Emma Watson on Feminism
- Thread starter rcoobc
- Start date
possibly I dont know indo that well... you would be in a hell of a lot of trouble taking that approach in the UK though.
I know I like a PA who is good at their job and I couldnt care less about their looks - and I think most other people in any senior management position I know feel the same - they make you better at your job and save you from countless feck ups so being good at that and being a person you can work with / gel are probably the only factors I would consider - honestly I don't care how good looking they are if they cant handle the workload then whats the point - if anything it makes you look like the idiot for hiring somebody incompetent
Why is there hardly any male PA's?
I have a general idea how it works in UK.
And although the general stance is zero discrimination, there is no amount of judge can judge the employer train of thoughts.
And again, sometimes qualification can be in form of "good looking", if your job is to be the escort, sales promotion girl, concierge, client / customer service, you are expected to be tidy, professional, and at least not ugly (they'll mask it under clean and neat trim) and who can blame them, it's a customer's world.
Would you hire a thug lookalike with piercings, messy hairdo, and stinking breath to become your recepsionist? would you hire them to babysit your baby?
So attitude, looks, and how you present yourself matters and for the right reason. Just because you have a phd qualification doesn't mean you can get a job if you're not grooming yourself in an acceptable manner.
I'm just explaining it from an employer's PoV
Here's a simple questions:
You need a babysitter
a. A man in his 40s with a degree in Psychology?
b. A friendly looking teenage girl with High school qualification
Who would you choose and can you honestly tells me it's because of the qualification alone? Let's assume they got paid the same.
You need a babysitter
a. A man in his 40s with a degree in Psychology?
b. A friendly looking teenage girl with High school qualification
Who would you choose and can you honestly tells me it's because of the qualification alone? Let's assume they got paid the same.
In that particular scenario, it's not qualification that matter, but references. Correct answer should be neither if you know nothing but that about them.
There are lots - they tend not to go by the name pa though - often just go by the name assistant or I had one who was a junior sales manager once - bloody fantastic but essentially a PA untill I moved up and they then became sales manager. i have also known many office managers who fulfil the same function many of who are men - and infact most of the ladies I have known doing that job dont go by the title either - assistant to (insert managers name) tends not to carry the gravitas needed as on many occasions it is the PA who will take your place at meetings and often be heavily involved in the decision making process so a suitable title works wonders. We currently have a "Business Manager" we employ (there are only 7 full time employees in our business and nobody reports into them but the title helps when they attend meetings etc to be taken as seriously as they warrant - infact as they work closley with our sales (me) ops (my colleague) and design (my other colleague) closley they have perhaps the best overall view of the business from a function perspective -)
their role includes scheduling meetings, formatting proposals / propositions, making recommendation of suppliers, admin, basic accounts - plus as the three of us work from home they are defacto the office manager as well- so not that far removed from what could be branded a PA type function.
As the business grows I envisage they will move into the ops function more and more and somebody else or more likely two people will come in to take over their current role
What exactly do men think happens to a woman when they're on their period?
I've never taken a day off sick because of my period.
Not sure if serious.
One of the points about feminism is the sheer bias that concerns a man's healthy sexual lifestyle vs a woman's healthy sexual lifestyle.
I've never taken a day off sick because of my period.
Not sure if serious.
One of the points about feminism is the sheer bias that concerns a man's healthy sexual lifestyle vs a woman's healthy sexual lifestyle.
All i'm trying to demonstrate is that humans make this sort of discrimination (or rational preferences)
A female superstar might prefer a woman PA because she'll have to deal with day to day personal needs that requires a woman (aka buying tampons, zipping up her clothes, etc) it doesn't make sense to hire a guy for such position.
And as much as it is wrong in the eye of equality, she would have picked a She everytime.
I've had female workers that works on her period, it wasn't such a biggie.
But when it is regulated that it is within their rights, you can bet out they will take it, because it's a paid leave, and it's their right. And we're talking about labours on minimum regulated wage, they'll take everything they can get, and I don't blame them either.
