Not being looked in the eye when talking with someone

That is brilliant MTM.

I am not going down this rabbit-hole. I apologise to all rabbits and fans of Alice in Wonderland.

OakDryad

Thank you MBM.

I am literally short-sighted and simply wear glasses to correct it as do millions of others who would not describe themselves as disabled.

As a figurative expression, it’s been in in common use for the last four hundred years at least, most often used to criticize politicians then and now.

I too am short-sighted. I wear glasses.

Indeed the opticians made me some which are between distance glasses and reading glasses, optmised for 60 centimetres so that I can use my computer while sat comfortably. I am wearing them now. I change glasses when I start and finish a session on my computer.

I regard short-sightedness as a disability, but I do not regard having it as being disabled.

I just happen to think that metaphors linked to disabilities is a wrong way to express things.

There are such metaphors, relating to short-sightedness, blindness, deafness, mental health.

None related to hidden disabilities as far as I know.

m.facebook.com/BBCScotland/videos/the-chief-apologises-scot-squad/3575788462507002/

When it comes to apologising for “inappropriate” metaphors ……

StarDreamer

Oh a medical metaphor. I laughed out loud.

But not laughing your head off
That'd be more a medical catastrophe IMHO.

Good morning, ixion

Yeah, well, it's how it is.

Thank you MBM.

I am literally short-sighted and simply wear glasses to correct it as do millions of others who would not describe themselves as disabled.

As a figurative expression, it’s been in in common use for the last four hundred years at least, most often used to criticize politicians then and now.

Oh a medical metaphor. I laughed out loud.

You must have a very limited repertoire of conversation SD, in this case, if this affects you.
Do you ever have chats with friends in real life? Or is here the substitute?
If so, scribe away?

StarDreamer

I agree, a good reply.

Yet,

> short-sighted

a metaphor relating to a disability!

Oh for goodness sake. Nit-picking or what?

I agree, a good reply.

Yet,

> short-sighted

a metaphor relating to a disability!

A calm and sensible response OakDryad

I don’t ever recall being asked my father’s occupation on any form relating to jobs, indeed any forms relating to anything. I wouldn’t have known anyway in any comtemporary context as he left us when I was tiny and I was brought up by my working mother. Before that he drove a bus which I see as a vital and honourable occupation.

I don’t doubt such judgements are made by elitist and short-sighted organisations. We know they make judgements based on sex and colour and disability despite legislation which makes this illegal. Women, black and disabled people have known this for a long, long time.

I take a pragmatic view which some might view as a cop out. Would I want to work for such an organisation? Would my socialist beliefs fit with their elitism? No, so I don’t stress it. There are usually alternate ways to reach the same ends and to find career fulfilment.

Attempting to merge the two strands of thought which seem to be going on here. There are high achievers with humble beginnings; high achievers on the autism spectrum; high achievers with sight impairment who cannot look people in the eye; high achievers who have overcome a myriad of challenges.

It’s a tough and competitive world for all but those from the most privileged of backgrounds. Short of revolution nothing will change. All you can do for now is to find a place in society which offers fulfilment and never stop campaigning for change on those issues you feel important.

MawtheMerrier wrote I suppose a preoccupation with matters which most find quite unimportant or inconsequential, might suggest a poster has a vested interest in promoting a line of discussion.

I remember a newspaper artcle years ago about whether a letter addressed to a man should use the form Mr. J. Smith or J. Smith, Esq. and there was discussion that many years ago that there was a distinction but in recent times the two styles have come to not represent any social distinction and any man might well reasonably be sent a letter using either format.

Someone wrote that he had worked in a bank and that the policy of the bank was that if a man had more than £50 in his account, the Esq form was used, otherwise Mr was used, and nobody had ever complained (my emphasis)

It occurred to me that, fine, nobody had complained, but, if recipients of the letters had known that the format used was for that reason and so the bank was publishing financial information about them to the postman then the number of complaints may have been enormous.

So, yes, my enquiry about eye contact does relate to me wondering if that affected how some people perceived me, but my concern about asking about the occupation of one's father only relates to me as to being concerned why I was asked rather than being assessed only on myself, my concern over such questions being asked is about the potentially very great consquences that that could have for some people when that informtion is before the interviewer.

Surely I should be allowed to be concerned about how policies affect people even if the policy does not affect me personally and without deeming and publication of the deeming happening..

Germanshepherdsmum

I have no idea whether this question was still asked when my son went to university, in 2005. Nowadays Oxbridge is very keen to take students from working class backgrounds and state schools. That is a very positive move. Are you concerned that Oxford would reject the Bishop's daughter? Just because her father is a Bishop and an Oxford alumnus, doesn't mean she is the best candidate.

