I Don’t Want to Hire Women
Yes, I said it. You cringed when you read it and I cringed when I
wrote it, and even more so when the thought first occurred to me. I am a
woman, a feminist, a mother, and a passionate entrepreneur. I don’t
just stand for equality – I have crashed the glass ceiling in every
aspect of my life. I get extremely angry when I come across articles
that insist there are gender differences that extend beyond physiology. I
am fortunate to have had female role models who taught me through their
own examples that I can accomplish absolutely anything I desire.
Over the years, I have hired outstanding women – educated,
intelligent and highly articulate. Yet, I am exhausted. I have become
profoundly tired of being a therapist and a babysitter, of being drawn
into passive-aggressive mental games and into constantly questioning my
own worth as a manager. I have had several women who quit to stay home
to “figure out what to do next”. No, not to stay home and care for
children, but to mooch of a husband or a boyfriend while soul searching
(aka: taking a language class or learning a new inapplicable skill that
could be acquired after work). Incidentally, I have not had a single
male employee quit with no plan in mind.
I have had women cry in team meetings, come to my office to ask me if
I still like them and create melodrama over the side of the office
their desk was being placed. I am simply incapable of verbalizing enough
appreciation to female employees to satiate their need for it for at
least a week’s worth of work. Here is one example to explain. My
receptionist was resigning and, while in tears, she told me that
although she was passionate about our brand and loved the job, she could
not overcome the fact that I did not thank her for her work. It really
made me stop in my tracks and so I asked for an example. “Remember when I
bought the pictures with butterflies to hang in the front? And you just
came and said ‘thank you’? That is a perfect example!” – “Wait”, I
said, “So, I did thank you then?” – “Yes! But you did not elaborate on
what exactly you liked about them! Why didn’t you?” She had bought them
with the company credit card and I actually did not like them at all,
but I digress.
I have developed a different approach for offering constructive
criticism to male and female employees. When I have something to say to
one of the men, I just say it! I don’t think it through – I simply spit
it out, we have a brief discussion and we move on. They even frequently
thank me for the feedback! Not so fast with my female staff. I plan, I
prepare, I think, I run it through my business partner and then I think
again. I start with a lot of positive feedback before I feel that I have
cushioned my one small negative comment sufficiently, yet it is rarely
enough. We talk forever, dissect every little piece of it, and then come
back to the topic time and time again in the future. And I also have to
confirm that I still like them – again and again, and again.
I am also yet to have a single male employee come to my office to
give me dirt on a co-worker or share an awkward gossip-like story. My
female employees though? Every. single. one.
When I opened my company, I was excited for many reasons. One of them
was wanting to make it an amazing place for women to build their
careers. After all, we were two women, both mothers with very small
children, opening a company in a very competitive industry. I was going
to celebrate the achievements of my female hires, encourage them to find
their voices, celebrate their pregnancies and year-long maternity
leaves, be understanding and accommodating when they would have to
juggle work/daycare/school schedules. Yet, I had no idea that the
problems women faced in their workplace were often far removed from the
typical inequalities feminism continues to address. It is not men who
sabotage women and stump their career growth – it is women themselves!
What is at the root of the problem? Lack of confidence? Wrong
upbringing? What am I not seeing? Is there something else I should be
doing as a manager? I welcome your comments, as I secretly continue
placing the resumes of female applicants into the “call later” folder.
The post was written by a guest blogger but the veracity of every aspect of the story has been verified by Blogger Clarissa.
20140519
20140508
Nobel Prize economists call for end to war on drugs
War will not end because some people win a lot with this. Period.
Nobel Prize economists call for end to war on drugs
Five Nobel Prize-winning economists are calling for an end to the global war on drugs and a shift over to policies that focus on public health. The economists, along with over a dozen professors and politicians, have all endorsed a report released last night by the London School of Economics and Political Science, which breaks down the successes and failures of the worldwide drug war and finds that it has had "enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage." The report recommends that countries instead focus on individualized approaches to drug laws and encourages experimentation with lifting prohibitions.
The report details a laundry list of negative results from the war on drugs, including "mass incarceration in the US, highly repressive policies in Asia, vast corruption and political destabilization in Afghanistan and West Africa, immense violence in Latin America, an HIV epidemic in Russia, an acute global shortage of pain medication and the propagation of systematic human rights abuses around the world." In part, the report finds that the drug war's failings come from its high costs for low returns and the unwillingness of countries where drugs are produced to risk their own security with enforcement efforts.
It hasn't been a complete failure, however. The report finds that in some areas, like the US, the reduced dependency achieved through strict prohibition can outweigh the financial costs. "The alleged ‘failure’ of the ‘war on drugs’ is a standard point of departure for discussions of drug law reform, but reports of prohibition’s failure – like those of Mark Twain’s death – may be exaggerated," writes Jonathan P. Caulkins, a Carnegie Mellon University professor of public policy. Even so, Caulkins notes the United States' prohibition is "rather extreme and inefficient" and that it's "gone beyond the point of diminishing returns." By cutting drug penalties in half across the board, Caulkins says that the US should would only see a "very modest" increase in use and dependency, yet have a "kinder, gentler prohibition."
That said, other sections of the report that look at the drug war from more than a financial perspective are more condemning of these strict policies. In notes that in the United States, such policies been viewed as legally enforced discrimination and can even be seen as curtailing constitutional rights due to their extremity. Writer Alejandro Madrazo Lajous, professor in the legal studies division of Mexico's Center for Research and Teaching Economics, says that this crippling of constitutional rights extends to other countries too, including Mexico, where organized crime suspects can be detained for extended periods of time without formal charges against them, and Columbia, where law enforcement also has expanded ability to search and detain suspects.
