Gender Discrimination in Hiring

note: this post was split from replies to job ads by asian.consulants looking for teachers and including details like “females preferred” or “FEMALE teacher strongly preferred”.

“females preferred.”

Article 5 of the The Employment Services Act states that the “Employer is prohibited from discriminating against any Job Applicant or Employee on the basis of race, class, language, thought, religion, political party, place of origin, place of birth, gender, gender orientation, age, marital status, appearance, facial features, disability, or past membership in any labor union”

laws.cla.gov.tw/Eng/FLAW/FLAWDOC … 5128&lno=5
and a news article on the law is at:
chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/loca … Taipei.htm

[quote=“WaltzingMatilda”]“females preferred.”

Article 5 of the The Employment Services Act states that the “Employer is prohibited from discriminating against any Job Applicant or Employee on the basis of race, class, language, thought, religion, political party, place of origin, place of birth, gender, gender orientation, age, marital status, appearance, facial features, disability, or past membership in any labor union”

laws.cla.gov.tw/Eng/FLAW/FLAWDOC … 5128&lno=5
and a news article on the law is at:
chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/loca … Taipei.htm[/quote]

If they prefer a female, I’d prefer they state it in the ad, rather than waste my time applying for a job that I won’t get, based on my gender, race, age, marital status, appearance, facial features or disability.

It’s better that the prejudice of the employer is stated in the ad, rather than hidden. It’s more efficient for both employer and employee.

Mind you, I haven’t seen an ad for ‘male preferred’ in any occupation or country for a long time. You’d get into big trouble if you wrote that.

I think in cases where children are involved, most people would consider “female preferred” the default.
In America, males can’t perform certain duties in pre-K or elementary such as changing diapers/getting kids dressed (literally against the law). So of course its a female-preferred field.

It just comes with the occupation.

I’m sure that in construction, if someone saw “male preferred” no one is going to be like “So unfair!”

And OPERATIVE PHRASE: It’s a preference, not a mandate.

even if the preference isn’t listed, how do you know you weren’t discriminated against in your last job application anyways??
In NA, there are all sorts of hiring laws regarding discrimination of all sorts…trust me, even in the great USA you will still be discriminated against in one form or another…wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it…if they don’t hire a great person like you, it’s their loss, right? if they operate like that, you probably wouldn’t like working there anyways…

[quote=“Lili”]I think in cases where children are involved, most people would consider “female preferred” the default.
In America, males can’t perform certain duties in pre-K or elementary such as changing diapers/getting kids dressed (literally against the law). So of course its a female-preferred field.

It just comes with the occupation.[/quote]

I’m very surprised about this. I always thought that the whole basis to US gender equality laws was that an employer can only limit employment by gender if s/he can show that gender is a bona fide occupational qualification necessary to the successful completion of the task - not whether the employer believes the employee “should/shouldn’t” perform the task based upon gender. I would imagine that some school districts have policies whereby males only change the diapers of male students, but I would be very surprised if this were law. Perhaps there are also policies whereby another teacher has to be present when diapers are changed in order to protect both pupil and teacher. The USA isn’t as PC as I’d been led to believe! Do you have any links?

I’ll have to tell this to my mate who thinks that women shouldn’t be pilots because they behave irrationally once a month. That’ll add weight to his argument :laughing: .

You can’t legistlate against discrimination, even if there is discrimination its pretty difficult to prove you were discriminated against. I agree just call it like it is. If they want “watiresses” instead of “Waiters” they should be allowed just say it, because no law is going to change this.

This is such nonsense.

The implication is: “female preferred (because they’re less likely to be paedophiles and more likely to be gentler/kinder/more compassionate than males).”

How about this one then?

“White preferred (because they’re less likely to be thieves, less likely to have diseases and more likely to have IQs over 85 than black people).”

Imagine the absolute shit storm that would go down if someone posted the latter! It would run into hundreds of pages and posters would come out of the woodwork to drop fire on whomever posted such a thing.

