|
fiona
|
 |
« on: October 25, 2009, 08:24:34 PM » |
|
Thought Forumites might want to keep abreast of this. The posted comments are also notably snarky. http://careernetwork.com/blogPost/Cleavagethe-Job-Market/8564/The Fiona |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Fiona or perhaps La Fiona
Professor of Thread Killing, Fiork University
The Right Reverend Fiona, PhD, Bishop of the Fora
|
|
|
|
kedves
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2009, 09:07:43 PM » |
|
You said abreast. Heh heh. I linked that in the "my TT colleague dresses inappropriately"-themed thread as an example of cattiness, but no one seems to have clicked the link.
I was disappointed that Laurie Fendrich turned an article about intense competition by well-educated people for a $13/hour job into a conclusion that the woman profiled was hired for her hint of cleavage. Does she not get it? If the employer wanted cleavage and was sleazy enough to hire for it, I'm confident he could have gotten a lot more for his $13/hour.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
carebearstare
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2009, 09:10:36 PM » |
|
Exactly my thoughts. Apparently Ms. Fendrich can't tell the difference between a woman showing off her cleavage because she is trying to flaunt it and a woman who just happens to be in her 20s, is not flat-chested, and decides not to wear a turtleneck.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
scampster
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2009, 09:32:03 PM » |
|
I found it interesting that none of the comments on the NYT webpage picked up on the cleavage (at least as of yesterday, when I clicked on kedves's link).
Apparently it takes a "modern prude" to point it out. I haven't read all the CHE comments but from a quick scan, it appears most people are thinking "WTF?"
So pretty much... she's the only one for whom cleavage was the most important part of the article.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
wet_blanket
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2009, 09:54:29 PM » |
|
Exactly my thoughts. Apparently Ms. Fendrich can't tell the difference between a woman showing off her cleavage because she is trying to flaunt it and a woman who just happens to be in her 20s, is not flat-chested, and decides not to wear a turtleneck.
Yup. The "cleavage" on display is pretty minimal. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
No, I don't have anything nice to say.
|
|
|
|
frenchdoctor
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2009, 05:38:33 AM » |
|
Several members of my family are truck drivers. Believe it or not, they are not greasy, sweaty perverts who like to show their muscles to impress bimbos during booze-induced brawls in shady bars. They are skilled professionals who use all the ressources of modern technology to deliver their stuff in the right place at the right time. They're responsible for their cargo as well, that can be expensive. Ferrying 30 tons of electronic materials across a continent, for example, requires some sense of organization and responsability.
I doubt anyone who is responsible for their formation would hire someone utterly incompetent solely based on how she looks. Any transport business run that way would not last long.
Much worse, the columnist is so busy overthinking that she misses what is the main point of the Times article. 13 measly bucks / hour for a job that requires skills and responsabilities ? 500 candidates ? Recruiters asking 128 silly questions to sort them out ? The article is about that, not about cleavage. And, by the way, the huge majority of applicants were refused without even an interview.
I'm an scholar myself, but I'm sometimes bewildered by our aptitude to overthink and overtheorize just everything. The Times article isn't about "the biased resymbolization of irigarayan clothing socio-semiosis in an intergenre working space." It's about how damn hard it is to find a job these days.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hipgeek
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2009, 06:19:25 AM » |
|
Yeah, I would have to say the columnist was being a bit of a boob with this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
leontrout
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2009, 07:53:27 AM » |
|
"Being a bit of a boob"?
Okay. I may not be laughing, but I'm tittering.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
spork
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2009, 05:09:46 PM » |
|
The real lesson of the article: if you're overqualified, say by having a graduate degree, your resume gets tossed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Please do not force people who are exhausted to take medication for hallucinations." -- Memo from the Chair, Department of White Privilege Studies, Fiork University
Director, Human Gnome Project -- "Where teaching skills are enforced by the use of PowerPoint presentations"
"Caring in context"
|
|
|
|
terpsichore
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2009, 03:04:48 PM » |
|
Much worse, the columnist is so busy overthinking that she misses what is the main point of the Times article. 13 measly bucks / hour for a job that requires skills and responsabilities ? 500 candidates ? Recruiters asking 128 silly questions to sort them out ? The article is about that, not about cleavage. And, by the way, the huge majority of applicants were refused without even an interview.
In other words, not so different from some academic job searches described on the fora. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
