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

561–570 of 666 posts

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

#561

Post by bumby »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #495
t_mann wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would be interesting to compare this across areas. My impression is that eg Finance (another popular destination for mid-career switches) is far more open in that regard. Experience, even if it's in a different field (as long as it's a technical role or one that will give you a rich set of contacts) seems to generally confer seniority. Would be interesting if someone could weigh in.

What are some common paths for people who make that jump?

Just my perspective so take it with a grain of salt. It helps to look for positions outside the normal SV roles so places like aerospace, defense contractors, manufacturing, etc. They post a surprising number of CS positions. I would caution, though, that the only role I've seen that pays SV-type salaries ($250k+) was controls engineer for automotive manufacturing. But to be fair, the jobs were all in areas with a cost of living much, much lower than SV.

If you get in (politely) look for processes that your SE skills can make an impact. These opportunities are sometimes there because the place is full of non-software minded folks who don't know what they don't know. An example from my anecdotal experience was when someone with software acumen helped reprogram an automation system to be more efficient and saved high-six/low-seven figures each year and really gets people's attention. Or showing how they can dramatically improve their quality control by developing unit tests. Some stuff that is common in SE firms is often overlooked in firms focused on other disciplines.

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

#562

Post by uoaei »

LeroyRaz wrote: post #544
uoaei wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Viewpoint diversity is very, very important. But for a large contingent of the workforce, their viewpoints are already represented in the numerous implicit and ideological supports that our society has developed, without them even needing to be present: this is called "hegemony". If you do not acknowledge this is the case, then DEI efforts can seem very unfair. But one should be careful not to allow emotions and sens…

The point is that DEI groups can seem very homogeneous, without diverse viewpoints, and they can weild large amounts of power. Posters above you have illustrated how issues of DEI are not investigated, if they happen to not fit into the agenda of the DEI group, e.g. examples of Ageism, or things that discriminate against rather than for white men. Such effects exist, as the OP article illustrates. To say that the DEI…

> is to elevat[e] the white voice too

Elevate?? We are not assigning authority to the white voice, we are assigning hegemony. It is a material fact that whiteness and maleness are the centers of Western philosophy, and everything else is measured based on deviance from that perceived center. There are by now centuries of literature on the matter.

> if they happen to not fit into the agenda of the DEI group

What you call "agenda" I call "bandwidth". Think about it: a fledgling DEI group, small to start, must tackle a lot of metastasized workplace issues. But they're not going to get anything done by spreading their forces too thin. So they focus first on what will make the most material effect with the least effort: call it "productivity". Ageism does fall down the list of priorities, for the simple matter that older people tend to have a larger net worth and so are more insulated from material consequences writ large. It is those who are poorest who need insulation from poverty first, who get help first: this is called "triage". The rising tide starts at the lowest point, right? Without directly asking for everyone's net worth, which is extremely illegal as I'm sure you know, we must resort to proxy measures.

Would you join an engineering team who was constantly switching contexts instead of focusing in on particular features during particular sprints? No, that would be counterproductive. Afford your colleagues the same consideration, even if their goal is not a webapp but compassion in the workplace.

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

#563

Post by idiotsecant »

bell-cot wrote: post #545
idiotsecant wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty dismissive of the men who want to work in what you consider low status crappy jobs. There are plenty of men out there who expressly go to school with the goal of being an educator, for example. The discrimination those men face is very real. It's ok to admit that there are some areas society has decided men shouldn't work in. It doesn't diminish the struggles of anyone else

Yes and no. For instance - there's generally a big gap between "go to school with the goal of being an educator", and being a preschool teacher. At least in the U.S., the latter tends to offer far lower status, pay, job security, etc. than being (say) a 7th grade teacher. Between the low desirability, high turnover, and "we must fill the opening" nature of most bottom-end, female-dominated jobs, I'd guess that the an…

>I'd guess that the anti-male discrimination is a fairly weak barrier to men who really want those jobs.

I'm sorry to say you're definitely, clearly wrong about this. I am not an educator but I travel in those circles and I know at least a half dozen men who wanted to be early childhood educators and just couldn't find work, regardless of the need or their qualifications, and that is by no means a unique story. They all have stories of administrators, HR, etc flagrantly implying they might be pedophiles. It's not just 'the system's fault either, society is strongly prejudiced against men working with young children. The discrimination is real and these men actually suffer for it.

I'm not sure how to take your point of it being ok because nobody really wants these jobs anyway. Frankly it's hard to see it as anything other than reprehensible. Plenty of good, intelligent, well adjusted people do these jobs knowing the pay and conditions are terrible because they want to make a difference.

