pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jan 2, 2018 20:14:31 GMT
I can't remember which show it was (maybe Samantha Bee's?), but read an article about a showrunner who said that while many people lament the lack of diversity in writing rooms, they aren't being proactive and challenging that. You can't just wait for resumes or people to fall into your lap - you have to be active in recruiting and finding the talent or helping nurture it. My sister-in-law is a scientist. All throughout her education, she constantly heard how she'd probably be the only woman on staff at any lab she ever worked in. Sure *she* was talented, she was told, but there weren't may other women like her so she needed to accept she'd probably never work with many other women. Well, she is now a tenured professor at a major research institution and runs her own lab, where over half of her staff - including grad students and post-docs - are women. That's not an accident. By the way, they are considered one of the top labs in the world in their area of expertise. The "non-traditional" candidates are out there, capable of doing great work, and want the opportunities. But you have to find them AND be an environment where they are respected and valued, not where they're made to feel like tokens. Kudos to your sister-in-law. This thread has me thinking about a comparison to universities. The top schools have an advantage that they get a ton of qualified applicants, so can really handpick a class that is diverse. I'm sure they could easily fill a class several times over with only the kids that had the perfect test scores, grades, and resumes. But they don't do that. They realize diversity is important (and not just diversity based on gender or race - diversity of backgrounds, geography, interests, skills, etc) and also want to recognize potential and a student who can thrive on their campus. Because in reality if you only took the kids with the absolute best experience, opportunities, and high schools, you would never take the kid from a farm in Iowa who's graduating class was 40 kids or the kid from a seriously disadvantaged urban school in NY. Additionally, having been in my industry for +18 years, soft skills are also valuable. Of course you need to have the hard skills and know how, but in the end very few people are simply irreplaceable. You might be smart, but if you are an asshole who can't ever work in a team or isn't flexible - that does not bode well. When layoffs come around and you are looking at cutting teams even further, you are looking for people who can do the work, but also be flexible, willing to do what it takes, and work with the others.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 2, 2018 21:50:12 GMT
The question isn't who is the best - it's what if there are MULTIPLE bests (different bests as people are not widgets) - which is OFTEN the case - speaking from 3 decades of hiring experience. In those cases, PICK THE WOMAN until we get to parity! Good idea, but the best person needs to be hired! Why aren't we as concerned that there are more male butchers or trash collectors or farmers than female? Do we only care about equality at the top? Many years ago, a life time really, a friend and I wanted to apply to be garbage persons. We were told that we had to learn to pee in a bottle. Long long ago! Our town doe have female garbage collectors now and police.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jan 3, 2018 13:33:23 GMT
Everybody keeps saying "the best person needs to be hired," which is obviously true. What you don't realize is that for SO MANY YEARS the "best person" wasn't hired because she was female.
I have seen it. OVER AND OVER. I have heard the words "I really think we need a man in that role" come out of people's mouths. Because apparently some jobs just require... a penis?
So, yeah, the "best person" does need to be hired, and a concerted effort should be made to make sure we are not overlooking women. The fact that there are MORE WOMEN than men in this country but there is still a pay gap and lack of gender parity should be a huge indication of the institutional sexism that has existed for...forever.
Don't forget that women of color have an even greater hurdle.
In the words of Shirley Chisholm, "If they don't give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair."
It's time to bring our folding chairs.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jan 3, 2018 13:45:32 GMT
Everybody keeps saying "the best person needs to be hired," ywhich is obviously true. What you don't realize is that for SO MANY YEARS the "best person" wasn't hired because she was female. I have seen it. OVER AND OVER. I have heard the words "I really think we need a man in that role" come out of people's mouths. Because apparently some jobs just require... a penis? So, yeah, the "best person" does need to be hired, and a concerted effort should be made to make sure we are not overlooking women. The fact that there are MORE WOMEN than men in this country but there is still a pay gap and lack of gender parity should be a huge indication of the institutional sexism that has existed for...forever. Don't forget that women of color have an even greater hurdle. In the words of Shirley Chisholm, "If they don't give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair." It's time to bring our folding chairs. OMG, I love that she brought a chair for her swearing in. ROAR.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jan 3, 2018 16:05:16 GMT
Everybody keeps saying "the best person needs to be hired," which is obviously true. What you don't realize is that for SO MANY YEARS the "best person" wasn't hired because she was female. I have seen it. OVER AND OVER. I have heard the words "I really think we need a man in that role" come out of people's mouths. Because apparently some jobs just require... a penis? So, yeah, the "best person" does need to be hired, and a concerted effort should be made to make sure we are not overlooking women. The fact that there are MORE WOMEN than men in this country but there is still a pay gap and lack of gender parity should be a huge indication of the institutional sexism that has existed for...forever. Don't forget that women of color have an even greater hurdle. In the words of Shirley Chisholm, "If they don't give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair." It's time to bring our folding chairs. the pay gap isn't there only because women aren't in the top jobs. The pay gap is there for a myriad if resins. I Do know that they are instances where the woman gets screwed but to her anatomy, but I dislike blanket statements that the woman should be hired over the man. Sometimes given the exact same qualification, one candidate has something you can't put a finger on is maybe it is a coin flip. We had one one where we called the top two candidates references and the first to get to references to speak to us was the one that got hired. Another didn't get hires because of the perfume she was wearing. Sometimes you can feel a person's personality in the interview and assume it will or won't be a good fit. Again I feel we are only looking at high level positions, not the jobs that lead to them. If those are still male dominated based on choice, then the pool for female candidates is significantly lower
