I Just Had to Explain Why...

[Mansplanation]

Not hiring a woman on the basis that she may one day get pregnant is wrong to a man why is responsible for hiring junior members of staff in my workplace.

WT actual F!...

His argument is that in a meritocracy, if interviews were conducted with a tick box form and a man and woman ticked all the same boxes all the way down the form, then the last question was "are you planning to have children?", if both answered "yes", he would hire the man. He argued that this was fair because the only differentiating factor is their gender, and therefore the only thing he could make a decision on, so he would base his decision on the fact that a woman would need to take more time off work regardless of whether she chose to take maternity leave or not.

He said that to not take gender into account would be positive discrimination, because he'd be actively ignoring the disadvantages of hiring a woman of child bearing age. What's more, he thinks it's awful that he's not allowed to ask men and women if they are planning to have children in an interview.

So to explain why he can't ask, I used the argument in the picture to illustrate equality vs equity, and explained that by his logic, we give everyone the same sized box to stand on and if they can't see over the wall, that's unfortunate. He mentioned disability and how disabled people are in this situation so it's not unheard of and said he thought this was "just natural".

I said "what about wheelchairs? Is that positive discrimination to give a non independently mobile person a wheelchair so they can get out and about? We are effectively giving them an extra box to stand on that brings them nearer to the advantages of being a mobile person"

He said no, but it's different.

I asked how.

He said he didn't know why and changed the subject to 'what feminism is'.

Apparently, he met a lot of feminists while he was at uni who were man haters and wanted an end to all men. They wanted women to be positively discriminated against. He went on to mansplain what feminism is.. to me.. a feminist.

I explained feminism is a movement that fights for equal rights for women, that's all and he needs to spend more time with feminists.

He said "not all feminists are like you though, you're normal".... why, thank you oh great man voice.

I explained that actually, I'm a very normal feminist and his stereotyping of feminists is probably in need of some revision.

Prick.

Luckily, I'm leaving.

Maybe you're working with the Midnight Troll!

His attitude is why we need equality legislation in the first place.

How utterly depressing it all is. You'd think that's the fact it's illegal might give them a hint that maternity discrimination is not a good thing.

Idiots. Am doing so many of them in positions of power.

I was utterly, utterly flabbergasted by some of the stuff coming out of his mouth. It' the first time I've had to educate a grown ass adult on something to do with feminism and im all shakey now. I didn't even get angry or ranty, just calmly explained everything but it took every bit of my strength not to just call him a fucknugget and dismiss it.

I love how men always seem to come across the 'man-hating feminists'.

In my 35+ years on this Earth I have not met a single one.

It's funny.

There are a lot of woman hating feminists and they're okay with men.

But men hating feminists. Steady on there those men say; we love you.

It often doesn't work - but I do sometimes try and turn it on its head by saying well think about if you had to carry a baby - you personally - do you think you should be turned down for a job? Often they blab on about of course, or I would make sure it didn't effect me or something - but every now and then you can get a penny to drop....

Oh and for true equality and equity in those memes the fence should be removed.

Hmm, you could try him on something like John Rawls' "initial position". It's a thought experiment used to motivate a classical liberal theory of government. Basically the idea is this - you gather your group of people, who exist as fully mentally capable adults but in some sort of pre-birth limbo state, in a room. You tell them that they're going to be born into a society where there will inevitably be inequalities in terms of ability/situation. Some will be born into rich families, some into poor families. Some with a natural aptitude for maths (and thus the ability to become bankers), some with an aptitude for selling things, some with an aptitude for making and inventing things, some with an aptitude for kicking a ball (but society might or might not turn out to value this one) some with no aptitude for anything much. Some will be born male and some female. Some born able bodied and some not. And so on and so on. But here's the catch - each individual doesn't know which set of circumstances they're going to end up with.

The question is then "how do you design a society in ignorance of what your position in it would be? What would you like it to look like?" So - inheritance tax to iron out bad luck as to whether your family has wealth or not? A redistributive taxation system to iron out the different earning powers of the banker-to-be and the not-good-at-anything-much individual? Maternity pay and pregnancy job protection to iron out the differences between those born male and those born female?

(Interestingly, some American psychologists tried this out as a thought experiment with a group of registered Republican voters, only of course without mentioning the "L" word to them. They designed a society that looked like Sweden ).

I guess the bottom line is ask him "if you didn't know up front whether you were going to be male or female, what would you like society's employment laws to look like?"

Though frankly he sounds like a complete bell-end who's beyond help.

Maybe you're working with the Midnight Troll!

Exactly what I thought!

He's just sent me a lengthy email explaining his position, prefaced by the immortal phrase "so I don't think you understood my point just now, I'd like to explain further"..

The cockwomble has actually just put down IN WRITING all the reasons he thinks he should be allowed to hire women instead of men....

Dear lord it's actually Christmas. I leave in 2 weeks, I'll be forwarding this on to my female CEO on my way through the door...

Unfortunately this is a common attitude. Even my own children think that your ability to bear children should be taken into account when applying for jobs - because it could affect your work.

Yet they are kind and good human beings in all other ways. Logic seems to get in the way of empathy for the young because they haven't yet lived enough of life to understand the issues they may personally face.

*men instead of women... this sexism thing is catching

Ha ha, the whole lot in writing and you have a female CEO... brilliant. This is definitely a case of "revenge is a dish best served cold... in approximately 2 weeks time."

We had that meme in a presentation at college - integration is the meme with the boxes, inclusion removing the fence.

I realise that's missing the point. The man sounds irredeemable.

Email him back and ask him to clarify at least one point, suggest he is wrong. See how long you can keep it up

I hope you out him once you're established in the new job - make some notes and diarise it and even get it witnessed as a statement - and report him - prick.

He argued that this was fair because the only differentiating factor is their gender,

Stop him right there. The only differentiating factor is SEX, which is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act.

Which he really should be aware of if he's in the business of hiring and firing.

🤦🏻‍♀️ He put it in writing? How hard of thinking is he??

Oh he disagrees with the equality act, whole heartedly. I tried that chestnut.

He argues that it gives an unfair advantage to everyone except straight white non-disabled males and is therefore fundamentally flawed.. says the straight white non-disabled male. He says he would be discriminated against because ‘literally everyone else’ fits one of the ‘special person tick boxes’ (his words)

He’s a total fruitcake and because he’s only 30 I want to believe he’s redeemable.

His email contains the following gems:

‘Women are just as capable as men, that’s not the issue here, the issue is their capacity to remain gainfully employed once the biological clock starts ticking. I don’t assume every woman will have a child and will need time off work, but I do assume that most women want children and will require some time off to recover after a birth. This means that when it’s a choice between 2 candidates equally skilled, I believe it’s my right to make that decision based on the fact that her gender means she’ll need time off. I’d just like to be able to ask the question to remove my guess work’

And

“I’ve never met a woman who didn’t want children” (I am one, so that doesn’t work you weapons grade, nonsensical twit)

And

“I feel like we need to agree to disagree on this one, as a woman I don’t think you’re capable of forcing an objective view on this”

Oh god I want to forward it so bad..

Oh dear, not the brightest is he? Only a complete moron of a man could be so Cockshaw of himself that he writes all his sexist prejudice down with how it relates to his job, then sends it to a feminist colleague in a work email. You’ve got to laugh at his utter stupidity. Honestly, you couldn’t make it up.

I forgot to say unsolicited email as well, because it’s not even like you’re trying to catch him out. He’s just an idiot.

And what is his role in your company?

I guess the bottom line is ask him "if you didn't know up front whether you were going to be male or female, what would you like society's employment laws to look like?"

This is genius