Why would employers not target women?
Biases
Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads
311–320 of 487 posts
Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads
#312> Not just Facebook, but any targeted advertising platform that can target based on demographic could do this. I'd like to point out that specifically you can NOT do this on Facebook any more, or at least not if Facebook find it out. They make you mark your ads as being job posts, and remove demographic targeting from that. The headline here is irritating, because the headline being shown is two years old. The headli…
Seems pointless to me. What are they gonna do, hire those folks they meant to exclude anyway when they show up?
As someone who is not really young anymore, I would prefer not being shown those ads. They are not going to hire me anyway when I show up and they see me so I am just going to waste my time... and even if they were somehow forced to hire me, I don't want to work with people who do not want work with me. Some problems cannot be illegalized away.
Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads
#313All this will do is force companies which are not open to hiring older people and women will have to spend money interviewing them. They will still reject them and waste everyone’s time.
Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads
#314There are job boards that SPECIFICALLY make it their business to target women and deliver female candidates looking for tech roles (in organizations that are in need of diversity hires): https://powertofly.com/ ...and companies pay a premium for those job advertising channels. Why is it a great business and an initiative to be applauded if it is about excluding men and a scandal if it is about excluding women?
I think for similar reasons like it generally being seen as a good thing to give free food and housing to the poor, but frowned upon to do the same for the rich.
I have trouble to understand your message behind your analogy...
From what I get is that you are referring to woman as the poor, and man as the rich.
Just because it's a man dominated field, does it mean the others remaining have no chance to get anything in that field?
If so, do you suggest that one half of the world is not allowed to have these jobs at the same condition because some people already do, just because they have a male reproductive system? --- Meaning that all men are representative for all men, the same for women?
This is not equality.
Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The headline here is irritating A newly-public EEOC ruling resulting from investigative journalism around explicitly discriminatory hiring practices facilitated (and profited from) by one of the more morally-bankrupt technology companies of our time is announced, and your gripe is the journalists aren’t giving Facebook enough credit? A lot of discrimination happened while Facebook hadn’t fixed the problem. Discrimi…
> and your gripe is the journalists aren’t giving Facebook enough credit? My gripe is that the headline _as it currently is on HN_ is two years out of date, and that the real headline is "Government rules targeting job ads using demographics is illegal".
The headline is “Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers From Seeing Job Ads. The Federal Government Thinks That’s Illegal.“ On HN, that’s truncates to the first sentence, but “used” is in the past tense. The information you claim lost was just compressed into the grammar.
In contrast, one of the contemporaneous headlines was “Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men” [1], i.e. in the present tense.
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-is-letting-job-a...
Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "modern world" sucks at figuring out how to help people find the right kind of job for one of two reasons: 1) they keep thinking about gender and age as qualifiers for jobs for which those factors have absolutely zero relevance (girls are bad at math! Old people can't learn new things!), or 2) They invent the delusion that gender and age disqualifies you for a job (girls will just get pregnant and leave! oldster…
I can't tell if you are arguing that no job requires learning lots of new things or that old people don't learn any slower than the young... Are you arguing one of those two things or have I misunderstood?
He's probably arguing against generalization.
You know, "younger people learn faster than older people on average" might be true; but even if it is, it doesn't preclude "I learn faster than you even though I'm significantly older".
Ideally, if you need fast learners, you should hire & test for learning speed, not proxies like age.
Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
The doctrine of disparate impact is plainly immoral and flies in the face of freedom of association. Society should punish companies which display behaviors they do not approve of using the market instead of the government.
Were we to take the second sentence seriously, we would have to conclude that the general idea of prohibition of discrimination of whatever kind in non-governmental action (whether employment or public accommodation) was immoral, not merely the specific doctrine of disparate impact.
I agree to the general idea that the government should try to do as little moral arbitration as possible. The concept of "separation of church and state" would be best modernized and secularized as the "separation of morality and state".
Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
Women software engineers are a much smaller percentage of women than male software engineers are of men. That's pretty obvious to anyone who's ever worked in software.
However that is in part because employers have been historically hesitant to employ them (and clearly if they are not advising to women then the will not be getting employment) this creates a self supporting feedback loop. Part of employment law is to break this loop.
You say that as if it is fact. Do you have any evidence to support it? I always assumed that it was mainly down to more males taking an interest in the subject. In my career in IT women have always been seen as equals where I have worked. There just aren't many of them.
Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think for similar reasons like it generally being seen as a good thing to give free food and housing to the poor, but frowned upon to do the same for the rich.
I have trouble to understand your message behind your analogy... From what I get is that you are referring to woman as the poor, and man as the rich. Just because it's a man dominated field, does it mean the others remaining have no chance to get anything in that field? If so, do you suggest that one half of the world is not allowed to have these jobs at the same condition because some people already do, just because…
I object to the use of "dominated". In a herd, a "dominant" animal will actively work to keep others away from food sources and mating opportunities when those are scarce. This is not what this is.
Strictly my opinion: There are few women in software engineering because few women WANT to be in software engineering, period. ...and it's not a given that this is by definition a bad thing for them either.
Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads
#320There are job boards that SPECIFICALLY make it their business to target women and deliver female candidates looking for tech roles (in organizations that are in need of diversity hires): https://powertofly.com/ ...and companies pay a premium for those job advertising channels. Why is it a great business and an initiative to be applauded if it is about excluding men and a scandal if it is about excluding women?
I think for similar reasons like it generally being seen as a good thing to give free food and housing to the poor, but frowned upon to do the same for the rich.
I upvoted your comment because I think the reasoning reflects people's actual reasoning. That said, I don't think techy women can be described as metaphorically "poor" these days. Big tech firms are desperate for more women.
For women as a whole it's another issue, but very few are going to learn an entirely new skillset just because they saw an ad.