Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

I discriminate women based on their looks watch

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    no you shouldn't, it's normal and logical.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reptilian)
    Fair play to you. If I ever got a job like yours, I'd look at DDs before CVs


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    haram :mad:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Big-Daddy)

    Ok but let's make the question more precise - is it fair that the OP base the offer purely on his projected opinion of how many clients the employee would bring in, or should he be expected to park the "subjective" elements of that assessment (such as looks) to the side and make the judgement purely based on the objective results and other paper-based aspects of the application (which give a basic overview of what the candidate is bringing in, but does not factor those subjective bits and pieces, which the OP thinks he can use to tell who will ultimately serve him better)?
    I'm working with the premise of "all aspects of the application are equal". The bold in this case doesn't discriminate! It would be possible to have both applicants employed under probation, and the better performer is kept, but is this procedure really worth it?


    (Original post by Mancini)
    This bald bit is complete gibberish and I would not be surprised if this is how discrimination in the workplace happens. You need to take a look at your thinking because you are displaying a mindset here that provides a breeding ground for the discrimination of people within a work setting.
    How exactly is it "gibberish"? You can't make a professional distinction (the premise we are working with) and you have to make a choice; your hands are inescapably tied, you will have make a decision on a factor which is not 'professional'. Even picking randomly may seem unethical to people displaying this sort of sensitivity. What would you think, would you be ok with the path of your career depending on a coin flip?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inazuma)
    Life isn't fair, so no.
    Same way models are picked for their features or actors for their roles, workers who are working in the public eye who's appearance might be a factor should expect some degree of judgement on that part IMO.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So in your view because life is not fair naturally this gives an employer a right to continue making it even less fair for some by judging people based on something they had no control of? In this case losing out on a job because they are not good enough eye candy.

    The whole point of discrimination laws is to stop this sort of practice in the work place in fact there are many examples of older women on television losing their jobs to younger women and winning cases against organizations who have used these discriminatory practices so those of you who think this is ok it clearly is not and there is evidence which proves you wrong out there.

    If an employee suspects they have lost their job based on their looks and they can gather evidence against a company practicing these unethical practices not only will they likely get the position back the company can also face big fines. Perhaps it's harder to prove you have been discriminated against during the hiring process but if you are in a working position than put out you definitely would have a case. I am also sure it would not be hard to test a company's hiring practices out with some hidden camera tactics as they have done for issues such as exposing racist practices within the estate agent industry.

    Your model, actor example is not even the same, yes these are jobs but in those roles the way one looks is vital to whether they suit a role, however, in the thread we are discussing a marketing role which is office based. An employee should not have to pass the super model test to get that position.

    I think right now a lot of the people saying there is nothing wrong with it are probably young and a bit ignorant, when it comes to them being a bit older and where perhaps they will experience issues like this, it will be a wake up call and they will have to swallow their words.

    People are very quick to agree with discrimination when it does not affect them directly and in the present, wake up and think beyond yourself.

    For a case example click the link to the BBC news website below to read a short article on the case of Countryfile presenter Charlotte Smith.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28769940
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inazuma)
    Life isn't fair, so no.
    Same way models are picked for their features or actors for their roles, workers who are working in the public eye who's appearance might be a factor should expect some degree of judgement on that part IMO.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The Charlotte Smith BBC case I posted earlier proves your words are gibberish. Stop being ignorant, where discrimination can be proven the culprits will be brought into question and punished. Even in front of the public eye an employee is protected by law against discrimination.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FireGarden)
    I'm working with the premise of "all aspects of the application are equal". The bold in this case doesn't discriminate! It would be possible to have both applicants employed under probation, and the better performer is kept, but is this procedure really worth it?




    How exactly is it "gibberish"? You can't make a professional distinction (the premise we are working with) and you have to make a choice; your hands are inescapably tied, you will have make a decision on a factor which is not 'professional'. Even picking randomly may seem unethical to people displaying this sort of sensitivity. What would you think, would you be ok with the path of your career depending on a coin flip?
    This is the gibberish you wrote earlier : The choice that makes the office a nicer looking place is as good as any.


