[an error occurred while processing this directive]
A Monograph on Feminism: Gender Bias In Employment
posted by Scott on Thursday October 19, @02:38PM
from the inequality dept.
Inequality Glenn Burger submitted an interesting editorial piece on the topic of gender bias in employment. He raised some issues that I had never considered before, and so I thought it would be of interest to others. If anyone has any personal stories about this topic, feel free to discuss them on the message board to this story. Click "Read More..." below to view his Glenn's writings.

A Monograph on Feminism

By Glenn R. Burger

For the past 30 years, the mainstay of feminism has been gender bias in employment. According to the feminists, women have been denied employment opportunities, pushed aside and just generally treated badly in the job market because of their sex. Indeed, during the most influential years of feminism in North America in the 1960's, the feminists claimed that women were "the last hired and the first fired". Women were victims of gender bias.

I can cast serious doubts on this notion of gender bias victimizing women with two simple, straight forward facts and a conclusion.

Fact: In 1939, 65% of the banking staff in Canada was male. True. Two out of three employees were male. And what was 1939? 1939 was the start of the Second World War.

Fact: By 1943 (the worst of the war years) the banks in Canada had closed almost half of the banking system due to "lack of staff". The banking text book which inadvertently made me aware of this banking system closure didn't indicate what caused this lack of staff but - considering the dates involved - it is obvious what it was: military requirement for the war effort.

Conclusion: At the end of the war, to prevent any possible future loss of staff expertise to the military in the event of yet another war (which seemed highly possible at that time) the banks and many large business offices, oil company head offices and other labor intensive white collar corporations in both Canada and the United States implemented hiring policies which demanded the exclusive hiring of women for the skills acquiring, upwardly mobile white collar clerical and supervisory sectors of their organizations because women were not vulnerable to military requirements in the event of war. At the present time, Canadian banking white collar staff is 95% female and this high percentage of female employees is true of most other business offices in both Canada and the US.

It is for this reason that bank and business office staff in North America is almost exclusively female. It has nothing to do with poor wages, or superior female abilities, or female competitiveness or "discrimination" against women forcing them into so called pink collar ghettos. Enter banks or business offices in Asia, Europe or Australia and you will find substantial numbers of male employees. Not so in North America, because in North America many employers hire only women because they aren't wanted for possible military duty.

So, how's that for "gender bias"?

Note: It should be pointed out that men created these hiring policies, not women. The policies, unquestionably, came from the most senior executive level and, as the feminists have been pointing out for years, that level is almost exclusively male. If those executive males had not created the hiring policies, women would not have had exclusive access to the white collar jobs and, thus, they would not have become the spoiled, demanding individuals that they presently are. Feminism was little more than a power grab for the executive suites. Women had all of the white collar jobs and saw no reason why they shouldn't have all of the executive suites too and a movement was created mostly for that end. The movement was called feminism and it is my sincere belief that feminism would not have happened if the hiring policies hadn't been created.

(The thought also occurs that both American and Canadian multinational corporations could export their anti-male hiring policies to other countries in Europe, Asia and Australia without those countries realizing what was happening. Any given office staffed exclusively by women would look as though the all female staff had occurred by chance when, in fact, it was caused by stupid anti-male hiring policies imported from North America, but I digress).

Also, if you find this view of gender bias in employment to be of interest, I encourage you to copy this single page and "pass it around", especially to feminists. Feminists can be remarkably verbal about their views and you might be surprised how fast they go silent when they read this view. Try it. You'll see.

Further, what would be the possibility of beginning a class action law suit against the big banks and other white collar employers in North America in response to these anti-male hiring policies? Would there be a place for this single page on the Internet, say on a web site?

Contact me at: glennrburger@hotmail.com

Long Choice For Men Article In Salon | LA Weekly Prints Letter On Gender Bashing  >

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Gender Discrimination in Employment Against Men (Score:1)
by cshaw on Friday October 20, @09:21PM EST (#1)
(User #19 Info)
This article provides the factual details that outline the overt discrimination that exists against males in employment in office clerical and other white collar office jobs. If the premise for this discrimination is as stated, that is, men are discriminated against in employment because of their being subject to military service, then it is both based upon corrupt and predatory anti-social premises and is clearly sexist in both it's means and ends. Further, I ask, why should males defend a socio-political-economic system that promulgates such outrageous policies? There are other nearly 100% female occupations and professions which both overtly and/or covertly exclude males based upon oppressive and sexist premises, means, and ends. Such being the case, until the social-political system which promulgates such injustice for men is changed, overt and covert employment discrimination against males is likely not only to continue but to become more entrenched as the very system which promulgates the same is dependent on these oppressive acts to maintain it's socio-political-economic power. Men should, therefore, work to alter, irrevocably, the socio-economic-political framework as it now exists in order to address this oppressive and anti-social discrimination as no other solution is viable or realistic for men other than immigration.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]