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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Holly Hiskey)
    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?
    Yes, precisely because of the kind of discrimination we are talking about here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Yes, precisely because of the kind of discrimination we are talking about here.
    No it's not; boys can choose to become nurses if they want, and the reason they can't have all male nurses on the wards is because there wouldn't be enough of them unless they work longer shifts than the girls, which doesn't really seem fair to me.
    The woman has the right to choose her child's babysitter depending on what she feels comfortable with. If she doesn't want a male babysitter for her female child, fine, and vice versa.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Betting the same people who are saying this is outright unacceptable discrimination are the same people who were defending the casting person for the whole dark skinned hobbit episode.

    First of all, understand that it is ultimately the womans choice and that she is under no obligation whatsoever to accept any candidate regardless of their qualifications.

    Secondly do any of you people have a young child, niece or nephew etc? While I know it's unlikely that a babysitter is going to end up being a pedophile but I'm sure people who have had their children abused never, ever thought it would happen to their child. Also, don't most pedophiles act from a position or trust/power?

    While it is unfortunate that the media has created this culture of fear you have to understand that parents are vulnerable to perceptual fear when it comes to their young children. This isn't a bad thing. Vigilance and cynicism is not a bad thing although you ultra left liberal Utopians would have us think otherwise.

    And finally when you hire a baby sitter you do it so you can be elsewhere and function knowing you can trust in your own decision as to who you have hired. Why should she hire the male if she's going to work/going out or whatever and spending the whole time worrying where as she can hire a female (with lesser but albeit acceptable qualifications) and have the peace of mind?

    People have the choice of gender when using plenty of services like the doctors, counselors etc. When a person says they want to see a female doctor instead of a male, about a problem not exclusive to females, do you people start screaming "but the male doctor is equally qualified *get the pitchforks*"?

    No you don't because it's all about making the service user comfortable and if in your world that's discrimination then you must spend all day complaining about anything and everything.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithius)
    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.
    Only people can hire and fire, obviously you are missing a few brain cells if you think brick and mortar can hire and fire. The company is subject to company house rules, which the employers and employers have to follow. But the company itself can not. Your knowledge of business is abysmal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiritedAway)
    Only people can hire and fire, obviously you are missing a few brain cells if you think brick and mortar can hire and fire. The company is subject to company house rules, which the employers and employers have to follow. But the company itself can not. Your knowledge of business is abysmal.
    I think you are rather dense for taking the word 'companies' literally. Seriously.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithius)
    I think you are rather dense for taking the word 'companies' literally. Seriously.
    No, I think if you're actually studying law, you slept through some pretty vital lectures :erm:.
    This was something I learnt during a placement.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Holly Hiskey)
    No it's not; boys can choose to become nurses if they want, and the reason they can't have all male nurses on the wards is because there wouldn't be enough of them unless they work longer shifts than the girls, which doesn't really seem fair to me.
    The woman has the right to choose her child's babysitter depending on what she feels comfortable with. If she doesn't want a male babysitter for her female child, fine, and vice versa.
    What is the reason there aren't many male nurses? Because it is perceived as a female job (just like childcare) by society and there are many active social pressures against men choosing this profession. It is exactly the same as this issue. You can't just isolate this woman's actions and judge them, you have to put them in context and realise that there are probably hundreds if not thousands of women doing this at the same time. Individualisation is the ploy of the conservative to try and make this behaviour acceptable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    I presume it wasn't Nature or Science.



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



    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.
    It was either New Scientist or scientific american. I'm not subscribed at the moment so I can't search their databases and give valid links. Please do not be condescending.

    I don't understand how I'm arguing against racial and sexual inequality. It's normal for all people to have equal rights but inequalities still persist and cannot simply be wished away. On average (yes there are splendid exceptions) women are less physically strong and better communicators, to name a few. Men are on average more competitive. Short people are on average worse at basketball. Yet no one deserves to be campaigned against. However from an economic or personal point of view, it makes more sense to send on average more men instead of women to their deaths in Afghanistan, or to hire more women than men in a cheerleading team. (those are perhaps not the best examples, but I'm sure you can find your own) Whether or not positive discrimination is actually useful is a different point altogether that remains to be debated.

    You speak of challenging social norms, but today's norm is to be hip, cool and progressive (a word that has almost no meaning but that everyone uses). Today's rebel is the chaste catholic nun or the Archie Bunker who doesn't care for PC. Deep down, I wish everybody had the same opportunities and possibilities, but I know that in reality life is unfair and there are things which the vast majority of people will be better at than you from birth, and no social progress or will change that. Promoting diversity for the sake of diversity is cruel to those it penalizes and patronizing/humiliating for those it benefits.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Betting the same people who are saying this is outright unacceptable discrimination are the same people who were defending the casting person for the whole dark skinned hobbit episode.

    First of all, understand that it is ultimately the womans choice and that she is under no obligation whatsoever to accept any candidate regardless of their qualifications.

    Secondly do any of you people have a young child, niece or nephew etc? While I know it's unlikely that a babysitter is going to end up being a pedophile but I'm sure people who have had their children abused never, ever thought it would happen to their child. Also, don't most pedophiles act from a position or trust/power?

    While it is unfortunate that the media has created this culture of fear you have to understand that parents are vulnerable to perceptual fear when it comes to their young children. This isn't a bad thing. Vigilance and cynicism is not a bad thing although you ultra left liberal Utopians would have us think otherwise.

    And finally when you hire a baby sitter you do it so you can be elsewhere and function knowing you can trust in your own decision as to who you have hired. Why should she hire the male if she's going to work/going out or whatever and spending the whole time worrying where as she can hire a female (with lesser but albeit acceptable qualifications) and have the peace of mind?

