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

31–40 of 90 posts

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

#31

Post by moistgorilla »

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…

I acknowledge that there is a huge sub-conscious prejudice. I don't like how society doesn't focus on all of the types of prejudices that exist. Like I posted before, there is the halo effect, prejudice against women, fat people, old people, people of a different race, people with disabilities, etc.

I refuse to believe that this person (although she is qualified) managed to be hired completely free from any bias and only on her skill.

edit: I don't want anyone to believe I am trying to undersell the prejudice women have to experience daily. It's absolutely horrible that it still happens. I just posted the rest of this because I'm a nihilist and have trouble seeing good things with humanity....

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

#32

Post by glaak »

eightbitman wrote: post #30

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, t…

Um. Read the studies. No, the odds aren't even. In technology, they're stacked against women. (And against black people in general.)

(I would very much believe, however, that in bartending, it's stacked against men.)

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

#33

Post by [deleted] »

moistgorilla wrote: post #31
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…

I acknowledge that there is a huge sub-conscious prejudice. I don't like how society doesn't focus on all of the types of prejudices that exist. Like I posted before, there is the halo effect, prejudice against women, fat people, old people, people of a different race, people with disabilities, etc. I refuse to believe that this person (although she is qualified) managed to be hired completely free from any bias and…

[deleted]

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

#34

Post by btilly »

alid wrote: post #21
btilly wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Interesting. The key things that stand out to me from that are the following:

1. They are analyzing the impact of having women in top management. The Korean study looked at women in middle management, where they presumably have less of an impact on overall corporate direction.

2. The Korean study was looking at companies in a single relatively uniform economy. The McKinsey data set looks at companies across a variety of different countries with different economies and cultures. There are very strong correlations between which country a company is in, and whether it had women in the boardroom.

3. The McKinsey study identified a number of specific reasonable reasons why awareness of a female perspective could be beneficial for companies. If you're in a consumer line of business, those reasons are worth paying attention to.

Do you know whether McKinsey tried to crunch the numbers to estimate how much of the difference in economic performance can reasonably be attributed to having women in the board room versus the company being in a country whose economy did well? (Yes, I'm aware that there might well be a correlation between gender equality and the country's economic performance. Getting conclusions out of real world data sets will always be ugly and messy.)

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

#36

Post by moistgorilla »

glaak wrote: post #29
moistgorilla wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

If you already objectively know that the person is qualified the fact that they are attractive is only a plus. I think the study you a mentioning is done with people that do not know the qualifications of the person they are viewing.

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

#37

Post by scarmig »

eightbitman wrote: post #30

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, t…

So, there are some claims here that should be made explicit...

1) Some people get benefits undeservedly.

2) People will often rationalize after the fact to say that they deserved to get those benefits.

3) Women are people, so sometimes women will get benefits undeservedly but lie to themselves after the fact by thinking that they deserved it.

All certainly true. But I'd like to offer another claim:

4) Men are people, so sometimes men will get benefits undeservedly but lie to themselves after the fact by thinking they deserved it.

Is 4) unlikely, particularly relative to 3)?

How likely do you think it is that you might be deceiving yourself in the same way, about the relative benefits of being a man versus being a woman in tech?

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

#39

Post by alid »

btilly wrote: post #27
alid wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 em…

You're right, it's not politically correct to say that. Nor is it legal to act on it. Why? Because it engenders discrimination.

Women are different to men - culturally, biologically, etc et al. However any reference/inference/undertone to those differences as being 'risky' or 'negative' to business re-enforces negative stereotypes.

As the studies are showing, there's an opportunity cost to not achieving gender balance in business. That's the bottom line.

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

#40

Post by jexe »

btilly wrote: post #27
alid wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 em…

I guess the consolation prize from this fairly offensive point of view is that since my company doesn't share this bias against women, we're hiring all the great engineers that you're overlooking.

Sounds like we have the competitive advantage.

Post reply on HN