What's with women and HR (bloody ridiculous)

Frank101

It's seems women get to be the judge of a lot of things in this life. And with over 90% of women in HR, it's no surprise. You'd have to wonder is their screening process biased.

I remember being interviewed by two women once. One was probably a year younger than me, she seemed so naive and gave me a handshake like a robot. The other probably in her 30s. The first question was 'tell me about yourself?' I, like a lot of people, didn't really know where to start, so at one point I remember stopping myself in order to try and address the question better. A slight moment of dead air, and as I looked across the table, they were both looking at each other with a smile. I didn't make me feel good. I had no choice but to still give 100% effort, just in case, was something that irked me.

You'd have to wonder, is it human nature, for women to be more inclined to choose a man that is more charming or witty during the interview than one that isn't. This job was for a lab technician! What also annoyed me, was that 5 weeks later, when I asked if there was any decision, I was told that they were still deciding (instead of just informing me I hadn't got it). The envelope came about a week later, so late that it interrupted the holiday plans I had.

I'm definitely having no luck with the ladies at the moment, both in bars, and in interviews! And there's likely a correlation between the two!

silverharp

Ive conducted interviews with a HR person present , I have never heard of a HR only interview unless they are doing a big screening? Maybe avoid interviews where there wont be a technical person present , normally there is which ideally should be the manager, after all you are interviewing them too.

Flippyfloppy

I really doubt 90% of women are in HR

JeffKenna

Frank101 wrote: »

The first question was 'tell me about yourself?' I, like a lot of people, didn't really know where to start, so at one point I remember stopping myself in order to try and address the question better.

This is your real problem, not HR. Anyone going for an interview should have an answer to this, very commonly asked question ready to go.

SarahMollie

Frank101 wrote: »

I'm definitely having no luck with the ladies at the moment, both in bars, and in interviews! And there's likely a correlation between the two!

Yeah, maybe its you!

Frank, honestly coming online to create a women bashing thread isnt really painting you in the best light.

jimgoose

In my experience it is quite common to have separate HR and "technical" interviews during the whole New Job rigmarole. The HR interview is, in simple terms, to verify that you a) are human, b) can dress yourself appropriately when leaving the house c) can speak and act in a manner most would regard as "normal". A majority of HR people I've encountered are women, but I wouldn't say anywhere in the vicinity of 90%.

mzungu

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I really doubt 90% of women are in HR

91% in Israel, according to Google. No idea about the rest of the world though.

Frank101 wrote: »

I remember being interviewed by two women once. One was probably a year younger than me, she seemed so naive and gave me a handshake like a robot. The other probably in her 30s. The first question was 'tell me about yourself?' I, like a lot of people, didn't really know where to start, so at one point I remember stopping myself in order to try and address the question better. A slight moment of dead air, and as I looked across the table, they were both looking at each other with a smile. I didn't make me feel good. I had no choice but to still give 100% effort, just in case, was something that irked me.

I'm not sure what the problem is here? It might just have been an attempt to destress the situation for all parties in the room.

Carlos Orange

OSI wrote: »

It's human nature full stop. If I'm interviewing someone for a job, I'd want them to be outgoing, approachable and friendly. They'll need to integrate into a team and inevitably someone that is charming is going to fit that mould a lot easier.

Why would a charming extrovert integrate better with a team of introverts?

ancapailldorcha

Frank101 wrote: »

You'd have to wonder, is it human nature, for women to be more inclined to choose a man that is more charming or witty during the interview than one that isn't. This job was for a lab technician! What also annoyed me, was that 5 weeks later, when I asked if there was any decision, I was told that they were still deciding (instead of just informing me I hadn't got it). The envelope came about a week later, so late that it interrupted the holiday plans I had.!

Well, I recently got a job in London. The interview involved a chat with the HR lady and then with an all-female interview panel. I think putting it down to gender is a bit of a cop out to be honest.

smacl

OSI wrote: »

You'd want to be some spoon to hire a team of introverts and expect them to be productive as a team.

Depends on the job. Thirty two years in the software industry and I've seen some very unusual teams achieve some impressive results. Being able communicate effectively is a must, but there's more to that than being an extrovert.

