NY Times writer refuses to hire superbly qualified babysitter, because he's male

Replace the words 'men' and 'women' by 'blacks' and 'whites' and see if you still feel comfortable with that...

As an employer I think you should be constrained by the same rules as other employers. I presume this woman has no problem with male teachers, for example, yet they are entrusted with the care of many young female children. I don't believe that people should be free to practice hateful discrimination on emotive pretexts especially when the benefits are pretty negligible.



Well, where to begin on this. We should allow sexism to exist because it's hard to overcome? What a load of cobblers!

The problem is that practicing this type of discrimination implicity implies that there is a risk of harm to the child from being cared for by a man, regardless of the actual thought process leading to the decision. It implies imcompetence at best and deviancy at worst and is exactly the same as turning down women for senior executive positions because the perceived need is for an alpha male or fatherly figure to lead the company and that just isn't a woman. It reinforces stereotypes.

You are just basing your conservative ideas on current social norms and trying to dress them up with some pseudo-biological argument that doesn't really hold any water when actually examined. The cross-over in mental and physical abilities between the sexes is so large that non-overlapping populations represent the minority - the upshot of this is that actually most of us are equally capable at most things (obviously excluding bearing children). I remember a quote from an expert on a recent programme about the differences between the sexes: 'Most men have got more in common with most women than they do with some of their own sex'.

Young children respond better to women.

Any man actually motivated to change diapers is a bit sad anyway from my perspective.

There are jobs men shouldn't do.

Women walking into a lingerie shop would be reluctant to buy anything if a straight man was at the till.

Likewise I wouldn't hire a woman as a bouncer in a nightclub because she would be unlikely to be able to eject rowdy patrons or command the respect of drunk perverts.

First, it would be nice if you replied without such a pretentious manner to make it look like your talking more sense than you actually are.

Second, what social norms am i trying to dress up with false science? The quite obvious fact that throughout nature the majority of females raise children/offspring and the majority of males either hunt for food or piss off when they have deposited some DNA. If we are animals, regardless of our 'morality' and higher consciousness compared to animals this does not biologically make sense. If we are made by a higher being we have still been given set purposes based on our psychical builds and brain chemistry.

I just want to clarify i am NOT saying women or men should not be able pursue any career they wish based on my views (relating to your 'can do anything point) and i would say the same thing for anyone else regardless of creed, colour or person. I am just saying that the choice this women made is based on a quite understandable choice based on nature. I wouldnt call it discrimination because i believe that is a social aspect.

Most women are far more emotive than men, thats what i see when i look around the world we live in and i will stick by it without looking into petty discriminations so see if i am breaking some facade of social moral code.

That said, from a free market basis I do think anyone should be able to employ anyone and refuse employment to anyone. Discrimination laws, however, have come into place because the system isn't working. Discrimination laws , on a theoretical level, are not fair. One should be able to refuse anyone employment in any scenario. Why should anyone be obliged to choose one guy/girl over another ? However, on a pragmatic basis, there will be rampant discrimination if that were to happen. Whether that's fair or not, I'm not sure we can agree on.

So it's alright when it's sexism towards guys but just not women?!

(yeah that's right neg me because you can't reply)

Your reasoning is awful. You claim that as they are paying out of their own pocket, they can be discriminative. So a company can hire and fire at will can they, since they are 'paying out of their own pocket'? Of course they can't.

Don't you study law? If so, I'm amazed.

I don't think the main issue was seeing - of course nobody is suggesting all men can't be trusted to see a baby girl. I think the issue was that the nanny, unlike a doctor or teacher, would be alone with the child for hours per day, day in and day out

Any peer-reviewed studies to support this?



So? I think people who want to be accountants are a bit sad, does that mean I'm justified in wanting to ban the profession?



Why?



Doesn't seem to be a problem when I go shopping with my wife. In fact, when I have been in places like La Senza there are always a few men looking for presents, etc.




There are quite a few female bouncers in Nottingham who I'm sure would love to prove you wrong.

What part of 'QMUL Politics 3rd year' in my sig makes you think I study law?

I was just stating my opinions, I'm not surprised people disagree. Call me sexist if you will, but women are biologically more talented on average at taking care of children, just like men have good spatial visualization and are better at being mindlessly violent I don't remember which magazines, but I read that for example women perceive children's screams as louder than they really are and more annoying, which improves their chances of helping a child on time in a dangerous situation. Women's social roles have evolved, and I fully encourage them to do whatever they want with their lives, (I mean, who really wants to be stuck at home with an infant all day?) it makes the world more productive and fairer, but the evolutionary advantage is still there, lurking in the shadows. As a small kid, I much preferred women teachers over men, and so did all the class, including girls.

Of course there is bound to be anecdotal evidence to contradict my anecdotal evidence, like your nottingham bouncers that can twist my balls off in a second and your tolerant wife.

I'm not for actually banning male nannies, I just think it's not worth the effort. It's like wearing a bad haircut voluntarily or cutting spaghetti with a knife. Shouldn't be made illegal, but it's still awkward, a bit like an unspoken rule being breached. People will say not to care what others think but you shouldn't be looking for trouble either. If a was a young woman looking for some frilly underwear, I'd be pissed if the person asking if I wanted it gift wrapped was a pasty faced young male.

I wouldn't say this is sexism, I think it's more the same as having female nurses to wash female patients and male nurses for male patients. It's just sometimes nicer to have someone of the same sex if they're doing that kind of thing.
PS Yes I know the girl probably wouldn't care, but it's the mother's choice on this one and if she feels uncomfortable then fair enough.

Your reasoning is awful. You claim that as they are paying out of their own pocket, they can be discriminative. So a company can hire and fire at will can they, since they are 'paying out of their own pocket'? Of course they can't.

Don't you study law? If so, I'm amazed.

Shame that most male hospital patients in the UK aren't afford the choice of which gender their nurse will be.

Actually a company can't hire or fire anyone, because it is just a name and a building. Only the employees can. Yes, even company directors are still employees of the company, and the company itself owns the money and not the directors. So the company directors are still subject to company house rules and country employment laws. Even if the US had a similar system in place, this woman is an employer, but she's not a business and therefore, yes, she can employ anyone she wants. Firing is something different, she can get sued if she gives unfair dismissal.

Actually a company can't hire or fire anyone, because it is just a name and a building. Only the employees can. Yes, even company directors are still employees of the company, and the company itself owns the money and not the directors. So the company directors are still subject to company house rules and country employment laws. Even if the US had a similar system in place, this woman is an employer, but she's not a business and therefore, yes, she can employ anyone she wants. Firing is something different, she can get sued if she gives unfair dismissal.