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

I only got that job because I’m a girl

technologywoman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#21

Post by alid »

btilly wrote: post #18
alid wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey man, here's the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2012/01/26/the-... "Companies with more women at senior levels earn upwards of 33% more on important financial metrics. Failure to resolve the obstacles that keep women from these roles means executives are leaving money on the table."

They unfortunately do not source that stat. The South Korean study that I'm aware of is described at http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6498.html and found that a 10% increase in women managers was associated with a 1% return on assets. There is every reason to believe that this effect is stronger in South Korea than in the USA, and there is no way to get near the quoted 33% more with that measured effect.

Try this one then - an in-depth, fact-based, study by McKinsey & Company: http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/swiss/news_publications/pd... "Statistically significant studies show that companies with a higher proportion of women on their management committees are also the companies that have the best performance."

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#22

Post by Zimahl »

glaak wrote: post #10
Zimahl wrote: post #5

To level the argument, let's just say that everyone has the same skill for a position. You can probably assume that there are a lot of equally qualified 'A' players who have applied at Google, Valve, Facebook, etc. So what sets all of them apart? Off the top of my head, I can only think of two things: personality and looks. While I can't comment on the personality of the author, from the picture in the article it see…

Interesting, but I disagree. (1) You can't assume that there are a lot of equally qualified A players for those companies. In fact, those companies struggle to hire enough qualified engineers. (2) You're assuming that those companies, if they were presented with multiple qualified people, can only hire one of them. In many cases, they would just hire all of them. (3) You're assuming that, if a company has to decide b…

(1) True. However, I was making an assumption for sake of the argument to take it out of the equation.

(2) Even large companies have needs that wouldn't allow them to hire 5 great individuals for a singular position.

You seem to just be complicating the argument with undue thoughts about the position and a company. My post was trying to remove the job-specific factors and think about how personality and looks affect hiring.

(3) I've interviewed a lot of people for various positions that were all capable, that when it finally came down to it we argued more over team fit than anything else. If you had a grumpy, divisive individual or a friendly, articulate individual, which would you chose? This happens in 'A' player companies as much as any.

(4) I'm not assuming anything about attractiveness of an individual. I merely presented a couple (albeit somewhat loaded) questions to invoke a conversation.

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#23

Post by moistgorilla »

breadbox wrote: post #16
Zimahl wrote: post #5

To level the argument, let's just say that everyone has the same skill for a position. You can probably assume that there are a lot of equally qualified 'A' players who have applied at Google, Valve, Facebook, etc. So what sets all of them apart? Off the top of my head, I can only think of two things: personality and looks. While I can't comment on the personality of the author, from the picture in the article it see…

In my experience (and studies seem to bear this out), most people will automatically assume an attractive woman has poor skills in X (where X is anything that doesn't involve dealing with customers). So I don't think your "commonsense" argument actually holds in the real world.

"most people will automatically assume an attractive woman has poor skills in X (where X is anything that doesn't involve dealing with customers). "

Could you provide a source on that please? Because from the wording of your statement it seems that what you are claiming is completely anecdotal. I remember studying in one of my psychology courses that attractive people are instantly assumed to be smarter and more successful than unattractive people. It even has a name although I can't think of it right now. If I could I would provide a source.

edit: Here is a source, not really great but it's something. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201108/why...

edit2: The word I was looking for was halo effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness_stereot...

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#24

Post by Zimahl »

breadbox wrote: post #16
Zimahl wrote: post #5

To level the argument, let's just say that everyone has the same skill for a position. You can probably assume that there are a lot of equally qualified 'A' players who have applied at Google, Valve, Facebook, etc. So what sets all of them apart? Off the top of my head, I can only think of two things: personality and looks. While I can't comment on the personality of the author, from the picture in the article it see…

In my experience (and studies seem to bear this out), most people will automatically assume an attractive woman has poor skills in X (where X is anything that doesn't involve dealing with customers). So I don't think your "commonsense" argument actually holds in the real world.

So assumptions aside, once you've vetted the person (a woman in this case) through an interview and they seem to be the real deal, what would be the deciding factor at that point?

People can exploit any number of traits to help them accomplish things, be it connections, looks, charms, etc.

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#25

Post by bravura »

Cue up a lot of people who are going to use rhetoric to take make a "reasonable", "non-dogmatic" issue about this topic, while only barely acknowledging sub-conscious prejudice for or against.

