Re: In the current environment, women are too much of a business risk..
"Needless to say I don't speak to my sister, cos she is a monster."
Let me try a random guess, your sister is pretty much your experience of women?
Facebook is under fire for allowing companies to allegedly unfairly post on the social network job ads specifically for men – and not women. The American Civil Liberties Union and Outten & Golden LLP, an employment law firm, on Tuesday dragged the tech giant and ten employers before the US Equal Employment Opportunity …
My sister did exactly this. Fought tooth an nail to get into an extremely specialised field, studied to get a PHD over 5 years, went into the work force for 2 years, had a kid, decided she liked being a stay at home mum better, had a second kid, waited for her husband to pay off her student debts, then divorced him and took most of his stuff, and hasn't worked since.
Sadly, this is an all too common tale nowadays. Modern society has fostered a breathtaking level of entitlement among women which, when combined with the ever present undercurrent of misandry, makes it very easy for large swathes of the "fairer" sex to game the system to their advantage.
@AC there is much in there that seems to be generalisations based on a specific personal experience that you had. While that may be true of your sister, generalising that out to all women is not only unfair but unsupported.
But I will respond specifically to these related points below:
...
* Are the overwhelming majority of sexual harassment complainants
* In manual labour jobs, get injured more seriously, more often
* Are the majority of OHS complainants
...
The ugly truth is that if you are running a small / medium business, even hiring one woman can completely sink your business, as they lodge any sort of sexual harassment claim, even if it's proven to be 100% false and malicious can set your business back anywhere from $50-$150K, just to resolve it.
Historically men have been conditioned to "suck it up", "don't cry", "put up with it", "be a man and stop complaining", "it's but a mere flesh wound", "It's only a scratch, keep working", "bottle up your emotions", "that's just the way it's done", and so on.
Women, again historically, were taught to be more open with their emotions, to be "delicate little wallflowers", and so on.
Therefore the mismatch in actual reporting of issues, injuries (OHS), harassment, and so on, is more aligned with that mindset where the men just don't complain, be tough and soldier on, but the women say - rightly IMO - "that's not right, it is an issue and I'm reporting it".
To me, the women are leading here, men should be reporting when they are the targets of sexual harassment, or injuries at work, or unsafe conditions.
So I think the dichotomy here is not that these things happen less to men, it is that the men are less willing to admit it, to talk about it, to report it, to see it as a problem and not just acceptable work culture, than the women are. And this is wrong, the men should be just as willing to report these issues as the women rather than just sucking it up and "being a man". In my mind, you are a better man, being "a man" by having the guts to report issues rather than allowing them to be swept under the carpet, rather than accepting that that is the work culture.
So I think the dichotomy here is not that these things happen less to men, it is that the men are less willing to admit it, to talk about it, to report it, to see it as a problem and not just acceptable work culture, than the women are. And this is wrong, the men should be just as willing to report these issues as the women rather than just sucking it up and "being a man". In my mind, you are a better man, being "a man" by having the guts to report issues rather than allowing them to be swept under the carpet, rather than accepting that that is the work culture.
Post.
Of.
The.
Week.
Given that women
* Get sick more often
* Take more leave days overall
Not in my household - my wife has (in 30+ years of work) taken only about 10 days sick. Me? I do about that in a month..
(I also get more leave days than her..)
Do you have any evidence for your claims other than your sister? I've been in the work force for 42 years now and while women have always been a minority I can't say I've noticed any of the things you claim against them. Except perhaps complaining about sexual harassment; but, no one should be subject to that in the work place and if they are they are well within their rights to complain.
I had an employer write into an ad that they were hiring only women for an I.T. position and also tell me the same thing on the phone. They would not even look at my qualifications.
I called the ACLU in Atlanta GA and was told that they were not interested in pursing the case.
I guess it only matters when the ACLU might get a chunk of money when taking the case.
@forcing_you_to_think, no it's not about the size of the payout. It's about the scale of the problem.
One employer setting that policy for one job is an individual job/business problem. ACLU has limited resources.
