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 Rancorous)
    if you want a cleaner for female changing rooms, and the best cleaner is a man should you hire him?

    if you want a waiter for an italian restaurant should you hire the chinese guy even though he's the best waiter?

    there are cases when you can discriminate
    I discriminate you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.
    Oh come on, why criticize findings just because they appeared in certain publications? I cited that precise example because it was the most memorable one and the only one I could recall with any certainty, not because it was the most well researched or the most valid. Let's not make this an issue, no more nitpicking on details and semantics please

    When people are punished by statistics, it's usually for positive discrimination, so as to fill mandated quotas. So promoting diversity for it's own sake encourages arbitrary punishment. I recently discovered I wasn't the most qualified candidate for a job at Starbucks (in fact I had no previous experience) but that I was hired because all the other applicants were blonds and the manager was worried he would get into trouble because the barista team was already white only. (for the record I like to call myself "obama coloured" in case you're wondering) I can tell you, I didn't feel entitled or empowered at all and resigned after the next paycheck.

    Don't tell me PC isn't prevalent, I sometimes pity white males for the social minefields they have to walk through everyday. People are still as bigoted as ever, but showing that bigotry is less and less acceptable I'm not the credulous media addicted type. If I was, I would be promoting diversity as much as everyone else. I'm sick of those fake looking ads with a member of each ethnicity and gender artificially placed on the picture to placate touchy people.

    I understand the desire to change the unfairness, but forced diversity is just madness. A casting director was fired because he refused an asian girl for the role of a hobbit because of her skin color. That would be bad, if hobbits weren't a part of nordic european mythology and supposed to be fair haired and pale!

    If you want to change things, start at the base and I don't know, provide better schools in the ghetto. Eventually things will get better. But giving away jobs to less deserving people on the basis of prevalent discrimination in society is just wrong. Diversity doesn't make companies magically more efficient. In fact, in some cases, a monocultural team makes bonding and team spirit stronger. My dad told me that when he was in Japan he didn't get any of the cultural references or watch the same shows and as a result he became quite the party pooper through no fault of his own. It's not because I'm non white that I automatically have a fresh view on things and great intuition. Saying so is as irrational as standard discrimination.

    Anyway, If you want the last word on this, be my guest, I'm not a supporter of pointless internet tit for tat. My only problem is that you seem to think conservative is an negative adjective, but whatever.

    cheers
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    More for the idea that the mother should be 'sued for discrimination'..
    My mistake, I actually didn't notice that line.

    I do disagree with his position, after all, it's ridiculous indeed, however I don't see a need to get so personal and make presumptuous claims about the OP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ewan)
    I think its fine that she chose a women over a man, it's her choice.

    I do however, think it's absolutely ludicrous how scared people in this thread are of sexual predators. I can see the media scaremongering is working, freaking idiots.

    This reminds me of that other thread about keeping your baby fully clothed. Seem to remember Antonia87 being rather outspoken in that thread too. Each to their own I guess but seems like you guys have some issues to sort out, to say the least.
    I know a few women who have been sexually abused as children or teenagers by men in their family and I've seen the effect it's had on them psychologically. I'd be very wary of who looked after my kids.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    A woman can't be hired as an infantry soldier, and there was a facebook campaign to oust the female Match of the Day commentator when she wasn't bad at all.

    Likewise I got told I'd have a hard time looking for au pair work because I'm a bloke.

    The media is to blame for this problem; with Gary Glitter making headlines amongst other "sickos" according to the Sun, there is a social taboo with men and small children.
    Jacqui Oatley was terrible.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rancorous)
    if you want a cleaner for female changing rooms, and the best cleaner is a man should you hire him?

    if you want a waiter for an italian restaurant should you hire the chinese guy even though he's the best waiter?

    there are cases when you can discriminate
    I've seen plenty of female cleaners in male changing rooms, even in schools etc. I've also seen plenty of signs saying 'these toilets are cleaned by both male and female staff, but staff will issue a warning before entering the toilets'.

