Men + Women in Positions of Power

BrianD3 · 17-11-2004 04:26PM

On the other hand, if a girl, (fully skilled with an excellent work history behind her), applies to be a brick layer on a building site and she is refused because she cannot physically carry as many bricks up the scaffolding as the other male brickies then she should not be refused

Of course she should be refused. If carrying bricks is part of the job and a male applicant can carry bricks more efficently then her then the male should get the job ahead of her.

But FYI, bricklayers don't actually carry bricks around. That's what labourers are for.

BrianD3

Kêrmêttê · 17-11-2004 04:27PM

logic1 wrote:

So this Girl with an excellant work history and fully skilled takes longer to carry bricks up a scaffolding.

Hence it may take her 20 trips to carry the equivalent amount of bricks as a man who takes 10 trips.

She's is 50% less effective at the job than the male and therefore costs the company more money to maintain.

And you think she should be taken on against a male that's effectively better at the job because he has more of the necessary attributes (strength)

That's ridiculous.

.logic.

This is a case that actually happened. I don't have any links but I spoke to a health and safety officer that was involved in the situation and he told me about it.
A girl was employed on a building site and took longer to get her portion of the work completed. So, at the end of the day she was sacked.
She took the employer to court and won.
Her work was excellent and no fault could be found with her compliance with the health and safety regulations. She did the job perfectly... just took longer then the others.
She got her job back and a nice settlement for unfair dismissal.

Hagar · 17-11-2004 04:37PM

Apples are not oranges.
If I was making cider I wouldn't want oranges and if I was making orange juice I wouldn't want apples.
It's an assessment of suitability for a given task at a specific time.

Men and women are not equal, they are different.
A simple non-judgemental statement, there is no implication that one is better than the other.

This debate has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years and will continue until the server is full no doubt.

pickarooney · 17-11-2004 04:44PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

This is a case that actually happened. I don't have any links but I spoke to a health and safety officer that was involved in the situation and he told me about it.
A girl was employed on a building site and took longer to get her portion of the work completed. So, at the end of the day she was sacked.
She took the employer to court and won.
Her work was excellent and no fault could be found with her compliance with the health and safety regulations. She did the job perfectly... just took longer then the others.
She got her job back and a nice settlement for unfair dismissal.

If there was no specific time-limit given in the contract or job description, then fair enough, she would have fulfilled her obligations and shouldn't have been sacked.

the_syco · 17-11-2004 05:27PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

a girl wanting to work on a building site

I think you misunderstood this bit. Girls RARELY apply for these jobs. In most jobs, you have to be able to lift heavy objects, etc. Most girls aren't born with a heavy frame, so this stops them from looking at building work as a possible job.

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

I'm stuck below the glass ceiling and this positive discrimination hasn't worked for me. I am but a lowly secretary!

Have you tried getting better qualified? There's no reason to promote you, if you only have the skills of a secretary. Find out what skills you need, and do a night course in them.

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

if a girl, (fully skilled with an excellent work history behind her), applies to be a brick layer on a building site and she is refused because she cannot physically carry as many bricks up the scaffolding as the other male brickies then she should not be refused.
She can still do the job... it just might take her longer.

I've done some brickie work in the past, and it is hard. But all sites have a certain time to build houses in. So it takes her longer. If a guy builds the first floor of a house in 2 days, and she takes 5, she'll get alot less money. More than half less, actually.
The site will not be held up by one person.
If some guy was taking his time, not doing the job @ the proper speed, he would be sacked. So why employ a man if they know that man is going to be slow? Likewise, why employ that woman. As for the "excellent work history"; how would she get this if her work was slow?
Unless of course, she belongs to a union. Then she can be as slow as she wants, and she can't be fired. So why hire a slow worker?

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

This is a case that actually happened. I don't have any links but I spoke to a health and safety officer that was involved in the situation and he told me about it.
A girl was employed on a building site and took longer to get her portion of the work completed. So, at the end of the day she was sacked.
She took the employer to court and won.
Her work was excellent and no fault could be found with her compliance with the health and safety regulations. She did the job perfectly... just took longer then the others.
She got her job back and a nice settlement for unfair dismissal.

If I didn't do my job fast enogh, I'd be sacked. But seemingly you can't sack a woman for not doing her job fast enough, as its "sexual discrimination". Thats BS!