Letree

OSI wrote: »

You'd want to be some spoon to hire a team of introverts and expect them to be productive as a team.

Human nature being what it is in a group of shy people the least shy and introverted will become a bit more extrovert. You could put an extrovert in a room with massive extroverts and the former becomes introvert. You see that sort of dynamic is all sorts of groups.

livedadream

Here are the numbers, according to 2014 statistics from the US Department of Labor:

Although 76% of HR Managers are women, male HR Managers earn 40% more than their female counterparts. Female HR Managers hold an average median weekly salary of $1,300 compared to $1,827 for male HR Managers. That is $527 less a week, or $27,404 less a year.

Similarly, in the HR Worker category, men earn 38% more than women. Female HR Workers hold an average median weekly salary of $912 compared to $1,257 for men. That is $345 less a week, or $17,940 a year. It is also interesting to note that male HR Workers are earning almost the same average weekly median salaries as females holding the more senior HR Manager role.

Finally, in HR Executive’s “HR’s Elite: Class of 2013” list, printed in September 2014, only 11 of the 50 top earning HR leaders were women.

yeah its really tough out there for a man. these days

Frank101

livedadream wrote: »

Here are the numbers, according to 2014 statistics from the US Department of Labor:

Although 76% of HR Managers are women, male HR Managers earn 40% more than their female counterparts. Female HR Managers hold an average median weekly salary of $1,300 compared to $1,827 for male HR Managers. That is $527 less a week, or $27,404 less a year.

Similarly, in the HR Worker category, men earn 38% more than women. Female HR Workers hold an average median weekly salary of $912 compared to $1,257 for men. That is $345 less a week, or $17,940 a year. It is also interesting to note that male HR Workers are earning almost the same average weekly median salaries as females holding the more senior HR Manager role.

Finally, in HR Executive’s “HR’s Elite: Class of 2013” list, printed in September 2014, only 11 of the 50 top earning HR leaders were women.

yeah its really tough out there for a man. these days

That's probably because most of those men originally trained as scientists, engineers or accountants (or whatever the company does), and then moved into HR. In fact my father would fit into that bracket.

runawaybishop

livedadream wrote: »

Here are the numbers, according to 2014 statistics from the US Department of Labor:

Although 76% of HR Managers are women, male HR Managers earn 40% more than their female counterparts. Female HR Managers hold an average median weekly salary of $1,300 compared to $1,827 for male HR Managers. That is $527 less a week, or $27,404 less a year.

Similarly, in the HR Worker category, men earn 38% more than women. Female HR Workers hold an average median weekly salary of $912 compared to $1,257 for men. That is $345 less a week, or $17,940 a year. It is also interesting to note that male HR Workers are earning almost the same average weekly median salaries as females holding the more senior HR Manager role.

Finally, in HR Executive’s “HR’s Elite: Class of 2013” list, printed in September 2014, only 11 of the 50 top earning HR leaders were women.

yeah its really tough out there for a man. these days

Ah yes, the gender wage gap

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

livedadream

Frank101 wrote: »

That's probably because most of those men originally trained in as a scientist, engineer accountant (or whatever the company does), and then moved into HR. In fact my father would fit into that bracket.

or because women are unpaid in almost every sector or employment maybe?

endacl

Sure if it wasn't HR, it'd be PR. Definitely one of the Rs.

Pawwed Rig

Reopened after feedback.

No sexism please.

livedadream

Frank101 wrote: »

. And with over 90% of women in HR,

didnt actually notice this the first time, 90% of women on the planet work in HR jesus who's making the dinners and the babies? :eek::eek:

do you perhaps mean, hr is female dominated, that 90% of the humans working in HR are female?

either way your wrong but just an observation.

CalamariFritti

? I'm entering a perfectly normal reply and I'm getting 'You have been blocked from boards.ie'??? Never seen this before...

H3llR4iser

No, this isn't the way to go about these type of threads.

If this was a woman complaining about being interviewed by a male-only panel, not getting the job and claiming it was about another candidate being prettier or wearing a shorter skirt, it would have been given serious thought.

