Live data from Hacker News

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

hbr.org

101–110 of 116 posts

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

#101
post #70
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wouldn't call being worried about "feminine" over sensitive. I would argue it is misguided.

You may not think confidence is a masculine quality. Just google "confidence gender" and see that it is a well established thing that men are more confident than women.

Still, if you were insulted by my implying you are a more feminine man. My apologies. Insult was not intended. I do urge you to move beyond those views, though. Feminine men should be no more an insult than masculine women. Descriptions that offer no value judgement.

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

#102
post #68
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let me ask the opposite question: why does it bother you that they bring gender into it?

As for why they do it, it's because women have historically been oppressed, and a lot of people now try to pretend like it's all over and done with when it clearly is not.

Does it even matter why? They do. It's there. You can be thankful for what they're doing to draw attention to problems you face, or you can be upset that they haven't explicitly included you in the group they focus on. I don't see why you'd pick the latter.

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

#103
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a concept "privilege" is useless except as rhetoric to get what you want against your supposedly more privileged enemies. I think your defending language is sloppy here: ""Male privilege" doesn't mean "your life must be great", it means on average you have more and better opportunities that may or may not result in a better life." That's not what it is supposed to mean at all, it's supposed to mean men on average…

I agree with pretty much everything in this comment, except the word "enemies". We're discussing emergent trends in society that can't be blamed on any group of (living) individuals, it doesn't have to be framed as a conflict. I guess I don't really see where we disagree. Of course there's more to life than your gender, of course other things matter, of course these various attributes are complicated and aren't purel…

Where we disagree is probably in using the language of "privilege" and related concepts. I see no point to it, and it's probably harmful in the long run. It's imprecise (typically dealing only with vague averages), ignores detriments, ignores privileges when they imply the existence of detriments (i.e. there is certainly female privilege, but it is often ignored because that implies that some male privilege could be counter-balanced to some extent by some male detriment, i.e. not being a female), applies poorly to individuals (because they are so multi-dimensional), ignores complicated combinations in favor of simple ones that seem only to infer positive correlation (white cis male etc...), and is championed most loudly by means of pathos appeals. Why bother with that framework?

I don't think we should stop talking about gender, or class, or race, but we ought to be more careful about it, especially when we try to assign causes, and especially when we talk about individuals. Focus more on ethos and logos. Use full data sets, talk about positive and negative, talk about interference both constructive and destructive. Make predictions and update when your predictions are falsified. Make predictions about data before you look at the data to see if your priors are well-calibrated. Talk about consequences more than feelings.

For the last point, it's mostly a complaint about using a (mean) average for everything without considering whether the underlying distribution makes such a statistic worthwhile to use or not. Consider a block of houses valued roughly the same amount, then some rich dude comes in, knocks one down, builds a towering mega-house that hits the limits of what is legally allowed, and then sells it to some other rich dude. His house has bumped the (mean) average house value of the neighborhood up considerably, but no house in the neighborhood is actually worth the average. Talking about the (mean) average is then pretty useless, and no one is (literally) going to buy into one of the normal houses being worth the average of the neighborhood. The median average is much more useful, at least for property values. But even then you'll want to look at the full distribution to say whether the median is really more useful or not, and when you're buying or selling a specific individual house, you're going to want even more details about that specific house that could drastically change the valuation one way or another.

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

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but what you said is "you SHOULD feel this way" not "I have a vision of a better world were we all strive for greater equality". your word choices matter. also, while we're on the subject of communication, I would like to point out that there has been enormous and widespread political backlash that is due in no small part to the poor communication strategy by many leftist movements. many (most?) people absolutely do…

I mean we're all human, we all have biases, and we're all affected by interactions, so I get what you're saying. I care about how I'm spoken to as well, I don't mean to act like some superior being unaffected by human emotions. To use your phrasing, I would like to live in a world where equal rights is such a fundamental moral truth that the communication style of its supporters doesn't really matter. I too am freque…

I approach stuff like this from a position of cognitive liberty. People are free and will think and feel whatever it is that they think and feel. Those thoughts and feelings inform their decisions and thus their behavior, and the behavior is what we ought to care about. Speech is a type of behavior and we ought to care about it because it influences culture and politics and everything else that arises from acts of communication.

