Are we all..sexist?

I think the takeaway here should be that this friend of yours is sexist. Assuming a woman got hired because she's "eye candy"? How is THAT not sexist? Reducing women to objects and reducing their achievements so flippantly is just... erhhghg. And how does he know her exact qualifications, anyway? Finally, a lot of the hiring process is decided by the interview, where the interviewer will assess your working style, your energy, etc, and see if you'd be a good fit to their team. It's not all about looking good on paper.

And finally, if these women were hired because they're "eye candy," that's still sexist against women. That means the employer is sexually objectifying them and is not taking them seriously. And it opens a door for some potential sexual harassment down the line.

Just because some guy at a restaurant was courteous to a woman once doesn't mean that we live in some MRA nightmare world.

The women probably got hired because they could pay them less.

Really?

Don't u have equal opportunity laws and award wages that a qualified person has to be paid the same regardless of gender?

Not in the US. Women generally get paid 77 cents to a man's dollar even if they're working the same position, pulling the same hours, outputting the same amount of work, etc. You get the idea. Men get paid more, the end. It's 2014 and yet it hasn't been changed. You'd think we were a developed nation...oh, wait.

Ok.
I am surprised at that.

Is taken for granted in Australia that the same position gets paid the same amount, regardless of gender - is illegal to do otherwise.

Yes, I know average male earnings are still higher than average female earning but this correlates to a range of factors - more women take time out from the workforce to raise children, more women work part time, more women go into lower paid industries etc.
But Women don't get paid less if they are equally qualified and work the same hours in the same job.

Our Government Accountability Office (GAO) continues to report that women still make less, even holding the same jobs (full time and year round). While the reasons you listed are accountable for 60% of the difference there is a good 40% that is unaccounted for and wholly unreasonable. It's also statically proven that the wage gap is higher for women of color (69c for African American women and 58c for Latinas/Hispanics, and again, this is for full-time, year round work). In the USA anyway-- I can't speak for other places.

There are other interesting statistics I've come across (such as that women with children get paid 2.5% less while men with children get paid 2% more (GAO) as some convoluted "boost" and that after our lovely (/sarcasm) recession men were re-employed more frequently (an increase of one million between 2011-2012, whereas the re-employment rate for women remained the same) leaving many women to resort to finding part-time work) but I'd need to check the reports/numbers again before I can officially add those.

Just to quickly add, I hear a lot of people justify the wage gap by pointing out the differences in male-dominant and female-dominant careers, but I never hear anyone mention anything about the fact that female-dominant jobs/careers are underpaid and undervalued which is a problem on its own and only contributes to the gap. Just some food for thought.

This is an interesting video on the wage gap myth, it's amazing that even Obama fell victim to this canard: http://youtu.be/vyFjPHwF6To

Check your facts. The wage gap is a real, documented phenomena, not just some made up *kitten*.

I think the takeaway here should be that this friend of yours is sexist. Assuming a woman got hired because she's "eye candy"? How is THAT not sexist? Reducing women to objects and reducing their achievements so flippantly is just... erhhghg. And how does he know her exact qualifications, anyway? Finally, a lot of the hiring process is decided by the interview, where the interviewer will assess your working style, your energy, etc, and see if you'd be a good fit to their team. It's not all about looking good on paper.

And finally, if these women were hired because they're "eye candy," that's still sexist against women. That means the employer is sexually objectifying them and is not taking them seriously. And it opens a door for some potential sexual harassment down the line.

Just because some guy at a restaurant was courteous to a woman once doesn't mean that we live in some MRA nightmare world.

I wouldn't say it is sexist since it does happen: http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/orsp_shahani-denning_spring03.pdf

OP said her friend had one year experience and her none. His assumption is probable, but without better evidence impossible to determine. Maybe the company has a gender quota. lol

Maybe it's a question of disposition. One year of experience isn't much -- and easily overlooked if somebody has a chip on their shoulder or went to a less prestigious school.

What the other person looks like wouldn't even be an issue if a man had got the position over the OP's friend. That speaks to the type of sexism women face. You are not taken seriously and you are reduced to your look. But LOL she must have got it because her company has a quote. LOL.

No.

Stop.

No.

I think the takeaway here should be that this friend of yours is sexist. Assuming a woman got hired because she's "eye candy"? How is THAT not sexist? Reducing women to objects and reducing their achievements so flippantly is just... erhhghg. And how does he know her exact qualifications, anyway? Finally, a lot of the hiring process is decided by the interview, where the interviewer will assess your working style, your energy, etc, and see if you'd be a good fit to their team. It's not all about looking good on paper.

And finally, if these women were hired because they're "eye candy," that's still sexist against women. That means the employer is sexually objectifying them and is not taking them seriously. And it opens a door for some potential sexual harassment down the line.

Just because some guy at a restaurant was courteous to a woman once doesn't mean that we live in some MRA nightmare world.

I wouldn't say it is sexist since it does happen: http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/orsp_shahani-denning_spring03.pdf

OP said her friend had one year experience and her none. His assumption is probable, but without better evidence impossible to determine. Maybe the company has a gender quota. lol

Maybe it's a question of disposition. One year of experience isn't much -- and easily overlooked if somebody has a chip on their shoulder or went to a less prestigious school.

What the other person looks like wouldn't even be an issue if a man had got the position over the OP's friend. That speaks to the type of sexism women face. You are not taken seriously and you are reduced to your look. But LOL she must have got it because her company has a quote. LOL.

No.

Stop.

No.

Hiring because of beauty is benevolent sexism that hurts men more than women in this scenario, but discriminating because of beauty or lack thereof may not be as gender specific as it seems.

The negative effects of feminism is so steeped into our everyday life that most people can't identify it. Its why men are so feminine and women are so manly. (Oh, no! Gender roles!!!)

What exactly are you trying to say here ...

:huh:

Edit: I was also taking a light stap to those who get angry over gender roles. People who let their children "choose their gender." But... not really the subject.

He's a crybaby.

I see the thread has been going on for a while now, so I may be way to late for people to still be reading... But this type of stuff is my bread and butter so I'll respond.

First... Both sides have their "woes" so technically... yeah, we are all sexist... to the opposite sex to some extent or the other. Just because men and women differ from each other.
Recently, a few of my guy friends told me that I was logical and that most girls weren't logical. It rubbed me the wrong way, because we are both equally logical just in different areas.

With that said, I believe that women get away with being more sexist than men because its generally more accepted in our society. Turn on the TV and watch any sitcom or movie and you will find men being treated as idiots and women as super intellects. Men are put down way more than women and women throw a fit when the tables are turned. Its like the saying "Men should never hit a woman... even if a woman hits him." Thats dumb. No one needs to be hitting period. HUGE double standard.

The negative effects of feminism is so steeped into our everyday life that most people can't identify it. Its why men are so feminine and women are so manly. (Oh, no! Gender roles!!!)

The negative effects of feminism is so steeped into our everyday life that most people can't identify it. Its why men are so feminine and women are so manly. (Oh, no! Gender roles!!!)

What exactly are you trying to say here ...

:huh:

Feminism is steeped into our everyday life....?

Feminism is broad term that means different things to different people. You're saying things and not really explaining what you mean, just assuming that people have them same understanding that you do. So this reply is equally vague.

The idea that men shouldn't hit women, but it's ok for women to hit men isn't because FEMINISM! It's because women have traditionally been viewed as the weaker sex -- fragile.