Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Replace the words 'men' and 'women' by 'blacks' and 'whites' and see if you still feel comfortable with that...
    Lol that doesn't make sense, there are inherent differences in the nature of men and women. That's a biological fact. You can't compare it to black/white.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    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.
    I do not believe the law should have the power to override a woman's (or man's) natural instincts on who should look after their child. It may will implicitly imply a risk of harm, but that is an issue for those people who view it as so, not for a child's mother.

    The mother should be able to hire who she wants to work in her home, with her child, without having to worry about who she is implicitly annoying.

    You may well view a large firm in the city as being equal to the home of a child, but I do not. Evidently, the woman in this article did not. Many woman and men do not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    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'.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    Young children respond better to women.
    Any peer-reviewed studies to support this?

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

    There are jobs men shouldn't do.
    Why?

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


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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lol @ Bubbles De Milo's logic. Whether you are correct or not, the logic you use to back up your views are laughable.

    I tend to agree with the point that ChemistBoy is getting at. If one were to look at every case on a logical, non-emotional basis, then there's no reason to discriminate for a baby sitter, if you can't discrimate for an employee.

    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EggmanD)
    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.
    Ad homs are usually the first signal that you don't have a proper argument.

    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.
    You seem to have some fantastically precise insights into the early behaviour of humans that seem to have eluded most of the leading researchers in the field. Given that we have scant fossil and archaelogical evidence for the lives of hunter-gathers and the only inferences we can draw from modern cultures that are similar is that whilst male and female roles are quite defined, childcare is a collective responsibility of an entire social group and that social groups are close-knit with no real culture of paternal absenteeism, I'm not sure where you get this stuff from. As for infering biologically pre-defined gender roles from the behaviour of other species (which much more diverse than you suggest) then that is utterly pointless - what does the behaviour of elephants or sea monkeys have to do with humans?

    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.
    Sorry? Why is it nature? It was a behaviour and that behaviour has to be judged in context (i.e. society). Do you really beleive that this women's decision was entirely genetically influenced?

    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.
    Women express their emotions more readily in public than men in our society, that isn't the same as saying their are more emotive.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Terpsikhore)
    If she only wants women looking after her children (I'm going to assume she also insisted on a female doctor checking her newborn over, and that her daughter has never been cared for by a male nurse), then so be it. I'm not going to argue that she needs to be sued for discrimination. I do however think rejecting male babysitters SOLELY on the grounds of their gender is flawed in all kinds of ways, and frankly stupid. But that's my call.
    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 which is a lot to trust a stranger with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fiat Punto)
    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.
    This fact just highlights the false assumption of free market theories that we all act in a totally rational way. If we did act in a totally rational way then it would work and we wouldn't need discrimination laws, however we aren't rational so we discriminate based on what we know - a useful survival mechanism in a hunter-gather society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F i s)
    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)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithius)
    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.
    What part of 'QMUL Politics 3rd year' in my sig makes you think I study law?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BoxesAndBangles)
    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
    Point taken. I stand by the rest of my post, though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Not really. When you are hiring someone to look after your most valued 'possession', you need to know what you can trust them. It's not like other jobs - where then I would agree that it should be the best candidate, but in this case it shouldn't be seen as a regular job at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    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.
    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.

    As for babysitters, you are entitled to hire whomever you like or trust the most. No affirmative action here, please.

    cheers
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    What part of 'QMUL Politics 3rd year' in my sig makes you think I study law?
    I didn't read your signature. I know you would like to think everybody obsesses about you Bubbles, but the reality is quite different.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    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.
    I presume it wasn't Nature or Science.

    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.
    Tolerant? It's just a total non-issue.

    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.
    That what happens when social norms are challenged, without people doing this we wouldn't have progress at all on issues such as racial and sexual inequality. How you feel now is how men in the early 20th century felt about women voting or working the professions. Therefore I'll have no truck with your reactionary views, thank you very much.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Holly Hiskey)
    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.
    Shame that most male hospital patients in the UK aren't afford the choice of which gender their nurse will be.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithius)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Shame that most male hospital patients in the UK aren't afford the choice of which gender their nurse will be.
    It is a shame, although I noticed that when I was in hospital in Preston they were very good at it and in the section I was in, all the male rooms had male nurses. Isn't it because of the lack of male nurses though?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiritedAway)
    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.
    Most corporate legislation recognises corporations an non-natural persons who are subject to many of the laws involving individuals as well, so the first sentence isn't exactly the truth. I'm not sure the legal waters are as clear as you make out - I'm sure there would be a case to answer if the individual was a sole-trader who employed an individual on a contract basis. I suspect that the writer in question is likely a free-lance journalist who will write-off childcare expenses as a business expense and therefore it could be questionable to say the least to hire someone using a discriminatory process (at least if this were the UK).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiritedAway)
    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.
    What the hell are you talking about? I said companies (employers) cannot hire and fire at will. Fact.

    You are clearly not studying employment law because your understanding on it is abysmal.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: December 9, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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