=-=
One of my past jobs was in a kitchen. The boss was a man. Course it was. He owned the company, having started it. Then there were 2 managers. One was a woman. this was 5 or 6 years ago.
One of my more recent jobs was in a tech support group for a bank. Boss was a woman. Her boss was a woman. Their boss was a man.
Both of these women were high up for one reason; they had no kids. When you have a kid, you leave the company for a few months.
This is one of the reasons why there are so few women in high up positions. They are discriminated against because they left the company for a few months.

Sleepy · 17-11-2004 05:41PM

I'll probably get called a mysoginist by some of the Femnazi's advocated this form of discrimination but fúck it this stuff pisses me off so negative rep me all ye like.

There is no such thing as positive discrimination. The very term is an oxymoron. By discriminating against the formerly dominant group you are not contributing to equality, you're making it even harder to attain. Discrimination of any kind, no matter how noble the intention, breeds contempt amongst those discriminated against and not entirely unjustly. The ends can never be considered to justify the means in any society which considers itself to have moral character.

Were two of my colleagues in a position to be promoted to be my boss, I honestly don't care what sex/colour/race/religeon the person is. I want the one promoted who'll do the best job and quite frankly if the someone is promoted for the wrong reasons they are unlikely to gain the same level of support from me as the other would have.

Quoting examples of the law making an ass of itself (if the girl couldn't keep up with the pace quite obviously her work was far from "excellent") does not make for an effective logical argument. Sure, women were discriminated against in the past in the workplace but they aren't any more. If they are being discriminated against, the law protects them and they can do something about it. (on an aside here Kêrmêttê, policies of "positive" discrimination such as your companies place them in an extremely actionable position for the victims of that discrimination)

Let's face it, there is no such thing as two perfectly equal candidates for a job. Even if both have gone to school together since junior infants, scored the same on every test and examination in their life and have the same level of third level and professional qualifications, one's personality will be better suited to the role than the other. So, there should be no need for this "positive" discrimination as in reality, one candidate will be better suited to the role than the other. If the interviewer can't determine which candidate that is, someone else should be doing the interviewing. All the policy you're advocating does is legitimise descrimination by putting a "nice" spin on it.

Finally, would you not concede that this "positive" discrimination is, in fact, demeaning to those who benefit from it. If you can't win the job outright because of your own abilities and personality, why should you beat the other person to it? Would you want the job knowing that the only reason you have it over another candidate is because you're a woman/black/jewish/physically handicapped?

sprinkles · 17-11-2004 05:48PM

I'm bidding my time.

Masculinity will rise and the age of men will return!!

And we too will have hairy, women loving, "spokespersons" to voice our opinions, just like the feminists have.

Its only a matter of time before the women start smacking our "cute butts" and making smart comments about our "features".

I mean, men have feelings too! I think its wrong of women to treat us like objects.

Kêrmêttê · 17-11-2004 06:49PM

Sleepy wrote:

There is no such thing as positive discrimination. The very term is an oxymoron. By discriminating against the formerly dominant group you are not contributing to equality, you're making it even harder to attain. Discrimination of any kind, no matter how noble the intention, breeds contempt amongst those discriminated against and not entirely unjustly. The ends can never be considered to justify the means in any society which considers itself to have moral character.

I can give one very relevant example of positive discrimination. Should a potential employer not employ a wheelchair user, (who is a very capable person in their professional field), just because there will be the expense of having to build a wheelchair ramp for them to access the company building or install a lift so they can access the department where they will work on the top floor or automatic doors so they can negotiate corridors??
A mediocre applicant might be able bodied, but, should the employer employ the excellent wheelchair user and incurr an expense modifying his/her premisers?
Or should the employer fill the position with the mediocre applicant with no extra costs?

This is a situation that I can see happening regularly and positive discrimination is a benifit to this margionalised section of this country's work force.
I have never met anyone who resents it in this situation.

Hagar · 17-11-2004 06:55PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

Should a potential employer not employ a wheelchair user, (who is a very capable person in their professional field), just because there will be the expense of having to build a wheelchair ramp for them to access the company building or install a lift so they can access the department where they will work on the top floor or automatic doors so they can negotiate corridors??

