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

Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 666 posts

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#61

Post by QuarterReptile »

cperciva wrote: post #5
throwadogabone2 wrote: post #3

Anecdotally I have seen this in person at a large tech startup. The recruiting team was all women, mainly white, and they were incredibly cliquey. Every hire was a woman. Men were turned down with vague excuses like “not a culture fit.” All while aggressively pushing DEI initiatives and interventions on the tech side. I don’t think the irony of this ever crossed their minds.

Men were turned down with vague excuses like “not a culture fit.” That excuse might have been entirely accurate though. Most men are indeed not willing to participate in such a blatantly sexist culture.

You missed a part.

From GP: >The recruiting team was all women

I guess this is what you get when you outsource hiring.

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#62

Post by rmbyrro »

simmerup wrote: post #44
rmbyrro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what, let'em choose to work with whoever they want. If it's all women, so be it. Only men? Whatever. I don't wanna work in either of these organizations. I think the best answer to these divisive, sexist or racist behaviors is to show them in practice they're dumb, kick their ass in the market. An open-minded, welcoming organization is going to attract the best minds. Collectively, these people will kick those ide…

This is a privileged take that only works for people who have options to shop around for jobs.

I'm not employed. Not shopping for jobs either.

By the way, I'm available to assist whoever is a victim of these shitty extremist behavior. And I can do and say whatever I want. Everything I do is my responsibility and my property. Not my employer's, because I chose to not have one.

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#63

Post by throwaway0wha8h »

antiverse wrote: post #48
throwaway0wha8h wrote: post #39

Throwaway. I'm happy to have more women in tech and hope it occurs or continues. However, virtually everyone recruiting in tech has observed some toxic diversity initiatives, I would venture. Some examples I have seen personally or one degree removed from me. - pressure on HMs to hire more women despite 95% of applicants being male - people in interview panels openly saying "but he's a white man" / "do we want to hir…

>- people in interview panels openly saying "but he's a white man" / "do we want to hire more white men" etc. Not surprised to hear people saying this, but am surprised that nobody brings that up as a plainly racist/sexist thing when it is said. Bystander effect?

I have observed some people pushing back, but it's rare. I know there is a fear of dissent to the DEI dogma. Particularly if you're a white man. If you're a minority you have more leeway to dissent and it will be fine you'll just be ignored or perhaps have someone read the pro-DEI talking points to you. After Damore firing most people just think it's not worth it I would guess, why risk it? And if you're a founder why risk a campaign against your company when you need to raise funding etc.

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#65

Post by throwaway0wha8h »

throwaway6734 wrote: post #54
throwaway0wha8h wrote: post #39

Throwaway. I'm happy to have more women in tech and hope it occurs or continues. However, virtually everyone recruiting in tech has observed some toxic diversity initiatives, I would venture. Some examples I have seen personally or one degree removed from me. - pressure on HMs to hire more women despite 95% of applicants being male - people in interview panels openly saying "but he's a white man" / "do we want to hir…

>people in interview panels openly saying "but he's a white man" / "do we want to hire more white men" etc. Isn't this illegal?

Lot of things are illegal but still happen everyday. The violation has to be known to lawmakers and they have to have the will and resources to enforce the penalty. That's not the case here.

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#66

Post by jrsj »

Manuel_D wrote: post #52
jrsj wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the average person actually knew what these initiatives meant they would be against them. In practice what it does is make it so members of designated groups typically win by default whenever they & other candidates meet minimum requirements for a position. It’s not even good for the people who get promotions faster as a result imo because everyone around them knows things are rigged in their favor. And who has be…

This is my observation as well. Most women don't want to be hired on account of some eng diversity target. It gets really toxic when a company is simultaneously engaging in this kind of discrimination while also harshly cracking down on anyone who points it out. In 2015 I worked at Dropbox when DEI discrimination was ramping up. Among other things, we only interviewed boot camp grads if they were diverse. We also hav…

In general it’s also a problem with what is considered diverse. If you’re a white man from a poor family with no college education, the policy is to explicitly discriminate against you. If you’re a white woman from an upper middle class background, you’re considered diverse and given advantages despite the fact that you could have gone into any field you wanted, could probably afford to switch on a whim, and don’t have to worry about things like family members potentially dying because they can’t afford their insulin.

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#67

Post by nabaraz »

During my career, I've seen enough discrimination in the name of DEI as well. But what bothers me more is the ageism. The number of times an old person has been rejected from a job is too damn high. The reasons have always been "he may not work well with young people", "seniority complex", "he is over qualified" etc. Most of the times, they were more than qualified. I fear when I am into 40s or 50s, I will face the same discrimination.

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#68

Post by Ourgon »

ZGDUwpqEWpUZ wrote: post #38
Ourgon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using your own terms of 'marginalised groups' you should actually be fighting for men's rights, not against them as you seem to be doing. Given that the discrimination is especially rampant in female-dominated professions the 'marginalised' group in this case is men , not women. In other words, women in female-dominated professions discriminate against 'marginalised' groups (men) to further increase their domination.

IME the feminist argument seems to be that female-dominated industries are inherently unappealing and oppressive - i.e. that women are effectively forced into low-paid/underappreciated areas of work. Quite how this squares with desperately redefining words to try to keep men out of those industries, and why men would want to enter them in the first place if they're such terrible jobs, I'm not sure. They shouldn't nee…

It is nonsense, e.g. veterinary sciences are heavily female-dominated. Academia is female-dominated except for the STEM fields but even those disciplines are starting to become so. Here in Sweden middle and higher local government is female-dominated. Meanwhile mining, off-shore and garbage collection are male-dominated, to name a few fields which could be termed 'unappealing'.

First-wave feminists had a point. Second-wave and third-wave feminists are just belligerent searchers-for-trouble who have done more harm than good.

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#69

Post by throwaway0a5e »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #53
jrsj wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the average person actually knew what these initiatives meant they would be against them. In practice what it does is make it so members of designated groups typically win by default whenever they & other candidates meet minimum requirements for a position. It’s not even good for the people who get promotions faster as a result imo because everyone around them knows things are rigged in their favor. And who has be…

This is why the Civil Rights Act passed when the congressman from Virginia (can't remember the name) tried to kill it by including women in the bill. A law designed to save the endangered black family was instead coopted to boost the career prospects of successful women, so I guess the poison pill worked despite the bill passing.

The black family was only endangered because of those very same people who wrote all sorts of asinine rules for the social safety net programs that penalized stable households, penalized married couples and penalized above the table jobs.

Were they poor? Sure. Were they marginalized? You bet. But the single mother, the child without a father figure and the idle black man were not serious issues, let alone stereotypes, until after people tried to "help" them.

Post reply on HN