Girls cry says Nobel Prize winning British scientist

[Michael Hardner]

All women tellers, except one where I am some days, others it's all women. Mixed bank management and mortgage people.though.

Hal pointed out that it's that way where he is. I live in Toronto, and that hasn't been my experience for years.

[Black Dog]

I think what he is getting at is the dynamics of the work environment when 2 people start to bring extra emotions into their work. Most places don't matter, but some do. And, it's his opinion that in the world of science where every decision must be based on factual evidence, this can become a problem.

We all know (or should know) that couples in the workplace sometimes causes problems in the decision making process, and most times it's little more than an uncomfortable situation and people for the most part can get over it. When one of those people is the boss, it can lead to decisions based solely on personal reasons rather than business reasons. We can extend that thought process to any sort of nepotism as well.

That was one part of his comments, the part that was the least controversial IMO. In any environment where hetero men and hetero women work side by side comes with the risk of emotional entanglements that could compromise the work environment. That's relatively uncontroversial.

The part that really got him in trouble was his idea that you can't criticize women because they'll cry if you do, which compromises the work because you don't want to hurt their feelings. As I said before, this is grounded in some very antiquated and frankly sexist ideas about women and emotions that have no bearing in reality. That was the issue and the primary source of outrage.

[cybercoma]

Someone should ask him his position on gay men in labs falling in love and crying.

[Canada_First]

Hal pointed out that it's that way where he is. I live in Toronto, and that hasn't been my experience for years.

Oh. You have mostly women tellers and banking people where you live Michael?

[Michael Hardner]

Oh. You have mostly women tellers and banking people where you live Michael?

No - the opposite I said.

[Canada_First]

No - the opposite I said.

Ah, ok. In banks closest to you, you have mostly men working there.

[Bonam]

People still go in person to bank branches?

[WestCoastRunner]

Why are we even discussing the ratio of male tellers vs female tellers. It seems to be about equal to me whenever I visit a branch and the opportunities are equal for further promotion. I see just as many female tellers as male tellers and they are both on their personal career path to managers in that branch.

[Michael Hardner]

Why are we even discussing the ratio of male tellers vs female tellers.

The assertion that there are/were "male" and "female" dominant workplaces turns out to be true, but not a permanent thing. Clearly you and I live in cities where there is a mix, which shows that things are changing.

I feel that one can even leave their personal morality out of it, to a degree, and just observe that gender segregation is an old idea.

[Big Guy]

I do not believe that women get an equal chance at promotion and employment. In most cases where they have the advantage is in areas and workplaces which adhere to equity and quota programs.

I believe that in small private business they are at a disadvantage. In private and less regulated employment areas the employer will hire the male over the female because of the possibility that the female will be having children and create employment disruption in the workplace. Before you feminists blow a gasket, I know, I know - that this practice is immoral and may be illegal in some areas but it does exist in many workplaces.

For many people their priority is to feed their families and to run successful and profitable businesses. Their priority is not to fill some kind of politically correct or current equity trends at the cost of profits from their business. With mandated maternity leave conditions the employer has to suffer (absorb the cost) of disruptions due to mandated rights of pregnant mothers.

I know that if I was given the choice between two young people, one recently married male and one recently married female, equally qualified for a position, I would choose the male and avoid the possibility of a series of temporary replacement workers due to one of my permanent employees taking periodic maternity leaves. Some people may not like that but too bad - I have no obligation to try to maintain arbitrary artificial equity targets set by well meaning social architects.

[cybercoma]

I do not believe that women get an equal chance at promotion and employment.

What you believe doesn't matter. The observable statistics say otherwise.

[WestCoastRunner]

I do not believe that women get an equal chance at promotion and employment. In most cases where they have the advantage is in areas and workplaces which adhere to equity and quota programs.

I believe that in small private business they are at a disadvantage. In private and less regulated employment areas the employer will hire the male over the female because of the possibility that the female will be having children and create employment disruption in the workplace. Before you feminists blow a gasket, I know, I know - that this practice is immoral and may be illegal in some areas but it does exist in many workplaces.

For many people their priority is to feed their families and to run successful and profitable businesses. Their priority is not to fill some kind of politically correct or current equity trends at the cost of profits from their business. With mandated maternity leave conditions the employer has to suffer (absorb the cost) of disruptions due to mandated rights of pregnant mothers.

I know that if I was given the choice between two young people, one recently married male and one recently married female, equally qualified for a position, I would choose the male and avoid the possibility of a series of temporary replacement workers due to one of my permanent employees taking periodic maternity leaves. Some people may not like that but too bad - I have no obligation to try to maintain arbitrary artificial equity targets set by well meaning social architects.