The attitude that "there's nothing wrong, you are the problem" explains nothing and does nothing to help the OP. His concerns NEED to be addressed seriously and not brushed under the carpet IF we want these to stop occurring.

Frank, it looks to me that you are looking at the issue from an incorrect perspective. It happens to a lot of men, more often than they care to admit - especially the ones who enjoy, permanently or temporarily, a less than ideal amount of success with women.

Basically, and please don't take this as any kind of offense, you may have experienced some very bad situation from one or more women - such as being belittled, ridiculed or generally not being "taken seriously" due to them deeming you not attractive enough, not charming or just not appealing. I have personally experienced that when I was younger, a lot of times

This situation, however, is different. Don't let your prejudice fool you into thinking a job interview to be the same as an approach in the pub when it involves women, because it isn't. Those HR professionals weren't judging you as a man, but as a resource - as cold as it sounds, it's their job. It's most likely that any "odd" interaction you have detected might be misinterpreded by your own expectation for the worse.

The two people who interviewed you were trained professionals with a specific goal set by their own employer (i.e. to screen candidates for a specific position) and, while indeed they were also women, the latter is most likely largely inconsequential to the outcome of the interview. The fact is, they have all the interest in the world not to let any "personal preferences" to get in the way, because hiring the wrong candidate can and does often have an absolutely enormous financial and logistical impact on a company; This impact would ultimately affect whomever made or contributed to the decision of hiring such person.

So, if your application was ultimately rejected, it is because it was deemed that you as a WORKER aren't an ideal fit for that company/position at this point in time. It has, 99.99% guaranteed, nothing to do with you as a person/man

Just relax for the future and remember, regardless of the interviewers being boys or girls, that what they are ultimately interested about is you as "Employee Frank"! Hope this can help!

Letree

livedadream wrote: »

or because women are unpaid in almost every sector or employment maybe?

If that was really the case then why employ men at all when the company could hire women cheaper.

mzungu

Letree wrote: »

If that was really the case then why employ men at all when the company could hire women cheaper.

How about -17% cheaper? :pac::pac::pac:

SarahMollie

H3llR4iser wrote: »

No, this isn't the way to go about these type of threads.

If this was a woman complaining about being interviewed by a male-only panel, not getting the job and claiming it was about another candidate being prettier or wearing a shorter skirt, it would have been given serious thought.

The attitude that "there's nothing wrong, you are the problem" explains nothing and does nothing to help the OP. His concerns NEED to be addressed seriously and not brushed under the carpet IF we want these to stop occurring.

Actually, I have to take issue with this. The OP doesnt read like a person asking for help, it reads like a man with a chip on his shoulder ranting about women, because, all women are the same, and all out to get him, etc, etc.

Telling him to examine his own actions and viewpoints is good advice as far as I can see. He comes across as really sexist in not just his OP but in the subsequent post also.

If that attitude comes through in person, then I wouldnt hire him either. (And before anyone asks, I'm female and amazingly enough don't work in HR, but I do interview for new members of my team.)

Carlos Orange

Letree wrote: »

If that was really the case then why employ men at all when the company could hire women cheaper.

The gender pay gap in Ireland for women with no children is -17% i.e. women with no children make 17% more than men with no children (or possibly men in general, my source isn't too clear).

H3llR4iser

SarahMollie wrote: »

Actually, I have to take issue with this. The OP doesnt read like a person asking for help, it reads like a man with a chip on his shoulder ranting about women, because, all women are the same, and all out to get him, etc, etc.

Telling him to examine his own actions and viewpoints is good advice as far as I can see. He comes across as really sexist in not just his OP but in the subsequent post also.

If that attitude comes through in person, then I wouldnt hire him either. (And before anyone asks, I'm female and amazingly enough don't work in HR, but I do interview for new members of my team.)

Sarah, people have told him nothing but "you are the problem"; He's been shut down with not-so-thinly veiled accusations of being a misogynist based on one message about one experience; zero insight has been offered about how and why he most likely is getting the wrong idea - what instead I tried to do.

This happens all the time when these threads appear; People get frustrated and vent every now and then. If they find themselves get jumped on, shouted down and having "statistic" rammed down their throats, it does absolutely nothing to dispel the their prejudice - it will instead reinforce their view.

