5 ms·

I'm wondering why it's sexist (devaluing one sex) to ask who is going to take care of the kids. Isn't it quite possible it's concern for their family situation

by benhoyt 17y ago

I'm wondering why it's sexist (devaluing one sex) to ask who is going to take care of the kids. Isn't it quite possible it's concern for their family situation (because work affects family)? A guy probably wouldn't be asked this simply because it is much more common for the mother to look after kids. I'd be pleasantly surprised if my wife were being interviewed and they asked her this: "Does your husband work from home? We're just wondering if he's the one who's going to look after your kids, because we're happy to be flexible with your work hours if you need that. Even bringing the kids in here sometimes would be fine."

wglb 17y ago
Because they ask the woman that, not the man.
- benhoyt 17y ago
  Yes, but two things: 1) as I mentioned, the fact that they might ask the woman and not the man is simply due to the fact that more mums stay at home than dads, and 2) why is it devaluing her to ask that? Anyone who's got kids knows that raising them is much more difficult (and rewarding) than most other day jobs.
  - jimbokun 17y ago
    That's pretty much sexism (or racism or ...ism) in a nutshell. Evaluating people by the statistical generalizations of a group they belong to, rather than evaluating them as individuals.
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      No, sexism would be treating it as a rule ("women miss work to care for their children") rather than a prior ("women have a higher probability of missing work to care for children"). If they are asking the question, they are attempting to evaluate the person based on their individual characteristics (i.e. their answer).
      - tptacek 17y ago
        Some research says black people are Nx more likely to commit property crimes than white people. By your logic, it's not racist to ask about someone's race in an interview, because you might just be reasoning the likelihood of them stealing office supplies.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  That doesn't necessarily imply the people asking are sexist. They might simply be Bayesians.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    You could not have made the point of the author of the article better than by showing exactly how that comes about. An employer does not have a right to ask that question of either partner. It is a question concerning their private life. If the question is not sexist then it should turn out that it is asked as much of guys as it is asked of women and it turns out that is not the case. It ends right there. No amount of 'buts' or other terms like that going to make that go away. The condition is already satisfied, no need to inspect other variables to see if we can change the outcome of the program, they are now irrelevant. Imagine the reverse, if an employer would ask a guy: "I take it your wife is home and looks after the children ?". My response would be 'none of your business'. You can safely assume that people are not going to leave their children unattended, how they go about that is their problem, and none of your business as an employer. No matter whether the person in front of you is male or female.
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      The issue of whether employers can ask questions about one's private life is rather orthogonal to the issue of sexism, no? Not that it matters, but I agree that children, hobbies, drug use and sex partners are not the business of my employer.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        That's true, but the fact is that such a question would never be asked of a guy. That is what makes it sexist. After all, if it is none of the employers business when they're talking to a guy why should that change when interviewing a woman ?
        yummyfajitas 17y ago
        The employer may believe it is their business (regardless of gender), but that the probability of a man missing work due to children is considerably lower than a woman doing so. Similarly, employers might ask reserve officers about service obligations, while not bothering to ask them of civilians. They could do this not out of a bias against military folk, but simply because reserve officers have a considerably higher chance of missing work due to service obligations.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  But if they were interviewing the women; and one that was starting work again after looking after the kids for a few years? I agree with what your saying - but the firm in the example seem to have asked a reasonable question! There is, surely, nothing wrong in asking about something which may affect a potential employee :) it's if they discriminate or stereotype that it becomes a problem surely!
tptacek 17y ago
Whatever else you might think about how reasonable this question is in practice, you should also know that it's unlawful to ask it.
- benhoyt 17y ago
  True (thanks). Though illegal != sexist. Also: asking it might be many other things, but why is it "unreasonable"?
  - ionfish 17y ago
    Because it's none of their damn business. The children in question are not under their care, so they have no reason to pay the matter any heed whatsoever. Ensuring that children are properly cared for while they are absent is the parents' responsibility, not their employers'. Perhaps you feel that businesses should be monitoring other aspects of their employees' private lives as well?

by benhoyt 17y ago

wglb 17y ago

Because they ask the woman that, not the man.

benhoyt 17y ago
Yes, but two things: 1) as I mentioned, the fact that they might ask the woman and not the man is simply due to the fact that more mums stay at home than dads, and 2) why is it devaluing her to ask that? Anyone who's got kids knows that raising them is much more difficult (and rewarding) than most other day jobs.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  That's pretty much sexism (or racism or ...ism) in a nutshell. Evaluating people by the statistical generalizations of a group they belong to, rather than evaluating them as individuals.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    No, sexism would be treating it as a rule ("women miss work to care for their children") rather than a prior ("women have a higher probability of missing work to care for children"). If they are asking the question, they are attempting to evaluate the person based on their individual characteristics (i.e. their answer).
    - tptacek 17y ago
      Some research says black people are Nx more likely to commit property crimes than white people. By your logic, it's not racist to ask about someone's race in an interview, because you might just be reasoning the likelihood of them stealing office supplies.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
That doesn't necessarily imply the people asking are sexist. They might simply be Bayesians.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  You could not have made the point of the author of the article better than by showing exactly how that comes about. An employer does not have a right to ask that question of either partner. It is a question concerning their private life. If the question is not sexist then it should turn out that it is asked as much of guys as it is asked of women and it turns out that is not the case. It ends right there. No amount of 'buts' or other terms like that going to make that go away. The condition is already satisfied, no need to inspect other variables to see if we can change the outcome of the program, they are now irrelevant. Imagine the reverse, if an employer would ask a guy: "I take it your wife is home and looks after the children ?". My response would be 'none of your business'. You can safely assume that people are not going to leave their children unattended, how they go about that is their problem, and none of your business as an employer. No matter whether the person in front of you is male or female.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    The issue of whether employers can ask questions about one's private life is rather orthogonal to the issue of sexism, no? Not that it matters, but I agree that children, hobbies, drug use and sex partners are not the business of my employer.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      That's true, but the fact is that such a question would never be asked of a guy. That is what makes it sexist. After all, if it is none of the employers business when they're talking to a guy why should that change when interviewing a woman ?
      - yummyfajitas 17y ago
        The employer may believe it is their business (regardless of gender), but that the probability of a man missing work due to children is considerably lower than a woman doing so. Similarly, employers might ask reserve officers about service obligations, while not bothering to ask them of civilians. They could do this not out of a bias against military folk, but simply because reserve officers have a considerably higher chance of missing work due to service obligations.
ErrantX 17y ago
But if they were interviewing the women; and one that was starting work again after looking after the kids for a few years? I agree with what your saying - but the firm in the example seem to have asked a reasonable question! There is, surely, nothing wrong in asking about something which may affect a potential employee :) it's if they discriminate or stereotype that it becomes a problem surely!

tptacek 17y ago

Whatever else you might think about how reasonable this question is in practice, you should also know that it's unlawful to ask it.

benhoyt 17y ago
True (thanks). Though illegal != sexist. Also: asking it might be many other things, but why is it "unreasonable"?
- ionfish 17y ago
  Because it's none of their damn business. The children in question are not under their care, so they have no reason to pay the matter any heed whatsoever. Ensuring that children are properly cared for while they are absent is the parents' responsibility, not their employers'. Perhaps you feel that businesses should be monitoring other aspects of their employees' private lives as well?