BellaOnline Forums Relationships Married No Kids The 1943 guide to hiring women...

1943 Guideline for Hiring Men
by myrabeth

*Be prepared to let go of any female employee at any time if a male so much as asks if you're hiring.
*Do not give male employees instructions. They know what they're doing.
*Provide clubs and cave-shaped break room kitchens so that men can properly train new female personnel. Men who have been with the company for more than five years earn the right to their own bearskins.

And the snark goes on...

The older generation weighing in....

When I entered the workforce in the early 1960's things were somewhat better. But yes, want ads were listed "jobs -men" and "jobs - women". Archaic Neanderthal thinking? Yes, surely. But most places did not insist on a physical exam, and if they did the exam did not involve examining one's female parts, it was basically a check of ears, nose, throat, and heart and that was that. I do not recall ever having to take off my clothes, having blood drawn or peeing in a cup for an employment physical

But think for a minute....back then we didn't have to take a test to prove that we didn't use illegal drugs to get and keep a job. Nowadays it seems like everyone has to prove that they are not engaged in an activity that is illegal, even though there is no evidence of any type to indicate that they are, to get hired.

The only real difference is that subjecting women to medical exams for "female weaknesses", whatever the heck those might be, is discriminatory unless they also check men for "male weaknesses". At least with drug testing everyone is treated equally and all are considered guilty until they prove they are innocent.

Well, then, we can thank the government for providing us protection. It is illegal to ask a person's marital status or if he/she has children during the hiring process. I completely disagree that marriage status affects how dedicated the worker is. I was unmarried and unattached once, and I was a very dedicated and loyal employee. I would have hated it if someone hiring me chose someone else based only on marital status - it should be based on experience and whether that person is a good fit for the job.

I have seen married individuals who are unreliable, too. What a horrible stereotype.

I will have to respectfully disagree with this. I feel I have a lot of freedom to quit and move jobs anytime I want because I am married and have another income to count on. Hubby too. I would NOT feel this way if I was single. In fact we try to keep our expenses down so that one income call cover us for this very reason. Who wants to be trapped in a job you hate?

Unreliability has to do with maturity. Maturity has nothing to do with marital status since they don't hand it out with the marriage certificate!

But apparently, it comes to you in a blinding flash as soon as you have children. "snerk"

You have a good point. I have left jobs that I hated, and I had the freedom to do so because of DH's income. However, when I talked about unreliability, I meant an employee not showing up for work without calling in, wasting company time and resources, showing the inability to finish work as promised, and generally not pulling his/her own weight. There is a big difference between my version of unreliability and leaving the job appropriately. If you do your work well but then decide you don't want to work there anymore, notifying the boss and giving notice to the employer to find a replacement is, in my opinion, a responsible move... something a reliable employee does.

Yes, no one should stay in a job they hate...but, a bit more history from back in the day......

It used to be that companies would not hire employees away from other companies. So if you worked at company A and hated the job and applied at company B, company B would not hire you no matter how well qualified you were for the position. And it was a deep, dark company secret which companies had these agreements with other companies. It was possible to get around this only two ways. One was knowing someone in upper management at company B who would talk to upper management at company A and get their permission to hire you. The other way was to quit your job at A and wait a minimum of 6 months before applying at company B. If you needed a job during that 6 month period, then you just had to hope that the place where you worked for that time didn't also have such an agreement and also that the job you really wanted would still be there.

This was simply the best way employers saw of keeping good employees. Collusion? Certainly.

Point very well made.

In the past, I've worked at a company where the owner would encourage employees to over-extend themselve so that he could ask more of them without fear of them telling him NO.

He hated the fact that I didn't have huge debt that required that I put up any sort of BS.

Eeek I looked it up on Snopes and its true.

I am so thankful I was born in the 80's.