after all, it's true that very few women are CEOs so a woman is not going to look like a CEO. They don't think it's a problem to tell a woman that she's just not the right "fit" for a sports ad campaign - after all most of the people playing the sports and working on the campaign are men so it's just simple truth that she's not a fit.
So maybe the problem isn't that the discrimination isn't there, it's that the people who are discriminating don't realize they're discriminating since they can so easily justify it.
And yet my experience proves me right...as soon as I hire her she gets pregnant. So in 4 years this is 2 women that I have hired and had to cover for.
I'm not easily justifying anything. No one wants to admit that when a woman goes out on maternity leave it creates a huge gap in an organization. Unless they have a low level position that is easily filled by someone else, you are going to struggle until that person gets back from leave. So yes, if I had two equally qualified individuals I would hire the one that is less likely to cause me grief. But I'm not a moron and I'm not going to hire someone less qualified just to avoid being left in the lurch for 3 months.
You never did answer my question in that other thread about whether you would also start hesitating to hire men of child-bearing age (boy - that would be almost all of them!!!) as paternity leave starts to become more and more widely accepted. You just dodged the question with "the men I currently know don't take paternity leave" ETA: Let's pretend you were interviewing my husband for a position, and you happened to know that he had taken a 4 month leave with each of our two kids. Would you hesitate to hire him because he'd be likely to do the same thing if we happen to have a third child? Or would you only hesitate to hire me, because I might have a third child and therefore take another maternity leave?
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Mar 29, 2016 10:22:51 GMT -5
I need to type up a boilerplate response for everytime one of these threads comes around. But ultimately it boils down to:
UNCONSCIOUS BIAS
It's pervasive and it's not going to get better if we don't talk about it, acknowledge it, and train people about it.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 29, 2016 10:27:15 GMT -5
And yet my experience proves me right...as soon as I hire her she gets pregnant. So in 4 years this is 2 women that I have hired and had to cover for.
I'm not easily justifying anything. No one wants to admit that when a woman goes out on maternity leave it creates a huge gap in an organization. Unless they have a low level position that is easily filled by someone else, you are going to struggle until that person gets back from leave. So yes, if I had two equally qualified individuals I would hire the one that is less likely to cause me grief. But I'm not a moron and I'm not going to hire someone less qualified just to avoid being left in the lurch for 3 months.
You never did answer my question in that other thread about whether you would also start hesitating to hire men of child-bearing age (boy - that would be almost all of them!!!) as paternity leave starts to become more and more widely accepted. You just dodged the question with "the men I currently know don't take paternity leave" ETA: Let's pretend you were interviewing my husband for a position, and you happened to know that he had taken a 4 month leave with each of our two kids. Would you hesitate to hire him because he'd be likely to do the same thing if we happen to have a third child? Or would you only hesitate to hire me, because I might have a third child and therefore take another maternity leave? But it IS unusual (at least in my experience) for a man to take paternity leave. Thinking back in my 21 years in the professional world, I can't think of any man that took a paternity leave. So you are trying to pigeon hole me into answering something that isn't my reality. In my reality, women take the leave and the men continue to be workaholics. That might change at some point in the future but for now, the culture locally is that men work and women take leave.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Mar 29, 2016 10:41:24 GMT -5
You never did answer my question in that other thread about whether you would also start hesitating to hire men of child-bearing age (boy - that would be almost all of them!!!) as paternity leave starts to become more and more widely accepted. You just dodged the question with "the men I currently know don't take paternity leave" ETA: Let's pretend you were interviewing my husband for a position, and you happened to know that he had taken a 4 month leave with each of our two kids. Would you hesitate to hire him because he'd be likely to do the same thing if we happen to have a third child? Or would you only hesitate to hire me, because I might have a third child and therefore take another maternity leave? But it IS unusual (at least in my experience) for a man to take paternity leave. Thinking back in my 21 years in the professional world, I can't think of any man that took a paternity leave. So you are trying to pigeon hole me into answering something that isn't my reality. In my reality, women take the leave and the men continue to be workaholics. That might change at some point in the future but for now, the culture locally is that men work and women take leave. I'm not trying to pigeon-hole you, I'm trying to understand whether you would change your assumptions and apply the "they might take leave!!!!!!!" criteria to men too. Especially if you had specific knowledge that a candidate had taken paternity leave in the past. But it sounds like no. I'm just wondering if you would be as angry about covering paternity leave. Are you angry about covering non-maternity medical leaves?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 29, 2016 10:41:32 GMT -5
In my reality, women take the leave and the men continue to be workaholics. That might change at some point in the future but for now, the culture locally is that men work and women take leave.
Nothing discriminatory or biased in that attitude.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 29, 2016 10:50:21 GMT -5
But it IS unusual (at least in my experience) for a man to take paternity leave. Thinking back in my 21 years in the professional world, I can't think of any man that took a paternity leave. So you are trying to pigeon hole me into answering something that isn't my reality. In my reality, women take the leave and the men continue to be workaholics. That might change at some point in the future but for now, the culture locally is that men work and women take leave. I'm not trying to pigeon-hole you, I'm trying to understand whether you would change your assumptions and apply the "they might take leave!!!!!!!" criteria to men too. Especially if you had specific knowledge that a candidate had taken paternity leave in the past. But it sounds like no. I'm just wondering if you would be as angry about covering paternity leave. Are you angry about covering non-maternity medical leaves? I'm not angry about anything. It would be a huge hit to our team regardless of who was out for 3 months or why they were out for 3 months. If I had a guy go out with a major heart attack that would be just as awful to try to cover. But the given the demographics that I work with and my experience, men go out at a much, much lower rate than women. A major heart attack doesn't happen to every man and several times. Most of the women that I have worked with have had children and usually several of them over the years.
If paternity leave was as common as maternity leave then I'm sure I would adjust my thinking. But it just isn't. At least not around here.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 29, 2016 10:54:10 GMT -5
In my reality, women take the leave and the men continue to be workaholics. That might change at some point in the future but for now, the culture locally is that men work and women take leave.
Nothing discriminatory or biased in that attitude.
I'm not sure why me stating my experience is discriminatory. I can't think of one man in my 17 years of public accounting that took paternity leave or asked for a reduced schedule when his wife had a child. They usually took a few days off but depending on the time of year, it might have only been the day of the birth. That obviously wasn't the case with women. They jumped right back into long hours and traveling. Again, not the norm with women. While there were a few women who had children and then resumed the long hours and travel, the majority of us didn't.
I do understand how my statement of not wanting to hire someone that could go out on maternity leave could be discriminatory, I have no idea how me writing my experience is also construed as discriminatory. Are you going to tell me that the years you spent in public that the men took as much time off as the women? That men asked not to travel or asked for reduced schedules in the same percentage as women? Because I didn't see it
|
|