Just because there is discrimination here doesn’t mean we should all just accept it. Again, this is the complete hypocrisy of many white people in Asia sometimes. Spineless cunts who don’t really give a fuck about half the human/civil rights abuses they claim to be upset about. I’ve seen them, I’ve worked with them, and they suck. They are the problem because they give legitimacy to the local scumbags who participate in this (and participate in it themselves) instead of calling them on it.

Why does Forumosa even allow people to post such ads on its site, given that it claims to be anti-discriminatory, and also given that such an ad is clearly against the law?

Good point, forumosa has a rule that you cant discuss illegal activity, this probably qualifies! Did you report the post? (:

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]This is such nonsense.

The implication is: “female preferred (because they’re less likely to be paedophiles and more likely to be gentler/kinder/more compassionate than males).”

How about this one then?

“White preferred (because they’re less likely to be thieves, less likely to have diseases and more likely to have IQs over 85 than black people).”

Imagine the absolute shit storm that would go down if someone posted the latter! It would run into hundreds of pages and posters would come out of the woodwork to drop fire on whomever posted such a thing.
[/quote]
I completely disagree with you that a preference for a female in a childcare profession is comparable to racial profiling. I think your statement is incredibly short-sighted and over the top.

Further…

I think that I continue, I will just get another response that completely discredits the reality that YES, WOMEN PREFER WOMEN TOUCHING THEIR KIDS.
REGARDLESS of whether you think its right or wrong/discriminatory.

If I was a mother, I would tell you to go take your self-righteous anti-discriminatory self and stick it up your you know where. (ass)

Any mothers on Forumosa who can comment on whether they’d rather a female taking care of their child. I’m talking about young, young kids btw. Anything younger than 5 or 6.

[quote=“tomthorne”][quote=“Lili”]I think in cases where children are involved, most people would consider “female preferred” the default.
In America, males can’t perform certain duties in pre-K or elementary such as changing diapers/getting kids dressed (literally against the law). So of course its a female-preferred field.

It just comes with the occupation.[/quote]

I’m very surprised about this. I always thought that the whole basis to US gender equality laws was that an employer can only limit employment by gender if s/he can show that gender is a bona fide occupational qualification necessary to the successful completion of the task - not whether the employer believes the employee “should/shouldn’t” perform the task based upon gender. I would imagine that some school districts have policies whereby males only change the diapers of male students, but I would be very surprised if this were law. Perhaps there are also policies whereby another teacher has to be present when diapers are changed in order to protect both pupil and teacher. The USA isn’t as PC as I’d been led to believe! Do you have any links?

I’ll have to tell this to my mate who thinks that women shouldn’t be pilots because they behave irrationally once a month. That’ll add weight to his argument :laughing: .[/quote]
I did a quick google and found this: menteach.org/news/can_an_emp … ge_diapers
Which I suppose means that by Federal Law, no a place cannot “limit” employment opportunities by sex. However, I had a male friend who worked at a Pre-K and he said that it was illegal for him to change diapers. Maybe its New York State law…

continues to google

Lili: Some people would argue that they just don’t want a black person teaching their kids, or that black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote or any of the rest of it. I’m sure they could justify it just the same way you could. So what? It’s still discriminatory. Or how about if I said I wouldn’t want a woman to be an engineer, politician, CEO or any other profession (because women are too irrational)? That’s discriminatory too. The law, equality, etc. isn’t supposed to take into account how someone “feels”. The law is supposed to be impartial and there’s supposed to be one law for everyone. If a person is capable of doing the job and has passed a criminal record check, that should be the end of it and that person should be granted an equal and fair shot at the job.

Are we allowed to say the “B word” or would that lead to a warning from one of the moderators?

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]

Are we allowed to say the “B word” or would that lead to a warning from one of the moderators?[/quote]
No. You are not allowed to say “Bush”. You would be lucky to get away with a warning if you did that. :no-no:

Jenna or Barbara?

[quote=“Lili”]Do you have any links?

I’ll have to tell this to my mate who thinks that women shouldn’t be pilots because they behave irrationally once a month. That’ll add weight to his argument :laughing: .[/quote]
I did a quick google and found this: menteach.org/news/can_an_emp … ge_diapers
Which I suppose means that by Federal Law, no a place cannot “limit” employment opportunities by sex. However, I had a male friend who worked at a Pre-K and he said that it was illegal for him to change diapers. Maybe its New York State law…

continues to google[/quote]

You keep googling, sweetlips. Be careful not to chip your nail varnish :laughing: .

so all that counts is the perspective of the mother? - fucking great! What about men then huh?
I’m a father and I have nothing against men touching my child (in this context, mind you)

GIT’s comparison is valid.

