Work sexism

SeanW wrote: »

Ah, but it's the right kind of sexism.

Females. 'Telpis like.

Azalea wrote: »

But was it because of sexist reasons though? I mean, what if she wanted to look after her male friend?

I did freelance work for a company a few years back and then they stopped calling me because the manager wanted to give the hours to his male friend. I know I didn't have any rights because I was freelance, but it never struck me that it was for sexist reasons - just nepotism reasons.

I don't like the idea of gender quotas at all either by the way - should be best person for the job.

There was a bit more going on in the company that I didn't include but gives some context. They were a state funded group and bar the chief exec all the senior management roles were women. A number of men who'd held senior roles in the past had been gently 'moved on' with female candidates universally being moved into the roles. In one instance they'd broken their own employment guidelines and thrown out he minimum requirements to facilitate giving one role to a particular candidate.

As regards the hiring manager I'd had a few cases of observing her views on men in senior positions previously- hell of a chip on her shoulder. Was getting her friend promoted her motivation?, sure in part, but based on other interactions with her I have no doubt sexism was also a major part.

Sleepy wrote: »

Why Thankfully?

Because I don't believe that someone should be hired simply for what they can bring to a role, but I would also look at the possibilities for their career development and progression, and how they would fit into the existing environment that would be as much a benefit to them, as they would be to that environment, and the support they would get in that environment. I didn't think this particular candidate would receive the support that would encourage them to progress in their career given that their employer were "settling" for employing them on the basis that "well, they're not the best candidate, but they'll be a good role model for the boys, and they're into sports". He actually turned down the position because he had in the meantime been offered a position in another school, and chances are that school would have wanted to hire him for everything he could bring to the role, as opposed to the "well, sure I suppose he'll do" attitude displayed by some of the other panel members.

Sleepy wrote: »

Honestly, education is one area where I do think there's a case for attempting to address the gender imbalance, particularly at primary school level. The heavy predominance of women in teaching roles has been identified as one of the reasons that the system is failing boys so badly.

The thing is though, I would prefer that gender played no part whatsoever in the selection process. If the education system is perceived to be failing boys badly (and that really is a matter of perception, because it depends upon what criteria you use to form that conclusion), then you need to look at how children are being taught, and address that, rather than the idea of stick a man in the classroom and instantly a pair of balls makes all the difference. I don't believe it does. I don't believe that the gender of the teacher is even a relevant factor. A woman can teach the same curriculum just as well as a man can. If the system is perceived to be failing children, then you have to look at why those children are failing.

That's not even going near the fact that employment in education is so much more than just the teacher in the classroom, it also goes higher up the hierarchial chain into management, and if you think about it, particularly in an Irish context, the patrons of 92% of National Schools are of what gender exactly? I don't mean to derail the thread with that one, but the reason I mention it is because it's particularly relevant to Ireland and our single-sex schools.

Granted, the predominance of women in teaching roles may be identified as a factor when looking at why boys are failing in schools, but how much weight should be given to that perception above all others? I would say myself - not a whole lot. You also have to consider the fact that just as there are many women aren't particularly interested in pursuing careers in the hard sciences, just as many men aren't particularly interested in pursuing careers in the softer sciences. You cannot change that trend, without completely changing the quality of the occupations in order to make them more attractive to people who wouldn't normally have been previously attracted to them.

I have been "encouraged" (pushed, coerced, buttered up, whichever you prefer) on numerous occasions to apply for various teaching positions on the basis that I'd be a shoo-in because of my gender. If people regard my competency on the basis of my gender over another person who may be equally competent, then I myself would never want to work for that person in that environment as I'd know I only got the job based upon my gender and not upon my skillset, and that's something I actively fight against, so why would I then choose to take advantage of it when it suits me? That wouldn't be very fair on the students, regardless of their gender, because IMO they'd be receiving a compromised education, rather than the excellence in standards I strive for and expect, from anyone I would advocate for employment because I consider them a suitable candidate for the role, regardless of their gender.