6 ms·
"the Company's normal policy of non-employment on the regular payroll of married women unless they are the support of the family" That's a pretty twisted minds
by zeteo 14y ago
"the Company's normal policy of non-employment on the regular payroll of married women unless they are the support of the family"
That's a pretty twisted mindset. What in the world was IBM hoping to achieve by such policies? And how had they come into the business of supervising societal roles, instead of making money for their shareholders by hiring the most qualified people for the job?
- SoftwareMaven 14y agoThere are 60 years of massive social change in the answer to that question. It's worth understanding where we were and where we've gotten to so we can continue to try to get further.
- brazzy 14y agoBack then it was the most normal thing in the world, and obviously true to any but the most unnaturally twisted minds that the proper role of a man was to earn a salary sufficient to support the whole family, and the proper role of a woman to be a housewife and mother. Thus, a woman who worked while married was shirking her duties to her husband and children, and taking away some man's chance to build a family. And that man was probably a war veteran! Support the troops!!! IBM's shareholder would probably have sold their shared in disgust and boycotted their products if they had openly undermined these norms.
- hermannj314 14y agoExactly. Let's dig up the hiring practices of the Bank of England from the 1700's and see how outraged we can all get.
- simonh 14y agoIt was the "Don't be Evil" of it's time.
- aetherson 14y agoI don't understand why you added emphasis to "unless they are the support of the family." Obviously the whole thing is pretty regressive and messed up by modern lights, but the emphasized passage is a mitigating factor, one that, I think, shows that while there was plenty of institutionalized prejudice, there was little actual malice. IBM's policy was, "Naturally women should go home and be housewives if their husbands have jobs. But if their husbands don't have jobs, and the family depends on the wife's income, then the woman can keep her job." The first part is the risible bit, the second part much less so.
- 1123581321 14y agoYour confusion comes from believing that making money is important and raising children, charity work and home management aren't important. If you believe they are equally important, then you will see that the conventions of the time were equally fair to men and women, or equally unfair if you like.
- rmc 14y agoWell people thought women wouldn't be as good employees as men. "Oh they'll get irrational and emotional! They won't be able to do high pressure things, and will break down and cry when the going gets tough. They will just fawn over a baby when they see one. They're also not very good at mathematics"
- netcan 14y agoIn a historical sense the real question is how did companies get out ofthe business of supervising societal roles. That's an old, old tradition and one we seem to be naturally drawn to. Authority is general, not specific. If someone tell you what to do at work they are an authority generally. An officer disciplines his soldiers. He has authority over dress, behavior, language, hygiene. His role doesn't end with teaching them how to fight and giving them fighting orders. Teachers had similar authority. It did't end with school. Landlords in the days when they were a class had similar authority. So did priests. etc. etc.