Is it just me or is it easier for males to get a job?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Secondly, consider that since it is not only against the law but also against a reasonable sense of human decency to deny a position to a qualified female solely for the reason that she may become pregnant at some point in the future, many individuals in hiring positions will not make that a part of their consideration and decision.

Lastly, gotta ask yourself: Would you really want to work for an employer where such consideration is actually made during the hiring process? What would that mean for your prospects of being rewarded and promoted for your hard work?

I'm not saying that this doesn't happen at all. Prejudices exists and will continue to exist no matter how many laws are written to deal with the consequences of them. But I do not believe that discrimination against female applicants of child bearing age is a systemic and/or widespread problem in the US today.

And I think you're wrong. With the rising cost of healthcare, the inconvenience to an employer (especially a small one) of covering even a short maternity leave and the fact that regardless of the fact she's working outside the home, a woman still typically bears the brunt of much of the childcare and housework, it's a serious consideration for employers - legal or not. If they think you're going to be carrying baggage, they will find a way of shutting you out of the position. It is still a widespread problem in the US, no matter how much well-intentioned men say that equality has been reached in terms of attitudes to employment.

But no, I personally would not want to work for a company with that attitude.

I guess I've been lucky, then, to only work and hire for employers that don't engage in that kind of #######.

[ChristinaM 0]

You have! And kudos to you for not behaving that way when you're hiring - you're making the job market a little more female-friendly, one woman at a time!

[babybunny 2]

Secondly, consider that since it is not only against the law but also against a reasonable sense of human decency to deny a position to a qualified female solely for the reason that she may become pregnant at some point in the future, many individuals in hiring positions will not make that a part of their consideration and decision.

Lastly, gotta ask yourself: Would you really want to work for an employer where such consideration is actually made during the hiring process? What would that mean for your prospects of being rewarded and promoted for your hard work?

I'm not saying that this doesn't happen at all. Prejudices exists and will continue to exist no matter how many laws are written to deal with the consequences of them. But I do not believe that discrimination against female applicants of child bearing age is a systemic and/or widespread problem in the US today.

And I think you're wrong. With the rising cost of healthcare, the inconvenience to an employer (especially a small one) of covering even a short maternity leave and the fact that regardless of the fact she's working outside the home, a woman still typically bears the brunt of much of the childcare and housework, it's a serious consideration for employers - legal or not. If they think you're going to be carrying baggage, they will find a way of shutting you out of the position. It is still a widespread problem in the US, no matter how much well-intentioned men say that equality has been reached in terms of attitudes to employment.

But no, I personally would not want to work for a company with that attitude.

so if that is the case.. then why dont the employers hire ladies from age 55 -72?

that way they can be sure of no maternity leave issues. fire them just before they turn 60

geez.

[Satisfaction 1]

And I think you're wrong. With the rising cost of healthcare, the inconvenience to an employer (especially a small one) of covering even a short maternity leave and the fact that regardless of the fact she's working outside the home, a woman still typically bears the brunt of much of the childcare and housework, it's a serious consideration for employers - legal or not. If they think you're going to be carrying baggage, they will find a way of shutting you out of the position. It is still a widespread problem in the US, no matter how much well-intentioned men say that equality has been reached in terms of attitudes to employment.

But no, I personally would not want to work for a company with that attitude.

I agree. I also work in a recruiting agency. You would have to have a blind eye if you said that these considerations didn't matter to an employer. The rules and regulations may say otherwise, but in the real world of corporate "slavery", these considerations do matter a little. The agency I work for "hunt" for traders and other professionals in the financial industry. Sadly, there are not many women on Wall Street. Most of them are automatically disqualified.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You would have to have a blind eye if you said that these considerations didn't matter to an employer. The rules and regulations may say otherwise, but in the real world of corporate "slavery", these considerations do matter a little. The agency I work for "hunt" for traders and other professionals in the financial industry. Sadly, there are not many women on Wall Street. Most of them are automatically disqualified.

Odd: I went through a series of 9 interviews with my current employer for my current position. 7 of them were with females and 2 with males. I interviewed with another firm before that and had two interviews with females and one with a male. For my previous job, I interviewed with 2 females and 2 males. All financial services with direct link to Wall Street. So, are you saying that these women in hiring positions (and there are tons of them - it would appear that the majority of HR folks are female) discriminate against their own? That would make all my female co-workers a mystery, too...

[Chuckles 0]

For ex: I have a friend who had lived in Austin and then moved away for 2 years to NY with her boyfriend and then decided to move back. When she was in NY, she had a much better job than him and he even got laid off. Also, when they had moved to NY it took her longer to get a job than him but in the end she had the better job.

When they got back to Austin, he found a job in less than a week and it took her almost 7 months. I have noticed in my own pursuit to find a new and better job, that most of the time I don't even get an interview. Maybe, it's my resume but I don't think so. I know guys who have less education and less experience than me and they have no problem getting the jobs they apply for. I just know that my husband is going to get a good job right away and he's going to be looking at me like, "What has been your problem for the past 2 years?" He would never be mean about it but I know he's still going to think that, I mean how could you not.