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
Jan 4, 2015 1:47:52 GMT
|
Post by AnotherPea on Jan 3, 2018 16:16:43 GMT
I know I am going to get bashed for this, but I can't say I am totally for this. I dislike putting numbers on equality. I don't believe making 50% of something makes it equal, especially if some of those people are not the best qualified. I also think it builds resentment and forces the us vs them argument in some people. I'd rather see a change in policy and culture than an artificial equality. ITA I hate quotas. There have been too many times in my personal experience when someone was hired because he/she was part of a certain demographic and it never worked out well. Never. Hire the best qualified for the job. Encourage people to consider applicants or careers that may have been overlooked. Level the playing field, but don't look for specific numbers.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jan 3, 2018 16:42:52 GMT
Sometimes given the exact same qualification, one candidate has something you can't put a finger on is maybe it is a coin flip. If it's a coin flip, why not hire the woman? Another didn't get hires because of the perfume she was wearing.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jan 3, 2018 16:55:50 GMT
Sometimes given the exact same qualification, one candidate has something you can't put a finger on is maybe it is a coin flip. If it's a coin flip, why not hire the woman? Another didn't get hires because of the perfume she was wearing. because it rarely comes down to a coin flip. It could be so many reasons that arenr experience relatsd. Always picjing the woman falsely inflatws numbers anx of it iant a good fit, people point to her and say that is a reason to hire a man. Of course, hire the woman if shebia qualified. Let her shine and lead the way. and you scoff at the perfume, but as someone who is allergic, perfume is a big issue. If you wear that much perfume to a job interview, I assume you either don't know or don't care how it affects others.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jan 3, 2018 17:25:11 GMT
I hope your male co-worker never drenches himself in Drakkar some day because he's going out later that evening... just because he didn't do it right before the interview doesn't mean he wouldn't do it after hiring him.
And just because the woman wore perfume during the interview doesn't mean she wouldn't STOP wearing it if it meant someone's allergies being aggravated. To not offer her the job strictly because of that reason is so beyond silly, I don't even know what to say about it. (eta: if you didn't even ask her about it, she's probably better off working somewhere else, anyway.)
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jan 3, 2018 17:32:20 GMT
I hope your male co-worker never drenches himself in Drakkar some day because he's going out later that evening... just because he didn't do it right before the interview doesn't mean he wouldn't do it after hiring him. And just because the woman wore perfume during the interview doesn't mean she wouldn't STOP wearing it if it meant someone's allergies being aggravated. To not offer her the job strictly because of that reason is so beyond silly, I don't even know what to say about it. (eta: if you didn't even ask her about it, she's probably better off working somewhere else, anyway.) Watch me hire a woman: "Hi, Ms. X. Thank you for interviewing with us yesterday. We really feel you are qualified for this position and would like to invite you to be a member of the team. We just had one concern, and it's minor. Our workplace is a scent-free zone due to allergies. If you are willing to commit to that stipulation, we'd love to offer you the position." Was it hard?
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jan 3, 2018 17:42:20 GMT
To me, extra perfume is part of hygiene. A person who did not present well would be at the low end of the list. The reason we have in person interviews is to see the person, not the skills and expertise. Was the perfume the only reason? In this case, yes. We had a short amount of time to hire and we had two good candidates. The perfume was a deciding factor.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Jan 3, 2018 21:36:18 GMT
With admittedly only the limited knowledge of the situation that has been provided, I can't help but be sad at the instance where the woman wasn't hired because of her perfume. With so many real obstacles that woman have been faced with from the beginning of their educations and careers, that a job was lost because of something so simple to fix is disheartening. With a simple 2 minute conversation this probable non-issue could have been resolved and a positive step towards parity could have been made for the department and company. What a wasted opportunity.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 4:38:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2018 19:07:28 GMT
The South Glen Falls (New York) Planning Board consists of two men and three women. There is a vacancy for an alternate member. What should the town look for in a candidate? Someone with expertise in zoning and regulation? Someone good w/financials? Someone committed to learning the issues and representing the people? According to the board’s chairman David Linehan, the new board member should be a man. Because that’s what God wants. " “If you go back to the earliest years of Creation, God created man first. So it was man’s responsibility to make sure the woman didn’t eat from the Tree of Good and Evil,” Linehan said. “So if I had a man who was sensitive to the idea that man didn’t do a good job of reminding the woman, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in.” The 30-year chairman added that men would take the job of planning seriously. Linehan said women make up about 51 percent of the population, so they now are over-represented on the board. “If you only have two males, you’re less than 50 percent,” he said. “It was more of an affirmative action statement. We’re in the minority.”" Cuz, you know, women have NEVER BEEN UNDERREPRESENTED IN CONGRESS, BOARD ROOMS, POWERFUL POSITIONS - EVER!! In all the millennia of human development. poststar.com/news/local/south-glens-falls-chairman-wants-a-man-on-planning-board/article_ab9c5eb8-aebd-5bfd-885b-381600486d41.html
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 13, 2018 19:42:19 GMT
Just NO!
|
|