"I would have gotten the job -- if I were a woman."

[Hoya97]

WOW! Great points, great debate. I find the airing of subject matter such as this to be quite refreshing - and quite rare.

Regarding the topic that kicked it off...

I work at a LDS as an instructor (part time). I don't hire or fire anyone. But I would love it to have a female DM or co-instructor in the classroom with me. Women have different approaches to problems (generally speaking). Whereas I would approach a topic more agressively, a woman may be more subtile.

The bottom line in all this is that I support women getting into the professional aspects of diving. Wish there was more of them. However, they should be able to step up to the plate regarding requirements. No one should be carried due to their gender just so we get more certified instructors. But once they make the grade, I'd welcome them onto my team.

Okay, I'll crawl off my soapbox now.

Hope everyone has a wonderful New Year!

Regards

 

[Drew Sailbum]

but just because a job listing is advertised as "women only" does not make it illegal everywhere. Many of those jobs are overseas and not subject to the jurisdiction of the US EEOC.

And I know our job applicants are required to submit photos as it is required for the processing of work permit applications. Heck, they hired me even after seeing my photo, so they can't be that discriminating.


Hiring in the dive industry may be reflective of the needs of other businesses. On the face, the job is the same - dive instructor. But the breadth of other skills the applicant has often is the deciding factor. All of the applicants considered by our dive shop have a minimum of a PADI OWSI rating. But hiring decisions have been made selecting an OWSI with mechanical skills over a MI with no mechanical aptitude simply because at that time we needed to fill that niche in our staff. A couple months later the exact opposite selection was made.

 

[alcina]

divemistress -

I do at least two IDCs per year (and many many DMs) and I have never seen the kind of thing mentioned in your post - we expect everyone to be able to exceed the minimum standard. There is a way it needs to be done on the IDC/IE and that's it. The guidelines are spelled out pretty well, I think.

I agree, the guy sounds like he maybe didn't do the work, meet the standard or impress the person hiring.

 

[DiveTyme]

At the IE I attended a few years ago there was no special considerations that I could see. Men and women passed and men and women failed. Those that failed were not ready be instructors. As a cross-over instructor I could planly see they were not ready.

 

[chrpai]

$5 million dollars in a verdict where it was claimed Hilton Hotels failed to protect her from being "groped".

Man, so that's how I get some of Paris Hilton's money!!

 

[Cave Diver]

Working in the retail market, I've had some first hand experiences with the human resource decisions regarding the placement of employees. I've seen many cases where they have placed an employee somewhere in an effort to maintain "a culturally diverse balance" even though that employee may not be the best suited. I've also seen this practice applied towards both gender and race.

Personally, I think all of the EEO stuff has gone too far. If you're qualified, then you're qualified. If there is someone who is more qualified, then the job should go to them and it shouldnt matter what the race, religion, or sex of the person is.

Unfortunately, in a litiguous society it seems all too easy for some people to scream "discrimination" and be compensated by a court of law.

I say let the best man/woman for the job do it!

 

[diverrick]

As Mempliot mentioned, there are some jobs that you can get killed if you have the wrong person working with you. 1977, my first year out of High school, I got a job working as a seasonal firefighter for California Dept. of Forestry (was called a Division, back then) They were hiring minorities, openly seeking out people to hire based on race and/or gender. We had a female, who could not do the job. She could not pull fire hose, carry a heavy backpack of gear, or pulll the rest of us out of harms way if we needed help. she got the same pay as the rest of us, and did half of the work.
We had to carry her load all summer long. We were not allowed to complain about it either. She was assigned all the "soft" jobs around the station and on the fire jobs, while the rest of us grunts broke our backs cutting firelines, humping hose up cliffs, etc. They also were down in Oakland looking to hire anyone of color irregardless if they had any experience. It got to a point in those years that a male caucasian with experience would get passed over for these other folks. The joke going around was that if you were a Black pregnant female, you were #1 on the list to get hired. It was the worst case of discrimination I ever witnessed, and one that could have easily gotten someone killed! When we went to take the agility part of the hiring process, they eliminated the parts where you had to pick up the ladder, and place it on the engines ladder rack, as well as other tests, that simulated a real requirement of the job, because most of the females could not do it, and some of the men. I have no problems hiring anyone, irregardless of sex or race who can do that kind of job, and is capable, but it was just wrong to hire incapable people, just to look properly "diverse" It was my life out there that was in danger, as a result.
And this was the State of California doing this!

 

[MsParamedic]

As a person that is a minority employee (only 10% of the field of pre-hospital care--EMTs and Paramedics--are female), I have seen both sides. Is it right?? NO!

Was I hired because I was a woman? Maybe, but I would like to think it was because I am a good medic. Once in the position, very often women have to "prove" themselves to the guys without much support. We often need to carry more, pull heavier hose, etc.....just to prove ourselves. In the fire service and EMS, it is very much a "good ole' boy" club and minorities are often not welcomed until we can prove ourselves.

I can honestly say, that I have NEVER found this bias with my dive buddies or other divers I have come in contact with. I have regarded everyone as a peer not a "male diver" or "female diver" or "diver of color". Maybe I have just been lucky, or have I grown use to having to prove my abilities to male peers???

 

[mempilot]

In the fire service and EMS, it is very much a "good ole' boy" club and minorities are often not welcomed until we can prove ourselves.

It's not that minorities(whether it gender or race) aren't welcome in hazardous jobs. It's that unqualified people aren't welcome. All have to prove their abilities to be accepted. A white male that can't pull his weight will be shunned just as quickly.

We are all equal in rights, but not in ability. This is true whether comparing two men, two women, or a woman to a man. Rights should get you the interview. Performance and ability should get you the job.

 

[ScubaJewel]

Personally, I think all of the EEO stuff has gone too far. If you're qualified, then you're qualified. If there is someone who is more qualified, then the job should go to them and it shouldnt matter what the race, religion, or sex of the person is.

Something that I find interesting is that people keep talking about qualifications to perform a given duty/job/whatever.

My observation is that qualifications are subjective, the idea that one person is more qualified than any other is subjective. How does one determine that someone is more or less qualified? ultimately we all have strengths and weaknesses

Ultimately the parameters encompass more than simply being able to complete some task in the best/shortes/longest/most organized/whatever time or manner!

Remember that someone or some group is in charge of setting goals. To achieve these goals certain things need to take place or certain people need to hold certain positions. Why? because it fits the plan.

All to often people argue ideals rather than realities. People are generally predictable. Social science will uphold this. While there are subtle differences in many and while some people don't fit the generalities at all, the majority do. its kind of like people who smoke pointing to the one person who smoked 5 packs a day and lived to 110 years old, that person is one in ten million. the majority of people who smoke that much will surely die of lung cancer or related disease at a much younger age.

Sorry for getting carried away there but the reality is that often to qualify for a job that ultimately fits with the end goals of any organization the gender of a given indivudule may need to be included.

As I said in an earlier post. The reason for this is most likely un developed market. If what it takes to tap this market is the use of women in key positions to make other women/females feel more comfortable, then gender becomes part of the job qualifications and.... While not politically correct to admit it is often a reality.

What I am saying here is simply this, At times the visual and emotional needs of the market need to be considered and in the terms of Scuba Instruction (highly visible and key in promotion of the industry) this is undeniably true.

Julie