To think that this 'advice' column in today's Guardian is bang out of order?

[Aliama]

I'm fuming at this and wondering if I'm overreacting?

www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/01/dear-jeremy-work-issues-solved

Excuse me? Did I misread that? In what fucking world is it 'reprehensible' for a woman to fail to tell a prospective employer that she's planning on getting pregnant at an interview? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it fucking illegal for a company to allow something like that to sway their decision anyway, even if said woman is already pregnant?

Ugh.

That's a flawed argument meepmeep but let's agree to differ

I know damn well it happens in the City. Though IME recruiters normally send the varied CVs and watch as they get rejected.

However, I'd also say that any employer who starts from the 'any form of flexible working is unlikely to work' mindset is an employer who is living in the past. I've heard it from many and varied groups of City employers. I've spent a lot of years in the City. And for every employer who claims it is impossible, there is usually one who is doing very well nicely by recognising the possibilities. Part time as in 'three days per week' may not work, but every employer has options and not recognising them is just a sign of a short-sighted employer who is failing to move with the times.

Are we only allowed to have certain words in certain topics? hmm? Don't think words work that way. But telling a woman about how sexism works is frequently called mansplaining on and off FWR.

HTH

mansplained.tumblr.com/

If you say so.

Yeah, it's normal for firms who don't mind ending up in court and dragging their clients down with them. Hhing firms are rarely ethical and mine certainly wasn't but it was careful to stay on the right side of the law. All it takes is for one ex employee from an agency to whistleblow and they're going down with you following. It doesn't take a genius to follow the trail and see that you've had exclusively male cvs

Penguins, as I said it depends on the role. If it's on of the tech guys it'll be a lot easier to let them go flexitime than it is for the sole guy covering US clients in their timezone. We'd still need someone providing tech support and if the tech guy isn't working at the time it's a problem (like it is during holidays, sickness etc)

When we get bigger it's a different story

This isn't FWR.

This is an issue of employment law and discrimination on the basis of being a woman, though.

Mansplaining, sadly, is only confined to FWR threads either.

What on earth is mansplaining?

I did explain and actually provide a link. Can't do much more than that

windy, just seen your post of 15:31 to me.

What's selfish? Well, your attitude is. If you think it is morally 'reprehensible' for a woman not to announce her pregnancy/hope of a pregnancy - which is what we're talking about - you're making a moral judgement.

You do not get to throw your hands up in horror when someone else expects some moral decency from you.

You chose to get involved in running a small business.

That may have been a very sensible choice. But it was a choice.

I never said the problems were the same for a bigger business - I said you don't seem to care about bigger businesses, only about yourself. Which I think is selfish. It does rather indicate that your argument is not a passionate economic one - it's a self-centred one. If it weren't, you'd object to all the economic downsides of hiring women of childbearing age, not just the ones that affect you.

And I would still like to know what you think women in my situation should do? How 'economically responsible' is it for me to say I won't bother earning then?

"Penguins, as I said it depends on the role. If it's on of the tech guys it'll be a lot easier to let them go flexitime than it is for the sole guy covering US clients in their timezone. We'd still need someone providing tech support and if the tech guy isn't working at the time it's a problem (like it is during holidays, sickness etc)"

What a way to both miss and prove my point. Of course in your example you need the person working during US business hours. As I said, there are many options for flexible working - including location, hours, when those hours are worked, annualised hours, how duties are shared, etc, etc. I wasn't challenging that certain types of flexible working aren't suitable for certain roles. I was challenging the idea that there are lots of roles where no type of flexible working is a possibility. A US time zone role, for example, is often a perfect candidate for someone to start late, spend time with their families in the morning and work later into the evening. Depending on the regulatory regime, it can also be a good candidate for home working.

PleaseJustLeaveYourBrotherAlon

Unless you have proof that windy is male then its incorrect. It is also a classic shutdown term for any argument that some feminists use.

"This is an issue of employment law and discrimination on the basis of being a woman, though."

Yes it is and we should leave the shutdown terms out of it.

*isn't

Is mansplaining a gendered term?

I'd always assumed it was like 'mankind' or 'manpower'.

A US time zone role, for example, is often a perfect candidate for someone to start late, spend time with their families in the morning and work later into the evening. Depending on the regulatory regime, it can also be a good candidate for home working

Agreed. I work with US clients and find that working after the school run into the evening means we're online at the same time.

Boney - I don't know if Windy is male, but he/she has said that there are no women in the team at the moment. Which would be an odd way to phrase it if you were a woman. Surely you'd say that you were currently the only woman in the team at the moment? I think the implication is that the poster is male. Though I agree, it doesn't make any difference to my exchange.

DontOutMeIfYouKnowMe

I believe that the none gendered term wound be "patronising"

There are 6 of us in the company, all permanent staff on good salaries (touching six figures on average) and everyone is male.

I could ask for a penis pic...but I'm just going to take HIS word for it.

Patronizing is a 'none-gendered' term now?

Yeeeah.

Sorry to be a pedant, but it is a gendered term. You just don't see it, do you?

Do you really not understand the irony of objecting to one term, which someone clearly used because she felt it was relevant, by insisting that another gendered term is 'non-gendered'?

penguin

Windy may not be part of the team if they are management, I have been responsible for several teams but not been part of them.

Patronising has been used as a term for both genders, mansplaining is just used for males.

but if you want to go down the Etymology of the words then that is up to you.

There are 6 of us in the company, all permanent staff on good salaries (touching six figures on average) and everyone is male.

US
us
?s/
pronoun
pronoun: us

1.
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people as the object of a verb or preposition.

No, it isn't.

Mansplaining refers to gendered explanations. Of course, the root is gendered, but if you are going to pretend 'patronizing' is ok, you should accept that 'mansplaining' can describe the same behaviour in men and women.

Honestly: this is a ridiculous argument to start for someone in your position.

Lets say that windy's a man - certainly that's the implication here - but I wouldn't for a moment imply that women never engage in this sort of discriminatory behaviour either (I heard one on the radio recently )

He's telling a female poster here that he doesn't recruit females in case they go and get pregnant. He's telling a female poster that this is not sexism, or a breach of employment laws, and why he thinks it's not. It actually is blatant sexism. That is mansplaining in my book.

"this is a ridiculous argument to start for someone in your position."

Explain, cos I'm confused.

Please

Yes I missed a line, sue me.