Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 116 posts

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#31

Post by rarec »

rebelwebmaster wrote: post #16
Dirlewanger wrote: post #10

Hate to sound like a strawman, but: why should this my problem? Unfortunately that's the nature of the game. Many software roles are like that. You just have to apply anyway. Other hidden biases women face, OK, got it, but this is a problem that occurs before any dialogue takes place. Now whether or not that advice gets properly dispensed is another issue.

If you want to hire the best person for the job, why wouldn't you want to do what you can to avoid discouraging good candidates from even applying in the first place?

If they are so timid as to not even rise to the challenge of applying for a job with some uncertainty, how can you expect them to deal with uncertainty in the field?

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#32

Post by burkaman »

J-dawg wrote: post #17

As a man who struggles with low confidence and self-esteem, I hate the way women are given special attention over this stuff. I frequently don't apply for jobs I see that I could probably do, for all of the reasons listed in the article. A couple of times I have even pulled out after a successful first round interview due to anxiety about continuing. This is an example of how the "women in tech" movement alienates me…

That's not what privilege means, it's not an on-off switch. It's just about recognizing factors out of your control that might give you slight advantages over other people. When people talk about "white privilege" they don't mean your life must be great because you're white, they mean regardless of your situation, you have more opportunities because of your skin color, which increases the odds of having a better life.

Some people take it too far, but the next time you hear someone talk about privilege, try to interpret it to mean "marginal advantage" rather than "privilege=wealth", because that's probably what they mean.

Also, "alienates men who would otherwise be potential allies" doesn't really make sense. Your support for gender equality in tech should not depend on how inclusive and understanding feminists are, it should depend on whether or not you think women deserve equal rights and access in the workplace. Obviously the world is a better place when we all work together and get along, but I think you should strive to make sure your beliefs are not affected by how much you dislike other people who share those beliefs.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#33

Post by J-dawg »

rebelwebmaster wrote: post #23
J-dawg wrote: post #17

As a man who struggles with low confidence and self-esteem, I hate the way women are given special attention over this stuff. I frequently don't apply for jobs I see that I could probably do, for all of the reasons listed in the article. A couple of times I have even pulled out after a successful first round interview due to anxiety about continuing. This is an example of how the "women in tech" movement alienates me…

One of the key points in the article was that confidence isn't the whole story. > According to the self-report of the respondents, the barrier to applying was not lack of confidence. In fact, for both men and women, “I didn’t think I could do the job well” was the least common of all the responses.

All of the responses listed in the questionnaire loosely relate to confidence, and that's the sense in which I was using it.

Confidence means not being afraid of bluffing your way through an interview when you only have 60% of the required skills, for example. Note that more men than women didn't apply to jobs for this reason.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#34

Post by J-dawg »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #27
J-dawg wrote: post #17

As a man who struggles with low confidence and self-esteem, I hate the way women are given special attention over this stuff. I frequently don't apply for jobs I see that I could probably do, for all of the reasons listed in the article. A couple of times I have even pulled out after a successful first round interview due to anxiety about continuing. This is an example of how the "women in tech" movement alienates me…

You should be happy, not angry. If companies work to eliminate the low-confidence barrier in hiring it will benefit you as side-effect.

Then why bring gender into it at all?

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#35

Post by Oxitendwe »

Fraztastic wrote: post #28
decebalus1 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm an oh-so-privileged white male I must have had a ridiculously easy life Been waiting for that privilege to kick in yet... however, after reading all those articles about women in tech and realizing that a) I tend to not negotiate and avoid conflict b) terrified (for my family's wellfare) of confronting my boss when I feel I'm being unjustly compensated\treated, c) shitting my pants when the next round of layoff…

Maybe put the slightest bit of effort into researching this. Look at yourself. You got the job, right? You don't want to admit this to yourself, but it was easier for you than a woman.

Do you have any idea how insulting and dismissive you sound? You know nothing about the circumstances of his hiring, how can you possibly say his real and concrete experience was easier than that of some hypothetical woman?

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#36

Post by the_gastropod »

Fraztastic wrote: post #18

You realize there's actually a severe gender imbalance in tech and most high paying careers, right? You realize you are privileged, in so many ways, whether or not you want to recognize it, right?

There absolutely is. What are you suggesting?

The "privilege" slinging used to belittle the accomplishments of people based on birth attributes _is_ rather obnoxious. To pretend that, for example, women are universally less privileged than men is of course ridiculous. Paris Hilton is clearly more privileged than a low-income boy growing up in Flint, Michigan.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#37

Post by Exofunctor »

burkaman wrote: post #32
J-dawg wrote: post #17

As a man who struggles with low confidence and self-esteem, I hate the way women are given special attention over this stuff. I frequently don't apply for jobs I see that I could probably do, for all of the reasons listed in the article. A couple of times I have even pulled out after a successful first round interview due to anxiety about continuing. This is an example of how the "women in tech" movement alienates me…

That's not what privilege means, it's not an on-off switch. It's just about recognizing factors out of your control that might give you slight advantages over other people. When people talk about "white privilege" they don't mean your life must be great because you're white, they mean regardless of your situation, you have more opportunities because of your skin color, which increases the odds of having a better life…

This approach may work (I say "may" because most of the time it's not actually backed up by hard evidence free of confounding variables), but it's also lazy; there are vastly more accurate predictors of a priori success rate than race or gender. It's especially lazy for organizations that have access to those more accurate predictors, like universities, to use race and gender instead.

More accurate predictors include parental education, family wealth, social connections, etc. Mostly what people would describe as social class.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#38

Post by taeric »

J-dawg wrote: post #17

As a man who struggles with low confidence and self-esteem, I hate the way women are given special attention over this stuff. I frequently don't apply for jobs I see that I could probably do, for all of the reasons listed in the article. A couple of times I have even pulled out after a successful first round interview due to anxiety about continuing. This is an example of how the "women in tech" movement alienates me…

Sadly, you are showing with this post that you actually would not be a good potential ally. Seriously, by focusing the discussion on this point and in this fashion, you are literally stalling progress.

If there are problems that can be fixed, fix them. If you have concerns that we are leaving more feminine men in the back ranks, address those. But to turn the discussion into chastising people is to hurt the debate.

And I am fully sympathetic to your point. I feel that way for a lot of things. I have come to realize that at best you are falling victim to "perfect being enemy of the good" and at worst you are allowing yourself to be a weapon that the those actually abusing power use against those they are abusing their power against.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#39

Post by taway_1212 »

Fraztastic wrote: post #18

You realize there's actually a severe gender imbalance in tech and most high paying careers, right? You realize you are privileged, in so many ways, whether or not you want to recognize it, right?

Aren't many tech companies eager to improve the gender ratio, and thus lowering the bar for women hires?

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#40

Post by wmccullough »

Fraztastic wrote: post #28
decebalus1 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm an oh-so-privileged white male I must have had a ridiculously easy life Been waiting for that privilege to kick in yet... however, after reading all those articles about women in tech and realizing that a) I tend to not negotiate and avoid conflict b) terrified (for my family's wellfare) of confronting my boss when I feel I'm being unjustly compensated\treated, c) shitting my pants when the next round of layoff…

Maybe put the slightest bit of effort into researching this. Look at yourself. You got the job, right? You don't want to admit this to yourself, but it was easier for you than a woman.

>Look at yourself. You got the job, right? You don't want to admit this to yourself, but it was easier for you than a woman

Based on what evidence do you make this claim? I'm not saying this isn't the case, but can you provide evidence?

Post reply on HN