This really happened: While reviewing some calibration profiles for an Executive search with the founder and CEO of a company, he tells me that he doesn't think it's a good idea to go after women I've selected because they might want to have children. I was pretty much shell-shocked. Having three daughters, I had to check him on these biases. But it made me wonder how often this might actually happen when selecting talent. And how many opportunities have been lost for women as a result of this exclusion bias? I'm certain this isn't isolated. Has this happened to you?Executives love to pontificate and lecture about their philosophies of business, hiring, the universe, and everything. In this day of the SJW, who will not hesitate to hang anyone out to dry if it gives them the opportunity to publicly virtue-signal, that is an extremely unwise self-indulgement.
Keep your thoughts to yourself; self-policing is better than being publicly policed. And what sort of service offers to "check you on your biases" anyhow?
I'll pass, thanks.
14 comments:
I wonder if this kind of thing could be employed as an SJW shibboleth. Make a minor slip that won't give the company any legal trouble, but will set off an SJW. Then monitor their online activity for any virtue signalling. Once an SJW is detected, build a watertight case against them and fire them.
"I was pretty much shell-shocked. Having three daughters, I had to check him on these biases."
These biases aren't biases, anyone who's kept attendance records at a work place may have had the experience of the woman who takes time off sick ... regularly - at around the same time each month.
I didn't pay that much attention at first, but once you look at the attendance record over a period ( snigger ) of time the pattern pretty much bit you in the arse.
Actually, I used to work in the recruiting industry for over a decade...and that's supposed to be one of the selling points for executive search services: recruiters can discriminate for you so that you don't have to answer FedGov Quota audits or face lawsuits from aggrieved minorities who didn't get hired. Our firm carried out search assignments that discriminated on all sorts of otherwise illegal parameters where the hiring authority/HR department to handle the entire search and hiring process themselves would leave them vulnerable to legal action. We did all sort of searches that discriminated on things like no gays, no NAM's, no marrieds or must be married; no divorcees; no kids or must have kids, even had one to look for a registered Republican voter. It's one of the executive search firms main selling points for paying the fee...let us discriminate for you (off the record, of course). See, according to Search Firm practices, we winnow the candidate pool down to the best 3 or 4 candidates for you to chose from - and if FedGov ever gives the hiring firm grief, the search firm merely shows the records of all the diverse quota candidates we contacted and interviewed for the clients opening.
Of course, this particular recruiter is an SJW, and a not very bright one at that. She is supposed to want to earn her commission by putting the candidate's wish list front and center. And oh yeah, the recruiter's most regular "off the record" discrimination paramater we heard most often from clients was indeed that they don't want to hire women of child bearing age precisely because of the FMLA and other laws that make maternity leave and the mandatory holding her position for her until she is ready to return a much more expensive proposition than simply hiring a man or an older woman.
Imagine how many CEOs are probably thinking "no women except secretaries, and even those are to be older than child-bearing age."
@APL
Sure, but would you really want a woman around the office if she thinks it's going to bad enough to be worth taking a day off?
No name, eh? The anonymous CEO really sounds like "someone I totally didn't just make up to Let Everyone Know I'm the sort of person who Speaks Truth to Power."
A 5ft nothing female barista i had the hots for stated she wanted to be work as a "fireman". At first I stated, "not a good idea". She said she all need to pass the 250lb lift test - in case a rescue was needed; she had the rest covered.
After several days I realized, it was possible for her to overcome this obstacle and still look like a woman, but she had to under go some intense training.
The obstacle was not the lifting 250lbs, but learning to sit without crossed legs and learning to stand with a "spread stance". Both the micro-habits were trained into her by her mother and all females she knew. "Cross your legs, sit like a lady", "Stand like a lady, walk like a lady".
Ball is in your court. Questions?
I'm 5',6" and 140# off season. I can deadlift 250#, for reps and my max keeps going up, I hit 315# once but it was hard, I got too cocky.
I can squat 250# and more, too, when my knees aren't giving me trouble.
I cannot bench more than 135# despite good training and proper diet and a terrific coach. Cannot get there. And overhead presses? Forget it. I can push press 95# for reps on a good day, power clean 115#, but not for too long.
Yeah, yeah, I'm awesome! No, that's not my point.
Point: your wispy fairy maiden can train hard to do the lifting, but rescue is more than life dating. You need to not only lift, BUT CARRY the dead weight of a not only heavy but long, limby, floppy body. That's the hard part. You've have the strength to move it, too, not just in a single plane but across distance, and under stressful life threatening circumstances.
So, perhaps she overestimates herself. As for unlearning feminine behaviors, they undo themselves easily in an environment where she needs to undo them to fit in.
Not life dating, lifting
Keoni nails it. The CEO's indiscretion was trusting a recruiter before fully vetting them; the recruiter allowed HER SJW attitude to get in the way of her job. A good HR (or Legal) department will coach the the CEO to say, "All other things being equal, we prefer a candidate that ...". Of course, all other things are never equal, and there is always a (legal) reason the candidate you chose was best.
Along the same lines, I had a female boss who nixed an otherwise qualified female candidate who remarked in an interview, "Well, you know what it's like working with guys". The boss told me later, "Ten percent of the department is women, and they have no problem working with you guys. Why would I hire a potential problem when there are three other candidates that are equally qualified?"
I'm strong- for a woman. But my strength is all in my legs. No way I could carry a person over my shoulders. Not on my best day. And I'm 5'9" not 5ft nothing.
I wanted to be an astronaut, but I was too tall.
Sometimes life isn't fair.
Wasn't it LA that retrofitted all its firestation for women, then couldn't find any women who wanted to be firewomyn?
Http://sharemusik.bid mantap bos
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.