Nice People Thread No. 14, all Nice and Proper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

the sexism stuff

I really don't get it.

I'd say two thirds of the promising managers I've promoted over my career were female.

Virtually nobody at my level today in the industry I work in is.

But it's not for want of trying.... Or indeed that there's any kind of institutional bias. I've tried, God only knows, to mentor and promote women candidates... We all do I think.

Not because of diversity, or PC, or any of that other crap, but because some people are just brilliantly talented and why on earth wouldn't we as managers want that best of our talent developed? It doesn't matter a flying fig whether they are male or female. If they're good at what they do that's all I care about.

And indeed the most promising manager I ever developed was female.

But as with almost all the rest, she left to have a family, and never returned....

Seems a waste.

But who am I to judge what people want to do with their lives?

GDB2222

A couple of people I know have told me they have received emails from <first part of my email addy>@<some random domain>. So, it is possible that my contacts list has been compromised.

I have changed the password on my email, but I am pretty sure it was secure in the first place, ie it was pretty unguessable. Is there anything else I should do?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

GDB2222 wrote: »

Is there anything else I should do?

Nope.

It's happened to all of us I think with spammers.

Spoof spammer email addresses are often mailed to billions of accounts. Inevitable that someone that knows you is on that list.

Ignore it.

GDB2222

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nope.

It's happened to all of us I think with spammers.

Spoof spammer email addresses are often mailed to billions of accounts. Inevitable that someone that knows you is on that list.

Ignore it.

Thanks. I was just spooked, because someone I know 'phoned me about it on Friday, and my son received two emails from <not me> to two different accounts today. So, that's three addresses on my contact list, which is starting to look like more than a coincidence. And, of course, most people wouldn't even mention it.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I really don't get it.

I'd say two thirds of the promising managers I've promoted over my career were female.

Virtually nobody at my level today in the industry I work in is.

But it's not for want of trying.... Or indeed that there's any kind of institutional bias. I've tried, God only knows, to mentor and promote women candidates... We all do I think. Not because of diversity, or PC, or any of that other crap, but because some women are just brilliantly talented and why on earth wouldn't we as managers want that best of our talent developed?

And indeed the most promising manager I ever developed was female.

But as with almost all the rest, she left to have a family, and never returned....

Seems a waste.

But who am I to judge what people want to do with their lives?

It would probably help if people (not just mothers) could work more flexibly.

I work three days a week so that Mrs Generali can work five days a week to develop her career without the kids being neglected. It bugs the hell out of me that people assume that it's just women that need to work part-time. By being able to work part-time, Mrs Generali is able to give her career the kick start it needs.

If we design work so that we all need to work 70 hour weeks, mothers are going to be excluded to a large extent. I also think we need to stop judging women for the choices that they make. Mrs Generali and I always said that the person that can make the biggest hourly rate when the kids are young should care for them. Now they're a bit bigger we need to bring Mrs Generali back up to speed but I need to be able to make sacrifices in order to do that. Working in a shop or a pub would be bloody hopeless as I simply couldn't make enough each hour to be able to make things work.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

It would probably help if people (not just mothers) could work more flexibly.
.

Maybe.

I'm more of the opinion that people should be free to make whatever decision they want to with regards to work.

If like us people choose not to have children, and work 70+ hours a week for decades instead to develop their careers, then I fully expect to be ahead of those that don't make that sacrifice and I'd be pretty bl00dy annoyed if some form of 'affirmative action' now allowed people to leapfrog we who have put in the hard yards.

As I said there are virtually no women at my level... But the ones that are there are not all childless... So clearly it can be done.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Maybe.

I'm more of the opinion that people should be free to make whatever decision they want to with regards to work.

If like we do you want to choose not to have children and work 70+ hours a week for decades instead to develop your career, then I fully expect to be ahead of those that don't make that sacrifice, and I'd be pretty bl00dy annoyed if some form of 'affirmative action' now allowed people to leapfrog those that have put in the hard yards.

Another way to look at it is that presenteeism shouldn't be rewarded. I've worked with many an idiot that has worked an awful lot of hours but probably shouldn't have bothered as it just meant they produced more rubbish.

As soon as one person starts doing the 70 hour weeks, we all do because it becomes a measure of 'commitment' or some such twaddle.

SingleSue

PasturesNew wrote: »

I doubt I've ever been in a house that's 24°!!

Maybe it's time for an NP question: How warm/hot is your house - or, the room you're in at the moment (on the basis that some of us only heat the main/one room we're in and not the whole house ever).

18 degrees in my bedroom which is a welcome relief to what it was earlier when the sun was streaming through and it got far too hot.

SingleSue

PasturesNew wrote: »

Years ago it was common for women to not be employed, promoted, taken seriously etc as they assume you'd be leaving to have babies. It was never said; they all assumed it.

I've even been told I was hired for one job because "you're too old for all that" and the employer didn't want to be let down and have somebody leave once he'd got confident in their ability to do the job without supervision.

I'd not hire somebody of child bearing age. Most of them are "at it" .... leaving at the drop of a hat, still expecting to be paid and have their job held open for them.

Employers don't need that !!!!!!.

But, because many women do that, it's "held back" thousands of others.

At an interview I had a few months ago, I was asked if I had plans for anymore children as I am still just about of child bearing age.

My answer was easy - Would be a miracle if I did as the equipment required was removed in 2001!

Generali

SingleSue wrote: »

At an interview I had a few months ago, I was asked if I had plans for anymore children as I am still just about of child bearing age.

My answer was easy - Would be a miracle if I did as the equipment required was removed in 2001!

Nobody has ever asked me about my plans about having children in an interview. I can't think why.

Charlie Chaplin had his last child well into his 70s.