If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Bosses are more likely to hire someone they find attractive instead of your homely unemployed ass   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 67
    More: Obvious, American Sociological Review, socioeconomic status, job interviews  
•       •       •

5687 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 5:09 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-29 08:38:41 PM  

occamswrist: bingethinker
Wrong. My car is a mess because I don't care. My desk is neat and my work is accurate, because you pay me to care about that.

I hope someone pays you to care to wipe your ass.


The car is about two weeks away from being towed to a crusher. I'm not putting in any effort there.

My ass has another 30 years or so to go, so I keep it nice and clean.
 
2012-11-29 09:17:37 PM  

BeowulfSmith: I work in a heavily male dominated industry (IT) and get virtually no female applicants, particularly on our side since we do field services which involves a huge amount of travel (we don't get many women at all interested in that, I'm not sure why).


Possibly societal expectations for women to keep the home fires burning and the children fed/washed/alive.

I know, men can do all that too, but our society still expect women to do it.
 
2012-11-29 09:18:56 PM  
Car cleanliness I could see. Some people have disgusting car interiors. It's farking gross. I'm not a germophobe (I just peed and didn't wash my hands!) but I have serious questions about anyone who is willing to sit in filth every time they drive somewhere.


My car is filled with paperwork, but not food, dirt or any other filth. Nevertheless, the hiring manager who looks at cars probably would hire you over me. I imagine after he/she hired you they would shake your hand then later he/she would start bite their nails as "the Circle of Life" song plays.

Somaticasual: This just in.. people usually eat more when they're hungry!

And Aar1012 - it makes more sense that it seems on the surface. It's just looking at a different metric as to how one lives their life, even if it would be presumptive and unfair if someone simply couldn't afford a better car. You can draw judgements like - if someone keeps their car in terrible shape, they're probably not the most responsible in general and thus might make an unreliable employee. If someone has a "Death to jews" bumper sticker, they're probably at risk for emotional issues. And a car full of mcdonalds wrappers might say someone's more interested in getting the job done quickly than getting it done right, or that they'll run late a portion of the time with poor time management skills.


And a boss that goes out into the parking lot to look for food wrappers, bumper stickers and how pretty a car looks of potential employees is probably an finite asshole who uses irrational sweeping generalizations.
 
2012-11-29 09:27:53 PM  

bingethinker: I suppose if someone is too lazy to keep their car washed and free of litter then they may be lazy in other aspects of their life as well.


Fear not, I was just supposing the assumptions of the quoted manager. If I was hiring someone I couldn't give a rat's about their car. Their ability to do the job and fit in with the rest of the team are all that matters.
 
2012-11-29 09:47:26 PM  

PyroStock: Car cleanliness I could see. Some people have disgusting car interiors. It's farking gross. I'm not a germophobe (I just peed and didn't wash my hands!) but I have serious questions about anyone who is willing to sit in filth every time they drive somewhere.

My car is filled with paperwork, but not food, dirt or any other filth. Nevertheless, the hiring manager who looks at cars probably would hire you over me. I imagine after he/she hired you they would shake your hand then later he/she would start bite their nails as "the Circle of Life" song plays.

Somaticasual: This just in.. people usually eat more when they're hungry!

And Aar1012 - it makes more sense that it seems on the surface. It's just looking at a different metric as to how one lives their life, even if it would be presumptive and unfair if someone simply couldn't afford a better car. You can draw judgements like - if someone keeps their car in terrible shape, they're probably not the most responsible in general and thus might make an unreliable employee. If someone has a "Death to jews" bumper sticker, they're probably at risk for emotional issues. And a car full of mcdonalds wrappers might say someone's more interested in getting the job done quickly than getting it done right, or that they'll run late a portion of the time with poor time management skills.

And a boss that goes out into the parking lot to look for food wrappers, bumper stickers and how pretty a car looks of potential employees is probably an finite asshole who uses irrational sweeping generalizations.


Ignoring that being a sweeping generalization in and of itself, they can still be rational even if you don't personally understand them or agree with them. You'll get no argument it's an unprofessional tactic for employers to use on prospective hires. It's just not baseless like the poster suggested.

Unless you're doing a favor for the boss's kid, when faced with hiring one of two competent employees - one of whom is more clean-cut and professional outside of work, vs. the messy guy in a car who might have other personal problems (assuming it's the same car make and model to eliminate other factors)..Who would you most likely pick in reality vs. who you'd pick to support your argument for this thread?
 
2012-11-29 10:15:14 PM  
Somaticasual:Ignoring that being a sweeping generalization in and of itself,

That was the point of that statement.... it cuts both ways.

they can still be rational


But they *might* not be (oh noes!) ... just like the guy with the unclean car *might* be xyz.

even if you don't personally understand them or agree with them. You'll get no argument it's an unprofessional tactic for employers to use on prospective hires. It's just not baseless like the poster suggested.


