Is it sexist to not hire women?

[Anonymous]

Women cross the street when they see a man. The man isn't given a chance to prove he's harmless because women would rather not take the risk. I don't blame them and tell the women I love to do the same thing. It isn't fair to good men but it's understandable.

Shouldn't the same logic apply when a man doesn't want to risk women ruining his business seeing as they create the most problems in the work place? It isn't fair to the women who don't start problems but it's understandable.

Updates

30 d

You don't have to tell me it's illegal. I already know that.

Updates

29 d

MisterWack's argument was women never create problems and he believes most male employees sexually assault their female coworkers. He deleted my reply so I deleted his opinion. That's all you missed. Nothing interesting.

The "women are wonderful" effect is not a good argument. a lot of women don't even like working or being around women.

[Rosexøxø]

Everyone is problematic and has their disagreements.

Your argument could closely resemble males being the ultimate workers and thus they should be kept and the others receded and excluded- for the best business and such. I can follow a person wanting a successful business, but everyone is problematic, nobody’s perfect, everyone has disagreements and require communication, and nobody wants to work. Even those who love their career rather do leisurely activities and socialize and adventure seek. Skill tune/develop. Not everyone has a dream career and ultimately the DESIRED position. A good many have a fair position, but undesired and seemingly unfair pay.

I’m just adding points to consider here. Not only that but to include the one thing you can use against men cause you’d agree on that- you see there are men who aren’t good- you “understand” that. So why would a person who wants to achieve a successful business hire a person with evident qualities like that. Surely when you find one you’ll find another. He may not sexually violate you and if you’re zesty you may swing for that, but he may resort to other forms of applicable / definitive violation all in the means of self interest above the welfare of others. 🤷‍♀️

Guys are “safe” from sexual assault of other men at a greater percentage / a great deal of the time, but they’re - you’re not all exempt from other forms of disrespect / malevolent intentions.

🤷‍♀️

And aside from the good and let’s be honest cause you’re really talking about the “quality” of people.

So let me help you and speak more plainly: women are a problem in business atmosphere and quality and performance is low, and thus it should be understandable why we don’t employ them.

And you think this is humane? No, it could alter the numbers of productivity. I won’t say good or bad because women have brains and can contribute and accomplish what they put those human brains to as anybody else. But you and someone with this mindset would be happier that way.

It’s not humane. Every guy and gal regardless of their rank needs a means and way to survive. And while it was common back then for a lady to live off husband’s earnings, marriage is not so popular today and not needed.

So every single male and female a part of a modern civilization should participate and be allowed by government to work a way of providing for themselves- the basic living essentials.

Business is important. But humans make up the business and they’re more important. Not dispensable, expendable, or discardable.

Now if we simplify this almost to like two words out of your whole context there-

we see

one: encourage women not to associate with men (for safety “ “ sake).

two: avoid hiring women in an environment as the means of survival.

These two essential factors tell me you have to be gay. You want women not to ruin your chances with men. And you want to work with just men. Under the impressions of the best interest of women right?

That’s case one

case two is

this is all so women can marry and depend on men, and you have a woman of your own under your control.

Either way it’s not in favor of women. Those who encourage women practice self defense and carry items of such- care about women.

Those who encourage them- they care.

Those who think employing people of all types- even lesser males than the exceptional ones- they care.

This is a society above all else. Not just a “business.”

And productivity doesn’t depend heavily on gender alone.

After all for the hyper sexual male he spends how many hours of his day doing what? 👂 Must we even discuss the entire TOPIC of its OWN on those sites labeled 🏷️ as: NSFW? 👂

How many men have engaged in sexual activities with other coworkers or self pleasure while on the job? 👂

If we want to talk about productivity. It’s not going to go very well for it being depended on gender. You have people of each gender who can be hyper sexual, problem stirring, procrastinating, and on and on.

So do I think businesses should disqualify women? Nope.

Do I have further to say on this matter? Nope. Cause I’ve answered the question and I think that’s all there is to it. At this point any reply from you or others here in disagreement will be just that- disagreement.

I don’t need to do research to know what people are doing all over and have done in history and what the smiths are doing. I know productivity varies. I know humans all deserve the right to feed themselves and shelter themselves. I know what a society is.

Your one scenario simply means avoiding interaction. There’s no harm or fault NOR obligation to do those or wrong from not doing so.

The second one has real repercussions. It’s expected each employer provide unbiased right for any willing- not disabled- to work in exchange for compensation.