[quote]If I was a mother, I would tell you to go take your self-righteous anti-discriminatory self and stick it up your you know where. (ass) [/quote] Wow makes me think that I don’t want such an aggressive female to touch my kid.
Am I allowed to utter this?

[quote=“Lili”]I completely disagree with you that a preference for a female in a childcare profession is comparable to racial profiling. I think your statement is incredibly short-sighted and over the top.

Further…

I think that I continue, I will just get another response that completely discredits the reality that YES, WOMEN PREFER WOMEN TOUCHING THEIR KIDS.
REGARDLESS of whether you think its right or wrong/discriminatory.

Any mothers on Forumosa who can comment on whether they’d rather a female taking care of their child. I’m talking about young, young kids btw. Anything younger than 5 or 6.[/quote]
Completely disagree. I know for a fact that the mothers of the kids I teach would rather have me (an experienced teacher, who speaks Chinese and who has his own four year old) than you (I’m assuming single, no children, zero Chinese and zilch experience) teaching and looking after their kids.
And it is discriminatory. REGARDLESS of whether you think it is or isn’t. A person should be judged on his or her own merits, not on some arbitrary, close-minded and sexist basis. :2cents:

[quote=“Lili”][quote=“tomthorne”][quote=“Lili”]I think in cases where children are involved, most people would consider “female preferred” the default.
In America, males can’t perform certain duties in pre-K or elementary such as changing diapers/getting kids dressed (literally against the law). So of course its a female-preferred field.

It just comes with the occupation.[/quote]

I’m very surprised about this. I always thought that the whole basis to US gender equality laws was that an employer can only limit employment by gender if s/he can show that gender is a bona fide occupational qualification necessary to the successful completion of the task - not whether the employer believes the employee “should/shouldn’t” perform the task based upon gender. I would imagine that some school districts have policies whereby males only change the diapers of male students, but I would be very surprised if this were law. Perhaps there are also policies whereby another teacher has to be present when diapers are changed in order to protect both pupil and teacher. The USA isn’t as PC as I’d been led to believe! Do you have any links?

I’ll have to tell this to my mate who thinks that women shouldn’t be pilots because they behave irrationally once a month. That’ll add weight to his argument :laughing: .[/quote]
I did a quick google and found this: menteach.org/news/can_an_emp … ge_diapers
Which I suppose means that by Federal Law, no a place cannot “limit” employment opportunities by sex. However, I had a male friend who worked at a Pre-K and he said that it was illegal for him to change diapers. Maybe its New York State law…

continues to google[/quote]
Please bear in mind. This isn’t the USA.

Edit: And some of the worst screamers, shouters, impatient and abusive teachers I’ve encountered here have been females. The “quiet, patient, loving female teacher as a rule” idea is a myth.

Warning: Disturbing content…

female-offenders.com/Safehouse/2 … ren-2.html

Still, it looks like men are alot more likely to be paedophiles than women, though not by as great a margin as many would appear to believe…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile

I’d be surprised too…

health.am/sex/more/pedophilia/

Indeed. A bit rough. I can’t believe people do these things to kids. :fume:

Just sticking my head above the parapet to say that, as a mother, I don’t prefer women touching my children. My eldest attended a hippy dippy creche in Melbourne and the co-ordinator was a great guy called Dwayne (yeah, I know, and he was still a great guy!) Beat the pants off the female carers for kindness, understanding, professionalism, sensitivity, work ethic etc. That experience has coloured my opinion of male carers of young children, and now I’m probably biased the other way in that I prefer them. I think if a man has chosen that profession he must really love it and is probably really good at it. Plus I have all boys and I think it’s good for them to have male care-givers and teachers for a change.

Ducks down again.

You guys will have fun ripping this…

wnd.com/?pageId=13722

…apart.

Enjoy.

.