Honest answers from women...?

Question

If you were given a job knowing you were much less qualified than the man competing for the same job, would you still take it??

I was browsing through some of these answers and a lot of women talk about how they are wrongfully turned away from jobs for less experienced and less qualified men.

So now lets' turn the tables:

A job you really want, you get it despite the fact that you are not the best candidate, the man was in fact the best candidate but he was wrongfully turned away for the less experienced, less qualified woman. The reason why you got the post was specifically BECAUSE of the fact that you are female and your competitor was male. They thought they should give you a little more "leeway" with the interview.

Pick one:

A.) Yay! I got what I wanted! I know I'm not the most qualified person but why should I complain? It worked in my favor.

B.) No. Sexism is wrong regardless of who it's coming from and who it's targeting. He's more qualified, he should have it.

Personally, I think it would be hypocritical of you to complain about being turned away for less qualified men yet keep your mouth shut when the tables turn and it's now in YOUR favor.

Answer 1

from a male and ex employer perspective this is a flawed question. it doesn't always come down to the "best qualified" person for the job. Employees need to be considerate of other aspects of their workplace, for instance working with people with intellectual disabilities requires that there are both male and female practitioners for male and female clients. It is of no use to have a very well qualified female worker if the client will only respond to male workers and it would be irresponsible for the workplace, worker and client to send a very well qualified male worker to do home visits alone to a female clients house.

Just because you know of someone that you consider "better" qualified than yourself doesn't mean that they actually are.

One final note though. I have seen a lot of male workers employees in many industries simply because they are male workers (I was in a position to see what was needed for the workplace and these men were often not in the interests of the workplace), the most common reasons given were outdated gender myths and stereotypes (one such was a well qualified female who was rejected from working in the "kill end" of a chicken processing plant because women were flat out not aloud to work there, about 6 months later a woman was hired for the "kill end" but only because she had previous experience in this work). What you are discussing is called "structural disadvantage" and as both a male and an ex-employer I can guarentee that this disadvantages women to a very large degree.

Answer 2

I'd take the job.  Why?  Because it probably means I'm working for a large company that has a "quota" to fill.  They need to have a certain number of women, and minorities being promoted.

If I don't take the job, they might find another woman who is even LESS qualified than I am!  

I'm also not a traitorous type.  Every single chance I got, I would absolutely give credit to whom-ever deserved it.  "I wouldn't have been able to get this project done without the help and knowledge of Mr. So-and-So."

However, let's just say it was a small company, and they only have two choices...me, or him.  No, I actually wouldn't take it.  I've seen far too much company strife caused by that kind of idiocy.  

No matter what you do though, you're stuck.  The guy may resent you either way.  He's certainly going to resent you if you get promoted when you shouldn't have, just because of a gender quota.  He may also resent you if you turn down the job, because then he'll feel like he "owes you."

I much prefer being self employed....none of the political BS of most jobs.

~Garnet

Permaculture homesteading/farming over 20 years

Who worked faithfully for a doctor for more than 8 years, and was replaced suddenly one day by the doctors 19 year old son, because nobody else would hire the boy, and he wouldn't go to college!

Answer 3

If I wasn't qualified I wouldn't apply.

Yes, I'd take the job.  If they chose me to fill a quota, that is their folly, not mine.  I need a job, and I'll take it and do it well.  If I applied for a job and suspected that I was being discriminated against or that someone less qualifies was chosen to fill a quota, then it would be up to me to either fight it or apply elsewhere.  The only way I would know about either of these things happening would be if the company I applied for ignored all confidentiality procedures, so I probably wouldn't want to work there anyway.

P.S.- However, if I suspected from talking to former/current employees that the company continually hired based on racism, sexism, (insert your favorite "ism" here), then I would not work there.

Answer 4

No, I wouldn't take it, because I probably wouldn't be much good at it and therefore dislike it. I don't believe this has ever happened to me, but I would be mighty pissed if it did.