It’s not a competition either. It’s work- for pay.

WORK-

…

for pay.

WORK. FOR. PAY.

Anything added to this conversation will be nonsense, drama seeking, and agenda pushing. I simply stand by humane and societal values. Welfare of PEOPLE. Not genders.

When you promote the wellbeing of one gender over the other- you have a slight problem.

The wellbeing of any man who simply isn’t greeted on the street is not in any danger. And that’s a solid fact.

Need I say more? I really don’t, no.

And that’s how some of these questions work- you answer the question with your opinion and move on. I don’t intend to further this so I simply will move on and not even read a reply. Simply I don’t trust the train of thought or intentions behind this question. And anything used against me as a person is fine. I don’t represent all women. I represent my VIEWS. And if you or anyone finds fault in that, as someone who doesn’t specialize in anything about this- you can disagree.

[Rosexøxø]

Also just a side observation and comment to the update-

I don’t know why you’re anonymous. Why something like this has to remain anonymous.

I also agree with mister whack though I’ve disagreed with him before and his views on his marriage seem a bit more dominant for my taste. But he’s right. Some interferences and delays come from the male side of workers interacting with female workers who were being serious before- OR in the case of assault harass female workers who take their job serious or rather tend to their work. 🤷‍♀️

Just cause females don’t want to work there isn’t any reason for not hiring. As- all people don’t wish to- if given the choice.

Regardless of any list of points made from either side- humans need unbiased hiring practices in order to survive. Both males and females. End of story. Best to you and everyone else, and if you’re looking to start a business, hope that goes well for ya! 👍

[Asker]

I can't agree with someone who refuses to acknowledge that women can be and often are problematic. The only reason women have earned this stigma is bc 100% of men assault women? Really?

[AmandaYVR]

It's a sex-based decision, but I would not call it 'sexist' based on unfounded biases.

There are some jobs men are better suited to. Some, women are better suited to. Some jobs, either gender is equally adept and qualified for. In women-led professions, the pay tends to be much lower, and this deters more men from joining them, which keeps the wages low.

Women do file the majority of the HR complaints. Women also go to the authorities more often, to help reconcile issues. Women call in sick far more often. (However, on this one, it's often related to monthly cycles, which do cause a lot of legit pain, and, for whatever reason, because women are saddled with doing most of the childcare that crops up during business hours.

Can it be more problematic to hire a woman? In terms of time spent away from the office, maternity leave where in some places the company is required to hold the position for her, sudden sick days, HR and personnel conflict, yes.

There are some accounts of women making better managers due to their more collaborative, less independent, less competitive nature. They have been known (some) to rally people well, listen well, and consider multiple points of view. The ones who are high in emotional intelligence and rational, etc., can be valuable.

But a scorned woman, or one who feels slighted by colleagues, is a dangerous woman. And one who is in her fertile years is a big risk in terms of lost productivity and output. My answer, therefore, is no.

[HawkPerception]

Employers should not hire based on gender. They should hire based on capability and expected wage/salary.

If a girl is more capable than a guy for a position, she should be hired for the position. And vice-versa.

It would be sexist to not hire women just because they're women, the same as it would be sexist to not hire men just because they're men.

However, some employers prefer to have only men or only women workplaces, in which case I think it's fine. Because they worry about the dynamic or men and women in a workplace might be distracting or not the kind of dynamic they'd want.

Same goes for businesses by race. If I go to a sushi restaurant, I expect to see Asian employees. If I go to a Mexican restaurant, I expect to see Mexican employees. If I go to Hooters (never been by the way... I live in Canada and have no desire... just wanted to use it as an example), I expect to see attractive, provocatively dressed girls. If I go to an Italian restaurant, I expect to see Italians. Same with Jamaican restaurants, etc.

It is racist to an extent, but it's absolutely fine.

What I do think is unfair is when tenants are being chosen based on gender or appearance. They always prioritize women because they're "less of a risk" are assumed more neat and clean. That's why it's much harder for single guys to find spaces than single girls.

[blueonblack22]

Well if your business policy is to explicitly state that you don’t get hired you will get sued into oblivion.

But there just some occupations that men are generally better at then women are. Especially if the job requires hard manual labor and physical strength. For example men are generally at being firefighters where physical strength can mean saving someone’s life.

I always use the word generally. Because there are minority of women out there who can do a man’s job very well. If they are an exception not the rule.