However, this Facebook issue is a systemic issue that affects thousands of businesses, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and millions of people. At the low end! Quite likely an order of magnitude or even 2 worse. And it indicates a societal issue. It is more likely to set a viable, wide-ranging legal precedent than dealing with a single job.
You think that really compares to a single job affecting a few dozen people?
If this was a case of certain people being denied jobs outright then that is not OK, but these are paid ad placements.
If you had a limited budget for posting a job ad and knew that 95% of interested parties would most likely be men then you target your budget to where it will be most effective. Why would you want to spend half your budget advertising to a group that will give you a very low rate of qualified, interested applicants?
Why would you spend your budget on "safety equipment" and "fire extinguishers"? Most of them will just sit around for years and never get used!
You do it because a) hopefully you don't want your employees to die and b) even if you don't care, the law requires it anyway.
Equality is primarily about opportunity.
If you never get the opportunity to even see a job advert, how are you going to apply for it?
So yes, it is flat out illegal to filter who sees your job adverts by any of the "protected statuses" - gender, skin colour, age etc.
The only legal question is whether Facebook are also liable for allowing it. Their only plausible defence would be if they have no way of knowing it's a job advert. That seems unlikely, given that "job" is a specific advert category.
<If you never get the opportunity to even see a job advert, how are you going to apply for it?"
I don't use Facebook - can I sue?? /s
Personally I wouldn't wait for social media to offer me things I might be interested in - the amount of vaguely-relevant spam you get from the liked of LinkedIn is bad enough.
If I was looking for a new position, I'd be hitting the IT recruitment sites looking.
Kind of agree though - why on earth would FB even *have* a button that allows you to filter based on a specific gender in this equal-ops day and age?
Equality is primarily about opportunity.
Yes... But I'm going to follow attentively the case, because I think it's a bit tricky.
The law probably says that you cannot discriminate by gender at hiring, but I'm not sure this extends to how to spend ad dollars.
It's a fact that for multiple reasons, from social pressure to harassment, there are far fewer women looking for IT jobs than men. It doesn't need to be so, and it may well change in the future, but at this moment, it is so. Which means that advertising to women has a smaller ROI (and marketing is all about optimizing the ROI).
To make a comparison, it's probably illegal to discriminate by origin when hiring. That doesn't mean that when putting an ad for a job in the local newspaper, you need to also place an ad in every local newspaper in the country, even the most remote, just in case there's someone there who would want to move.
@ratfox >>>That doesn't mean that when putting an ad for a job in the local newspaper, you need to also place an ad in every local newspaper in the country<<<
You're right it doesn't, but the local papers don't print a copy with specific ads for each individual reader, everyone has an equal chance. Anyone from out of the area looking to relocate will (should?) be actively looking on their own initiative.
Asking FB to show the job ad. only to a specified group does explicitly exclude a large potential applicant pool to the eventual detriment of the company placing the advert, Job ads. are and need to be a special category.
FB will either fight this to the supreme court or add a 'find a job' service to let people browse the ads.
"FB will either fight this to the supreme court or add a 'find a job' service to let people browse the ads."
Facebook are not LinkedIn, so a "find a job" service doesn't really fit with what they are doing. LinkedIn you may have noticed don't ask what your gender is and don't provide an option to put it anywhere in your profile.
There is a world of difference advertising in a periodical which is read by professionals or on a similar website and restricting visibility of the ad's.
Whilst the majority of computer weekly subscribers were male, our female colleagues were not restricted from subscribing and did so. Similarly I'm sure the vast majority of IT job seekers in the up registered with jobserve are male, but my female colleagues also register when job hunting.
It would never offer to me that when Facebook show me a job advert about a PM role that the female colleague at the next desk would not also be presented with the ad.
I definitely see the tricky bit since in the same token I can see how targeting ads would equally qualify. It's entirely possible that I see more ads for a pickup truck and my wife sees more ads for an SUV but does it fall under equal opportunity? Maybe, maybe not, but how about if one is offered a better deal in the ads based on gender? Perhaps they are willing to discount the pickup more for my wife in order to sway her knowing that I'm more willing to pay more because men 'liked' more pickups and women 'liked' more SUVs.