Aha!! But what if an equally qualified black lesbian jewish dyslexic single parent orphaned deaf one armed female wheelchair user with a glass eye and a stutter were also to apply for the job? What then?

zoro · 17-11-2004 07:08PM

Who was slower than the other applicant by half?

sprinkles · 18-11-2004 12:24AM

tovalee wrote:

My point of view as a woman in IT: Im a student in a field of male majority. (programming/electronic engineering) Being the only woman in my program, i find i am discriminated against all the time. Thing is, they dont even realise they're doing it. If I do something really well, the attitude i get is "ooo she's really good, I'm so surprised!" if i mess up, its "well, what did you expect?". Its infuriating. I dont want to be held back or favored because of my sex. I just want a fair chance. I dont know whether ive ever missed a job opurtunity because im a woman. But when i was working as a pc tech, i noticed the same type of attitude...other than that, my male coworkers/ fellow students have all treated me very well. Again i dont think they even realise they're doing anything wrong, and im not into confrontation, so i just stew in private

I just finished college doing engineering and there were 3 women in my class and if they had have been men I doubt they would have made it past first year. They breezed passed exams sheding crocodile tears and looking sad. It works both ways. If I had gone up to the head of my department crying and asked to be let through to final year I would have been laughed at. One of the girls did and got through. Another came in for what she thought was an afternoon exam and it turns out it was a morning exam. After some crying she was alowd sit the exact same paper that evening.

I totally agree with you that women are treated differently but not always for the worse.

Unfair isn't it!

......for us men

tovalee · 18-11-2004 06:16AM

c'mon, this is just what I'm talking about. I'm in the top 5% of my class, but of course, it must be because I'm a woman and get special treatment, not because I work my butt off and study every night. :mad:

zoro · 18-11-2004 08:21AM

Tovalee - While being in the top 5% of your class is a superb achievment, and congratulations on it, sitting an exam hours after it was supposed to be sat is not on.
I myself wouldn't last a week in engineering, so if you're doing so well, you've gotta be "different"

(to me

)

As Sprinkles said, if a male student was to do exactly the same they'd be told there was nothing that could be done. (this is assumption of course)
Sprinkles was anything said or done at the time by the student union, or were there any complaints made?

b3t4 · 18-11-2004 10:27AM

I am in the IT area and I will base the following as such.

If two people go for a job and have similar if not quite the same qualiifcations then how should it be decided who gets the job?? Toss of a coin?? Perfect situation right?? Should it not be the case then that if it was a male and female that the likelihood would be that either of the candidates went through.

In the past how did it happen that more men were taken on and therefore an industry became male dominant that certainly isn't what a company should want, their customers are a balanced society with 50/50 male female. To better be able to deal with customers should there workforce not reflect their customer base??

If people are going to say well more females aren't studying this particular area than men, which is a fair point, but why is that?? Why is it that a female base who are as capable as men for an area such as IT are shying away from it at such an early stage?? My thoughts are that because the IT industry was/is a male dominated industry that it has tended to attract the male audience by the products that are produced and way in which it is thought. (For the techy's among us,

I'm going to take an example here with regard to how the idea of a Class, in OO coding, is described in many of the text books I have read. The example of what a Class is, genearlly uses the idea of a car. I know that there are women out there who love cars and know all the ends and outs of them but they are in the minority.) Balance up the female side of things and maybe just maybe more young women will see computers as a viable way to go. Currently there is a situation where there are more men to women and in such circumstances a women may perhaps get swamped by the male way of thinking and possibly change her tack just to suite the dominant male attitude.

It might be a good idea that the interviewing process be balanced as well. i.e. the interviewee being interviewed by both a male and female. Therefore if the interviewers are balanced then maybe it would help with push either sex forward and more so on a candidates capabilities rather than what sex they are.

I am female and would not like under any circumstances to get a job purely because of that fact.

A.

zoro · 18-11-2004 10:35AM

I was interviewed by two women when I went for my job for last summer, and this summer too. One was IT, one was HR ... so are you saying that I, as a male, should have been turned down?

*stirs it

*

Interesting how you blame the explanation of something as basic as a Class as looking at the course from a male's perspective though. I do see your point, but if they were really trying to look at the males only in a computing course ... how many of the computer "nerds" like myself will know the ins and outs of a car?
As far as I'm concerned, I'd like a blue car.
That's about the extent of it

I don't know anything about cars, and if I did, I may not even want to do computers, I'd be a mechanic or something

Sleepy · 18-11-2004 03:02PM

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

I can give one very relevant example of positive discrimination. Should a potential employer not employ a wheelchair user, (who is a very capable person in their professional field), just because there will be the expense of having to build a wheelchair ramp for them to access the company building or install a lift so they can access the department where they will work on the top floor or automatic doors so they can negotiate corridors??
A mediocre applicant might be able bodied, but, should the employer employ the excellent wheelchair user and incurr an expense modifying his/her premisers?
Or should the employer fill the position with the mediocre applicant with no extra costs?