Also I really hope to God people take an honest look at Kamala Harris’s track record as a politician and how effective she was a VP. Compared to Biden anybody looks competent. But she hasn’t done jack during her term as VP (the border czar who never visited the border). She’s grossly incompetent and tries to “laugh” off any hard question that she doesn’t have a good answer to (if she’s even asked a hard question to begin with).

[AviatorTom]

Long time ago, while in college I worked summers with the local electric utility, assigned to a line maintenance crew. A woman was also hired to work with another crew. That crew's foreman refused to take her, saying, "She ain't qualified until she can pee alongside the truck like the rest of us."

He reluctantly took her on the crew for the day. At the first job site, she dropped her pants and peed alongside the truck. That made her "qualified".

[debbiedenise]

Ha Ha. A woman has to do what a woman has to do. Ha. Ha.

[DishLady]

Many companies will currently view it as such, though the hiring practice involved in selecting and promoting a female candidate is sorely lacking and highly questionable across many industries.

[Asker]

I just want you to know that I have seen many opinions from you and think you are very logical and straight to the point. If it were legal to not hire women you would be the type of woman I would hate seeing be affected.

[DishLady]

Thanks, I appreciate it.

[Damaged00]

If I'm out on the street with no one around and I see anyone, male or female, I'm definitely crossing the street. Too many crazies. You can't trust anyone out in the wild. And I feel as though even men would cross the street especially if the guy was bigger.

I get there are specific jobs that men are better qualified for and vice versa, and those would make sense. But not hiring women just because a high percentage of women cause problems in the work place is sexist. It's not right to discriminate against an entire gender. People should be individually held accountable. You're condemning innocent women before they even have a chance. There are women out there who actually NEED a job that don't cause problems. It would be detrimental to a lot of women if more people had this way of thinking.

I don't really like the comparison of the two scenarios you picked. If a woman avoids a man in the street the only thing that happens to that man is his feelings might be hurt, but more than likely he's just not going to notice or care. But if a woman is denied a job, her way of living/survival is compromised.

[Anonymous]

Is it sexist to not hire a man? Would you be cool if you were super qualified for a job, and I refused to hire you because you were a man and my reasoning was, "well men cause the most problems in the office, so therefore, we're just not going to hire them."

By the way, I worked as a manager where the split was 70 Percent women/30 percent men. We didn't refuse to hire men, but working with children, fewer men applied for the jobs available. We did however get in 2 men who were extremely problematic to the females on staff, so instead of saying "all men are bad," we fired them, and hired 3 more men who turned out to be excellent. Fire incompetent, unqualified, inept workers, and hire PEOPLE who can do the job well. Assuming people are problematic even before they arrive based on gender is the very nature of sexism and says more about you and your company, then it does about the people you hire.

[Asker]

Perhaps it is sexist but is it really immoral in this context? I don't think it is.

I'm not bothered by tattoo shops that only hire women.

[Opinion Owner]

What does immorality have to do with this this type of hiring practice specifically? Are you claiming women are immoral and therefore should not be hired by men should they so choose, because you certainly legally will get nowhere with that argument. In the US, it's illegal for a business to only hire men or women only because it's considered sex discrimination. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission prohibits discrimination based on sex when making hiring decisions. --->This includes basing decisions on stereotypes and assumptions about a person's gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or pregnancy.

[Opinion Owner]

Case in point, Hooters was sued for their discriminatory work practices because men could not work there.The company argued that their female only staff was there to provide "vicarious sexual entertainment," and essentially said their heavily skewed male diners would not enjoy a man in short shorts, serving them food as they were not advertised as such. This cost Hooters 3.75 million AND they had to legally provide positions that were open to men (they got around the server bit by offering hosting and bartending positions available to men). You quite literally have to prove that your business is a BFOQ or has Bona Fide Occupational Qualification, like a bathroom attendant in a female bathroom, must be female.

I venture to say that if you applied to work at that female tattoo shop, you could sue if you were qualified and could prove that they do in face only hire women, however, if Larry that works in the back office is male, or John who buys their supplies is male, but they just aren't seen in the shop, you have no case.

[Asker]

How did you get that? I said I don't believe it's immoral for someone to refuse to hire women.

I know it's illegal I just don't think it should be.

[Rosexøxø]

Opinion owner. I appreciate the addition of real life examples and the professionalism that your response gives off. I trust you had a good run of management in your time of services. As well on the side note, I appreciate this kind of involvement from another female. It’s not aggressive or combative. Just informational, factual, and enlightening/illuminating.