If I had, say, a prejudice about Italians being hot tempered, went to Italy and asked in a public place about it, and got shouted at by an angry mob because "it's not true!" and "I'm not like that!", what does it do for my initial thought? It tells me I was right.

Also, please people, do not take everything to the letter - it is clear that the meaning of that 90% is about 90% of HR being women, rather than 90% of women being HR, and it was just a less-than-exemplary sentence construct.

Frank101

SarahMollie wrote: »

The OP doesnt read like a person asking for help

That'd make for a boring thread

SarahMollie wrote: »

If that attitude comes through in person, then I wouldnt hire him either.

Now a comment like that is just TYPICAL. How stupid could one be to let that side of them show during an interview (regardless of the fact that it's not even true).

Obviously I'm not stupid enough to think all women are out to get me. I just said I'd raise a point that probably hasn't been raised before.

kunst nugget

SarahMollie wrote: »

Actually, I have to take issue with this. The OP doesnt read like a person asking for help, it reads like a man with a chip on his shoulder ranting about women, because, all women are the same, and all out to get him, etc, etc.

Telling him to examine his own actions and viewpoints is good advice as far as I can see. He comes across as really sexist in not just his OP but in the subsequent post also.

If that attitude comes through in person, then I wouldnt hire him either. (And before anyone asks, I'm female and amazingly enough don't work in HR, but I do interview for new members of my team.)

Considering his 'good man' thread, I'd imagine our Frank, good man, is an equal opportunities misanthrope. Don't worry, the chip in his shoulder is all-inclusive.

livedadream

Letree wrote: »

If that was really the case then why employ men at all when the company could hire women cheaper.

sorry, have you actually just tired to claim that the gender pay gap doesnt exist?

are you on drugs?

the European Commission
PWC
JP Morgan

have all done studies proving it exisits.

hold on are you one of those people that believe we didnt land on the moon? that elvis and 2pac are working in McDonalds in Texas and that the grassy knoll shooter was CIA?

simple figures: For the economy as a whole, in 2014, women's gross hourly earnings were on average 16.1 % below those of men in the European Union (EU-28) and 16.5% in the euro area (EA-18). Across Member States, the gender pay gap varied by 25.4 percentage points, ranging from 2.9 % in Slovenia to 28.3 % in Estonia.

like im all for people saying men are better at some things etc etc the usual equal but different. but trying to say something as serious as the gender pay gap doesnt exist is just riduclious...

Pawwed Rig

Have you Irish figures? Alot of eastern europe has very traditional expectations of men and women. Women's Aid (I think it was) claimed (based on studies) that pre children women earn 17% more than men in Ireland.

livedadream

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Have you Irish figures? Alot of eastern europe has very traditional expectations of men and women. Women's Aid (I think it was) claimed (based on studies) that pre children women earn 17% more than men in Ireland.

The Gender Pay Gap measures the relative difference in the average gross hourly earnings of men and women as a whole. The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men.

handly little factsheet that if you googled something as simple and basic as gender paygap ireland comes up
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/gender_pay_gap/gpg_country_factsheet_ie_2015_en.pdf


fun fact:
Management and supervisory positions are overwhelmingly
held by men. Within each sector men are more often promoted
than women, and paid better as a consequence. This trend
culminates at the very top, where amongst CEOs less than
4 % are women.

tomwaterford

livedadream wrote: »

The Gender Pay Gap measures the relative difference in the average gross hourly earnings of men and women as a whole. The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men.

handly little factsheet that if you googled something as simple and basic as gender paygap ireland comes up
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/gender_pay_gap/gpg_country_factsheet_ie_2015_en.pdf


fun fact:
Management and supervisory positions are overwhelmingly
held by men. Within each sector men are more often promoted
than women, and paid better as a consequence. This trend
culminates at the very top, where amongst CEOs less than
4 % are women.

Any figures for under age of 35?