This is a situation that I can see happening regularly and positive discrimination is a benifit to this margionalised section of this country's work force.
I have never met anyone who resents it in this situation.

Where is positive discrimination in evidence here? If the wheelchair user is the better candidate, and is not hired, that is a case of discrimination. The law would be on their side should they decide to sue did they not get the job. It is already illegal to discriminate on this premise so why introduce another law to garner the same effects in an immoral way?

Towards the end of her post B3T4 made one very good point. In the interests of equality it would be a good idea to have both a male and female interviewer interview the candidate. This is something I would like to see, though in practice it might be very difficult to enforce in certain industries (e.g. building sites, beauty salons etc that have almost entirely one sex or the other working there. Though it could also be pointed out that in large corporations, most HR staff are female. Whether this is because it's a role that's well suited to feminine talents is a point that could be hotly debated in another thread, but I don't know too many men that are actually annoyed by it.

I work in IT too, my boss is female, her boss is female and both are in the positions they're in because they're extremely good at them. None of the men in our department resent the fact they're "under" a woman.

In reality, we already live in a state which provides equal opportunities for all. Maybe some of the laws could be better enforced, but introducing more laws (particularly ones which are based in the very thing they're trying to eliminate) will not help enforce these laws any better.

The Sweeper · 18-11-2004 06:22PM

Men and women are different. Welcome to the world.

I do agree that women occasionally get away with things a man wouldn't. I do not believe this is because of their sex. I believe this is because of their approach.

When something goes wrong for a man, he will often react aggressively. He will behave in a confrontational manner, look to apportion blame for what has gone wrong, makes demands of the person who stands in the way of making it right, bluster about a bit about the unfairness of it all, raise his voice, gesticulate, etc.

When something goes wrong for a woman, there are frequently tears, and usually an instant request for help, with some beseeching thrown in. It may all be a bit pathetic, but it's not aggressive.

Whoever you are, man or woman, you are more likely to help someone who asks you nicely than someone who behaves aggressively towards you. Aggression prompts defensiveness.

If people just accepted that we should all be allowed do what we're good at the world would be a far calmer place. Women make better co-ordinators, because they can multi-task. Men make more efficient directors, because they can delegate effectively.

zoro · 18-11-2004 06:38PM

Minesajackdaniels: Well this thread wasn't originally about the differences between sexes, but it naturally progressed to that. What I was originally pointing out was that no one should get preferential treatment simply because of their sex.

simu · 18-11-2004 09:05PM

sprinkles wrote:

I just finished college doing engineering and there were 3 women in my class and if they had have been men I doubt they would have made it past first year. They breezed passed exams sheding crocodile tears and looking sad. It works both ways. If I had gone up to the head of my department crying and asked to be let through to final year I would have been laughed at. One of the girls did and got through. Another came in for what she thought was an afternoon exam and it turns out it was a morning exam. After some crying she was alowd sit the exact same paper that evening.

I totally agree with you that women are treated differently but not always for the worse.

Unfair isn't it!

......for us men

The problem there is people (were they male?) being suckers!

pickarooney · 18-11-2004 09:08PM

Curious to know about this "women can multi-task better" business. Is this the result of some test?

simu · 18-11-2004 09:22PM

pickarooney wrote:

Curious to know about this "women can multi-task better" business. Is this the result of some test?

A quick search on google reveals that - there is no significant difference between men & women in terms of multitasking abilty and - that women are better than men at multitasking because the two sides of women's brains are better connected. Google searches obscure more than they reveal at times!

This cliché sounds to me like an excuse to dump more work on women tbh.

sceptre · 18-11-2004 09:34PM

zoro wrote:

(or, as was said on the program, the CEO of Dell is a woman - I think)

Nope

The_Conductor · 18-11-2004 09:42PM

Personally I am opposed to discrimination of any nature, be it positive or negative- in favour of, or opposed to, anybody. I firmly believe that all people should stand on their own two feet, and be viewed as unique individuals in their own rights. Any attributes a person has- are attributal to that person, and not their membership or affiliation with a societal group.