The drug war’s failure has been recognized by public health professionals, security experts, human rights authorities and now some of the world’s most respected economists,” John Collins, the report's editor, says in a statement. "It will take time for a new international strategy to emerge. However, the most immediate task is ensuring a sound economic basis for the policies, and then to reallocate international resources accordingly."
The report makes a number of policy suggestions, including many to address the mass incarcerations resulting from the drug war. In particular, it recommends ending long mandatory sentencing and releasing existing offenders who pose no risk or whose long sentences no longer apply — as the US has begun to do in some circumstances. As for public health, the report says that governments should make support programs for drug users a priority. It also recommends that lawmakers should make policies that can be updated and later adjusted based on their performance. It supports experimenting with new policies too, noting that legalization of marijuana in certain areas can provide valuable information to other countries, whether those policies succeed or fail.
Those involved intend to have the report sent to the UN. Guatemala’s interior minister will receive the report today and its president will proceed to present it at international forums, including the United Nations. "The UN must recognize its role is to assist states as they pursue best-practice policies based on scientific evidence, not undermine or counteract them." Danny Quah, professor of economics at LSE, says in a statement. "If this alignment occurs, a new and effective international regime can emerge that effectively tackles the global drug problem."
The report specifically calls out the United Nations' 2016 General Assembly Special Session on Drugs as an opportunity for countries to press for global change. It wants them to ensure that the UN's narcotics control board incorporates human rightsguidelines, works to expand access to medications such as opioid substitution therapy, and doesn't try to interfere with countries attempting to regulate marijuana. But critically, the report concludes that a one-size-fits-all approach is not working — it believes the UN can significantly help, but mostly, it wants it to avoid impeding on countries' attempts to prioritize their drug policies toward harm reduction and treatment.
Nobel Prize economists call for end to war on drugs
Five Nobel Prize-winning economists are calling for an end to the global war on drugs and a shift over to policies that focus on public health. The economists, along with over a dozen professors and politicians, have all endorsed a report released last night by the London School of Economics and Political Science, which breaks down the successes and failures of the worldwide drug war and finds that it has had "enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage." The report recommends that countries instead focus on individualized approaches to drug laws and encourages experimentation with lifting prohibitions.
The report details a laundry list of negative results from the war on drugs, including "mass incarceration in the US, highly repressive policies in Asia, vast corruption and political destabilization in Afghanistan and West Africa, immense violence in Latin America, an HIV epidemic in Russia, an acute global shortage of pain medication and the propagation of systematic human rights abuses around the world." In part, the report finds that the drug war's failings come from its high costs for low returns and the unwillingness of countries where drugs are produced to risk their own security with enforcement efforts.
It hasn't been a complete failure, however. The report finds that in some areas, like the US, the reduced dependency achieved through strict prohibition can outweigh the financial costs. "The alleged ‘failure’ of the ‘war on drugs’ is a standard point of departure for discussions of drug law reform, but reports of prohibition’s failure – like those of Mark Twain’s death – may be exaggerated," writes Jonathan P. Caulkins, a Carnegie Mellon University professor of public policy. Even so, Caulkins notes the United States' prohibition is "rather extreme and inefficient" and that it's "gone beyond the point of diminishing returns." By cutting drug penalties in half across the board, Caulkins says that the US should would only see a "very modest" increase in use and dependency, yet have a "kinder, gentler prohibition."
That said, other sections of the report that look at the drug war from more than a financial perspective are more condemning of these strict policies. In notes that in the United States, such policies been viewed as legally enforced discrimination and can even be seen as curtailing constitutional rights due to their extremity. Writer Alejandro Madrazo Lajous, professor in the legal studies division of Mexico's Center for Research and Teaching Economics, says that this crippling of constitutional rights extends to other countries too, including Mexico, where organized crime suspects can be detained for extended periods of time without formal charges against them, and Columbia, where law enforcement also has expanded ability to search and detain suspects.
The drug war’s failure has been recognized by public health professionals, security experts, human rights authorities and now some of the world’s most respected economists,” John Collins, the report's editor, says in a statement. "It will take time for a new international strategy to emerge. However, the most immediate task is ensuring a sound economic basis for the policies, and then to reallocate international resources accordingly."
The report makes a number of policy suggestions, including many to address the mass incarcerations resulting from the drug war. In particular, it recommends ending long mandatory sentencing and releasing existing offenders who pose no risk or whose long sentences no longer apply — as the US has begun to do in some circumstances. As for public health, the report says that governments should make support programs for drug users a priority. It also recommends that lawmakers should make policies that can be updated and later adjusted based on their performance. It supports experimenting with new policies too, noting that legalization of marijuana in certain areas can provide valuable information to other countries, whether those policies succeed or fail.
Those involved intend to have the report sent to the UN. Guatemala’s interior minister will receive the report today and its president will proceed to present it at international forums, including the United Nations. "The UN must recognize its role is to assist states as they pursue best-practice policies based on scientific evidence, not undermine or counteract them." Danny Quah, professor of economics at LSE, says in a statement. "If this alignment occurs, a new and effective international regime can emerge that effectively tackles the global drug problem."
The report specifically calls out the United Nations' 2016 General Assembly Special Session on Drugs as an opportunity for countries to press for global change. It wants them to ensure that the UN's narcotics control board incorporates human rightsguidelines, works to expand access to medications such as opioid substitution therapy, and doesn't try to interfere with countries attempting to regulate marijuana. But critically, the report concludes that a one-size-fits-all approach is not working — it believes the UN can significantly help, but mostly, it wants it to avoid impeding on countries' attempts to prioritize their drug policies toward harm reduction and treatment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)