Gender/Wal-Mart Case/Ginsburg/Nursing

[Cul2]

During the Supreme Court's recent discussion of the Wal-Mart gender-discrimination case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, compared this case to a successful 1970's case against American Telephone and Telegraph Co.

""The idea wasn't at all complicated...It was that most people prefer themselves and so a decision-maker, all other things being equal, would prefer someone that looked like him." The Wal-Mart case "sounds quite similar," Ginsburg said.

Basically she's saying that in company or institution or profession dominated by one gender, the decision makers of that dominant gender, all things being equal, will hire and promote people that are their gender. I don't agree with her reasoning. But, according to her reasoning, if this applies to companies and professions dominated by men, does it apply to professions dominated by women, professions like nursing? Are those who hire in nursing dominated by women and, if so, as Ginsburg reasons, all things being equal, will they tend to hire females?

If you're not familiar with this Wal-Mart case, here's a link that briefly describes it.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Wal-Mart-genderbias-supremecourt-SoniaSotomayor/2011/03/30/id/391168

As I said, I don't agree with Ginsburg's logic. I think there are many factors that go into the fact that women dominate nursing today -- historical, sociological, cultural, psychological, economic, etc. To what extent is what Ginsburg says a factor?

[Chin up]

I absolutely agree with her. Where is your disagreement? Is it her logic regarding the AT&T whole person rule, or in general? I only ask so I can explain further, why I am in agreement.

Edit- rethink your premise, if just for a moment.

[Cul2]

Okay. Let's say I agree with her. What I'm trying to do is see how her logic

applies to a profession, like nursing. Are women more likely to hire women,

and men more likely to hire men? I think that's too simple, esp. in today

society. But maybe I'm wrong. Go ahead and explain your reasoning.

[middleager]

I agree with you Cul2, just as there are many reasons nursing is dominsted by females, some rather obvious such as stereotyping, tradition, etc there are some that are less obvious. The same goes with many professions, when one looks at the glass cieling in business for example, I read a study that discussed the effect women taking extended time off to bear and raise childeren has on income and advancement. Without getting into should that or should that not be, it would be easy to say men are the majority of top executives so they hire other men without even conisdering this. Breaks or gaps in employment history have huge effects on pay and advancement regardless. I would think nursing is the same with many other factors determining the gender dispairity vs discriminatory hiring.

[Chin up]

Okay. Let's say I agree with her. What I'm trying to do is see how her logic

applies to a profession, like nursing. Are women more likely to hire women,

and men more likely to hire men? I think that's too simple, esp. in today

society. But maybe I'm wrong. Go ahead and explain your reasoning.

Okay, the AT&T case was about women, or was it? The Walmart case is about women in this instance, but could easily be about race, faith, gays...her premise is wider than gender and this has been shown to be true throughout American history. Remember we once had a one drop rule...a 1/5th rule...all excessive subjective ruled....think about this...a white male owner, may hire a white male first, black male second and white female third, but never a black female. Or he may, hire a white male, white female, back male, but no black female. I could use any race, please don't get hung up there. Or say this same white male who is straight hires a black straight male, a black straight female, but no gays, white or black. This is excessive subjective rule...in each instance, he hired those more like himself. The hypotheticals I used in no way changes the gender issue, but reinforces it. Ginberg's thought is taken to it's natural conclusion. People, are more comfortable with those like themselves and rarely deviate from it.

So I don't believe she was arguing a profession, but an average "individual's" inclination.

[neuroms]

Well that's clear, if oversimplified, as a sociological mechanism, but are institutions only bound by antidiscrimination laws in the sense that mandate/condone systemic discriminatory policies, or do they also have a responsibility to monitor for and intervene against evidence of widespread trends of discrimination within themselves?

[Chin up]

Well that's clear, if oversimplified, as a sociological mechanism, but are institutions only bound by antidiscrimination laws in the sense that mandate/condone systemic discriminatory policies, or do they also have a responsibility to monitor for and intervene against evidence of widespread trends of discrimination within themselves?

Yes, yes, yes. They have a responsibility to back up what they say! Or words are meaningless...But, that is where the debate begins and where the justices parted. This is a heated, evenly divided debate. I agree with Ginsburg, the case should be heard, but, you may not. It is hard to not oversimplify as you stated, something not, so black and white, where the tendency is to come down on the opinion, closest to what is familiar. Just look at the text book picture of where the court stands?

But it still does not answer the OP original question...women, tend to keep male traditions alive, we are conditioned, we have made great strides, but, a woman will hire a man without the excessive subjective rule, believing it is just to do so and some may take it further believing they must do so. Based only on the familiar. Let's face it, our history shows, white males are not only traditionally the familiar, but the rule.

Yes, this is changing, but we have a long way to go. Going back to Ginsburg, I don't believe her stance was gender, but American individualism. Peace!

[middleager]

But if we apply that logic, and come back to the topic of female dominated professions we must also start are starting from the position that discrimination is enevitable in a profession dominated by either gender, or individuals hiring automatically start with a prejudice for their gender, race, etc. While I understand the concept I would argue if it is something that belongs in the court. Where do you set the bar for this, are you saying the only way an employer can prove they did not let their personal circumstances create discrimination is to prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt they proactively took steps to overcome this by intentionally hiring people who were not like them to overcome the percieved biais. Doesn't that create the same discrimination only in reverse. Doesn't this automatically start with the accused employer being guilty until proven innocent simply who they are and by numbers without determining intent or contributing factors. While it is changing business schools, engineering schools, etc are still heavily populated by male students, nursing schools are overwhelmingly female, should we start from the position that this must mean there is some sort of discrimination in admissions or other areas to create this. Not a big fan of walmart by any stretch of the imagination, but I think starting from the point that we allow our personal situations to be an automatic indicator of discrimination in practice....slippery slope to head down