|
Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Never Ceased To Be Amazed

Joined: 22 Oct 2004 Posts: 3500 Location: Shhh...don't talk to me...I'm playin' dead...
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Extraordinary Rendition wrote: |
| Just curious, why is it 'single' status only? If a spouse (wife or husband) wants to run the risk with their partner, whose business is it but their (the couple's) own? Is it that the employing authority is concerned that the employee will abandon the post more readily if the environment changes for the worse to protect the spouse? I guess I'm stupid or naive, but I don't get it... |
I dunno and don't care. I was into the employment process when I was told that bringing my family would not be possible. THAT was a deal breaker. I guess since it's the American University of Afghanistan, it's probably a liability/bad publicity issue.
Then again, they could just give a da*n about their employee's families.
NCTBA |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Extraordinary Rendition

Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 127 Location: third stone from the Sun
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, again it's academic (pun intended), but what do you mean,
| Quote: |
| Then again, they could just give a da*n about their employee's families. |
Are you saying that perhaps they truly care about families, or the opposite? VS's post suggests that the employer may be concerned about abusive, controlling husbands forcing wives to accompany them into a dangerous area. Are you agreeing that that could be the case? Or are you suggesting that they don't care at all about families? My bad, I just find your statement ambiguous... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
007

Joined: 30 Oct 2006 Posts: 2684 Location: UK/Veteran of the Magic Kingdom
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| veiledsentiments wrote: |
I would consider women like me (or rather me a few years back ). Mature women with no dependents who have experience in the Muslim world and have lived in third world conditions. Ex-peace corps women would also be an option. A teaching couple would also be a possibility |
The other option, which I find safer and more comfortable, is to teach English to Afghani students using long-distance techniques such as SkyPe and emails.
VS, I think from your home, and without traveling, you can help the poor Afghani women to learn English for 45 min per week as a voluntary work.
VS, are you ready to help for the sake of international women's rights?
If YES, just go to the following link and finish the process....http://tesljobs.com/viewjob.php?id_job=816 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Extraordinary Rendition

Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 127 Location: third stone from the Sun
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VS has not indicated feeling any need to teach in Afghanistan, be it to women or otherwise. VS was simply responding to my inquiry about the American University's opaque recruitment and hiring process. It seems to me that any gratuitous innuendos should be benignly ignored. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
veiledsentiments

Joined: 20 Feb 2003 Posts: 17644 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another 'helpful' post from 007.
Actually I did look into that internet job with the Afghan women, but we are in the wrong time zones. Teachers in Australia or New Zealand are better located.
As to the employers wanting single status, it is for purely selfish reasons I would guess. It is cheaper if there are no problems and significantly cheaper if there are.
VS |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Never Ceased To Be Amazed

Joined: 22 Oct 2004 Posts: 3500 Location: Shhh...don't talk to me...I'm playin' dead...
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Extraordinary Rendition wrote: |
Sorry, again it's academic (pun intended), but what do you mean,
| Quote: |
| Then again, they could just give a da*n about their employee's families. |
Are you saying that perhaps they truly care about families, or the opposite? VS's post suggests that the employer may be concerned about abusive, controlling husbands forcing wives to accompany them into a dangerous area. Are you agreeing that that could be the case? Or are you suggesting that they don't care at all about families? My bad, I just find your statement ambiguous... |
Your quote of my quote was my sarcasm.
I thought that I made it clear in my last post...I dunno and don't care! I filled all of the necessary paperwork and sent it off and, noting that I had a wife and child, was asked if I was under the impression that I could bring them with me. When I answered in the affirmative was told that I would not be able to as Afghanistan had increasing become violent. This was in 2005 when Iraq was dominating the headlines and Afghanistan was being perceived as "under control". I checked the news reports and saw that violence had indeed increased.
As a male who never suffered gender-based discrimination, it didn't occur to me that this was the case. AGAIN! As someone who doesn't view others suspeciously, I didn't look for hidden agendas. I took it as a liability/bad publicity move...nothing more or nothing less. How can I be more clear???
And, don't forget, unless you're a youngin', many of the hostages taken in Lebanon during the 80's were from AUB!
...and why is this particular institution causing such interest???
NCTBA |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Neil McBeath
Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 277 Location: Saudi Arabia
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yet again, a fairly basic questions seems to have been hijacked and has degenerated into a slanging match.
Two points. Single status is probably being offered because the university is short of accommodation, or short of accommodation that could be offered to families. It could mean that you will be offered a study bedroom with en suite toilet, and central messing facilities. It could mean that you are expected to share a flat or small villa with another employee. Either way, these are not conditions in which a family can be expected to be comfortable.
Single status also means that the university is responsible for transporting only ONE person in and out of Afghanistan, and that it takes no responsibility for school fees, additional medical costs etc.
I doubt, however, that the university is segregated. In The Bookseller of Kabul, Leila goes off to a local, Afghan run Institute and is horrified to discover that it is NOT segregated. She never returns, specifically because their are boys in the class.
If that is the situation at private institutes I would suggest that it's fair to assume that the university is also mixed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Extraordinary Rendition

Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 127 Location: third stone from the Sun
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I looked at this thread in the first place only because I had noticed the posting on this site a couple of weeks ago for the American University job and thought at the time they were probably paying pretty well (understatement, I thought they were probably paying very well). After reading about the 'single' status only, I started to wonder why that would be; it seemed to me that the last thing they'd want would be a single male, for obvious reasons (better state them, before someone misinterprets: drinking and/or possible flirtation with a local). So I asked. I didn't intend to hijack the thread, and I apologize if that is how my post was interpreted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sadebugo
Joined: 10 May 2003 Posts: 524
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:47 am Post subject: Re: working in afghanistan |
|
|
| 007 wrote: |
| middleastman wrote: |
I just want to make a positive contribution to a war- torn nation. Does anyone have any ideas?
Many thanks. |
I think the best contribution is to campaign for the withdrawal of the foreign troops from Afghanistan. Then, after that you can go and help the people learn English under a sovereign government. |
Sorry, just had to reply to such nonsense.
I think your Anti-Americanism has clouded your reason. They were certainly 'sovereign' under the Taliban, but there are probably more than a few Afghanis who would disagree that they were better off. Have you ever heard of the Hazara? They're a large, albeit, minority tribe in Afghanistan that were ruthlessly butchered by the Taliban. Under the new Afghan government, they are just now starting to get equal access to education, jobs, etc. Not to mention improvements for Afghan women in general . . .
Sadebugo
Djibouti, Horn of Africa
http://travldawrld.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Extraordinary Rendition

Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 127 Location: third stone from the Sun
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vietnam. Ask the Russians, and they weren't halfway across the globe. (This, however, is not to question the legality, wisdom, or morality of invading a sovereign nation harboring a criminal who has himself admitted conspiring to commit a heinous crime, while never addressing, or even publicly discussing, the root causes of such crime. [Without addressing the root causes of crime, it can never be eliminated; a simplistic, imperfect example: Keep people in abject poverty and there will always be someone who will feel justified in stealing a loaf of bread, regardless of how that makes the baker feel, how others feel about it, or any potential consequences.] That discussion is for the thread on political correctness in the classroom.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling. Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|