Discrimination of any type or nature breeds contempt in those who are inherently being discriminated against. To pursue positive affirmative action in favour of one group of people, entails pursuing negative discriminatory action against another- and serves to do nothing apart from polarising and emphasising any alleged differences that may exist between the two (or more) proposed groupings.

Discrimination of any type or discription is repugnant in civilised society.

Clause · 18-11-2004 09:50PM

smccarrick wrote:

Personally I am opposed to discrimination of any nature, be it positive or negative- in favour of, or opposed to, anybody. I firmly believe that all people should stand on their own two feet, and be viewed as unique individuals in their own rights. Any attributes a person has- are attributal to that person, and not their membership or affiliation with a societal group.

Discrimination of any type or nature breeds contempt in those who are inherently being discriminated against. To pursue positive affirmative action in favour of one group of people, entails pursuing negative discriminatory action against another- and serves to do nothing apart from polarising and emphasising any alleged differences that may exist between the two (or more) proposed groupings.

Discrimination of any type or discription is repugnant in civilised society.

Thats stupid Shane.
Typical- you've got a female boss and resent it- don't you?

Big Ears · 18-11-2004 10:00PM

I think i will sum this up very simply : Positive discrimination for one , is also negative discimination for another (two people go for a job , male and female , female gets it because shes a woman , this is negative discrimination for the man) .

all discrimination=wrong+illegal .

Society today is probably as equal as it will ever get , if more procedures are brought in place to 'help' equality it may tip the scales from what is supposedly a male dominated world to a female one .

pickarooney · 19-11-2004 12:39PM

It will be when more countries adopt the Scandinavian system of allowing fathers to take up to a year's paternity leave while the mother goes back to work.

zoro · 19-11-2004 03:40PM

sceptre wrote:

Nope

Ah sorry about that sceptre - it's just a vague recollection of what was said during the interview, I should have researched it before saying it - my apologies

Pickarooney: Is that actually how it's done over there? This is another problem that I have with discrimination between sexes. I have to say that I do believe that a woman requires more time to recover after a pregnancy than a man, but the current allowances by law are just plain ridiculous.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/employment/holidays_and_leave/maternity_leave.html and http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=5142
How much maternity leave is allowed?

Everyone covered by the Maternity Protection Act is entitled to a minimum period of maternity leave of 18 weeks

....

Is additional maternity leave allowed?
An employee can opt to take up to 8 weeks extra maternity leave

However, http://www.oasis.gov.ie/employment/holidays_and_leave/paternity_leave.html
"Paternity leave is not recognised in employment law in Ireland. In other words, employers are not obliged to grant male employees special paternity leave (either paid or unpaid) following the birth of their child. Annual leave taken following the birth of a child is treated in employment law in the same way as leave taken at any other time of the year"

I find that THAT is outrageous. I know there'll be people here that will be up in arms about this post, and how dare I say that women get too much maternity leave. What I'm saying is that men get NO paternity leave.

I don't like that at all!

simu · 19-11-2004 03:45PM

zoro wrote:

I find that THAT is outrageous. I know there'll be people here that will be up in arms about this post, and how dare I say that women get too much maternity leave. What I'm saying is that men get NO paternity leave.

I don't like that at all!

Actually, it would be quite handy for women as well if men got paternity leave as it would save money on minders for some extra time and they could be sure that the baby was in relaible hands as well.

zoro · 19-11-2004 03:53PM

Simu: So i'd be "handy" for men to have the rights they deserve?

*stirs it even more*

pickarooney · 19-11-2004 03:56PM

zoro wrote:

Pickarooney: Is that actually how it's done over there? This is another problem that I have with discrimination between sexes. I have to say that I do believe that a woman requires more time to recover after a pregnancy than a man, but the current allowances by law are just plain ridiculous.

The couple gets 450 days between them to split up more or less how they see fit (obviously the woman has a mandatory rest period after the birth) from delivery until the child is 8. That can be a month here and a month there for either partner over the 8 years, or all in one go by either parent (again, each parent is obliged to take something like 20 days in the first couple of months).
The get 80% of their wages during leave. The government tries to encourage as many men as possible to take leave, but the trend is still with the woman taking the bulk of the leave. Some info on it here and here(full atricle requires free registration).

Men + Women in Positions of Power

Comments