Maggot
The Cake of Liberty
This.
Nicely-worded job advert. Men only need apply?
- Thread starter ymu
- Start date
This.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
It is evidence of very little thought having gone into tackling sexist recruitment practices, or the damaging impact on a business of making itself appear hostile to half the talent available.
As a woman who wasn't prevented from entering my field by sexism, it benefits me quite a lot personally. Women who have to be better than the average bloke to get the job in the first place usuallly perform rather better in the job, for obvious reasons.
It's the reasons women don't get started in jobs that are dominated by men, or get discriminated against as they are training, that are still a big problem. When I was training, many people in my job decription worked in pairs. If I'd been paired up with a bloke who wasn't being asked to pour the coffee and was being consulted instead of being ignored ... if I hadn't had a boss who stamped out that behaviour very firmly with maximal embarrassment factor for those doing it ... I'd still be in the traditionally female role of data management, supporting scientists instead of doing science. Because I'd never have had a chance to do my MSc (my employer paid for me to do it).
The client approved that advert. The recruiter and his contacts are visualising a man in that role. That is something that needs to be raised, because ignoring half the talent available is a shit recruitment strategy, apart from anything else.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Thank you.
Nice to know not everyone thinks that spending 30 seconds writing an email is a dramatic over-reaction.
smmudge
i know the smudge is true
I think you were right to pull them up on it ymu. People think the only sexism worth fighting is that from idiots who are overt and obvious about it, but really it's the unthinking and overlooked stuff that is much worse. It didn't seem like a simple 'error' in that he intended to put he/she, it seems like he just didn't think about it.
Kind of OT but I was in the library and flicked through a book on, I think it was, gender representation in the media. In the introduction, every time it referred to the reader it said "he". Someone had circled and put a big exclamation mark next to each one. Was kinda funny
Kind of OT but I was in the library and flicked through a book on, I think it was, gender representation in the media. In the introduction, every time it referred to the reader it said "he". Someone had circled and put a big exclamation mark next to each one. Was kinda funny
100% masahiko
i is a professor and is magical like totoro
deary me, what's next? spelling woman and person as womyn and persyn just because they have the words man and son in them? (I actually know people who have stooped to this ridiculous level)
I woulda read the job ad as someone clueless who wrote it trying to do business speak and failing quite badly.
I woulda read the job ad as someone clueless who wrote it trying to do business speak and failing quite badly.
TruXta
tired
+ 1.
Treacle Toes
Time
This.
_angel_
.
Of course there are some exceptions (personal carers usually). Been looking in vain for a male babysitter as well, altho haven't said that I would only pick a man.
It's an example of institutionalised sexism that informs a general background that may put off women without them even consciously realising it. Social expectations hit us at a deep and subconscious level and we modify out behaviour accordingly without even realising we are doing so. So I say well done for calling them on it.
On a completely different subject, ymu, if I hit you with the name of a random nasty drug -- DES, say, or DBCP or Atrazine -- would you happen to have readily available statistics concerning (a) its usage (years used and relative prevalance of use), (b) the typical period to manifestation of the problem; and (c) [slightly more unlikely] the general range of manifestation period?
I only ask because, well, because I could do with knowing.
On a completely different subject, ymu, if I hit you with the name of a random nasty drug -- DES, say, or DBCP or Atrazine -- would you happen to have readily available statistics concerning (a) its usage (years used and relative prevalance of use), (b) the typical period to manifestation of the problem; and (c) [slightly more unlikely] the general range of manifestation period?
I only ask because, well, because I could do with knowing.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
You'd need an information specialist for that. I specialise in the design and interpretation of experiments.
DES was a disaster of thalidomide proportions, but less widely known about. It's a good teaching example, discussed in this. You might find review-type papers which use the information you need, but you'd be stuck with what data you could extract from the paper. The Cochrane Library or HTA might have some stuff, the full reviews are pretty thorough and you might be able to chase references. Depends what you're looking for really.