Answer 5

If I really wanted the job and thought I was able to do it well, I would take it and then work hard to excel at it and prove they made the right choice.

Answer 6

Your comment: "I was browsing through some of these answers and a lot of women talk about how they are wrongfully turned away from jobs for less experienced and less qualified men.

So now lets' turn the tables:"

No, in all honesty I would take the job and then work my butt off to do the best job possible and to make myself qualified.

NOW...what would a man do.  You browsed the answers, how did the men respond?  Did ANY of them give up the job so the more qualified woman could have it?

No, I didn't think so.  As politically correct as we may want to be, man or woman, we are first of all human.

Answer 7

I'm anti-Affirmative Action myself, but if it was a job I really wanted, I would still take it. Maybe that's selfish or hypocritical, but you wanted honest answers.

Answer 8

I personally have worked in some  many programming and other jobs where the less qualified man got the job or we both got the job and his pay was nearly twice mine that I would not hesitate to take the job. However I would be very careful on the job and know that it might not last forever since the boss could suddenly change his mind...

Answer 9

Yes, of course. People take jobs for which they are less qualified than their competitors every day. The obvious example is employers preferring men over women due to concern over women taking extended periods of maternity leave, but people are often employed because of their background, contacts, personality etc. rather than their qualifications.

Answer 10

I wouldn't take a job I knew I wasn't qualified for.

Answer 11

If I knew enough about another applicant to know that he was more qualified than I, and I got the job over him, I would question my potential employers as to why they chose me.  If it turns out I was given the job because being a women, I needed a little extra boost, I would gladly give up the job.

But I have been witness to people getting jobs over those who are clearly more qualified according to their resume, but perhaps there was something about the person who got the job that indicated they were harder workers or more passionate about the job or some other unmeasurable quality that actually gave the person a boost over the more qualified applicant.

Answer 12

in all honesty, I'd assume I got the job because I was considered the best and most appropriate for it.  If I later found out I was selected strictly because of being female, I'd probably start looking for another job finding something more appropriate for my talents and ethics and give all those men that lost out initially, another shot at it.

Answer 13

Given my experience, I would make them realize that they did pick the best candidate in the end because I would work really hard to keep up to their standards.

Answer 14

Rather than pick A or B, I'd have to say I would feel extremely uncomfortable taking a job that I wasn't the most qualified candidate for. My confidence would suffer and ultimatley, I'd prove everybody right because I wouldn't do a good job.

I do agree that sexism is wrong and I don't agree with affirmative action because it hurts the very people it tries to help. That said, I probably wouldn't be made aware of the reason I was hired so I woudn't have any reason to turn down the job.  

Answer 15

why do you ask such questions?

you know that you asked for honesty, right? and you know that women will honestly answer you that the will take the job, right?

Answer 16

It doesn't matter how bad I want it; I'm not applying for a job I'm not qualified for, that defeats the whole purpose of being qualified. Therefore, I'm not being hypocritical; and another thing I'm totally against affirmative action.

Answer 17

Strange situation - I would probably assume they were looking for personal qualities I had more than the other applicants as this is a one-off situation (a pattern of situations would require investigation and action).

But assuming I did, somehow, know I shouldn't have got the job, morally I would say B. And I tend to follow my morals. But I can't predict how I'd act in this situation, if I really wanted and thought I'd be good at the job. I'm fairly sure I'd say B, but this is such an unreal situation it's hard to say (I wont know how the others interviewed, for example, the personal interests on their CV).

And, mostly, I thought it was the *employers* who were critised for bias, not the employees who take it? I, personally, have not felt anger towards the men who got the job over more qualified women, because both want and went for the job, and he should not be expected to sacrifice. And he might not have known. But I have felt anger towards the narrow-minded employers who allowed personal preconceptions to hurt another.

A better question might be "if you were interviewing a male and female and the male was more qualified but your firm has no women would you choose the man or the woman and why?" --- from my point of view, anyway.

Answer 18

I would pick choice A