As the actress said…….!

Surely it is reasonable to discuss an issue that can affect people's lives, one way or another, sometimes greatly, without it being about me and without "jump to" opinions about me being formed and published

I suppose a preoccupation with matters which most find quite unimportant or inconsequential, might suggest a poster has a vested interest in promoting a line of discussion.
For instance, if you don’t “do” handbags, you don’t usually generate a thread about them do you?

I only ever had a short form birth certificate because, unknown to me until after my father died, my mother had been briefly married before. So her first married name would have been shown on a full birth certificate. I have never bothered to apply for a full certificate. Presentation of a short form certificate did my career no harm whatsoever. I won't bore people by repeating again what I did, but clearly no damage at all was done.
What was your problem with your father's details being known to your employers?

The issue of asking about father's occupation is not about me.

I have no reason to think that the question either helped or hindered me. But the question was on the form.

I have achieved a reasonable level of qualifications. Some people got more, some got fewer. Like most people, I am somewhere in the middle.

Surely it is reasonable to discuss an issue that can affect people's lives, one way or another, sometimes greatly, without it being about me and without "jump to" opinions about me being formed and published.

I'm not good at looking people in the eye. It doesn't mean I'm being furtive, up to something or lying (usually!). It means I'm shy, under confident and have social anxiety.

MawtheMerrier

Germanshepherdsmum

Has to be stated on a marriage certificate of course.

That wouldn’t affect one’s career (!) and nowadays a UCAS form, or UCCA as I think we knew it, would favour the humbler the occupation over the more “professional” as I understand many universities seek to prioritise first time family members’ applications.

I don't know about the situation now, but in the past the name of a woman's father had to appear on her marriage certifcate.

Some women had "unknown" written there.

So if she starts a job and has to produce her birth certificate and her marriage certificate then people see that, it gets photocopied and put in her personnel file.

The father's occupation does not show on a short form copy of a birth certificate.

I got one of those and used it for job purposes, so as to avoid potential damge or loss of the somewhat fragile original. A short form copy being less expensive than a full form copy.

Years later, I read somwhere someone writing that presenting a short form certificate avoids people knowing, but fools nobody.

Oh, I thought, I just had a short form one because it was not so expensive. I wondered if anybody had jumped o some conclusion.

Despite your claim to be interested in the bigger picture SD, I can't help but think that this is a very personal problem for you and that you believe your father's occupation has in some way had an adverse effect on your career. Are you willing to tell us what your father's occupation was and how you think it hindered you?

I have no idea whether this question was still asked when my son went to university, in 2005. Nowadays Oxbridge is very keen to take students from working class backgrounds and state schools. That is a very positive move. Are you concerned that Oxford would reject the Bishop's daughter? Just because her father is a Bishop and an Oxford alumnus, doesn't mean she is the best candidate.

Namsnanny ?????

MawtheMerrier

Germanshepherdsmum

Has to be stated on a marriage certificate of course.

That wouldn’t affect one’s career (!) and nowadays a UCAS form, or UCCA as I think we knew it, would favour the humbler the occupation over the more “professional” as I understand many universities seek to prioritise first time family members’ applications.

But it is still unfair to some prospective students.

For example, a Bishop's daughter, wher the Bishop has an Oxford degree.

Whether that being taken into consideration helps her application or damages her application, asking affects her application.

Baggs

Germanshepherdsmum

Autism, shyness or lying.

Just so.

Or none of the above.

MawtheMerrier

StarDreamer

Indeed.

Whole careers can be affected by such things that are not related to a person's achievements, like asking "Father's occupation" on forms. If they ask, they take it into consideration, consciously or subsconsciously, because they know.

Otherwise, why ask?

Oh we’ve heard this complaint before!
I don’t remember what answer the poster gave at the time -census return perhaps?- but that was the first I had ever heard of it and suggested a inferiority complex or mammoth chip on that persons shoulder .
When have you encountered this question OP?

The UCCA university application form in the 1960s.

I wondered then how it might affect someone if the prospective student's father were in particular ocupations, deceased, unknown, in prison, and so on.

It was years later that I realised that the answer might have really helped some prospective students if the interviewer had a snob attitude.

My concern was not about me, some people here always seem to try to lock a discussion about a topic onto my own circumstances rather than considering the whole range of possible situations. Even back then I considered the wider implications of policies affecting people's lives.

Is the question asked on the university applications forms these days? Does anyone here know?