If you really need to know, PM me with your email addy and I'll put you in touch with a specialist librarian who might be able to help.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Actually, without thinking too much about it, I advertised for a lady part time carer for an elderly relative in The Lady magazine and was immediately informed by then that I was not permitted to advertise for a lady in The Lady which I thought was a touch ironic.
Anyhow I modified the advert and interestingly enough there was a male applicant amongst the females.
_angel_
.
I am sure that there are official exemptions for these types of jobs (I've seen them advertised as being exempt) so not sure "The Lady" got it right. Trying to find male carers is hard tho, 9/10 you're going to get a woman doing care work.
_angel_
.
Yeah. There's that (altho the DP pay rates do vary from the frankly not enough day rate to up to £13 an hour). The council run sitting scheme more or less treat their sitters as volunteers because the pay is so awful. However, they also have stupid rules (in Leeds) that stop a male sitter sitting for females regardless of whether that is what that person/family would like and as if male on male/ female on female/ female on male abuse cannot take place.
JHE
.
It is not an error. It was until fairly recently completely standard to use the masculine as generic. Some people dislike using 'he/she' and 'his/her' because it seems clumsy and dislike using 'they' and 'their' as singular, because it sounds wrong, so they stick to the old convention that 'he' includes 'she' and 'his' includes 'her'.
JHE
.
How recently, about 1956?
More recently than that. I remember Dale Spender's writings making a bit of an impression in the early 80s, leading up to the publication of her 'Man-Made Language'. Objections to the sexism of the generic use of the masculine were not utterly new, but seemed odd and annoying to some.
What's more my point about how some people feel doesn't refer to 30 years ago. It refers to now.
There are three alternatives to the generic masculine:
(i) Using the feminine as generic. Some people have tried it, but it hasn't ever really caught on.
(ii) 'He/she' and 'his/her'. When writing, that's the one I usually opt for, but I understand that some people dislike the clumsiness of it. When speaking in a situation in which I want to be very careful, I often use 'he or she' and 'his or her', but it feels a bit long-winded and maybe sounds over-fussy.
(iii) Using 'they' and 'their' as singular. I'm not keen, but I think this is probably the future. I notice that someone earlier on the thread wanted this. Probably there are now lots of people to whom this always sounds natural and right. Fair enough, but I just ask them to recognise that there are people who feel it's wrong or are confused by it. My mother couldn't accept that usage. It didn't annoy her. It was simply obvious to her that it was wrong. We could dismiss her response, since she was old (if she were still alive she would be 86 now), but only a couple of weeks ago I was with three colleagues, all aged over 40, but under 55, who were confused by a short piece of writing that used the singular 'they' and 'their'.
No, I don't think so either, but that's because the employer was not looking for a person of either sex, but specifically for a woman. (I'm deliberately leaving aside for the mo' the prestigious positions that had long had the title 'secretary' - Secretary of State, Company Secretary etc - and had usually or always been occupied by men.)
Many secretarial jobs were not on offer to people of both sexes and so there would be no question of using the generic masculine. If a job was for a woman, 'she' and 'her' would be used, without any pretence that the job was available to men. Up until the Sex Discrimination Act, employers could be entirely shameless in specifying the sex of the person they were trying to recruit.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
option iv) - you can simply rewrite to avoid pronouns. It's not difficult. Recruitment ads always have horrid stilted syntax; wittering about "the postholder" and "the applicant" when a pronoun would feel more natural isn't going to kill anyone.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Hi _angel_, well they may not have got it right but it seemed to be their clear policy. It did seem pretty stupid to me that the magazine is called "The Lady" but you can't advertise for a Lady in it!!
I changed the ad quickly and did not lose any time but in truth the elderly man I was looking for a part time carer for would no way have accepted a man. We did get a man applying, ex military iirc sounded quite good to me but my "client" would not hear of it so I made some feeble excuse to him.
Why do you bother posting if everything you say is so worthless?