I make one assumption, which I think is well founded (based on utility), which is that it is impossible to persuade people through direct confrontation. Effective persuasion is based on presentation of facts and ideas to those who are receptive to them, but nobody ever became receptive by being confronted directly, and that can be counter-productive. It can make a potentially receptive person become closed to persuasion. They will, in essence, deny facts (even to the point of rejecting empirical proof) and go entirely with mood affiliation and tribal loyalty.

When trying to do political communication of any kind the decision becomes a decision between trying to persuade someone or trying to "other" them and therefore signal to your in-group that they are an enemy. American political communication has really stopped trying to persuade anyone of anything and is now focused entirely on "othering". When I read your initial comment it came across as "othering". You spent a lot of words telling someone that their interpretations were wrong, that they should think and feel differently than they expressed thinking and feeling, and that their disagreement with your position was fundamentally unreasonable.

The premise of cognitive liberty is an assertion that our own thoughts and feelings are just that: our own. They may or not be rational or reasonable or even useful. They might indeed be bad ideas, that do more harm than good. Still, we are free creatures, and we are free to have those thoughts and being criticized on the grounds of what you think is an untenable argument to make because it denies that fundamental freedom.

All of this is just a long-winded way of trying to motivate my next sentences. Disagreement is natural and unavoidable and I believe it is beneficial to tolerate it in most circumstances. Othering and/or thought-policing those who disagree with us is actively harmful, and we've seen the consequences (his name is Donald). The tacit assumption that "my worldview is the best one and my morals are unassailable and those who disagree with me are irrational and/or immoral" is a serious problem. I've seen worse examples of it than your post, but your post was an example of it.

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

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean we're all human, we all have biases, and we're all affected by interactions, so I get what you're saying. I care about how I'm spoken to as well, I don't mean to act like some superior being unaffected by human emotions. To use your phrasing, I would like to live in a world where equal rights is such a fundamental moral truth that the communication style of its supporters doesn't really matter. I too am freque…

I approach stuff like this from a position of cognitive liberty. People are free and will think and feel whatever it is that they think and feel. Those thoughts and feelings inform their decisions and thus their behavior, and the behavior is what we ought to care about. Speech is a type of behavior and we ought to care about it because it influences culture and politics and everything else that arises from acts of co…

I understand what you're saying, I guess I just disagree on the significance. For me there is very little meaningful difference between "I think murder is wrong because x" and "you should think murder is wrong because x". I don't see "you should" as trying to force a thought because that would be ridiculous, it's obviously impossible to forcibly change someone's thoughts.

What I think is a much bigger problem is "you are a bad person because you don't believe x", which is quite common American politics and is very counterproductive. There's a big difference between "I hate your beliefs" and "I hate you because of your beliefs".

Basically, I agree that confrontation is not useful, I just find it hard to believe that "you should" is enough to make reasonable people close off. At least in my experience, if you're having a polite conversation with an average person, these minor phrasing choices are not very important.

Finally, as a genuine question, are "who appointed you the gatekeeper" and "maybe you should interpret this as a call to introspect" not just as if not more confrontational than whatever was in my comment? I'm not making an accusation, I had no problem with your phrasing, I just want to understand exactly what you're talking about so I can communicate better.

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

#106
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with pretty much everything in this comment, except the word "enemies". We're discussing emergent trends in society that can't be blamed on any group of (living) individuals, it doesn't have to be framed as a conflict. I guess I don't really see where we disagree. Of course there's more to life than your gender, of course other things matter, of course these various attributes are complicated and aren't purel…

Where we disagree is probably in using the language of "privilege" and related concepts. I see no point to it, and it's probably harmful in the long run. It's imprecise (typically dealing only with vague averages), ignores detriments, ignores privileges when they imply the existence of detriments (i.e. there is certainly female privilege, but it is often ignored because that implies that some male privilege could be…

Do you have any suggestions for how to communicate this stuff better? I certainly understand objections to a slogan like "equal pay for equal work" or "check your privilege" or whatever, but I also understand that there are real issues affecting millions of people and discussing statistical nuances is probably not the most efficient way to solve them. I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm honestly wondering if you've seen any more effective approaches or have any ideas.