I can easily see this topic get far more complicated and going beyond just jobs because it certainly wouldn't be fair to offer different prices based solely on gender or other traits.
I definitely see the tricky bit since in the same token I can see how targeting ads would equally qualify. It's entirely possible that I see more ads for a pickup truck and my wife sees more ads for an SUV but does it fall under equal opportunity?
It may be the same, but in that case if it was the same it doesn't mean what they are doing with the job ads is OK (because everyone else does it with other types of ads), it means that those other types of ads may also be in breach of the law.
However, I will note that I know that there are many laws explicitly around the labour market - hiring, discrimination, and so on - which may not exist around, say, retail product (or vehicle retail) sales.
Just because one could be legal doesn't mean the other is. it could also be perfectly plausible that one type of targeted advertising - for cars - could be perfectly legal while the same type of targeting advertising around specific categories, such as employment or housing, could be illegal.
"Yet insurance companies do this very thing and no one says anything about it."
The EU has stopped motor insurers from offering cheaper quotes to women, on the basis that men, especially young men, are more likely to speed and have serious crashes, but firms must not discriminate against them.
A firm selling motor insurance is called its4women.ie and offers quotes to women or men without bias.
Thus all other drivers now have to pay more on the premium to account for the non-loading against young men.
@ratfox
That doesn't mean that when putting an ad for a job in the local newspaper, you need to also place an ad in every local newspaper in the country
Further to @Wellyboot's reply, I'll add:
But anyone can buy that local newspaper and see those ads. But in this case, people are buying the local paper, i.e. having a Facebook account, and are still being denied the ads.
So this is the same as on buying the local paper, the seller cutting out the ads based on the individual who is buying that copy of the paper.
There's pretty much no evidence for this. For instance look at computer science: the proportion of female CS graduates has fallen dramatically in less than a generation. CS is something women are, in fact, interested in, but they are being driven away.
CS is something women are, in fact, interested in, but they are being driven away.
This is something that I find fascinating and I wonder what the timeframe is. When looking at human development there is a window when children are young, prior to hitting the 'growth spurt', that a massive amount of brain development occurs. Could it be that my mother was right in saying that females develop faster which would narrow the window to develop the needed synapses?
Please don't misunderstand, I'm simply observing that when I was about 10-12 years old my male classmates and I were considerably shorter than the vast majority of our female classmates but that dramatically reversed over the next several years.
My guess is that the brain and body don't develop at the same time simply because the energy needed to do both surpasses the general available intake so it is naturally staged. If female brains do, in fact, develop sooner then it is the early education that needs to be addressed, possibly in the first 5 to 7 years. Maybe it's just a matter of injecting science earlier in the curriculum that would even out the balance. Maybe I shouldn't have that second glass of wine after dinner. Maybe I should have had a third, now there's an excellent idea.
"There's pretty much no evidence for this. For instance look at computer science: the proportion of female CS graduates has fallen dramatically in less than a generation. CS is something women are, in fact, interested in, but they are being driven away."
The proportion of female CS graduates in Iran is way higher than here, and Iran is not exactly a hotbed of feminism.
'Most of these employees are men, so I shall advertise to men' is the wrong way of solving the problem. If I want to recruit a welder and I advertise to men then I'm going to waste most of my budget because, even though most welders seem to be men, most men are not welders. I should be trying to advertise to groups that include welders and not restricting my potential applicants based on criteria that are not essential for the job.
They are doing it to maximize their advertising dollar. If you are advertising for an oil field worker, you are getting far less of your money's worth by advertising to women, or to men over say 50 years old. Likewise you wouldn't want to advertise a wildcatter job to people with a college degree, people who live in NYC, or single parents. Your advertising dollar goes a lot further advertising towards those more likely to be interested.
Maybe Facebook should turn it around and let people register their interest in certain types of jobs, and everyone who registers themselves as interested in oil industry jobs will be the only ones who see such jobs. Of course they wouldn't want to do that - they'd rather you have to spend 100x as much to hit the 1 in 100 people who are interested. If you aren't allowed to discriminate then you'd have to spend 200x as much to hit the 1 person who interested - so forcing Facebook to do this is only going to make them more money!
