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

611–620 of 666 posts

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

#611

Post by rmbyrro »

enriquto wrote: post #144
rmbyrro wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I'm not employed. Not shopping for jobs either. Wait, isn't this the exact definition of privilege?

So... Let me double check I understand correctly:

I'm privileged if I have a job.

I'm privileged if I don't have a job.

What a privileged rationale!

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

#612

Post by nullc »

recursive wrote: post #370
forum_ghost wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe two-party recording laws in California needs to be removed.

Maybe, but they haven't been. That's what matters.

Doesn't apply if the parties have notice of the recording. Offer to take notes for the meetings and tell people you're recording for the notes. People making openly racist/sexist statements usually won't refrain when a mic is on-- they do it because they've convinced themselves that what they're doing is OKAY.

Failing that, an illicitly obtained recording can still be used in court in California if its used to disprove conflicting testimony. So you sue over the discrimination, when they lie and claim they didn't say the statements in question, the recording can be introduced.

You'd still be vulnerable to the $2500 fine and imprisonment, but I don't know how likely it is that a prosecutor would actually go after someone for making a recording which exposed a crime. Personally I'd be inclined to get a recording and then decide what to do about it later, since if due care is taken the recording would be unlikely to be known to anyone but you. Obviously you should get legal advice before trying something like that.

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

#613

Post by negamax »

telomero22 wrote: post #367
codelord wrote: post #295

It's interesting to me people make all sort of assertions about why men or women are dominant in an industry without anyway to falsify their hypothesis. I provide some data points having lived in several countries that may offer some insight. Draw your own conclusions. I got my undergrad degree in Iran (a relatively conservative society with an ultra-conservative even anti-women government), where the ratio of women…

It's because in poor and conservative countries women must choose a high paying job if they want to escape oppression and arranged marriage. However, the more egalitarian and wealthy a country is, the more women are free to choose which job they like most and they are not so interested in Engineering it seems. EDIT: Ha, looks like this is just a Jordan Peterson false claim. Women seem to be strongly represented in sc…

But that's not the point. Issue is Europe pushes for equality at outcome when things are broken on at the entry.

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

#614

Post by nullc »

nradov wrote: post #594
kenjackson wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So are you suggesting that some poor people have the wrong interests on certain issues and they need to fix that? Which issues specifically? Here I meant that often times issues are raised specifically as race issues, when really you can make the issue more inclusive and get better traction. For example, Black Lives Matter. While I can understand wanting to make the focus on race, it is hard to get traction on that…

Should companies give hiring preferences to candidates who currently have a low income? Or who grew up in low income households? Or come from certain Zip codes? I agree we should provide people with greater opportunities, but as a practical matter what are you proposing that employers actually do ?

For example, some well known tech companies focus their hiring on people who have graduated varrious highly exclusive institutions. Yet few people get into those schools unless they came from at least somewhat affluent families.

Make sure you offer interviews to people at least whos professional experience appears to justify it, regardless of if they went to a megabucks school.

Doing so can also help the racial diversity of the candidate pool some without introducing any racist criteria simply because it reduced a form of non-racial discrimination that has a high racial correlation.

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

#615

Post by nullc »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #33
toolz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name any of these male dominated companies that hire men disproportionately to the gender demographics of their applicants/interviewees? The issue isn't the distribution of employees, it's whether there is sexism present or not and the first thing you'd probably want for evidence of sexism is disproportionate hiring of a demographic compared to their applicant/interviewee demographic. Just because something i…

Quoted post unavailable.

Most tech jobs don't actually require significantly greater than average intelligence. If you crunch the numbers it takes a pretty high bar to skew the gender of the posterior distribution much. It's not inconceivable and shouldn't be discarded out of hand, but there are plenty of other factors (including non-discrimination ones) worth keeping in mind.

As an aside-- when you make the variance argument it's useful to point out that men are vastly more over-represented in convictions or some other negative characteristic... otherwise it's just too easy for people to read as a suggestion that men are better rather than simply being a population which as a whole tends to have more diversity in its performance.

Communication is a two way street, and there are enough assholes out there who do think that men are inherently superior that it's in everyones interest to put in some more effort to make it clear that it isn't what you're saying.

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

#616

Post by SamReidHughes »

Robotbeat wrote: post #595
twofornone wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't about my personal feelings, it's about the insistence that the demographics are not a reflection of the distribution of competence and personal choice, but discrimination. The entire foundation of discrimination against white males is dishonest because proponents refuse to allow for any explanation for overrepresentation beyond unfair hiring practices - which are being used to implement the systemic discri…

Look, it’s not helpful when making the case that white males (which I am, BTW) are being discriminated against and that we should feel bad about that and fix it when folks start saying “but actually women aren’t as smart at the high end as men and so…”

My target demographic is people who can distinguish between the phrase you gave, "women aren't as smart at the high end as men" (which is false or even nonsensical) and the premise of my prior comment and the matter under dispute, that most smart people are men (which is true) and that the m:f ratio increases as you raise the bar (which is also true). These are logically distinct.

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

#617

Post by nullc »

koheripbal wrote: post #109
throwaway6734 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

In many states, discrimination laws only apply to "protected classes" , which is strictly defined as specific lists of races/religions/lgbt.. If you are white male, you are often not protected by these laws.

I trust you've been adequately corrected now by the sibling comments... but I'm genuinely curious how you came to believe this?

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

#618

Post by nullc »

themitigating wrote: post #349
daenz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And who has benefitted It benefits the people who gain power and status by using virtues as a social weapon.

It also benefits those who rail against "cancel culture", diversity, and the like

It's always the case for political extremes-- the one extreme can't exist without the other to act as its boogyman. Everyone else is caught in the crossfire.

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

#619

Post by spaetzleesser »

forum_ghost wrote: post #608
spaetzleesser wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably most regulated industries. I am in medical devices and you can easily make it to 65 with dignity.

because fail-forward works so great with implanted defibrillators, I presume? /s

“Move fast and kill people”

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

#620

Post by remarkEon »

uoaei wrote: post #587
blindmute wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know people like that; they just don't say it because it's career suicide. I am opposed to the goal, in principle, of seeking a diverse team. One, it has not been proven or even shown somewhat that a diverse team is more successful. Two, it has been more than proven through human history that people get along better with people culturally similar to them. How can we simultaneously hold the belief that massively s…

> One, it has not been proven or even shown somewhat that a diverse team is more successful. This is just a wildly baseless assertion on the scale of disinformation, not even misinformation. It's not worth the time to go into the rest of this comment but the quote above summarizes it well.

>Whole Foods is keeping an eye on stores at risk of unionizing through an interactive heat map, according to five people with knowledge of the matter and internal documents viewed by Business Insider.

>...

>Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a "diversity index" that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers' compensation claims, according to the documents.

https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionizat...

Post reply on HN