What's going on here? Is that glass ceiling still there but just cleaned with Ultra-shine Windex so we have forgotten about it?

Please. enlighten me.

SOL

I work for one of the largest corporations in the USA and the world, and as part of several hiring commitees, I assure you there is no bias in interviewing and hiring at our company. I guess I cannot speak of others, but I would be suprised if a company would open themselves up to the risk of litigation by bringing in a sexual bias while hiring. At least in the US.

[ChristinaM 0]

It's actually equally as much women who discriminate against women - because women in highpowered jobs such as large HR department heads are the ones who had to sacrifice their work-life balance or family to get to those jobs (or they wouldn't have been hired in the first place). Because of that, they can often be resentful of a new employee who isn't prepared to put the same amount of sacrifice into being a career woman, and will resist from hiring someone with obvious plans to have a family, or with one already.

It's amazing that it still exists, but it does. I read a book (whose title I don't recall exactly, because it pi$$ed me off with it's incredibly sexist tone, but it was something like "101 Ways Women Can Earn More Money") which suggested that in order to reach the higher eschelons and earn the big bucks a woman had to act more like a man at work - spend less time with the family, be prepared to relocate at a moments notice, spend Saturdays and Sunday afternoons in the office... Without taking into account the fact that the bulk of household labour still falls to a woman; even when both partners are working a full-time job.

Sad, but true. (And yes, my taste in pleasure literature is somewhat obscure!)

[almaty 19]

where i work and in most human services jobs..more females than males...

[CarolineM 0]

amen dean - when i was getting my MSW there were only five males in the program - one of them was even straight

[almaty 19]

amen dean - when i was getting my MSW there were only five males in the program - one of them was even straight

yes, that is true..we have a few gay callaberros here too...not there is anything wrong with that... B)

Edited February 18, 2006 by almaty2004

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

If you ladies would dress a little sexier for the interview and continue when you get the job (to qualify for promotions), this wouldn't be an issue. I speak from personal experience.

[kc456 0]

It's amazing that it still exists, but it does. I read a book (whose title I don't recall exactly, because it pi$$ed me off with it's incredibly sexist tone, but it was something like "101 Ways Women Can Earn More Money") which suggested that in order to reach the higher eschelons and earn the big bucks a woman had to act more like a man at work - spend less time with the family, be prepared to relocate at a moments notice, spend Saturdays and Sunday afternoons in the office... Without taking into account the fact that the bulk of household labour still falls to a woman; even when both partners are working a full-time job.

Sad, but true. (And yes, my taste in pleasure literature is somewhat obscure!)

This may not be the book you are referring to -- "Nice Girls Don't Get to the Corner Office." It was pretty good. It points out that there's a certain paradox: to get to the "big" jobs, you need to be assertive, but males around you interpret that as being "aggressive" and "pushy" while the very same behavior is totally acceptable from a male. So women are kind of stuck in this mind loop -- you "should not" be assertive and you "can't" be passive. Very difficult to find the right balance. But I do agree that women discriminate against women, at least unconsciously, too.

[Satisfaction 1]

(...) All financial services with direct link to Wall Street. So, are you saying that these women in hiring positions (and there are tons of them - it would appear that the majority of HR folks are female) discriminate against their own? That would make all my female co-workers a mystery, too...

Traders are not typically "hired" by a HR "clerk" who has no f... clue of what trading is. "direct link to Wall Street" like what? Can you be more precise? Businesses that directly or indireclty have "links" to Wall Street are plentiful - such as law and consulting firms, or simply limousine or catering services! Have you ever been on a trade floor? If not, you can still visit Wall Street on your spare time. Some areas are open to the public. If you do, then you'll notice that 90% of these guys are men.

In financial institutions, traders typically work long hours (10 hours a day), often come to work on weekends, and are submitted to an enormous amount of stress. Traders have to be excellent mathematicians. Not that women are or cannot be, but they generally occupy different positions in the financial sector where there is more room for family life. Certain professions are still reserved for men rather than women. I don't consider this to be pure discrimination. Otherwise many banks who have had already closed down their business.

[ChristinaM 0]

This may not be the book you are referring to -- "Nice Girls Don't Get to the Corner Office." It was pretty good. It points out that there's a certain paradox: to get to the "big" jobs, you need to be assertive, but males around you interpret that as being "aggressive" and "pushy" while the very same behavior is totally acceptable from a male. So women are kind of stuck in this mind loop -- you "should not" be assertive and you "can't" be passive. Very difficult to find the right balance. But I do agree that women discriminate against women, at least unconsciously, too.

That wasn't the book I read, but it sounds pretty interesting - I will hunt it down! The one I read was not so much about the mindset, but how women could change to get around it; "practical advice", if you will. Which pissed me off no end, because I think the corporate world has to shift it's ideas to accomodate women with families, not vice versa.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Traders are not typically "hired" by a HR "clerk" ...

...nor are they hired by a head hunter.

Considering that you are not actually making any hiring decisions, what do you actually know first hand about what goes into it?