Just yesterday, Jezebel reported on an extremely indiscreet conversation in which IBM executives discussed why they don’t hire young women. It came down to their likelihood of getting pregnant, over and over again, without actually working–a complete waste of resources for the company that is addressed at no point in the article.
Since Jezebel claims to report news, I’m curious to see their figures on how often this happens at IBM. Surely they wouldn’t have reported such an “outrageous” claim without data showing that they weren’t having a simple and pragmatic discussion, right?
The first problem, of course, is that such a conversation should have had to be discreet to begin with. Our culture is so completely overwhelmed with pussy-worship that to even suggest that womens’ choices often hurt other people is an invitation to have an entire article written attacking you. Because Jezebel completely failed to mention how often this occurs at IBM, we have to assume they were discussing a commonplace occurrence that was costing the company money. Otherwise, Jezebel would simply have mentioned that it’s extremely rare.
Some woman overheard the executives speaking at a lunch, and decided to tweet her feelings about the conversation as it went on. If you click the link, you will notice that she doesn’t actually make a point at any point in her emotional tweet storm. She simply explains they are afraid of hiring young women who will get pregnant and waste company resources by leaving, then mentions sexism and feelings.
I am curious when they’re going to make a point. Jezebel, how will you demonstrate that IBM’s fear is unfounded? Alternately, will you please provide evidence that hiring young women is profitable for the long-term interests of the company? Since you’ve decided it must be sexism, I’ll assume you’ve ruled out net loss. Link to your data.
Then, mystery lunch lady explains that they will only hire “mature” women, who won’t have children. Wait, what? A moment ago this was “sexism.” However, in light of new information it appears that they’re fine with hiring women, so long as they don’t present a potential risk to the company.
How is that sexist, Jezebel? That is exactly what they do with every employee. We’re then told, “the executives listed off a number of women who are currently employed at IBM, all of whom apparently have kids, and listed the amount of time the women were expected to take off in the next few years for anticipated pregnancies.“
I suppose that answers my earlier question; this has happened so often at IBM that they literally keep charts to track it. Seeing that IBM keeps careful records of which employees are most productive, Beusman referred their vigilance as “invasive and inappropriate.” Now we are getting to the heart of the matter, as I’ve mentioned before that womens’ idea of equality is doing whatever they want, whenever they want, for any reason, without consequence or accountability regardless of damage caused to others.
Beusman believes that a young woman should be hired because, and that an employer looking for red flags is inappropriate. For that to be inappropriate, the employee would have to be above the employer, on such a high pedestal that no criticism could ever reach her. This bizarre sense of narcissistic entitlement is exactly why IBM doesn’t want to hire young women. They believe they should be able to have a corporation invest time, energy and training into them, and then they can take off to pursue other projects. There is not one single thought given to the person who invested in them, because that person only existed to facilitate the woman’s agenda in the first place.
The following paragraph, as telling as any other, reads: “According to a recent study, 52 percent of women in STEM careers drop out without returning; the top two reasons for them doing so are the “hostile macho cultures” endemic to science and tech fields and “extreme work pressures.” (The study also notes that men who want to raise families take issue with the extreme pressures, too — because, well, men enjoy spending time with their offspring as well. Shocking, I know.)“
Let us not allow Beusman’s throwing a big scary number like 52 at us to distract us from the flip side: half of women stay in STEM fields. Additionally, there is no mention made of how many men fail out of STEM fields, which is another data point we would need in order for this 52% to mean anything. As usual, feminists data is presented completely out of context.
For those that can’t cut it, the top two reasons Beusman listed should read:
1. The men there didn’t change their language, behavior and thought patterns to suit female sensibilities, and
2. They couldn’t handle it.
Beusman mentions that men “take issue” with the extreme pressures as well, disingenuously suggesting that men drop out as well because of said pressure. The unspoken and obvious truth, of course, is that men feel the pressure, dislike it, and do what they have to do anyway. This is why men have always run the world and always will.
Beusman then demands that companies “remove these obstacles,” because all women ever do is demand that everything change to suit them. In one ironically fell swoop, Beusman demonstrates exactly why those women failed out of the STEM fields to begin with. To her, “remove the obstacles” means “implement Newspeak.”
Her final paragraph is the most underhanded and deceitful yet, reading: “So, IBM, why not start by making sure all your employees recognize that 1) women are people, not pregnancies-waiting-to-happen, and 2) those women who do choose to get pregnant need maternity leave — and new fathers need paternity leave, too?“
Let’s dismantle this diarrhea speck by speck: Beusman first dishonestly suggests that IBM does not recognize women as people. She provides no evidence for this suggestion, and in fact it flies rather directly in the face of what we learned earlier: they’re more than happy to hire women who don’t/can’t abuse maternity leave. Beusman also presents a weird false dichotomy between “people” and “pregnancies-waiting-to-happen,” as if people can’t get pregnant?
The second part, if you put it together with the preceding question, looks like this: “IBM, why not start by making sure all your employees recognize that those women who do choose to get pregnant need maternity leave?“
At no point in the article was anything said about pregnant women not getting maternity leave, so this is a completely baseless accusation. Further, it’s not about giving women maternity leave, it’s about women who abuse maternity leave by getting pregnant over and over again on the company dime. That’s actually mentioned in the tweets.
Lastly, she tacks on the “fathers need paternity leave” part because feminists have had to pump the brakes on the male hatred in recent times. Beusman believes that by adding a completely irrelevant question that includes fathers, she has done her job of acknowledging males. If she thought that line was going to save her from the Scalpel, she underestimated her opponent.