What is employers' problem

ohreally

Xikams wrote: »

Do you have to [.quote.] the post? Don't you understand how annoying that is?

Do as I say, not as I do!

cadon

Xikams wrote: »

Well what I mean is that women are generally more irrational, narcissistic, and easier to manipulate. Generally they will be more favourable of men who act as leaders so they can be told what to do. They won't be so much interested in actual competence but prefer to be impressed by how things are sold to them, whereas men will look for the 'real' aspects of the candidate.

This is why no one will give you a job. Sexism is completely unacceptable. The second you started speaking to any female colleagues or customers, HR proceedings would start. That's incredibly disruptive and expensive for any business.

Xikams wrote: »

Sometimes I get lucky and get through to a guy recruiter instead of a woman. This really makes me breathe a sigh of relief as they tend to be straight and upfront and don't rely so much on sales talk to describe the job or the company. I also find that women are much more likely to 'look to' men to fill in the blanks and provide a context to the jargon. Luckily I have two interviews next week which involve men instead of women.

Xikams wrote: »

I have never cared about the whole sex/gender wars thing in the workplace. When I explain that most of my recruiters are women, that's an observation rather than an opinion. The CEO or MD will usually be a man anyway. But I really prefer talking to guys as they are more likely to be CLEAR about the job and the company. And they will tend to describe things in practical, real-world terms, rather than being glossy or fluffy. This drops drastically though when it comes to agencies - women will be more 'practical' sometimes than the guys.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a troll, because the alternative, that you might be a real person who actually thinks this way is not something I want to contemplate.

Xikams

cadon wrote: »

This is why no one will give you a job. Sexism is completely unacceptable.

I keep saying, over and over again, the ultimate and prevailing party is men. Men always seem to have the top job. You look everywhere, the people with the real power are men, women are outwitted and disadvantaged not just in the workplace, but everywhere else too. This really needs to change and it needs to change fast. A world controlled by women would probably be easier. But as a jobseeker I just have to see the landscape for what it really is.

Let's say I have a telephone interview. (I have some lined up next week.) Nine times out of ten, it will be a woman. If I have a 'serious' interview, there will be a guy behind the desk. Always. And the leaflets and brochures will say about a man who controlled the company. In the company History, it will be a list of men, men who sacrificed themselves for the company. Where's the women there?

This powerful relationship between women and power seems universal and eternal. You'd recognise it if you read Shakespeare. Lady Macbeth urges Macbeth to his death for power. Earlier, the three witches predict his doom. And they trick him into his death. So why not call Shakespeare sexist. Or racist. Or phobic of trans/disbaled/age/misorgnefjnsdjfk whatever.

You know, maybe this is the whole problem. We're just throwing things at each other, hoping something will stick. I suppose the only thing to do is to keep trying. Well, what did I expect? You can't expect guarantees for the future.

Tiddlywinks

Somewhere there is a village missing a VIP...

... and a bridge missing its little person.

Surely those two jobs must keep you occupied enough without needing a third.

Kynthia

I think you aren't doing well when being interviewed by women because women are able to pick up on the fact you are a nasty, sexist and arrogant person. Why would they hire someone like that for the company? There are others out there who can do the job and will work better with colleagues/customers so they will hire them.

daytona0

Xikams wrote: »

Look, I've just spent a week walking around in the sun bending over backwards for companies, I got treated like rubbish, I am physically sore from it, next week will be another round of it, is that arrogance? Really? Really?????????? It's easy to blame the sucker who's knocking on doors and that they need to try harder. If that's all you got to say, don't say it.

The person you responded to here stated that they have had some involvement in the hiring process...

Do you really think pinkshoes would hire you if you came across like that in an interview?

Get with the programme!

I'm not saying that you aren't busting your xyz in the heat, but so are like 50 people (some of whom don't even get a sniff at the job let alone an interview!). But you come across as someone who wouldn't work well with other people, especially if your default response to something negative is "If that's all you got to say, don't say it.". What if you're like that to the managers? You seem to have no respect for pinkshoes so it doesn't put you in good stead right from the off!

Xikams

daytona0 wrote: »

Do you really think pinkshoes would hire you if you came across like that in an interview

So would your casual commuications be accepted in formal interviews? All text messages, phone calls, verbal conversations. and the rare letter. You're putting this on the table? You really are? And you expect a grown man to not be incensed when you attempt to infantilise them?

Time and time again, the problem is attitudes like yours - specifically the example you have attempted to inspire in me - and the core problem is people like you. Low ambition, poor confidence, humdrum technique, sadface. Ridiculous conclusions, crazy ideas, these are all the thins any work-seeking man will identify easily if they are serious about looking for a job.

I don't know who 'pinkshoes' is (could be a guy for all I know) and don't care. What I do know is that you didn't read, and even if you did, you have no insight or interest to offer, except for whoever pinkshoes is. And I bet neither them or you are walking around looking for work.

paddyrg

Take a step back, realise there's something wrong, and use your creative reasoning/ problem solving skills to address it. If those skills are as sharp as you claim, you'll be able to put aside the personal feelings about the situation and instead start using the interviews as a chance to work out what works better and doesn't. If you really are attending several a week that's a chance to experiment, change one or two things each time, start creating empirical data. At the worst, in another 200 interviews time you can write a book based on your research and get an article in the red tops and maybe an interview on breakfast TV.

robatwork

Much as you come across as a fairly horrible individual, you obviously have an intellect and are able to write coherent and grammatically correct postings.

You should perhaps look for jobs where there is minimal personal contact - copywriter... leaflet writer for UKIP....or write a book on how to apply ancient Greek philosophy to current working practices.

theoretica

Xikams wrote: »

I keep saying, over and over again, the ultimate and prevailing party is men. Men always seem to have the top job. You look everywhere, the people with the real power are men, women are outwitted and disadvantaged not just in the workplace, but everywhere else too. This really needs to change and it needs to change fast. A world controlled by women would probably be easier. But as a jobseeker I just have to see the landscape for what it really is.

I would say that you aren't seeing your landscape for what it is - at present whoever is interviewing has the real power over you. When you find a job one of the interviewers will probably become your line manager and again power over you. If you can't be a good team member for a female boss (in her opinion) you are severely restricting your job opportunities. Certainly, CEOs are disproportionately male, but most people, men or women, don't become a CEO and it doesn't sound like you are job hunting at the boardroom level.

You say you find agency recruiters comparatively more interested in ability than presentation. I wonder if this is because of the difference between finding someone who can do a job for a short period and choosing a colleague to work with for a permanent role.