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

#564

Post by golergka »

themitigating wrote: post #339
golergka wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like they purposefully created people now dependent on these government programs in order to secure electorate.

Those programs are given to people based on economic situations not race.

Just as another sibling comment this is both obviously true and doesn't contradict my point in any way.

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

#565

Post by gilbetron »

nabaraz wrote: post #67

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 s…

I joke with my age-peers that I'd bring up ageism in our DEI outlets in my current company, but I'm afraid they'd decide to kill us and use us for fertilizer if I speak up ;)

Dark humor with an underlying truth. Ageism isn't seen as an "ism" by anyone except those over the age of 40.

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

#566

Post by qwerpy »

vineyardmike wrote: post #520
qwerpy wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a similar opinion as the person you replied to. There are many issues that I care about, but this is probably the most important to me because it will affect the educational and career prospects of my children. Unfortunately in this country the only meaningful votes are "blue" or "red", and "blue" is the side that is pushing DEI to the detriment both of my family and (in my opinion) the competitiveness and eff…

> "blue" is the side that is pushing DEI to the detriment both of my family > I will vote for [red] until "blue" stops with DEI. And this is why equality in America is still an issue.

It depends on how you define equality. My definition is "people are judged on their abilities and character, not by the color of their skin, gender, orientation, etc.". Not "every pairwise combination of race and gender is proportionally represented in college admissions and high-paying jobs". As an Asian, I don't expect that Asians are proportionally represented in the NFL despite the fact that I'd love to have a job that pays me millions per year. But I also don't see a problem with Asians being overrepresented in Ivy Leagues and engineering jobs.

I haven't seen any evidence that red is hindering equality, but DEI to me is the opposite of equality. So to me, voting for red is actually a vote for equality.

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

#567

Post by temp78162397 »

idiotsecant wrote: post #485
bell-cot wrote: post #470

My sense is that most responses here are only to the title of the submission (the actual article title is "Gender discrimination in hiring: An experimental reexamination of the Swedish case"). Skimming through said actual article, it looks like the "against men" hiring discrimination is ~completely driven by this: "...In female-dominated occupations such as cleaner, childcare provider, preschool teacher, accounting c…

This is pretty dismissive of the men who want to work in what you consider low status crappy jobs. There are plenty of men out there who expressly go to school with the goal of being an educator, for example. The discrimination those men face is very real. It's ok to admit that there are some areas society has decided men shouldn't work in. It doesn't diminish the struggles of anyone else

Thank you, exactly this.

I can speak for myself and some of my male friends and say that there have been quite a lot of us who would have loved to become e.g. a kindergartner or a nurse.

While some actually did, they would not exactly say they "love it" anymore because of low pay and other harsh working conditions. I did not pursue this dream any longer because I realized that it is hard to find a woman when the majority of women prefer to choose men with high status and income (I do not want to generalize or be sexist here but I have the feeling that most women share this preference).

> The discrimination those men face is very real.

Yes, definitely. I can somehow understand how parents might be uncomfortable with a male kindergartner going to toilet with their child but there actually are men who can do this without being aroused or harassing the child.

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

#568

Post by ruds »

stodor89 wrote: post #238
umvi wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can confirm, my last company's HR department was 100% women, but it still didn't offset the 90%+ male engineering department enough to satisfy DEI targets

I've been a programmer for 10+ years and I'm yet to see a male HR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laszlo_Bock

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

#569

Post by pedrosorio »

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #528
pc86 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could either one of these viewpoints possibly come up during a job interview ?

You'd be surprised! I once had lunch with a candidate who was glad no women were interviewing him, because he found salads distasteful.

> was glad no women were interviewing him, because he found salads distasteful

?

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

#570

Post by camelite »

uoaei wrote: post #395
sdsaga12 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hear hear. If your conception of diversity doesn't include viewpoint diversity, you are operating within a prejudicial, small-minded, small-hearted, and regressive framework. If you belive the most salient details about a person can be read from their appearance, you are a bigot. This cuts every which way, but many want to pretend it's not true for their own biases. This includes seeing someone with blue hair and a p…

Viewpoint diversity is very, very important. But for a large contingent of the workforce, their viewpoints are already represented in the numerous implicit and ideological supports that our society has developed, without them even needing to be present: this is called "hegemony". If you do not acknowledge this is the case, then DEI efforts can seem very unfair. But one should be careful not to allow emotions and sens…

But the dei perspective is the one that is hegemonic at this point. Something off a paradox for those possessed of it, displayed in such absurdities as believing that viewpoint diversity is the (precise) aim of dei.
Post reply on HN