Is it wrong to list :
Good looking as one of the requirements?
They do that on every ads in Indonesia, it's called "Berpenampilan Menarik" which literally means "good looking"
Good looking as one of the requirements?
They do that on every ads in Indonesia, it's called "Berpenampilan Menarik" which literally means "good looking"
its illegal in the uk
hmm...
different sets of customs i guess.
But i'm sure the employer will take this sorts of things (race, looks, genders, et al) into considerations, although they'll be smart enough to keep it to themselves.
they would be smarter to hire the best person for the job - I mean honestly are certain races better at certain jobs????
Well if it's the law then you can't blame them frankly - it's a biological function of a woman, If I could do without my period for an extended amount of time until I was ready to start a family I definitely would and i'm sure that's the same for 99% of women.
And i'm sure as an employer it frustrates you, but equally it's not their fault either.
It's when you phrase things about race and looks that flag up in my opinion - and yes you're completely right employers discriminate on certain factors and to me this isn't anything new - however it's still discrimination no matter how you dress it up.
Because, sometimes what you need is not smart, what you need is the look to attract the customer.
You have a case if you need a brain (aka high profile lawyer, corporate accountant, etc) but when you need a simple door attendant for your boutique, yes you'll need one with a good look.
It's not because they're better, but they have something that the employer need (physically attractive employee to attract customer) something the other candidate do not possess.
Again, right / wrong is another debate, but that's how people think.
It's not their fault, but this kind of things (especially when in a regulated country it'll means 2 days of out 20 days work is taken off) does make the employer consider "gender" as one of the considerations.
because they are not paid the same (logically because you're paying them the same for less days of work). To maintain equality, adjusting the rate accordingly is what employer's normally do.
My wife worked in an industry where looks were important - well almost everything I suppose so they do exist but must make up such a minute % of jobs - but a door attendant ???- well for a start we don't really have many jobs like that in the UK - the ones we do have would in my experience tend to be middle aged men wearing nice suits / uniforms - looking smart (and lets be honest thats what the uniform is for) and being courteous would be the key not being good looking.
Whilst your views are certainly valid from your own perspecive and may indeed provide some insight to the cultural views you have inherited and are surrounded by they don't translate well over here at all - they in fact sound rather outdated, sexist and in my opinion they make no sense - I would particularly be interested if you could expand on the race issue as I am wondering what jobs my race is best suited to?
my wife has never taken a day off work due to any stupid notion you have- thats just you generalising and being sexist
Regarding race:
There are many places in Asia (South East Asia specially) where there are majorities and minorities in one country (e.g. Malaysia have 3 large race of Indians, Chinese, and Malays)
So if you operate on a certain establishment or businesses that cater for a specific race (e.g. A pork rice stall) you can't hire a Malay because they're moslem and Pork is Haram, and if you happens to hire a fancy massage parlor catered for the Chinese, you'd probably would want a waiter / waitresses / mami that's not a Malay or Indian.
Not to mention some prejudice against certain race due to years of conflict and friction, each races have their own stereotype against another race.
So if you're asking them to be not racist and trying to adopt UK law, it could work on paper, but in reality, it will be close to impossible.
EDIT: If you're a british (i.e. western) you'd probably get a job at an English center, even if you're not qualified, because by default they want a foreigner to teach there. And no matter if you're a professor In English, if you're local you won't get the job.
There's nothing stupid about the word of law stated in the statutory of employment.
Look, you don't think that's fair and sexist, but that's what the government prescribed. You're just generalising people across the world to your UK standard.
Interesting - I was born in Hong Kong and am half Chinese - I think your wrong on that one
And another thing on the bolded part.
IMO you're just ignoring that these kinds of things I've been talking about exists even in UK, and all over the world. They are just viewed as "wrong" in your law.
You never been to a mosleem majority country then?
I would want to stay away from giving you a hanky panky illustration, but you do know that the rates of prostitutions services depends on which race you are?