[exitseven]

It is like not wanting to hire a person of color because if you fire them they get a lawyer and sue for discrimination.

I worked for a big defense contractor. I was leaving for a better job and I was helping to find my replacement. I interviewed 5 people , all of whom had all the qualifications and all of them were good. One of the choices was a young woman. She really was a standout. She had good experience and answered all the questions of the little quiz I created. She had a great attitude and had a background as a musician and wanted to get into the IT field.

I recommended her and my boss dismissed her out of hand because she was sort of hot and he said she would be a distraction.

[Anonymous]

Honestly for supervisor or boss positions never give it to a woman! Any guy with any ideas to move up will be abused till they quite.

Women in power are very abusive and mistreat any one they feel would do better. Which is every one

Women supervisors eat Thier own young! Seen many times a girl helping another girl till the boss took notice that the younger one actually did good. After she harassed her and shoved her around till the poor thing quite!

Like you two would have gotten promoted together and gotten far but she just ruined her own chances and a rival.

Men well some men see the group doing well and happy and know they will all be seen ina. Good light and promoted! Women can only see themselves getting promoted as they step on any one else's head!

[LifeHitMeandRan]

While there probably is a workplace somewhere that women do not cause most of the problems/drama, I have never been fortunate enough to work in such an environment.

My work history is:

Commissary (military grocery store),

Military,

Various retail and restaurants,

Warehouses,

Corrections Officer jobs.

In EVERY job I ever had, women caused the most (though not all) issues. Sometimes it was drama with men. More often it was drama with other women. MANY times it was because they either physically could not do a task or would whine and complain until a man just gave in and did the task to shut her up. I would say 7/10 women at every workplace I worked caused more issues than they did help make things better.

However, in EVERY job there was also a few women who were freaking rockstars at what they did. They were the 3/10 and I would trust them just as much if not more than many of my male coworkers.

[CheeseMonster]

What problems men or women can create in the workplace depends heavily on the specific workplace.

If a man starts a business and is worried that hiring a woman employee will cause problems, he can either adjust the workplace so that is no longer the case, or avoid hiring 50% of the population.

For example: if he's worried about his first employee being a woman because he thinks it would make himself or her uncomfortable to work alone with each other, then he could just hire a man as his first employee and then for his latter employees hire whoever is the best applicant regardless of gender. If he planned it to be a 2-person business then he could either adjust it to be 3 (or more), or have that 2nd person always have to be another man.

[Anonymous]

It depends on how you define sexist. You could easily make the argument that it's a pragmatic decision in some cases. I'll give an example. I work in IT. There is a woman who was in a key position. The company had spent a lot of time and money training and grooming her for a role. She had stepped into that role she had a lot of responsibility and accumulated skills and knowledge as a result. Three months ago she left on maternity, and several weeks ago she announced she had decided to not come back. It actually happens all the time, and employers take a big risk when they invents so much time and resources in a child bearing age woman. Is that sexist? Yes, by today's definition of the term. Is it pragmatic? Definitely.

[Anonymous]

It might be sexist but it's also understandable given thier women's trouble. It introduces an unstable element. I could understand an employer not wanting to contend with that.

I know at my job the women are the hardest working gender though. I don't know if that just an anomaly or if the men where I work are just that bad.😆

[Asker]

Men don't cry sexual harassment, gossip far less, and usually keep their mouth shit when their boss is being an ass. I wouldn't want to hire women and I don't think that would make me a terrible person.

But sure I have worked with women who were very pleasant to work with.

[Anonymous]

While it’s illegal I totally understand where you’re coming from. I’ll look at it in the perspective that the trouble isn’t necessarily work related trouble. And the employer allowing it to happen can ruin the business.

For example sexual assault accusations, even if the male employee or employer didn’t do anything it will turn into a legal mess. Almost 100% of the time when a female accuses a male of sexual assault the male is up shit creek. But if the male accuses the female it’s decided that he wanted or liked it. Yes there are exceptions but this is the trend. And yes you can ruin someone’s business or life on a lie.

So yes it’s illegal but I do see your point. I guess it also depends on the type of job

[Kelley1]

I don't know if it is legal but it is not sexist to hire people that make you the most money and cause the least problems.

[Asker]

I might have worded this poorly. Perhaps both are a little sexist but I don't consider either immoral in this given context.

[Daniela1982]

I think it really depends on what the job entails. Women usually can't handle jobs that require strength and endurance, like a ditch digger or warehouse worker moving heavy boxes around. But then, how many women would even apply for such a job?