Maybe the guy with the unclean car had to use his wife car or a friend's car that day? There could be any number of reasons. Why make up some fabricated "what if" story? And if car inspection is such a valuable tool then why stop there? Why not start following them around for a week without them knowing?

Unless you're doing a favor for the boss's kid, when faced with hiring one of two competent employees - one of whom is more clean-cut and professional outside of work, vs. the messy guy in a car who might have other personal problems (assuming it's the same car make and model to eliminate other factors)..Who would you most likely pick in reality vs. who you'd pick to support your argument for this thread?

You assume the one who is clean-cut and professional outside of work is also the one with the clean car.

If by some stroke of luck 2 individuals are *exactly* the same and everyone in the hiring process found both equally likable, qualified, experienced, and fit then you would really let your support for a candidate be based on a car inspection rather than say one more interview or anything else?? That just sounds lazy... at best.
 
2012-11-29 10:20:08 PM  

Somaticasual: Who would you most likely pick in reality vs. who you'd pick to support your argument for this thread?


I'd pick the guy who refused to show his car to me; it shows good judgement and a bit of spine. Asking a candidate's mother's favorite color for drapes gives you more information, but just like the car type/cleanliness/etc. evaluation, it doesn't provide any relevant information, just noise. If it does anything it's likely to contribute to illegal discrimination, which is bad for everyone.

Unless you are aware of some actual relationship between "keeps car clean" and "performance in this job" you have no business even considering such an evaluation as part of a job interview.
 
2012-11-29 11:22:40 PM  

kg2095

Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-29 06:20:58 PM
DickDarlington: Not sure about the "attractiveness" clause but I never hired a tech person who still uses an AOL account.....

Not even if it was Giselle, the French beeetsh?


Susan????
 
2012-11-29 11:23:41 PM  
This is why I will not hesitate to seek plastic surgery should the need arise.
 
2012-11-29 11:30:34 PM  

PyroStock: Somaticasual:Ignoring that being a sweeping generalization in and of itself,

That was the point of that statement.... it cuts both ways.

they can still be rational

But they *might* not be (oh noes!) ... just like the guy with the unclean car *might* be xyz.

even if you don't personally understand them or agree with them. You'll get no argument it's an unprofessional tactic for employers to use on prospective hires. It's just not baseless like the poster suggested.

Maybe the guy with the unclean car had to use his wife car or a friend's car that day? There could be any number of reasons. Why make up some fabricated "what if" story? And if car inspection is such a valuable tool then why stop there? Why not start following them around for a week without them knowing?

Unless you're doing a favor for the boss's kid, when faced with hiring one of two competent employees - one of whom is more clean-cut and professional outside of work, vs. the messy guy in a car who might have other personal problems (assuming it's the same car make and model to eliminate other factors)..Who would you most likely pick in reality vs. who you'd pick to support your argument for this thread?

You assume the one who is clean-cut and professional outside of work is also the one with the clean car.

If by some stroke of luck 2 individuals are *exactly* the same and everyone in the hiring process found both equally likable, qualified, experienced, and fit then you would really let your support for a candidate be based on a car inspection rather than say one more interview or anything else?? That just sounds lazy... at best.


While I respect your candor, I've already noted that would be ruling out the other factors entirely and purely split on the messy car - therefore, your hypothetical variables wouldn't influence that decision. I'm not saying it's ethical or professional (in fact, completely unprofessional as my Boobies noted), I'm saying that's the world we live in and the exact focus of the article you're commenting on. Again, I just said it wasn't baseless in hiring logic.

Funny how you never directly answered the question, too. I'll take that as an answer in and of itself..

And to ProfPlump - Transportation type and cleanliness is not a protected class. Past that, see the "unprofessional" part of my original reply, and the wiki page for "protected classes" respectively.
 
2012-11-29 11:31:15 PM  

Soymilk: BeowulfSmith: I work in a heavily male dominated industry (IT) and get virtually no female applicants, particularly on our side since we do field services which involves a huge amount of travel (we don't get many women at all interested in that, I'm not sure why).

Possibly societal expectations for women to keep the home fires burning and the children fed/washed/alive.

I know, men can do all that too, but our society still expect women to do it.


Or if the woman has a husband or partner who already does a lot of traveling (and if they have children together), it might not be possible for her to travel for work, too. Someone has to stay home and feed Froot Loops to the mucous-crusted, lice-infested crotch droppings.
 
2012-11-30 12:02:18 AM  

Somaticasual: (in fact, completely unprofessional as my Boobies noted)


I do, however, have to cop to the epically-current filter pwnage..
 