    People have the choice of gender when using plenty of services like the doctors, counselors etc. When a person says they want to see a female doctor instead of a male, about a problem not exclusive to females, do you people start screaming "but the male doctor is equally qualified *get the pitchforks*"?

    No you don't because it's all about making the service user comfortable and if in your world that's discrimination then you must spend all day complaining about anything and everything.
    To be fair it is a fine line. I'm not sure that choosing your doctor's gender and denying people employment are the same thing at all. Even so, the point is that it is indicative of an underlying social prejudice, one that is not neccessarily correct and is often damaging to individuals. I don't see what is so wrong with wanting to change that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    What is the reason there aren't many male nurses? Because it is perceived as a female job (just like childcare) by society and there are many active social pressures against men choosing this profession. It is exactly the same as this issue. You can't just isolate this woman's actions and judge them, you have to put them in context and realise that there are probably hundreds if not thousands of women doing this at the same time. Individualisation is the ploy of the conservative to try and make this behaviour acceptable.
    There are plenty of jobs perceived as being male jobs, but it doesn't stop women doing them if they want to. The same applies to men who want to train to be nurses. The woman wasn't discriminating because she didn't think he'd be good enough, she chose a female babysitter because to a lot of mothers their child is the most important thing in their world and they need to entrust their care to someone that they feel totally comfortable with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Fair enough, really. I'd be wary of a man I didn't know looking after my kids.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Id just like to point out that

    'its her right to choose', 'no one should meddle in her business', 'she can do what she wants'

    X 1 million women

    equates to society saying that male babysitters are not allowed. Hence personalising the argument to one person isn't a good defence to justify this; it still means sexism...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    It was either New Scientist or scientific american. I'm not subscribed at the moment so I can't search their databases and give valid links. Please do not be condescending.
    So it was an opinion piece not a peer reviewed study or more usefully a meta-analysis. I read a lot of research 'highlights' that just uncritically present a particular groups findings as prose in both NS and SA.

    I don't understand how I'm arguing against racial and sexual inequality. It's normal for all people to have equal rights but inequalities still persist and cannot simply be wished away. On average (yes there are splendid exceptions) women are less physically strong and better communicators, to name a few. Men are on average more competitive. Short people are on average worse at basketball. Yet no one deserves to be campaigned against. However from an economic or personal point of view, it makes more sense to send on average more men instead of women to their deaths in Afghanistan, or to hire more women than men in a cheerleading team. (those are perhaps not the best examples, but I'm sure you can find your own) Whether or not positive discrimination is actually useful is a different point altogether that remains to be debated.
    But when it comes down to the interview, you aren't dealing with averages, you are dealing with individuals. I personally think that punishing people because of statistics is a real problem in our society and it is deeply conservative. Averages are only useful for monitoring things, the because divising and problematic when they start determining individuals' fates.

    You speak of challenging social norms, but today's norm is to be hip, cool and progressive (a word that has almost no meaning but that everyone uses). Today's rebel is the chaste catholic nun or the Archie Bunker who doesn't care for PC.
    That really isn't true at all. Especially now we have just undergone a economic crisis. You seem to be swallowing the media junk hunk, line and sinker.

    Deep down, I wish everybody had the same opportunities and possibilities, but I know that in reality life is unfair and there are things which the vast majority of people will be better at than you from birth, and no social progress or will change that. Promoting diversity for the sake of diversity is cruel to those it penalizes and patronizing/humiliating for those it benefits.
    Life is unfair, but there is no need to just accept things that we can do something about. Diversity in the workplace has a lot of benefits to businesses so rationally it makes sense to have a diverse workforce - it is because we are irrational that that doesn't exist. Justify actions because they are comfortable to you is no justification at all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    there was a facebook campaign to oust the female Match of the Day commentator when she wasn't bad at all.

    She was ****ing awful.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Holly Hiskey)
    There are plenty of jobs perceived as being male jobs, but it doesn't stop women doing them if they want to. The same applies to men who want to train to be nurses. The woman wasn't discriminating because she didn't think he'd be good enough, she chose a female babysitter because to a lot of mothers their child is the most important thing in their world and they need to entrust their care to someone that they feel totally comfortable with.
    I'm sorry I'm really struggling not to get frustrated here. Are you really that ignorant of the massive differences in jobs and earnings between men and women and the huge barriers presented to women in many professions, such as engineering, that are still causing problems today?

    As a poster below has said - if every woman did that then we have a problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    I'm sorry I'm really struggling not to get frustrated here. Are you really that ignorant of the massive differences in jobs and earnings between men and women and the huge barriers presented to women in many professions, such as engineering, that are still causing problems today?

    As a poster below has said - if every woman did that then we have a problem.
    No, but I know it's changing and that the situation is a lot better than 10 years ago. Whilst it's not great, there are steps being taken to change things.
    "If every woman did that then we have a problem"- clearly they don't because he had been previously employed.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Women have that natural maternal instinct, they are designed to look after children. Therefore I would rather a woman looked after my child than a male, not because the man might be a perv, but because the woman is better suited to the job.
    I dont mind male midwives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    there's no such thing as sexism
    • Offline

      14
      It is not sexism.

      Was it sexism when my male primary school teachers weren't allowed in the girls changing rooms?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I'm a guy, and I wouldn't hire a male babysitter. It just wouldn't seem right to me. Would have no problem hiring a male tutor or similar, but a babysitter would have to be a girl.
     
     
     
    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
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  3. 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.

  4. 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.