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

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I approach stuff like this from a position of cognitive liberty. People are free and will think and feel whatever it is that they think and feel. Those thoughts and feelings inform their decisions and thus their behavior, and the behavior is what we ought to care about. Speech is a type of behavior and we ought to care about it because it influences culture and politics and everything else that arises from acts of co…

I understand what you're saying, I guess I just disagree on the significance. For me there is very little meaningful difference between "I think murder is wrong because x" and "you should think murder is wrong because x". I don't see "you should" as trying to force a thought because that would be ridiculous, it's obviously impossible to forcibly change someone's thoughts. What I think is a much bigger problem is "you…

I was being confrontational and not trying to be persuasive. My point wasn't to change your mind but to signal to other people reading the thread that your post had some issues. I could have been more delicate about it. I'm sometimes a bit of a hypocrite. C'est la vie.

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

#108
post #98
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are implying that feminine is somehow a bad trait. That is terribly misguided. That is, if you want progress, stop seeing "feminine men" as somehow a derogatory statement. If you see women arguing for things that you feel you don't have as a man, realize that there is something that would have to set you apart from many men for this to be true. Now, should overconfidence be a masculine trait? I'd argue not. But I…

It's not about whether feminine or masculine are positive or negative traits. They are labels that are being misapplied, and in this case not relevant. They do imply bias on behalf of the user, especially in a discussion oriented around male/female roles.

Better to use the terms provided, 'low confidence individuals', etc.

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

#109
post #75
post #3

Anecdotal evidence. I used to feel more strongly of the 100% qualified and I know many other men who have as well. There was a point in college that I didn't apply for a scholarship because I didn't have the 3.0 GPA requirement at the time, I had like a 2.95 About 7 months later I found out that a student with a 2.2 GPA had received the scholarship because so few people had applied, they were able to give them to eve…

Since I learned the lesson, there has probably been at least 7 different times in my life, that a rule/qualification was bent or changed that benefited me, because I simply tried for it. If you are "the wrong kind of person," the rules are much less likely to bend for you. If you are the wrong skin color, wrong gender, wrong religion, whatever, going for it can get the rules thrown in your face while everyone accuses…

> going for it can get the rules thrown in your face while everyone accuses you of being an asshole who is trying to break the rules while,

I don't doubt discrimination exists, and if this has been your personal experience, I'm sorry.

It just seems foreign to me that someone would actually do this for a private role.

If you don't match the skill set the algorithm will filter you out before anyone even knows you exist. If you get by it clearly the reviewer saw something they liked anyway.

What recruiter is going to berate someone and call them an asshole for applying to a job they aren't qualified for? And if that was the case, I'd view it as a dodged bullet.

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

#110
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since I learned the lesson, there has probably been at least 7 different times in my life, that a rule/qualification was bent or changed that benefited me, because I simply tried for it. If you are "the wrong kind of person," the rules are much less likely to bend for you. If you are the wrong skin color, wrong gender, wrong religion, whatever, going for it can get the rules thrown in your face while everyone accuses…

> going for it can get the rules thrown in your face while everyone accuses you of being an asshole who is trying to break the rules while, I don't doubt discrimination exists, and if this has been your personal experience, I'm sorry. It just seems foreign to me that someone would actually do this for a private role. If you don't match the skill set the algorithm will filter you out before anyone even knows you exist…

I was making a more general statement. I assume no recruiter would actually call you an asshole to your face, but that does not stop them from thinking you are an asshole who is trying to break the rules, while they fail to see that it works just fine that way for (insert whatever category it works for).

I have made other pertinent remarks in this same discussion that support the idea that what keeps women out is not straight up sexism in terms of "No girls allowed in the boys club." But that doesn't change the fact that women do, at times, get excluded due to their gender and it is maddening when people try to act like that simply isn't a thing at all.

The rules do get applied differently for different people. This is not just losers making excuses.

Post reply on HN