Hiring people based on their looks is not against any law.
Either that or the modelling industry is getting away with murder...
Either that or the modelling industry is getting away with murder...
I have been on holiday to indo as a freind owns a couple of bars there - As for other Muslim countries I have been to many and worked in several - Saudi, UAE, Eygpt, Bahrain, Maldives, Tunisia, Morocco - I have not whored my way through any of them - I have a house in Thailand and even though it seems to be half the reason that some people go there I have again not been sampling the local (or international) ladies on offer - you know why - because I'm a happily married man and I don't want to degrade myself or them. As such I am afraid I will gladly avoid your hanky panky demonstration and will have to defer to your experience and knowledge of international customs and pricing of prostitutes. Given your seemingly extensive knowledge of this field though and whilst I can understand your racist in how much you pay your lady prostitutes do you also apply a sexist factor in there when you pay your boys or does the racist element win out? just curious so we can ascertain if you discriminate primarily on race or gender - or indeed if you are an equal opportunity bigot? so what do you pay for more / less for indo girls, indo boys, indian girls, indian boys?
I'm not a sexist, or a race discriminatorist
If you can't value opinions, insight of how it is in the real life (at least according to my experiences) then let's just called 3/4 of the world sexist.
You're asking mankind to act in a godly ways (and even god discriminates based on who do more good deeds) and simply labelled everyone else sexist because they have emotions and thoughts and not adhering to the UK standards?
I believe there are certain exceptions - for example if you wanted to make a film about Barack Obama it would be stupid to let white people apply for the role - but I don't think you can hire someone based on looks for most jobs.
What Sky1981 is talking about "looks" anyway, I think would come down more to one's personal grooming and pride in their appearance, which is certainly important in many customer facing roles. However there is a big difference between hiring someone because they keep a tidy and professional appearance and hiring someone because you find them to be sexually attractive.
Interestingly enough I read a statistic somewhere that women rated as more attractive actually tend to earn less on average.
which god - or are you discriminating on grounds of religion now as well?
What i'm trying to say is simple :
That you can't be 100% non bias against even if the rules states otherwise.
You've pulled more straw people out of your arse in the last two pages than I think I've ever seen in a Caf discussion. Kudos.
But surely if feminism is a fight for equal rights then laws like this would change? Or would they give extra holidays paid to men?
Women and men are different, with laws to reflect those differences. Maternity leave being an obvious example. Equal rights shouldn't be about ignoring fundamental biological differences between the genders.
That said, going on sick leave every time they're on the blob does seem a bit extreme...
That's the bit I am talking about. Maternity leave makes complete sense and should remain but taking off time once a month for periods should not be ok because it's not something that happens a few times in someones life, it happens frequently from a certain age
Yup, it was gods way of telling them they probably shouldnt be in the work place 
They do not call in because the have blob, they are entitled for it. They took it. Regardless of their physical condition, even if you work in a beautiful scenery office.
Im not talking about fair or justice. But as a boss who pays their wages, this goes into consideration
That's why the pays is differentianted, if the pays is same but women got 1 day off per month, it's not equal.
That's my argument, that it cant be exactly fair between man and woman. Because there are fundamental differences that cant be sorted by a simple word of law.
I don't think most women take time off when they're on that time of the month. Again anecdotal, but I work in a group with many females, and I don't see absences occurring monthly. My ex has painful cramps when that time comes, but she rarely took time off when she was at her last job.
Even if they took time off for that, everyone has an allocation of sick days. They may use sick days for that time, I may use my sick days for a hangover or man flu.
That's not something that's written into law though is it? There's nothing to say women have an inherent right to take monthly leave for their periods. Merely that they've (like men) got contractually allocated sick days. We're back into the realm of anecdotes and straw women. If they're taking too much unwarranted sick leave, then depending on the contract, you've probably got grounds for dismissal.
EDIT: SNAP. Basically what adex said.
EDIT: SNAP. Basically what adex said.
A menstruating straw man. How odd.