I doubt they are anywhere near as skewed as that

Pawwed Rig

You are ignoring a tonne of reasons for these disparities. Men being expected to work longer hours for example. In addition government policy actively preventing men taking roles as carers for children.
If you look at remuneration v output you will find that your figures are based largely on assumptions that bear little relevance to the realities of the modern workplace.

livedadream

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Have you Irish figures? Alot of eastern europe has very traditional expectations of men and women. Women's Aid (I think it was) claimed (based on studies) that pre children women earn 17% more than men in Ireland.

tomwaterford wrote: »

Any figures for under age of 35?

I doubt they are anywhere near as skewed as that

jesus does it matter, the gender pay gap is real, its not some sudo man hating feminist speil. its a real thing.

does it matter if its EU wide of Ireland specific?
does it matter if it effects younger or older women?

do some research, ask the women who work with you, your female friends, ask your Hr reps to do a review and see what comes about of it, look at the morgan mckinley salary survey and compare it to your wage and then the women around you.


if it was the other way around there would be holy war over it.

Frank101

Frank101 wrote: »

..........What also annoyed me, was that 5 weeks later, when I asked if there was any decision, I was told that they were still deciding (instead of just informing me I hadn't got it). The envelope came about a week later, so late that it interrupted the holiday plans I had...........

A PFO letter interrupted holiday plans?

mzungu

http://www.nwci.ie/?/discover/what_we_do/womens_economic_independence/women_and_employment/gender_pay_gap/

Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points. The gender pay gap exists across the sectors.

Women with no children earn more than men. The gap exists where a decision is made to start a family, usually at age 30 or over.

livedadream

mzungu wrote: »

http://www.nwci.ie/?/discover/what_we_do/womens_economic_independence/women_and_employment/gender_pay_gap/

Women with no children earn more than men. The gap exists where a decision is made to start a family, usually at age 30 or over.

no it doesnt women without children do not earn more than men.

i agree that the gonvernment does not encourage equal shar eof childcare but the fact of the matter is women are penalised for reproducing and men are not.

tomwaterford

livedadream wrote: »

jesus does it matter, the gender pay gap is real, its not some sudo man hating feminist speil. its a real thing.

does it matter if its EU wide of Ireland specific?
does it matter if it effects younger or older women?

do some research, ask the women who work with you, your female friends, ask your Hr reps to do a review and see what comes about of it, look at the morgan mckinley salary survey and compare it to your wage and then the women around you.


if it was the other way around there would be holy war over it.

Emm....it deos matter on the age imo


The whole CEOs thing and of senior management levels come from a time
when there was more inequality...

..but I'd be fcuked if there's any wans my age what are treated unequal on basis of gender....that tjinking went out 20 odd years ago....and hence why the levels skewed at senior management and ceos??


Itll all come to proper equality naturally as the older generations (good bit over 35s??) retire/die off

mzungu

livedadream wrote: »

no it doesnt women without children do not earn more than men.

your link agrees with me mate. if your going to link to stuff at least read it no where on that does it say women without children earn more than men.

Read it again

Pawwed Rig

livedadream wrote: »

jesus does it matter, the gender pay gap is real, its not some sudo man hating feminist speil. its a real thing.

Of course it bloody matters. If I am expected to work harder and longer and sacrifice my relationship with my own children then damn right I expect to be paid more than someone who doesn't have to do these things.
And of course an Irish study is more relevant.

mzungu

livedadream wrote: »

no it doesnt women without children do not earn more than men.

your link agrees with me mate. if your going to link to stuff at least read it no where on that does it say women without children earn more than men.

the link you posted says:

Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points.

A women with no children earns -17% more than a man. Yes.

livedadream

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Of course it bloody matters. If I am expected to work harder and longer and sacrifice my relationship with my owb childreb then dam right I expect to be paid more than someone who doesn't have to do things.
And of course an Irish study is more relevant.

okay im out, i earn more than the men i work with because im better at my job then them.

is that discrimination no. its fact.

im not going to sit here and argue with people who think the gender pay gap is either made up, or that its fair.

there are studies and action to prevent it for a reason.

enjoy your gentlemens club lads is seriously lacking any actual gentlemen.

livedadream

mzungu wrote: »

A women with no children earns -17% more than a man. Yes.

ive edited the post before you linked too it.

chillax

livedadream

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Of course it bloody matters. If I am expected to work harder and longer and sacrifice my relationship with my owb children then damn right I expect to be paid more than someone who doesn't have to do these things.
And of course an Irish study is more relevant.

then make the some choice women make and dont have kids. your choice mate.

