If you were an employer, would you be more inclined to higher a man over a woman?

I supervise a department of accountants and have had to hire numerous professionals over the years. It really depends on the person. I had to write up two female employees for communication issues just last week, so while you'd think women might be more empathic, not always. Worst hire I ever had was a guy who was just lazy and eventually quit after a couple of months.

Instead of male, female, or specific skill sets I look for fit and certain personality traits: patience, willingness to learn, ability to accept constructive criticism, initiative, and most importantly effective communication.

It never ceases to amaze me how poor even very intelligent people can be at communication. The ability to delegate without sounding like you're pushing off work, to train without sounding condescending, to listen to venting without taking anything personal, etc.

I've got a male and a female with those skills and they are invaluable to me.

 

If they have identical skillets, they should both be able to make a similar omelet.

 

You're missing the point. It's not about the similarity of the omelets....it's about how often they're being made by each person.

 

This is difficult to answer.

I guess it would depend on the job. If I were looking for a front desk person at my office, I would prefer a young attractive female. If I were looking for an accountant, I'd probably prefer a male.

This is all assuming that the applicants are equals.

 

I took nearly 3 months off after the birth of my first son and 6 weeks after the birth of my second. In this day and age, with the FMLA in effect, men can generally take as much time off for a birth as women. Why exactly should that issue affect the different genders differently?

The other stuff, about PMS and such, is just a bunch of misogynist BS. Men have just as much propensity to come into work in a poor mood (hung over, late night, kids kept them up, whatever), PMS is just an excuse to discriminate against women, IMO.

 

Men are still far less likely to take that kind of time off. If for no other reason than usually both parents can't afford to stay at home beyond paid leave, and the woman is the more likely one to stay at home.

Same goes for if a child is sick or needs to go to the doctor, the mother is still more likely to take them.

PMS is pretty bogus to me as well (as far as an excuse for men over women).

 

This is true. And as far as I know there are no US laws requiring that time off to be paid whether it be a male or female. Some US companies choose to pay a subset of the 12 weeks required by FMLA to females only as part of their benefits package. Just want to squash any notion that hiring a female means your company has to pay 3 months of paid time off for the women every time she has a child.

However, no denying that it is more likely/more common for a woman to take time off for the birth of a child. So, I guess there would be a greater chance that you would have to back fill for the women, which could be difficult depending on the job/situation.

 

Some women handle it better than others.

 

I wouldn't hire you for sure...that is if you think you're going to stay home with your wife for 1 1/2 -3 months.

It differs for a few good reasons. The primary reason is that its the woman who had the baby. If you just had a serious body discharge, then I would say you deserve 6 weeks off too. If you had t*** to feed the baby, then I would say you also deserve the time off.

I understand taking the week off for the birth and a day here and there after.

 

I've known some guys that take their 3 months off after their wife's 3 months is up, that way there is a parent at home to take care of the child for 6 months. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

My wife and I have a business and we hire men and women both. Can't say I prefer one over the other -- we've had successes and failures in both genders. Given how important each hire is to our business, it seems pretty dumb to let gender influence the decision; pick the more promising prospect. You can say 'all else being equal' but all else is never equal. Two people could have the same degree from the same school and the same number of years working in the same type of job, but you've still just scratched the surface. They have different personalities and different priorities. You bet on the person you think has the best chance of being good. Maybe it makes sense to pick on gender if you know you're a sexist and will get along better with a man. Otherwise, I can't think of a good reason aside from physically demanding jobs women are not strong enough to perform (at which physical strength is more the criterion than gender -- you wouldn't hire a handicapped person or a dwarf for that job either).

 

Men don't get pregnant and go on leave for a month plus.

 

Where I work they give men 4 weeks of full paid leave following a birth, and women get 8 weeks. None of this counts against your vacation/sick time, which you could use to take even more time off. I took full advantage of it earlier this year and it was awesome.

 

Where do you work? Sounds like my benefits are sub-par! Feel free to shoot an e-mail via my profile! :grin:

 

We did that.

 

I'm at Microsoft.

 

I've worked in a few predominantly female offices in my career, and learned quickly that women in the workplace are far more evil and deviant than your average male. Men, if we don't get alone we just act like the other dude doesn't exist. Women, if they don't get along can do some evil ****.

Of course I'm generalizing here, but even most women I talked to agree that women in the workplace can be far more evil than men.

Disclaimer: I voted no in the poll, it wouldn't keep me hiring women, I am just more aware of how women in the workplace can be.

 

The point is, men CANNOT miss work and use the excuse of being pregnant or having PMS. The reasons you stated above can be used and abused by both genders.

 

I hire based on quotas and affirmative action. Let's say we have five guys who went to MIT and twenty girls who went to Texas State, and there are three positions open. Of course I would pick from the twenty girls in order to fill my quota for the engineering job. I don't discriminate in the workforce; I follow the modern ways of society.

 

Of course you would pick from the 20 girls who went to Texas State. There's an 89% chance that 75% of them are 142% prettier than any girl you've ever talked to outside of the work environment.