Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#391

Post by edanm » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:12 AM UTC

arnjerobben wrote: post #309

Paul_Dessert wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This doesn't necessarily mean these companies advertised the job to one gender. It simply means the ad was targeted at a specific gender. For all we know, the companies spent twice as much on a different ad set for women.

Why would they do that?

Theoretically? For the same reason many companies have different advertisements that target different populations - because different advertisements play to different needs/desires, so you can engage with people in the most efficient way in terms of conversion.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#392

Post by sievebrain » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:29 AM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #172

sievebrain wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does imply the TSA are breaking the law given the story above about how they "strongly encourage" women to apply.

I'm sure there's a team of lawyers that pored over the exact language used and made sure it skirts the laws; they say "we strongly encourage", not "we prefer".

They're equivalent. People strongly encourage things they prefer. It would be a very Kafkaesque judgement that one can strongly encourage a certain gender to apply and not violate that statute.

Of course, it's also the outcome I'd expect, but biased application of the law is a separate issue.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#393

Post by gant » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 11:45 AM UTC

pteredactyl wrote: post #367

gant wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a culture conscious of bias is good, but I'd rather see some progress before the end of the century. You know, cause old people exist and you can't really change this culture too fast, especially not if you factor in reactionaries that are sort of standing in the way and can't see the issue (hint: it's because you don't have the issue).

I don't follow. Old people are bad? I don't have issues? Because I'm a particular color and ethnicity you've attached to me? My comment is about education that is actual education. For example, let's teach kids math in a form that has worked for centuries. Not this new common core stuff. Let's teach students a more complete history, versus the cartoonish narrative that has produced these brainwashed masses. And the c…

>Thomas Sowell or Camille Paglia

Gotcha. I'm wasting my breath.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#394

Post by pferde » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 12:15 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #273

pferde wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like: you're in a certain group, you get hired, and you know that the company that hired you has this policy of prioritizing hiring from your group. You spend your days in that company wondering whether you got are there because you're good at what you do, or merely because you are member of the prioritized group. I wouldn't want to be in such position.

idk, if i were a woman i might still prefer that position to not having a job in my field.

Would you enjoy always wondering whether e.g. people in your team are listening to you because what you're saying is worth saying, or if they are merely humoring you and tolerate you in their team on account of orders from above?

Something like this must do ugly things to one's mind and one's perception of self-worth.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#395

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 1:23 PM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #231

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure I've seen adverts asking for women (but not the contrary); can you cite the legislation (at UK level is fine). rant incoming: Indeed in my small niche the almost exclusively female company owners, who always address group messages to "ladies", when enquiring about taking on employees always say "I'm thinking of taking on a girl, where should I advertise" or similar. Weekend help is "a Saturday girl".…

In which niche are you working in?

It's a specific part of art/education/craft; not going to drill director further than that, sorry.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#396

Post by pteredactyl » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

gant wrote: post #393

pteredactyl wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow. Old people are bad? I don't have issues? Because I'm a particular color and ethnicity you've attached to me? My comment is about education that is actual education. For example, let's teach kids math in a form that has worked for centuries. Not this new common core stuff. Let's teach students a more complete history, versus the cartoonish narrative that has produced these brainwashed masses. And the c…

>Thomas Sowell or Camille Paglia Gotcha. I'm wasting my breath. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

Ahh yes.. Rational wiki, a bastion of truth. I'd suggest first source materials. Not echo-chamber drivel. Peace!

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#397

Post by jokoon » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

rspeer wrote: post #171

jokoon wrote: post #162

Politics, statistics and stereotypes have a reality. Sometimes you don't want to be politically correct, and you go along with what things actually are, what people want and what is already working. A company is not there to solve stereotypes. Just look at the proportion of women who can read code, or are actually interested in dealing with code. That's an issue. Same thing goes for people who do construction work, m…

Programming was a women's job, almost exclusively, until the last half century when it became a hobby and a lucrative profession. Men pushed the women out on both fronts. You are no Grace Hopper, and you are in no position to tell women what they can't do.