[TommyMountainFigure]

I'm not getting into the legalities, or moral issues of discrimination. If I was hiring?

I would take the best person for that job, whether they are male, female, unsure of what they are. Heck I'd employ a little green alien if it could do the job best!

[Anonymous]

It really depends on exactly how you define sexist. I find that terms that are used as labels are often completely useless because there is no common understanding of what they mean.

It can certainly be rational to choose not to hire a woman. Whether or not that's sexist--who knows?

[RingOfFire]

Do you want to talk about what's legal or what's fair?

What's fair is that if you have a company it's your money so you should be able to hire anybody you want or not hire anybody you don't want for any reason you want.

But in each individual case that may or may not be legal since a lot of the law is not fair.

[Vegasrunner]

This is a question I run into a lot in my business. If all things are equal I typically lean to hiring a man because there's less drama, however if there is an opportunity to use sex or beauty to sell, I will try to hire a woman under 25.

[WhitneySnow]

Of course it’s sexist. Thats the very definition of sexism.

[Asker]

Okay but is it rational sexism?

[Asker]

and is it rational sexist for women to assume the worst about men?

[Rosexøxø]

You’re right Whitney. You said it much simpler than I did. Also he’s comparing two totally different things.

Social interactions

And putting it on the same stage / plane as Economic and survival standards.

The most damages done from a lack of hello from male and female in public is zero.

The damages of lack of employment for a female or male is understandably more severe.

Some people who can’t understand that refuse to and those who get hurt by lack of acknowledgment in public need some therapy is all.

Regardless of what he knows and his age, what is implied is wrong and what you said simply and directly is right. 👍 You know I’m an honest person and so you have my genuine respect and agreement with your view (s). On this. Personally appreciated your involvement as well. Another post of yours I can appreciate as well.

@WhitneySnow

[WhitneySnow]

@Rosexøxø thanks!

[EmmaMary]

Absolutely... And not only that, totally illegal in many countries.

[Fireguy17]

No it isn't.

There are some jobs out there that some women are just physically unable to do.

Like the one in the picture, I do not see her breaking down doors and sorting shit out on a fire call.

[StudyingAuthor]

Huh? Why would a woman think a man is harmful if all he is doing is walking down the street? And why would you assume having a woman in a workplace would cause trouble?

[LiamJHayden]

In a free society people should be able to hire whom they want. Unforyunately there are no free societies.

[Rosexøxø]

There wouldn’t be a society for if nobody was hired and nobody worked. 👍

[Rosexøxø]

You may be financially independent (I barely remember what you said about your lifestyle way back), but I’m sure your being here thanks to your family and elders and their involvement in the society helped you to be where you are. Money is how people survive these days and in order to extract that- work must be done- people must be hired- and workers must be paid.

That or everyone can go back to farming. 👍

[LiamJHayden]

@Rosexøxø What are you talking about?

[Razp_Sorbet]

No denying anyone a job because of their race, sexuality, gender or religion is illegal and morally fucked up.

[Asker]

Illegal yes. Immoral I'm conflicted about

[Razp_Sorbet]

Better check your morals and attitude towards people who are different to you then 🙃

[bobby_bush_eater]

Merit, merit, merit.

Idgaf about anyone's demographics, a job should be based on merit, ability/potential, and intelligence.

[RavVid]

Even women won't hire women because they don't work hard.

[Anonymous]

Well breastaurnat chains don't hire men and rightfully so. I do not agree with women working dangerous jobs incase they may be pregnant and not realise it.

[grega239]

No.

If i had a bussiness i probably wouldn't hire women either.

Or at least i wouldn't hire them if they didn't grow up on a farm

[Anonymous]

Sounds like everybody's hurt from everybody else's issues.

If they're smart enough to do the job they should get it. Whichever one the boss can use the best.

[Anonymous]

Legally yes but if you can find an acceptable bias say if you run a men's tailors/clothing store then it's just part of the parell

[Kingofkings1992]

Depends on what the job is. There’s some jobs that women just don’t have the physical requirements to do

[SugarSugarplum]

I agree. Women are an HR nightmare.

[Crazzyyworld]

You should hire for escort other than that no

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Damn, you must really hate your mom

[Astarlessnightsky]

Yes.

[the29thhuman]

hire trans. Then you can have a male work place

[Anonymous]

No not at all. Some jobs require a penis!

[Stef12]

And illegal.