Ad Guru's sexist comment

I think the ad executive was right on target in his assessment of Moos in the workplace. But what gets me is that people like him then take it to the next level and assume that ALL women are like this. In his mind, ALL women are a bad hiring risk because they inevitably WILL become Moos and then their brains will turn to mush.

It's totally unfair to those of us CF women who are trying to advance our careers. I wonder how many times I've been passed over for a promotion or not hired because it was ASSumed that I was of breeding age and was going to get knocked up and quit. I really resent people with that attitude, because it reflects badly on ALL women.

I wish it were legal to ask women in job interviews what their plans are as far as reproducing. I think it is a relevant question and should not be illegal or discriminatory to ask. The fact is that a company has the right to know if a female employee is going to get knocked up and quit her job (after milking the company for every last dime of health insurance first, of course).

Even though it's not legal for them to ask, I find a way to volunteer the information that I don't have, and won't be having, kids. I would hope that that somehow works the my advantage. It damned well should, since I don't have the distractions of a parent keeping me from doing my job!

Unfortunately, keep in mind that some employers view childless/free-ness as a liability. After all, if you don't have a bunch of hungry mouths to feed at home, you're less hard-up for employment in general, and more likely to walk if things aren't going your way. At least I think that's one of the things going through the average employer's mind. Maybe that's why the father-type is still the favored employee. Generally it's the wife who has to deal with the kids, day to day, with daddy more likely to be able to keep up with work commitments. Yet he has to be a good employee because he has dependents, and can't afford to lose his job. Way get him by the balls in more ways than one!!!

GuiltFree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Unfortunately, keep in mind that some employers
> view childless/free-ness as a liability. After
> all, if you don't have a bunch of hungry mouths to
> feed at home, you're less hard-up for employment
> in general, and more likely to walk if things
> aren't going your way. At least I think that's one
> of the things going through the average employer's
> mind. Maybe that's why the father-type is still
> the favored employee. Generally it's the wife who
> has to deal with the kids, day to day, with daddy
> more likely to be able to keep up with work
> commitments. Yet he has to be a good employee
> because he has dependents, and can't afford to
> lose his job. Way get him by the balls in more
> ways than one!!!


That's a really good point! I hadn't thought of that.

I was recenlty in a restraunt for breakfast when a gal came in for an interview. It sounded like she had been previously interviewed and just a few more things had to be made clear. This secondary interview happend at the counter, in front of many people. She was asked if she could work any shift, if she had reliable transportation, if she was married and if she had kids at home that would prevent her from rotating shifts if necessary. She promply answered all the questions like she got asked them all the time. I said to the person I was having breakfast with "thats illegal to ask that", he agreed. But it was not my business, and I didn't but in.

After she left, the boss was telling other co-workers how she thought she would work out fine because of all the above mentioned things. So, you can say its illegal to ask those questions, but sometimes they get asked anyway. Maybe more at the lower paying job... but they get asked.