Look at the brains on that

Far be it from me to be unappreciative of the female form. Most visitors to my 'pad' will know that there are a great many so-called lads mags dotted around the place (mainly by the throne though, to be honest). Admittedly a lot of the Nuts- and Zoo-style magazines struggle for ideas week in, week out so roll out the same old tired photos of Jordan and Michelle Marsh from 2001 under the guise "Topless pics inside - hottest snaps ever".

Back on topic, my latest gripe is the fact that the physical features of new employees (predominantly female) are far more important to the male staff than any real ability to do the job, as in:


Perv #1 "Have you seen the new bird in sales?"

Perv #2 "No - is she any good?"

Perv #1 "Well, she's got fantastic ASSETS....AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA"

Perv #2 "He means tits!"


Like it matters. I've got nothing against eye candy in the office for both the chaps and the birds, but who really cares what they look like? Surely the point is that they can do the job? Call me old-fashioned, but in days gone by I thought people were employed based on their skills, and I don't mean being able to tie a cherry stalk in a knot with their tongue. I'm not naive enough to ignore that a great deal of 'casting couch' activities have been used for many years by knackered old bosses to have one last hurrah with a pneumatic secretary, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

I'm sure there have been studies that indicate that the more attractive you are, the better chance you have of being employed, and it goes down to a base level. Put simply, if an interviewer has two identically-skilled candidates, he (or she) is odds-on to employ the one more attractive to them. It's simple human nature; they think if they give them the job, the newbie with give them one in return. It's a sad state of affairs but until you take the human element out of the equation, it's bound to be flawed.

Even so, if a particularly fit bird is employed by your company, surely you could look past the obvious and treat them like anyone else? I genuinely pride myself on being completely objective about the people I work with; it doesn't matter what they look like, as long as they're straight with me and are what I consider to be a 'good worker' (incredibly pretentious on my part I accept, but I have high standards and expect others to be the same).

Of course, there's always going to be people who use their looks to climb the greasy pole (no jokes). Not necessarily stupid people, but they realise that there's no point wasting time and effort doing the job when they can just shake their sweet can and move on up. Those sort of people are worse that the pervs, but on some level you can't help but admire them.

In the future I think all interviews should be conducted over the phone to take the attraction element out, or at the very least the interviewers should have no sexual preference for the interviewees, to level at the playing field to an extent. It'll never happen I know, but what's the point in writing all of this cack if you don't try to change the world for the better? Maybe if I had a killer rack I'd be able to get something done about it...