The Accidental Sexist

When I was 16 I worked for the summer in a mailing warehouse in Milpitas, CA - we put together kits, manuals, etc. and shipped them out. There was a broadly accepted practice of assigning tasks by gender. Today some might find that offensive, but it worked. I never heard a complaint as a 'worker' or later while supervising both male and female teams, and the results were readily apparent.

Now, I'll freely admit to being one of those guys who holds doors for women and gives up his seat on a shuttle whether the particular woman appreciates it or not. I've had female bosses and I've worked in an 80% female organization - I just don't see how having good manners has to conflict with giving people equal professional opportunities. When I went on a trip with four female colleagues, they didn't complain about me carrying bags for them and neither did I.

But to this day, when I think about staffing for certain types of tasks, I picture only women in those roles. Are they menial, unimportant tasks?  No. Traditional female roles like teaching and nursing? No. Jobs that don't require heavy lifting? Who does that any more?

What I learned 24 years ago is that women (in general) are better at detailed tasks - doing something detailed, getting it right and then doing it again. Men (in general) are too interested in trying to do it faster, finding a shortcut, moving on to the next step. You want wood chopped? Get a man. You want 100 letters addressed with no mistakes? A woman with no job experience will do a better job than most men, educated or otherwise.

There's no correlation to intelligence or pay. One is not more critical to an organization than the other. Indeed, women are the safer bet for most modern jobs when you look just at that differentiator.

So am I wrong to picture only women when I think about bookkeeping, customer relations and marketing research? I'd give a male prospect an interview - but he'd have high expectations to meet.