Nah, I agree with you, I don’t think so.
Again, I am asking you what support you have for your opinion that men categorically would be better than women.
Again, remind me how many interviews for faculty (or any) positions you’ve conducted?
It seems that under this standard, hiring managers are screwed every which way. “There’s no proof that you didn’t hire him/her because he/she is black/white/Hungarian/Asian, but some aspects of these biases are unconscious, so maybe you did!”
Sure, but there also are proven discrepancies in the hiring of these classes (on average, in the big picture). So either there are biases in those doing the hiring (almost certainly true in some cases), there are true differences (on average) between different classes of candidates (almost certainly true in some ways), or both. And yeah, you can’t point to any one case and say this is a gender or race or age discrimination issue, but the larger statistics back up that it’s probably happening to some extent in the labor market.
I don’t think the college’s response was unreasonable here. It would be interesting to know if they would have responded the same to a man sending the same note. I hope they would, but we’ll probably never know (if they’ve offered the job to you and you’re male, please send in a similar note and let us know what they say. For science.)
I think you’re observational skills are suspect, or you have been exposed to a very limited group of people. Your opinions fail to match my experiences - in fact they are comically off.
A former boss was our vendor contract shark. She was a pretty petite brunette, younger than she looked, with a schoolgirl voice - and she was GOOD at her job - getting the best possible contracts for the company.
In fact, the entire contracts group there were a bunch of women - big, powerful company - if men were better at negotiations, they probably would have had more men.
HOWEVER, in this case this woman made a rookie negotiation mistake - she didn’t understand her power compared to the other party - she didn’t know how willing they were to walk away. It isn’t uncommon for people new to negotiating to believe that what you are looking for is a “win-win solution” and what happens is that you both make your positions known and will meet in the middle. It often does works like that - but there isn’t any rule in a negotiation that says it must be.
I didn’t say men were better negotiators in general. I was talking about this case. I don’t think a man would have been so clueless about the kind of institution it was or how to communicate his requests. My comment was ‘I didn’t think a man would blunder so badly’ and that is not a reference to negotiating as such. If you walk into a place you can pretty much size it up, and see if there is money. I cannot imagine the start date had not come up before. It was likely in the original announcement.
I don’t think we disagree about that. Once again, for me, the issue is whether the email comes off as “entitled,” which I don’t think it does. Was it a good negotiation strategy? No. But it strikes me more as naive rather than “demanding” or “entitled.” And I have no problem with the college saying “no” to her (and, ultimately, I think they made the right decision given how the story played out, with the candidate releasing this information into the wild, which I think is pretty stupid for her career prospects.) And the non-sequitor about men not making this same sort of mistake particularly irritates me, but that statement was thrown out there obviously to prickle people.
I do think a man could have made mistakes too, but not *these *sorts of mistakes.
Yeah, I think you’re pretty wrong about that, but I think you’re just trying to get our goats about it, too.
Anyhow, I’m not even 100% convinced this story is true.
Yes - a man’s penis is like shield for certain kinds of mistakes. If you have a penis, it’s like having a mistake deflecting super power. Man I totally would have botched that letter if my penis hadn’t jumped out and told me I was doing it wrong!
That just makes complete sense.
I hadn’t considered that possibility. Thanks.
No, a man who was in this field would be more sensitive to these things. But most men would *not *go into this field. That’s what I mean.
Am I making myself clear enough? I am not sure.
Yes it’s clear. It’s just nonsensical and unsupported by any facts. A lack of agreement does not mean a lack of understanding.
I don’t mean ‘men in general’ but men who would go into philosophy. I am a philosophy major and male, so that gives me some insight into this. I interacted with other philosophy majors and faculty when I was in college.
I bet you have some black friends, too.
Homosexual ones too.
And in this case, it might be considered reasonable to misunderstand one’s power in the negotiation. As far as I know, it’s fairly uncommon for an employer to rescind a job offer because the candidate attempted to negotiate. She was clearly approaching it from a “doesn’t hurt to ask” standpoint and figured that, at worst, they would say the offer was non-negotiable and she’d have to decide whether she wanted to take it or not.
Whether Nazareth dropped her because her requests suggested that she wouldn’t be a good fit, or whether that was just a convenient excuse, we’ll never know.
No, not about going into philosophy.
The argument that a man would have negotiated this offer more successfully. Y’know, the argument you’ve been making.
Me as well. I’ll add “sort of stupid” - given that I’d expect her to be capable of better levels of critical thought with a PhD in Philosophy.
However, going public with it - that’s where it goes from “she was naive” to “what the HELL?” Its covering up the mistake of being naive with being really unprofessional.