    If you really don't understand why it's gibberish you need help. With your thinking it would be fine to discriminate against a person from an ethnic minority, maybe a fat person, in fact anyone who is a bit different from what an employer thinks is either normal for him/her or would get on well with their already existing working unit and the employer according to you has the right to decide all this based on how this person looks that's exactly why its gibberish.

    It shows you just how messed up some people are in their heads in here that they support discriminatory practices either because they are just ignorant of the laws concerning the workplace or perhaps they simply do not care about issues to do with discrimination because it probably has never affected their lives.

    All you ignorant people need to do is check up British working laws and regulations it's not that hard, you just need to do a little searching before posting your ignorant thoughts.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    This is the gibberish you wrote earlier : The choice that makes the office a nicer looking place is as good as any.


    If you really don't understand why it's gibberish you need help. With your thinking it would be fine to discriminate against a person from an ethnic minority, maybe a fat person, in fact anyone who is a bit different from what an employer thinks is either normal for him/her or would get on well with their already existing working unit and the employer according to you has the right to decide all this based on how this person looks that's exactly why its gibberish.

    It shows you just how messed up some people are in their heads in here that they support discriminatory practices either because they are just ignorant of the laws concerning the workplace or perhaps they simply do not care about issues to do with discrimination because it probably has never affected their lives.

    All you ignorant people need to do is check up British working laws and regulations it's not that hard, you just need to do a little searching before posting your ignorant thoughts.
    Sadly I can't provide tangible proof, but many employers definitely discriminate on the basis of who they think will fit in best in the existing team.

    There is no discrimination here. Discrimination would be the choosing of a less qualified applicant on the basis of a prejudice against the better qualified applicant. This sort of extreme sensitivity is what makes so much British workplace regulations and procedures the kind that baffle and annoy employees.

    I'll put it to you directly, since you believe that's not a fair/ethical method of choosing between two professionally indistinguishable applicants, then suggest one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    yes, it's normal. Who says it is wrong? It's human nature to value looks above all other things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    This bald bit is complete gibberish and I would not be surprised if this is how discrimination in the workplace happens. You need to take a look at your thinking because you are displaying a mindset here that provides a breeding ground for the discrimination of people within a work setting.
    OK. So top managers are not human? They're all rational, without any biases, or well...bad points? lolololol..

    Maybe the OP is simply a bad boss. If he is, who gives a ****, he'll face the consequences accordingly. But then don't be naive and dismiss the human equation from it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inazuma)
    Life isn't fair, so no.
    Same way models are picked for their features or actors for their roles, workers who are working in the public eye who's appearance might be a factor should expect some degree of judgement on that part IMO.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I agree. It's common sense.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swirll)
    0/10, too obvious

    The lack of grammar in the thread title/post makes me think OP doesn't have a job anywhere TBH.
    Sorry to bring you back to this thread that you so hate but if you think this guy is so clearly a troll then why has no one else picked up on it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    Good looks and social graces are marketable qualities like any other. They're just as important if not more so than UCAS points or degrees.
    True, depends on the job though.

    And a degree is just a piece of paper. Any manager who recruits people on the basis of degree alone is a dope.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    You are completely stupid of course a criminal will be blocked from working at a certain job precisely because of his criminal record, you are illogical. What we are talking about here is discrimination based on how a person looks which is plain wrong. Labelling the legal blocking of a paedophile discrimination is beyond stupid and you need your head looked at.

    Learn to stick to the subject matter in question, if he was hiring for a modelling/ acting job that perhaps required good looks I would have no problem with him choosing based on looks but the job is not one that requires looks, yes looks may help to a degree but it should not be used as a major factor in the process.

    Nor is anyone debating about hiring a higher qualified person over a less, stick to the subject we are debating discriminating on a job based on how a person looks which even by British law depending on the job is against the law.

    Your response to me was not even worth a reply because it's so stupid but I am replying to you because there are probably other stupid people like you around who require enlightenment.

    I was providing counter-examples to demonstrate why the statement

    >Discrimination is wrong it does not matter what excuse you use.