2012-11-30 03:20:54 AM  

Somaticasual: PyroStock: Car cleanliness I could see. Some people have disgusting car interiors. It's farking gross. I'm not a germophobe (I just peed and didn't wash my hands!) but I have serious questions about anyone who is willing to sit in filth every time they drive somewhere.

My car is filled with paperwork, but not food, dirt or any other filth. Nevertheless, the hiring manager who looks at cars probably would hire you over me. I imagine after he/she hired you they would shake your hand then later he/she would start bite their nails as "the Circle of Life" song plays.

Somaticasual: This just in.. people usually eat more when they're hungry!

And Aar1012 - it makes more sense that it seems on the surface. It's just looking at a different metric as to how one lives their life, even if it would be presumptive and unfair if someone simply couldn't afford a better car. You can draw judgements like - if someone keeps their car in terrible shape, they're probably not the most responsible in general and thus might make an unreliable employee. If someone has a "Death to jews" bumper sticker, they're probably at risk for emotional issues. And a car full of mcdonalds wrappers might say someone's more interested in getting the job done quickly than getting it done right, or that they'll run late a portion of the time with poor time management skills.

And a boss that goes out into the parking lot to look for food wrappers, bumper stickers and how pretty a car looks of potential employees is probably an finite asshole who uses irrational sweeping generalizations.

Ignoring that being a sweeping generalization in and of itself, they can still be rational even if you don't personally understand them or agree with them. You'll get no argument it's an unprofessional tactic for employers to use on prospective hires. It's just not baseless like the poster suggested.

Unless you're doing a favor for the boss's kid, when faced with hiring one of two competent employees - one of whom is more clean-cut and professional outside of work, vs. the messy guy in a car who might have other personal problems (assuming it's the same car make and model to eliminate other factors)..Who would you most likely pick in reality vs. who you'd pick to support your argument for this thread?


It sounds like the manager may think that the condition of the car is a godd way of knowing how attractive and successful the candidate is.
 
2012-11-30 03:46:32 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: i'm attractive, i'm just fat


You and me both, pal.

Seriously. There are those that don't think the combination possible, but I'm disgusted by my own body and get plenty of attention (from both sexes, but I'm only interested in the females). A cute face, nice ass and great personality has gotten me far.

Okay, now someone say something snarky about how I'm deluding myself. It's unhealthy to feel this confident.
 
2012-11-30 10:43:08 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

Bladder control is also important.
 
2012-11-30 10:49:52 AM  

Somaticasual: While I respect your candor, I've already noted that would be ruling out the other factors entirely and purely split on the messy car - therefore, your hypothetical variables wouldn't influence that decision. I'm not saying it's ethical or professional (in fact, completely unprofessional as my Boobies noted), I'm saying that's the world we live in and the exact focus of the article you're commenting on.


There is no logical reason to rule out the other factors entirely and choose a car inspection. As I stated, a more intense look at the other factors is the right answer.

Again, I just said it wasn't baseless in hiring logic.

Funny how you never directly answered the question, too. I'll take that as an answer in and of itself..


Funny how you never directly answered the questions I posted in my last post either. Like you, I'll also make my own assumptions on your non-responses as answers in and of themself because that's such sound reasoning.

The problem is your question was illogical to even ask (even if you wish to ignore the unprofessional/unethical aspect and the deeper implications of that). Your question assumes we must rule out all other factors and if that wasn't enough we now must select a candidate based on a surprise car inspection... that's absurd (unless maybe you are a pizza delivery driver or such?). It is not logical to rule out all the other factors and make candidate choice on something like a surprise car inspection or their knowledge of their grandmother's favorite color of drapes. It's lazy and careless... at best and not sound hiring logic. If a hiring manager decides to be lazy then he/she should pick the candidate with the shortest name because it will save on company ink and they won't have to walk out to the parking lot thereby making the hiring manager more productive that day.

i.dailymail.co.uk
Look at this loser with his messy desk... pffft, clearly he's not very productive.
 
2012-11-30 10:56:50 AM  

FizixJunkee: Soymilk: BeowulfSmith: I work in a heavily male dominated industry (IT) and get virtually no female applicants, particularly on our side since we do field services which involves a huge amount of travel (we don't get many women at all interested in that, I'm not sure why).

Possibly societal expectations for women to keep the home fires burning and the children fed/washed/alive.

I know, men can do all that too, but our society still expect women to do it.

Or if the woman has a husband or partner who already does a lot of traveling (and if they have children together), it might not be possible for her to travel for work, too. Someone has to stay home and feed Froot Loops to the mucous-crusted, lice-infested crotch droppings.



True. It takes times and effort to keep the crust and lice down to a minimum.
 
Displayed 17 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report