You do realize your post smacks of ageism. Plenty of women in the workforce are past the childbearing age. In 2012 individuals in the age range of 45-74 represented 71% of the workforce.

And of course you can do whatever you want. You are only obligated to do what you feel is right And just.

Edited June 17, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[Civis Romanus sum]

I do not believe that women get an equal chance at promotion and employment.

Why should they? Women are not equal to men, never have been, never will be. Women are physically weaker, and cannot do physical jobs as well as men. The are not leaders. Women are not risk takers. Women are nurturers. When women are in leadership positions they either act like nagging mommies or just follow policies and regulations. They don't inspire loyalty, don't have leadership skills, and rarely ever think outside the box or initiate new ideas. They are also highly emotional, play favourites and make enemies much more easily than men. And most of the people they are enemies with are other women, because instinctive they see other women as threats to them. Women are more educated than they were 50,000 years ago, but are still guided by the same emotions they had when living in caves. In the entire history of Canada there have been very few female politicians of any note or ability. There are none on the political landscape today.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[Michael Hardner]

I don't agree with your opinion at all. It's pretty much classic sexism but you have couched in in your own perspective so unless you post some facts there isn't much to say here.

[Big Guy]

My understanding is that the physical requirement for most jobs has changed with the advent of technology. Most larger jobs are now done with delicate computerized machines which require a sensitive and gentle touch - one more associated with a smaller and thinner hands. Many of the preconceptions of the frailty of women has been proven to be incorrect as are the assumptions of a different generic emotional profile. The worst thing that has happened to them is gender quotas and affirmative action.

[Civis Romanus sum]

My understanding is that the physical requirement for most jobs has changed with the advent of technology

Yes certainly. Farming used to be back breaking work. Now there is all kinds of machinery to help. Still and all, there are times when a farmer needs his strength to lift and carry and control powerful equipment. Most of the building trades still need a lot of strength, too, as do jobs like police, fire and soldier. Women 'can' do it, but not as well as men. All these are dominated by men because of the need for strength. Teaching and nursing are dominated by women because those are nurturing professions.

Many of the preconceptions of the frailty of women has been proven to be incorrect as are the assumptions of a different generic emotional profile.

I disagree. Women are more emotional, more prone to panic, more prone to crying and breakdowns. Whenever some awful accident happens, you'll see the men rushing forward to help, not the women. Women run away from perceived danger. Men take charge of things. Women form committees. Men lead, women seek consensus (approval). Men inspire and persevere. Women give up because it's too hard. Why are there few women at the top of politics or business? Because it's too hard, requires too much of their time away from families (caring and nurturing) and they don't like the tough, elbows-out environment.

What do women look for in men today? The same thing they looked for 100,000 years ago. They want a man with broad shoulders who will protect them from wild animals, and preferably tall, for long legs help in hunting. A good hunter/provider is what all women seek, even though those physical abilities and traits are essentially meaningless in terms of today's world. Women want men who are tough. Women will be drawn to a strong man who beats them rather than a man who they perceive is too wimpy to protect them.

[Civis Romanus sum]

I don't agree with your opinion at all. It's pretty much classic sexism but you have couched in in your own perspective so unless you post some facts there isn't much to say here.

How about the fact there are no capable, strong female leaders who inspire? There have never been any in Canada. All the current crop are miserable failures. The one female prime minister we have had lost an election essentially because she was too busy making out with her new boyfriend.

[Michael Hardner]

How about the fact there are no capable, strong female leaders who inspire? There have never been any in Canada. All the current crop are miserable failures. The one female prime minister we have had lost an election essentially because she was too busy making out with her new boyfriend.

That could reflect a symptom too.

[Canada_First]

That's why my woman liked me from the start. As she puts it. Cuz you look like a tough ass...lol. I take no shit and am not afraid to fight anyone anywhere anytime. I confront people in public all the time. I lift so I'm muscular and have tattoos. I don't know I don't do anything just be myself. Some women like it that I am am ass kicker and some don't. I've met some women who like the skinny geeky nerdy types too. All shapes and sizes. I really believe that their is someone for everybody.

[-1=e^ipi]

Not an attempt at humor-- he contends he was just being honest, though regrets causing offense.

Just another example of an old-person acting like an old-person.

-k

Pretty much.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Pretty much.

And when a woman does something amazingly dumb due to some emotional reason, can we also say well, that's just a woman acting like a woman?

[-1=e^ipi]

And when a woman does something amazingly dumb due to some emotional reason, can we also say well, that's just a woman acting like a woman?

You can say what you want. I'm not the speech police.