Crew Wanted: Stewardess-experienced

[pickpaul]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

No where does it say that a private person can't advertise for a woman and hire a woman as a stewardess on his own private yacht. Same thing when hiring a nanny, he is NOT running a business anymore a family is when they hire a nanny to look after their children.

My source made no mention of businesses or individuals but used the term employer. When you hire someone as an individual that's what you are, an employer, and are bound by the same equal opportunities laws as large corporations.

Again, you are wrong on this.

[Pendragon35]

My flight attendant wife laughed at your use of stewardess and then suggesting it was a nice family. Yes, what you are doing is clearly wrong and illegal. And no, this isn't about being politically correct, it's about being correct. If you said it was wrong to use the word "starboard" we'd point it out too.

[pickpaul]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Wow is someone extremely wrong about equal opportunity laws.


You make a gender specific selection openly and in writing and it is clearly against the law. Reality is for a one week gig on a private yacht, it's unlikely the authorities will get involved but doesn't mean it's legal.

Thank you!

Sent from my SM-G925T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[FollowingCs]

Gesh this thread.

For the offended Flight Attendants. They changed the name to 'Flight Attendants' so that people didn't their ONLY purpose was to steward (i.e. serve). They are mainly there for safety of passengers.

A steward/stewardess is still a legit term for someone that only just serves.

Also, the man has 3 daughters. I doubt he is going to dress up the stewardess in a little skimpy outfit. Obvious why he wants a female. While I'm sure it is illegal to advertise that way given the Hooters case from a few years ago, he will only select what he wants. Just saves a few from even applying.

I wonder if France has removed all the le/la masculine/feminine from their language yet.

~ Following Cs ~

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I do agree with PC destroying the language.

It doesn't just destroy the language it retards peoples thinking, why? Because we think in words not in pictures, and the quality of our thoughts will only be as good as the quality of our vocabulary.

Originally Posted by Pendragon35

And no, this isn't about being politically correct, it's about being correct.

It is very much about being politically correct, having said that; the correct term is stewardess and steward, that's what they are hired for. If you find that demeaning too bad, changing the name doesn't change the job description.

Originally Posted by sailpower

That doesn't sound correct, at least here in the USA. If what you say is true we wouldn't have these cases involving photographers, florists and caterers being sued for declining gay wedding clients

It is very much true for the US, the fact that the PC crowd and the SJWs - the stormtroopers of the progressives - are doing their utmost to impose themselves onto people who disagree with them and or their lifestyle doesn't change your right to kick anyone out of your store, or decline the business on what ever grounds you want. Having said that, it may be unwise to openly state why you are doing so. Why? Because the PC crowd and the SJWs are very Orwellian, they will always try to get into your head. In truth, they are looking for anything that they can use to call someone a "bigot" "hater" what ever label that works to trigger an emotional response and get some air-time where they can point to how oppressed they are. They are on a power trip, simple as that.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

It is very much true for the US, the fact that the PC crowd and the SJWs - the stormtroopers of the progressives - are doing their utmost to impose themselves onto people who disagree with them and or their lifestyle doesn't change your right to kick anyone out of your store, or decline the business on what ever grounds you want. Having said that, it may be unwise to openly state why you are doing so. Why? Because the PC crowd and the SJWs are very Orwellian, they will always try to get into your head. In truth, they are looking for anything that they can use to call someone a "bigot" "hater" what ever label that works to trigger an emotional response and get some air-time where they can point to how oppressed they are. They are on a power trip, simple as that.

Motives aside, there are laws that restrict what business can do when dealing with the public.

It is those laws that govern not what we wish was law.

At this point businesses are not free to deny service based on, because they want to.

I don't believe that private entities that do not deal with the general public have lost all of their rights yet.

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by pickpaul

When you hire someone as an individual that's what you are, an employer, and are bound by the same equal opportunities

Equal opportunity is just the right for both men and women to seek the same job, but that was possible long before government decided to impose itself onto people and private businesses trying to legalize against something that in reality is impossible to legalize against.

This crusade of "equality" has gotten out of hand! Pretty soon the goalpost will move from equal in opportunity to equal in outcome, meaning; if you hire four men you must also hire four women. There is no end to this insanity it never is when government gets involved it just snowballs.

Originally Posted by sailpower

It is those laws that govern not what we wish was law.

Yes, and private businesses has the right to do what I've just described. Of course there are those who wish it wasn't so, there may even be those who seek to change it. As Iv'e said, there will always be people around eager to impose themselves onto others, using what ever means they can to do so.

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by sailpower

That doesn't sound correct, at least here in the USA. If what you say is true we wouldn't have these cases involving photographers, florists and caterers being sued for declining gay wedding clients.

You can refuse service to anyone, except for members of a protected class. (And even there, you can refuse service for members of a protected class, provided that you aren't refusing service because they are members of a protected class.)

These lawsuits involving gay weddings are attempts to create a legal precedent that being a member of a legally recognized minority sexual orientation makes you a member of a protected class.

[Tingum]

Good grief, screw political correctness! I have been in the large yacht business for over 40 years. A male is a steward and a female is a stewardess! You hire what the owner wants, period!

[generoll]

sheesh. the guy asks for a stewardess and gets two pages of lectures on being PC. any actual applicants?

[CaptMarc]

To the OP: you might try Daywork123.com

Free listings and resumes available for temp work on yachts.

To the others, sometimes on a yacht crew needs to share a cabin. It usually works better not to have co-ed cabins.

MArc

[pickpaul]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

Equal opportunity is just the right for both men and women to seek the same job

which is exactly what the ad fails at and why it is illegal. So you are conceeding my point?

[pickpaul]

Originally Posted by generoll

sheesh. the guy asks for a stewardess and gets two pages of lectures on being PC. any actual applicants?

Well fewer applicants for sure as they excluded 48% of the potential candidates.

[pickpaul]

Typo. Please delete.

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by pickpaul

which is exactly what the ad fails at and why it is illegal. So you are conceeding my point?

No I do not.

OP didn't breach equal opportunity, all he did was to make sure from the get go that he was looking for a stewardess (woman), it doesn't mean a steward (man) couldn't apply for the job, he would be free to apply all he wanted. Of course you could lie and say you are seeking both a stewardess and a steward, but why do that if you specifically are looking for a woman? Oh that's right, for it to look "better". Which brings me back to what I mentioned in post #22

So where we end up is here; He will at the end of the day hire who ever he wants to hire, difference is that he was honest about it in his post, whereas PC nonsense would force him to lie, just so that people can feel better about themselves. They've even managed to turn feelings into a legal issue.

I'll repeat this one.
On discrimination.
Look, there might be 20 girls applying for that job, but only ONE will get it, well that is discrimination against the other 19, why? Because they may all have the same qualifications. So how to chose without discriminating then? Oh my alert general you can't!

We always discriminate between things and people and at the end of the day we always notice the differences.

Ninja edit.
The girl who will be hired for this job will most likely be someone the wife and the children can connect with and someone they feel comfortable around. Accept it and move on.