I don't have a solution here, I'm sorry. But whenever I read a comment that sounds too cool, even-headed, and rhetorical, I know I'm going to be hit with some contrived hypotheticals and not much supporting data.

I don't know how to address the issue of prejudice. I just dislike it when people engage in discussion and pat themselves on the back for having taken a "reasonable" position. Not that I think arguments should be unreasonable, I simply see in practice that most "reasonable" arguments don't actually illuminate and are simply exercises in rhetoric.

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#26

Post by moistgorilla »

alid wrote: post #9
Zimahl wrote: post #5

To level the argument, let's just say that everyone has the same skill for a position. You can probably assume that there are a lot of equally qualified 'A' players who have applied at Google, Valve, Facebook, etc. So what sets all of them apart? Off the top of my head, I can only think of two things: personality and looks. While I can't comment on the personality of the author, from the picture in the article it see…

Hey man! I didn't quite understand your argument, but in this arena looks shouldn't come into it. The greater weight attributed by some people to women's appearance is a form of unconcsious discrimination. I appreciate you weren't sure what to call it, but the 'novelty of being attractive' doesn't sit well with me. She has the novelty of being highly skilled - that's what counts :)

He is trying to point out that unfair bias is everywhere.

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#27

Post by btilly »

alid wrote: post #13
btilly wrote: post #7

It is easy to rail against employers for showing the complained about bias against minorities and women. And doing so is clearly against the law. However playing Devil's advocate it is justifiable by the fact that hiring decisions are naturally risk adverse. The difference between a perfect hire and a merely good one is typically not that big. The difference between a hire that works out and one that does not is huge…

Sorry man, I appreciate your point but the general tone of your argument comes across like you think women are more of a 'risky' hire?

It is not politically correct to say that women are riskier hires than men. But given biology and current culture, women of child-bearing age clearly are riskier hires. Women have non-trivial odds of getting pregnant, sometimes unexpectedly. In the event of pregnancy, moms usually require more time off than fathers, and are more likely to never return to their jobs.

That said, I am sympathetic to the position that employers tend to unfairly overestimate that risk. And furthermore US law is very clear that discriminating against women based on that risk is illegal. (But, laws notwithstanding, I've seen it happen in practice. Both directly in my workplace, and indirectly in my wife's.)

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#28

Post by oinksoft »

bravura wrote: post #25

Cue up a lot of people who are going to use rhetoric to take make a "reasonable", "non-dogmatic" issue about this topic, while only barely acknowledging sub-conscious prejudice for or against. I don't have a solution here, I'm sorry. But whenever I read a comment that sounds too cool, even-headed, and rhetorical, I know I'm going to be hit with some contrived hypotheticals and not much supporting data. I don't know h…

Erm, do you have anything to say about the article or the general subject matter? And are you saying that anybody who would have nits to pick with this article is immediately discredited by your lurking suspicion that they are driven by prejudice? Further, "sub-conscious [sic] prejudice", which by definition the accused cannot refute?

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#29

Post by glaak »

moistgorilla wrote: post #23
breadbox wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience (and studies seem to bear this out), most people will automatically assume an attractive woman has poor skills in X (where X is anything that doesn't involve dealing with customers). So I don't think your "commonsense" argument actually holds in the real world.

"most people will automatically assume an attractive woman has poor skills in X (where X is anything that doesn't involve dealing with customers). " Could you provide a source on that please? Because from the wording of your statement it seems that what you are claiming is completely anecdotal. I remember studying in one of my psychology courses that attractive people are instantly assumed to be smarter and more succ…

As I recall being told by one of my professors as an MBA student, attractive people -- both men and women -- are generally assumed to be more competent. This effect is stronger for women than men. However, attractive women in "masculine" fields, like engineering, technology, or construction, are generally seen as being less competent.

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#30

Post by eightbitman »

You got the job because you're a girl. You kept it because you're competent. It's annoying how women refuse to acknowledge their gender opens certain doors for them. I want to work as a bartender, which means more than half of the places I apply will never even look at my resume because I'm not a girl.

I'm all for giving disadvantaged people a chance over advantaged ones, but it's offensive when you pretend "Oh no, the odds are totally even!" No. They're not. You're lying to protect your ego.

Post reply on HN