    Is stupid and incorrect
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    The Charlotte Smith BBC case I posted earlier proves your words are gibberish. Stop being ignorant, where discrimination can be proven the culprits will be brought into question and punished. Even in front of the public eye an employee is protected by law against discrimination.
    What so a model cannot be chosen based on appearance? puhleeasse. Point is it still happens, your point is irrelevant. My opinion, so I don't particularly care...

    (Original post by Mancini)
    So in your view because life is not fair naturally this gives an employer a right to continue making it even less fair for some by judging people based on something they had no control of? In this case losing out on a job because they are not good enough eye candy.

    The whole point of discrimination laws is to stop this sort of practice in the work place in fact there are many examples of older women on television losing their jobs to younger women and winning cases against organizations who have used these discriminatory practices so those of you who think this is ok it clearly is not and there is evidence which proves you wrong out there.

    If an employee suspects they have lost their job based on their looks and they can gather evidence against a company practicing these unethical practices not only will they likely get the position back the company can also face big fines. Perhaps it's harder to prove you have been discriminated against during the hiring process but if you are in a working position than put out you definitely would have a case. I am also sure it would not be hard to test a company's hiring practices out with some hidden camera tactics as they have done for issues such as exposing racist practices within the estate agent industry.

    Your model, actor example is not even the same, yes these are jobs but in those roles the way one looks is vital to whether they suit a role, however, in the thread we are discussing a marketing role which is office based. An employee should not have to pass the super model test to get that position.

    I think right now a lot of the people saying there is nothing wrong with it are probably young and a bit ignorant, when it comes to them being a bit older and where perhaps they will experience issues like this, it will be a wake up call and they will have to swallow their words.

    People are very quick to agree with discrimination when it does not affect them directly and in the present, wake up and think beyond yourself.

    For a case example click the link to the BBC news website below to read a short article on the case of Countryfile presenter Charlotte Smith.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28769940

    #myopinion
    Where appearance may make a significant difference it is my opinion that such a thing may be expected.
    Where a guy hires a hot girl purely because she is attractive even if an inferior candidate for his own purposes then that is inappropriate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    As part of my job in PR, I have to recruit PR/marketing people.
    You are pure evil.

    :evilbanana::evil::devil3::jacko::mwuaha:


    Do you hire only good looking guys?
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    You are pure evil.

    :evilbanana::evil::devil3::jacko::mwuaha:


    Do you hire only good looking guys?
    Yes, if the role is client-facing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steezy)
    You really have to ask us if you should feel bad about something?

    Do you have no moral compass of your own?
    agreed
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inazuma)
    What so a model cannot be chosen based on appearance? puhleeasse. Point is it still happens, your point is irrelevant. My opinion, so I don't particularly care...




    #myopinion
    Where appearance may make a significant difference it is my opinion that such a thing may be expected.
    Where a guy hires a hot girl purely because she is attractive even if an inferior candidate for his own purposes then that is inappropriate.
    If we were discussing purely modelling jobs there would be no reason for this discussion, the thread is about marketing positions. You need to learn how to use common sense because for the 2nd time on this thread you type nonsense.

    Yes of course it's your opinion, I'm fully aware of that Mrs puuuhlease that's the whole point of a discussion, reading others views. I just prefer reading opinions that actually make sense and attempt to change people's thinking, instead of just accepting things as they are. Perhaps because the issue does not affect you directly or maybe you are just ignorant and unaware of your present state.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    If we were discussing purely modelling jobs there would be no reason for this discussion, the thread is about marketing positions. You need to learn how to use common sense because for the 2nd time on this thread you type nonsense.

    Yes of course it's your opinion, I'm fully aware of that Mrs puuuhlease that's the whole point of a discussion, reading others views. I just prefer reading opinions that actually make sense and attempt to change people's thinking, instead of just accepting things as they are. Perhaps because the issue does not affect you directly or maybe you are just ignorant and unaware of your present state.
    And some jobs are more in the public eye and if appearance can help make a position more viable I don't see why it can't be a factor assuming all else is the same.

    Don't know why you're talking about common sense because 1) You haven't explained why it's relevant here (because it isn't) 2) Equal opportunities many years ago did not exist so if that is what you're trying to push as commons sense then it's not 3) You're the one not using sense imo.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm ****ed if everyone does this.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 20, 2014
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.