They are doing it to maximize their advertising dollar. If you are advertising for an oil field worker, you are getting far less of your money's worth by advertising to women, or to men over say 50 years old...
What you just wrote is basically a pure capitalist justification for racism / sexism / ageism / whatever-ism.
It doesn't stop it being sexist just because you're doing it for financial reasons.
If that is the case then why hasn't the ACLU gone after insurance companies for offering cheaper car insurance to women than men, or younger drivers than older ones? Just because they charge you based on your level of risk doesn't mean it isn't discrimination.....
"why hasn't the ACLU gone after insurance companies for offering cheaper car insurance to women than men, or younger drivers than older ones?"
Why don't young men drive safer?
"Just because they charge you based on your level of risk doesn't mean it isn't discrimination....."
There's being offered a higher rate because of your gender, and being offered no job at all because of your gender. I guess it's a matter of priorities.
C.
If that is the case then why hasn't the ACLU gone after insurance companies for offering cheaper car insurance to women than men, or younger drivers than older ones? Just because they charge you based on your level of risk doesn't mean it isn't discrimination.....
Well, you see, there is this thing called the law.
Various laws are passed for various things. Some laws are passed that apply to specific industries, events, things, and so on. Sometimes there are laws that make it illegal for one person to do something - speed - but other people in other circumstances are allowed to do that - emergency services.
There are laws specific to the insurance industry that allow them to do that. The laws explicitly allow them to do that,
If the ACLU tried to sue insurance companies based on that, they'd be laughed out of court, since the law specifically allows them to do that.
However, there are laws specific to employment that prevent that same sort of discrimination. And it is this that the ACLU are bringing to court - employment discrimination.
Alternatively you could advertise your oil industry jobs on relevant job sites and save $$$$ because everyone viewing it will be interested and not trying to look at pictures of cats. And as a bonus you're not giving your money to Satan's incarnation on Earth.
They are suing Facebook in addition to the organizations posting the job ads specifically for that reason. Facebook's pricing model for posting job opportunities is incentivizing posted to discriminate. The ACLU's goal here is to get Facebook to either A) eliminate the option of targeting jobs ads specifically to people based on their immutable characteristics or B) remove any cost difference between selecting one option versus two or more options.
They can't remove the cost difference, they can only remove the option, because the cost difference is merely because Facebook charges by the reach (i.e. number of people who see an ad) which is why it is in the best interests of an employer to maximize the percentage of people who see the job posting that might be interested in it.
One could argue that advertising an oil industry job in Men's Health, or a nursing job in Cosmo would be almost equally discriminatory given the gender disparity in the readership of each. Heck, just advertising on the internet could be seen as age discrimination, given that the older people are the less time they spend on the internet.
They are doing it to maximize their advertising dollar.
Whether that is the motivation or not behind it doesn't matter. You can't choose to disobey a law because following it would cost you more money. (Well, OK, you could, but you'll have to face the consequences of doing so if caught).
They need to find a way within the law that is the most cost-effective.
Unless there is an overwhelming physical or sociological reason that only a particular sex can do a job then there should be no limitations on who that job is advertised to (not many women would be appreciated as men's restroom assistants, and vice versa, etc). Likewise there should be no restrictions on education, etc.
If it is sexism to only advertise to and accept men then it is as much so to do the same with women. What matters and the only thing that should matter is that the best capable and qualified person gets said job.
This goes not just for sex but for sexuality, race, religion, political views, etc. etc.
Obvious relly.
@baud
Read what I said a bit more carefully. The paragraph was about job restriction according to sex and I said there should generally be none. The "likewise" linked the closing sentence of that paragraph to the previous contents. So we should not limit education according to sex.
@Timmy B
Slightly off topic, but it does strike me as odd that religious and political views are given the same protection as race, gender or sexuality. Race, gender or sexuality are innately unchangeable.
Religious and political views, however strongly felt, are choices / opinions, are learnt* and can be changed. Of course, anyone can choose to have their own religious or political views, and be free to air them (in public, not soliciting!) , and one should not be discriminated against for believing in one sky fairy rather than another...but I can say the same about for example anyone's preference of cats vs dogs.
*or indoctrinated