Care to show actual statistics about this, I'm genuinely curious.

> You are no Grace Hopper, and you are in no position to tell women what they can't do.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, but it's hard to unroot stereotypes and even more difficult to go against our natural behaviors. If minorities are complexed because they're in smaller number, what is there to do?

I would like to tell young women to enroll in computer science curriculum though. Is that a good advice?

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#398

Post by gant » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:10 PM UTC

pteredactyl wrote: post #396

gant wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Thomas Sowell or Camille Paglia Gotcha. I'm wasting my breath. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

Ahh yes.. Rational wiki, a bastion of truth. I'd suggest first source materials. Not echo-chamber drivel. Peace!

Last I checked both articles have extensive "References" sections. Unless you actually like what you read, in that case I'll just have to deal with that. Unfortunate that stuck up people like you exist, but I'm not going to change that on this bastion of techbro-ism. (I know you people hate that word, so I made sure to use it)

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#399

Post by tathougies » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 7:45 PM UTC

ggggtez wrote: post #112

tathougies wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right.. the government actually requires discrimination in its contracts through affirmative action....

Yes, because otherwise you have companies hiring 10 year olds to work in sweat shops. Don't act like government rules for fair employment are only good when it benefits you.

Not sure what you're on about, but nice strawman. I am not referring to government regulations to prevent child labor. I am talking about the systematic discrimination the government takes on when making purchasing decisions: https://www.govspend.com/2017/11/17/government-contracting-o...

It is patent discrimination to evaluate government contracts from certain groups as having lower costs, simply because the business owners come from certain groups. That is discrimination, and it has nothing to do with child labor laws.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#400

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 8:42 PM UTC

daenz wrote: post #157

wutbrodo wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What this actually is going to do is target "people interested in typically male interests". That is going to end up including men, women and trans men. Not to be too pedantic, but it would include some transwomen as well. Just seemed odd to go out of your way to include the other three categories on those two axes and leave this one out.

>Just seemed odd to go out of your way to include the other three categories on those two axes and leave this one out. Nothing in their post suggests they "went out of their way" to exclude a particular demographic. To people who do not deal with trans issues on a daily basis, it can be easy to overlook all the nuances of being trans. Calling someone out in a way that accuses deliberate motivations is borderline toxi…

I wasn't calling anyone out, I don't deal with trans issues on anywhere close to a daily basis (or really ever, tbh) and I in no way mentioned or assumed the parent comment's motivation, let alone assuming it's negative.

Mentioning the "going out of your way" wasn't a call-out, it was a way of justifying the existence of my comment: if he hadn't mentioned trans people at all, I wouldn't have at all bothered with my comment. Since he was explicitly considering trans people in his comment, the addition seemed appropriate, and it came more from the stereotypical engineer-y impulse of "technically this is incorrect in a non-trivial way, IMO".

This is a bizarre position for me to be in: I get that the conversation around trans issues is extraordinarily toxic, and if anything I'm usually the one dismayed by its toxicity, but please don't impute motives to me that I in no way expressed. Frankly, the way you're looking at a simple statement and assuming all sorts of ulterior motives and implicit negative feelings is a precise mirror of the perhaps more commonly-known source of this toxicity, in which attempts at understanding from those less attuned to the issues (or as you put it, "dealing with it on a daily basis") are attacked as bigotry.

I don't intend this to be insulting, but given that your comment implies a certain level of self-awareness about intellectual honesty and charity[1], I suggest that you take a look at the assumptions about me that _you_ are bringing to this conversation. The solution to reductive, toxic discourse isn't reductive toxicity in the other direction.

[1] I haven't been active on HN for a while and have been on a board with much higher standards for intelligent, intellectually honest conversation, so I suppose I was uncalibrated and should've expected the knee-jerk down vote reaction I got, regardless of the political valence of my comment. Again, going off of your comment alone, I assume you're substantially above the median in this respect.