I mean every single qualification I put on my job reqs. I also know from experience I'm not going to find that person. If I hire you, I'll pay you to learn the rest of the things.
Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)
61–70 of 116 posts
Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)
#62As 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. A…
I think that good start would me not to imply he is feminine for having low confidence. For that matter, not to call guys feminine ju because they have something in them that is more likely to be found in women. It is like calling women masculine just because she likes hardware.
I think that this matter if your goal is equality. People being afraid to show side of them that is not stereotypical matters.
Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)
#63As 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. A…
I don't understand your logic here.
If we're saying that losing out on good but low-confidence candidates is a bad thing for a company, and we want to fix it, why don't we adapt our processes to favour the people being disadvantaged? If this ends up helping women more than men, then fantastic.
But why bring gender into our solution at all? Focussing on one gender just because we think they are more affected by an issue just introduces more unfairness. Focus on the issue itself.
Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Because that's a nonsensical strawman; those things aren't even related.
Personally, I see any employer advertising for a position with stricter requirements than what they'll hire as advertising their own dishonesty. It just makes them look bad.
Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)
#65You 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.
[deleted]
Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Obviously true. Women as a group are shorter than men as group, but some women are taller than some men. That seems so trivially obvious as to not bear mentioning. But, there's a substantial amount of evidence that if you pair up a woman and man in the same situation, the man in contemporary society has a lot of intrinsic advantages. He has easier access to relevant education and social networks. His applications, wo…
>But, there's a substantial amount of evidence that if you pair up a woman and man in the same situation, the man in contemporary society has a lot of intrinsic advantages.
Are there no advantages women possess in contemporary society?
>He has easier access to relevant education
Women are significantly more likely to go be college educated than men. What "relevant education" are you referring to?
>His applications, work, and words are judged more highly simply for having a male name on them.
I agree! This is a complete embarrassment (especially in STEM fields).
edit: I want to be clear—I am in complete agreement that there are many problems women face in society (especially in the workforce). My grumble is the over-simplification of it. I think we'd be more effective in addressing these problems if we spoke accurately about them. Complaining about the privilege of people based on their DNA is not helpful.
Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)
#67As 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…
> feminists look like man-haters.
there isn't a single, unified thing that is "a feminist". however, some factions that call themselves feminists are legitimately man-haters.
Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)
#68As 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…
Rather than being upset that the focus is on women, why don't you be grateful that there's so much attention given to the problems people experience due to low confidence and self-esteem, and use the various bits of advice given "for women" to help your own situation too? Trying to help one group doesn't mean you're trying to hurt another group. Focusing on women doesn't make someone anti-men. That's what groups like…
Sorry for repeating myself, but why bring gender into it at all?
If we have collectively decided that helping people with low self-confidence is a good thing, why not leave it at that?
If more women than men get helped in the process, then I'm fine with that.
Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
They assume the job requirements are real expectations. That is not uncertainity, that is taking people by their word.
I would also point out that many good programmers don't like uncertainity (notably those with asperger), it is one of few jobs where it is a good thing. Not implying they are all rock stars, just that un certainty here is red herring.
Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. A…
I think that good start would me not to imply he is feminine for having low confidence. For that matter, not to call guys feminine ju because they have something in them that is more likely to be found in women. It is like calling women masculine just because she likes hardware. I think that this matter if your goal is equality. People being afraid to show side of them that is not stereotypical matters.
I appreciate your comment. I also wanted to mention the "feminine" thing but feared it would look overly sensitive. Personally I don't think confidence is a masculine or feminine quality at all.