    You cannot explicitly discriminate against someone based on sex or ethnicity. Of course, it is done, but implicitly. There are very few cases in which you can discriminate explicitly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilickbatteries)
    I've seen plenty of female cleaners in male changing rooms, even in schools etc. I've also seen plenty of signs saying 'these toilets are cleaned by both male and female staff, but staff will issue a warning before entering the toilets'.

    You cannot explicitly discriminate against someone based on sex or ethnicity. Of course, it is done, but implicitly. There are very few cases in which you can discriminate explicitly.
    Please STFU and read that I was talking about exceptions and this is the case here under both US and UK law.

    Toilets aren't changing rooms dummy. In the UK, it is unheard of for the opposite gender to be cleaning while people are changing.

    :rolleyes:

    Please don't quote me again - I'm about to get on a flight in two hours - I don't want to have to look at such an inane reply again.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rancorous)
    Please STFU and read that I was talking about exceptions and this is the case here under both US and UK law.

    Toilets aren't changing rooms dummy. In the UK, it is unheard of for the opposite gender to be cleaning while people are changing.

    :rolleyes:

    Please don't quote me again - I'm about to get on a flight in two hours - I don't want to have to look at such an inane reply again.
    Actually, I know a fair few places where males clean the female changing rooms and vice versa. If the "correct" gender is on shift at the time it needs cleaned, then the opposite gender will have to do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiritedAway)
    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.
    No. It is implied that when you say company you refer to the employer (whether that be the director acting on behalf of it or otherwise), not the actual literal meaning of an enterprise for example.

    You were on a placement. I study it throughout the year. Get over yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How politically incorrect! - Boring.
    If she feels more comfortable having a female to have such an interaction with her child rather than a male then fair enough! Ridiculous society of the threat of being sued.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Actually, I know a fair few places where males clean the female changing rooms and vice versa. If the "correct" gender is on shift at the time it needs cleaned, then the opposite gender will have to do.
    A 'fair few places'....no you don't - not in the UK at a gym/health spa in opening hours when people are changing. It is an exception to the sex discrimination act under dignity/privacy. And it's extremely dangerous since cleaners are not required to be CRB checked - men can be alone with a naked woman and worse raises child protection concerns from paedophilia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    LOL.

    Who cares? What a whiner.

    I'd never use a male hairdresser, and when I was a child I told my parents I wouldn't want a male nanny. If it feels awkward or weird you shouldn't have to use/hire someone just because "OMG IT'S SECKISM!!111"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithius)
    No. It is implied that when you say company you refer to the employer (whether that be the director acting on behalf of it or otherwise), not the actual literal meaning of an enterprise for example.

    You were on a placement. I study it throughout the year. Get over yourself.
    I grew up with the info, like most kids get to know their parents jobs, I got to know my mum's. I think it's you who needs to get over yourself, you keep mentioning that people don't study law, like this means you're above everyone else.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by buyingtheticket)
    Jacqui Oatley was terrible.
    Had no beef myself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Ad homs are usually the first signal that you don't have a proper argument.
    No, you just come across like you type with your eyes closed, i think its quite pretentious posting like that on a public forum as you will shut out 90% of the people reading it because your use of language is intimidating. But thats my opinion.


    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    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.
    I havent seen you produce any solid facts against the instincts animals portray which is my whole angle... I dont care what researchers in the field are saying, i was basing my point of view on looking outside at that female bird building a nest to raise her young and walking around watching families interact.

    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    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.
    So, male and female roles are defined, but childcare is a collective responsibility.. so the man can hunt or work, and the women can look after the children? both are a necessity in raising a child.

    What stuff? my thoughts? I just expressed my opinion and you replied, im not stating anything as a solid fact im just trying to justify why this women made her choice.


    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    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?

    Social structures, gender roles, animalistic impulses etc, depends on your view of how we came to be but thats why i see a relation.

    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    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?
    Yes, because she chose a women over a man. Regardless of whatever he can achieve or has achieved she wanted a women to do it, something he will never be. I dont believe anyone with a brain would think that someone in his situation would be a paedophile or some sort of deviant waiting to pounce, thats complete stupidity. And no one would hire someone they didn't know to look after their child, so they usually go for a live in nanny or a neighbours daughter or whoever.