Wibbs

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If you look at remuneration v output you will find that your figures are based largely on assumptions that bear little relevance to the realities of the modern workplace.

Exactly. The "pay gap" is a pillar of modern feminism that really doesn't bear much scrutiny. Indeed when Irish government statistics are looked at by no less an august body than the National Women's council of Ireland's report

The salient part is;

The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men.
In the Irish context, what is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points. The gender pay gap exists across the sectors.
For the bottom 10% of earners, the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 4% but this rises to 24.6% for the top 10% of income earners, suggesting the continued presence of a glass ceiling and indirect discrimination.

Emphasis mine, because of their slithery and dishonest tactics to promote the Holy Gospel of Victimhood. Women with no kids get paid nearly 20% more than equivalent men. Funny how they don't directly mention that, and hide it as a minus. This is designed to confuse as it clearly has with livedadream. Makes sense too and as they note more women than men graduate second and third level and that gap is increasing. No bra burning over that mind you.

As I said before when this has come up: The addition of children complicates things. Women who chose to have a child earlier in adulthood are more likely to forgo third level so job opportunities are going to be less. They're still seen and act as the primary carers so time constraints will impact a career at any stage, but especially at the start of a career.

What I would like to see are the stats for say 30 to 35 year old women without children compared to men of of the same age range. I'll bet the farm the so called "paygap" and "glass ceiling" doesn't exist and indeed it seems goes the other way.

As for the "paygap" at the top? Similar things going on. More women are going to dial back when they start a family, many in my experience all too willingly, so that will impact their final earning potential. Secondly men, or more men than women are risk takers, rasher and adrenaline junkies(scientifically provable) and that mindset is more likely to be entrepreneurial, more likely to start their own business, or drive harder within a career for longer. They're also more likely to be obsessive and singular. A better stat to look at would be to compare like with like, IE compare men entrepreneurs with women entrepreneurs. Again I'll bet the farm their earnings are about equal.

As usual we have the case of comparing "average women" with an "elite". However if one was to compare the "average man" with the same elite they would find themselves lower than the "average woman". At least 17% lower it seems.

And as Letree points out if women were so much cheaper and would work the same hours at the same level of expertise/qualifications why would companies hire men at all? It would make poor business sense to do so. Never mind that they're on average less likely to strike and/or complain. Of course there's little clamour from third wave feminists when it comes to the dirty jobs men do. The dangerous jobs that often pay well, but death and injury are real concerns. Over ninety five percent of workplace deaths are men.

Take another example from corporate America. Asian Americans are paid on average more than European Americans. Are the feminists suggesting that this means corporate America is anti White America? Get off the stage.

Oh and not so long ago the feminist dogma included an "education gap" and some still cling to that wreckage even when it's beyond clear that women are more likely to finish second and third level and are more likely to have a degree.

Frank101

livedadream wrote: »

sorry, have you actually just tired to claim that the gender pay gap doesnt exist?

are you on drugs?

the European Commission
PWC
JP Morgan

have all done studies proving it exisits.

hold on are you one of those people that believe we didnt land on the moon? that elvis and 2pac are working in McDonalds in Texas and that the grassy knoll shooter was CIA?

simple figures: For the economy as a whole, in 2014, women's gross hourly earnings were on average 16.1 % below those of men in the European Union (EU-28) and 16.5% in the euro area (EA-18). Across Member States, the gender pay gap varied by 25.4 percentage points, ranging from 2.9 % in Slovenia to 28.3 % in Estonia.

like im all for people saying men are better at some things etc etc the usual equal but different. but trying to say something as serious as the gender pay gap doesnt exist is just riduclious...

He was trying to imply that there's a reason they're willing to pay men more, not that it doesn't exist.

For example, a Mexican would get job before me, as I wouldn't be willing to work for €2/hr. But that example isn't analogous to women/men.

Wigglepuppy

Frank101 wrote: »

It's seems women get to be the judge of a lot of things in this life. And with over 90% of women in HR, it's no surprise. You'd have to wonder is their screening process biased.

