Post: #1

Quote:A group of IBM execs underestimated the all-pervading power of the Internet when they obliviously made loudmouth sexist remarks during a business lunch - which were overheard and subsequently live-tweeted by a furious female coder at the next table.

Lyndsay Kirkham, an editor and freelance web developer in Toronto, had her birthday lunch ruined on Monday as she listened to the 'Big Blue' suits explain that they don't hire young women because 'they are just going to get themselves pregnant again and again and again'.

Ms Kirkham, a mother to five-year-old Aodhan, wrote: 'These executives are so comfortable in the sexism that they are openly sharing. Wow. My disbelief is tempering my anger. #IBM.

URL

Post: #2

It's a moot point. There aren't enough qualified women in the tech fields in the first place for companies like IBM to be rejecting them over possible future pregnancies.

Post: #3

Now, women will get rejected because of a few feminist cunt.

Way to go ladies, this is how to shoot yourself on the foot. It is not sexism, it is just you are a cunt.

Post: #4

I think she may have simply made it up, fabricated it to try and make the news. She has those intense crazy eyes. If I were an IBM exec there's no way I'd bother with that as a conversation topic.

Post: #5

This.

From the Mail:

"Ms Kirkham is head editor of Demeter Press and has an MA in English and Computer Science from the University of Toronto.

She works part-time in web development and does volunteer projects for women's organizations."

From Wikipedia:

"Demeter Press is a not-for-profit feminist academic publisher headquartered in Ontario, Canada."

So here we have a maginally-employed, crazy-eyed feminist who thinks knocking up a couple of feminist websites means she's in the tech industry.

She claims a bunch of IBM execs were sitting in a public place, loudly declaring they don't like to hire women, and were probably also twirling their moustaches and going "MUAHAHAHAHA!". And they had a woman with them who agreed with everything they said?

I'm surprised she hasn't cried rape yet.

Post: #6

IBM raped this woman! You don't think Watson is only good for chess, do you?

Post: #7

(07-24-2014 05:11 AM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  I think she may have simply made it up, fabricated it to try and make the news. She has those intense crazy eyes. If I were an IBM exec there's no way I'd bother with that as a conversation topic.

Seems that way to me as well. It's just a little too convenient that she was sitting near them while they were bragging about a topic she advocates for. She probably just needed the attention for her "blog" and to justify her opinions, so she chose a company like IBM with a massive employee base.

Post: #8

(07-24-2014 04:50 AM)SFTD Wrote:  URL

Yeah - but best comment by far with 1200+ up-votes:

Quote:CtrlAltDel, Anono, 17 hours ago
I'm a woman and I wouldn't hire preggie-age women either because to a small business, they are about as cost-effective as ripping up all your money and watching it fly out of the window. I'm just not stupid enough to have that conversation where it could be overheard!


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z38OZsinCS

Many professional women know better. I've heard the argument before by other managers - especially when they hire young attractive women. Plus in many countries they have laws protecting pregnant women - you cannot fire them as soon as the test is positive - even retroactively. And they can take instantly a leave of absence due to a "endangered" pregnancy (while you have to continue paying her for next couple of months). So yes - that is a problem.

But again - we here know that it would be more beneficial for women to have kids in their early 20s and go to work in their 30s if they really wanted to. All the yapping will not change reality.

Post: #9

Post: #10

This woman is blatantly making this up and I hope she's dragged into the mud by IBM and is forced to admit that it's a lie or face a civil suit. The progressive slant that gives women advantages in everything from court to scholarships to job opportunities has begun making it impossible for them to claim sexism, and fabricating nonsense about evil trust-fund men in suits cackling as they suppress women is their only recourse. It is the duty of every person who still has integrity to make sure their lies are exposed so that we can finally put a stop to destructive feminism.

Post: #11

(07-24-2014 11:27 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/HisFeministMama

Post: #12

WB. In case she got preggers/crazy, would use fake name. Also wouldn't hire her, I'd have to pay for the maternity leave...

I'd also like to add that the comments section has not a SINGLE PERSON agreeing with this creature. Some have called her out in making this shit up, but even among believers in her fictitious bullshit, everyone agrees with the executives: Hiring a woman and having her take months off as she ejects children is a poor business decision, no matter how many "independent" women who want to live off a company dole whine about reality.

Post: #13

It's a social justice warrior's troll job and likely complete fiction. The fact that their is so much agreement with the executives is very telling.

Post: #14

My department hired a woman (internal transfer) about a year ago. About a week into the job, she told my VP she was pregnant. Roughly 2 months after starting, she took 6 months paid maternity leave, paid for out of my departments budget, came back for about 2 weeks, then put in her 2 week notice.

I believe you should have to disclose pregnancy at interviews. We hired someone assuming we'd get a return. Instead we paid 9 months worth of salary for zero fucking return.

Even if the subject of this thread is true, I don't blame IBM one bit.

Post: #15

Are companies now required to pay maternity leave? I thought the FMLA required unpaid leave.

Post: #16

(07-24-2014 11:53 AM)RockHard Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 11:27 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/HisFeministMama

Post: #17

(07-24-2014 12:06 PM)CRR Wrote:  Are companies now required to pay maternity leave? I thought the FMLA required unpaid leave.

It's state-dependent. California has paid family and medical leave. Other countries, however, are far more rewarding to women who get knocked up and mandate maternity pay.

Post: #18

CRR - The law in Illinois doesn't require it to be paid, but it's a benefit my company offers. There wasn't a reason to discharge her that wouldn't land us in some legal hot water.

Post: #19

Interesting, thank you for the info.

It shows how ingrained it is in our society to cater to women that companies feel it is necessary to require paid maternity leave. It's one of those concepts that makes sense (provided it is voluntary) that too many people abuse, as shown in the example above.

Post: #20

Agreed. The nice thing about my company is men have access to the program too. I've never heard of men abusing it... go figure.