    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Women express their emotions more readily in public than men in our society, that isn't the same as saying their are more emotive.
    Someone who responded to me in another thread saying 'you can be intelligent and not show it'...well then, until said person shows that trait i will continue to think they are not, same goes with emotion.


    I understand im being very black and white, but thats what i think this issue is.

    'Someone look after my daughter ..oh hes got references and qualifications but hes not a women which is what im looking for, i need a mothers touch'
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rancorous)
    A 'fair few places'....no you don't - not in the UK at a gym/health spa in opening hours when people are changing. It is an exception to the sex discrimination act under dignity/privacy. And it's extremely dangerous since cleaners are not required to be CRB checked - men can be alone with a naked woman and worse raises child protection concerns from paedophilia.
    You don't have to believe me for it to be true. It happens, get over it. Not everywhere can have the right ratio of genders on every day for their cleaning staff. Obviously women aren't happy about it, but it happens.

    Hell, even hostels which have single sex rooms often have the opposite cleaning them.

    Your point on the CRB check is redundant. Very few people working in such places need a CRB check. However, if they are going to be working around children, I'm pretty sure it is now the law that every employee gets one, right down to cleaners. If I'm wrong on that, fair play, but I remember something about that being instigated, or at least talked about, a few years ago.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rancorous)
    Please STFU and read that I was talking about exceptions and this is the case here under both US and UK law.

    Toilets aren't changing rooms dummy. In the UK, it is unheard of for the opposite gender to be cleaning while people are changing.

    :rolleyes:

    Please don't quote me again - I'm about to get on a flight in two hours - I don't want to have to look at such an inane reply again.
    Oh my something has rattled your cage this evening.

    At my place of work, the toilets are in the changing rooms, and the female cleaner cleans the male and female changing rooms/toilets. If the male cleaner is on duty, he will clean both changing rooms too.

    Now please chill out and enjoy your flight.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheSownRose)
    My father and I ran an experiment recently; we individually went over to the park when there was a children's football game happening, and took a picture of a tree in that sort of direction, but clearly not aiming the camera at any of the kids. Guess who was confronted about it? :rolleyes:
    What did the people confronting him say??
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    I wouldnt hire a man either. The only bloke I'd want changing, cleaning or seeing my daughter naked is the father (or simply family).
    I presume if your child needed to go to hospital and the only doctors available were male you'd wait for a female to start her shift in case she needed to be naked then?

    at the end of the day, it's a naked baby
    who cares?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    You don't have to believe me for it to be true. It happens, get over it. Not everywhere can have the right ratio of genders on every day for their cleaning staff. Obviously women aren't happy about it, but it happens.

    Hell, even hostels which have single sex rooms often have the opposite cleaning them.

    Your point on the CRB check is redundant. Very few people working in such places need a CRB check. However, if they are going to be working around children, I'm pretty sure it is now the law that every employee gets one, right down to cleaners. If I'm wrong on that, fair play, but I remember something about that being instigated, or at least talked about, a few years ago.

    Firstly, you're ignoring the point I was making - which is you can legally discriminate between cleaners - a gym can decide not to hire a female cleaner on the basis of her gender. You come along and try back the guy trying to undermine this point based on the fact you think it's a regular occurrence for the opposite gender to clean while people are naked. This is the sole reason I mention this - it's the sole point I'm trying to make - because it's a case, like the OP, where you can legally discriminate. There are many others.

    Secondly, I'm talking specifically about changing rooms where people will be exposed.

    Thirdly, no - out of 10s of thousands of changing rooms in the UK, I would be shocked if one had no separate male/female cleaning staff - which is what the guy who you were in effect was supporting was saying. I would be less shocked if it happened in an exceptional case from time to time in a tiny minority of places - but not on a regular basis. It's not against the law for it to happen - but it would - and has in the past - generated complaints and member resignations. 'I know a fair few places where males clean the female changing rooms and vice versa' - as a matter of policy, that sentence is complete rubbish.

    Fourthly, you're wrong - you don't need a crb check to work as a cleaner in gym/health clubs etc. even though kids might be present which is why I make the point.
 
 
 
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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.