I remember being interviewed by two women once. One was probably a year younger than me, she seemed so naive and gave me a handshake like a robot. The other probably in her 30s. The first question was 'tell me about yourself?' I, like a lot of people, didn't really know where to start, so at one point I remember stopping myself in order to try and address the question better. A slight moment of dead air, and as I looked across the table, they were both looking at each other with a smile. I didn't make me feel good. I had no choice but to still give 100% effort, just in case, was something that irked me.

You'd have to wonder, is it human nature, for women to be more inclined to choose a man that is more charming or witty during the interview than one that isn't. This job was for a lab technician! What also annoyed me, was that 5 weeks later, when I asked if there was any decision, I was told that they were still deciding (instead of just informing me I hadn't got it). The envelope came about a week later, so late that it interrupted the holiday plans I had.

I'm definitely having no luck with the ladies at the moment, both in bars, and in interviews! And there's likely a correlation between the two!

How can you expect women to like you with that attitude towards them? How come other guys don't share the same experiences as you with women? (And they're not all really good-looking or cocky "bad boys").
Do you mean over 90% of people in HR are women maybe?

But anyway, the gender pay gap is a myth - men and women are paid the same wages. Are people seriously saying companies are paying for particular roles according to whether the candidates are male or female? Because that would get a company into a hell of a lot of trouble. Women on average earn less then men because of the types of jobs they go for and because of maternity leave. It's a very misleading claim.

Wibbs

livedadream wrote: »

okay im out, i earn more than the men i work with because im better at my job then them.

is that discrimination no. its fact.

So why would you take issue with men earning more for the same reasons?

im not going to sit here and argue with people who think the gender pay gap is either made up, or that its fair.

there are studies and action to prevent it for a reason.

That's the wrong question(s) to ask. The pay gap, like the "1 in 4/5/6(depending on the weather) women have been sexually assaulted is an extremely shaky feminist concept based on extremely shaky logic and "studies".

enjoy your gentlemens club lads is seriously lacking any actual gentlemen.

*toys out of pram* You could have suggested we were lacking in the trouser dept too. Or live in basements. Wide choice of such comebacks when your ability to debate falters and you fall back on digs.

Oh and how do you define a "gentleman"? It really appears to be "man who agrees I'm right". Eh no.

Wibbs

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

Women on average earn less then men because of the types of jobs they go for and because of maternity leave. It's a very misleading claim.

True, except in Ireland today women on average earn more than men on average if they have no kids, regardless of these job choices. And given that the education gap is widening that is likely to continue to widen too. And we'll still hear witterings about the pay gap.

Frank101

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

How can you expect women to like you with that attitude towards them? How come other guys don't share the experiences as you with women (and they're not all really good-looking or cocky "bad boys").

Once again, boards.ie is the only place I've shown that attitude. It's not like I go out to bars and clubs with a sour puss on me while thinking about this. Don't bother going down that road. I said I'd put the thought out there to see what people say. I didn't say I was right.

Wigglepuppy

Wibbs wrote: »

True, except in Ireland today women on average earn more than men on average if they have no kids, regardless of these job choices. And given that the education gap is widening that is likely to continue to widen too. And we'll still hear witterings about the pay gap.

Oh I wasn't contradicting anything about women earning more (didn't know that) just giving reasons why there is a perceived gap where women are paid less.

Frank101 wrote: »

Once again, boards.ie is the only place I've shown that attitude. It's not like I go out to bars and clubs with a sour puss on me while thinking about this. Don't bother going down that road. I said I'd put the thought out there to see what people say. I didn't say I was right.

Fair enough - nothing wrong with giving information about your experiences, but being critical of women as a whole is not the way to go about it; it's no better than being critical of men as a whole.

jimgoose

Wibbs wrote: »

...Oh and how do you define a "gentleman"? It really appears to be "man who agrees I'm right". Eh no.

A Gentleman is someone who will debate your position vigorously, vehemently and occasionally robustly, ideally over a snifter of Courvoisier, and defend, with a flintlock, your right to argue that position. He is not a lickspittle nodding-dog who'll agree with everything you say like a nineteen-year-old trying to Go Ugly Early.