I only got that job because I’m a girl • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by smokey_the_bear » Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 6:28 AM UTC

glaak wrote: post #79

smokey_the_bear wrote: post #41

I also interned at Microsoft in college, and I'm sure the only reason I got the internship was because I'm a girl. MS hired only five interns from my school that year, and all were female, which is pretty remarkable given my school's sub 5% female representation. I also had an offer from IBM's Extreme Blue that summer, which I don't think had much to do with being female. I also think being female made it a little ea…

Also, think through what it would mean to actually get the offer (not the interview -- the offer itself) because you were female. Your recruiter isn't deciding who is getting an offer; the individual teams are. So how would this collaboration have happened such that only women from your college were given offers? Remember that Microsoft still has a very low percent of female engineers, so it's not a company wide poli…

I was in the Computer Engineering program at my school. There are gender statistics here going back to 2003/2004 - http://www.ece.iastate.edu/the-department/key-performance-in...

2003/2004 was 8.7% female in that program, but that was after my year. The statistic I remembered from around 2000 was 4%. Three of the five MS interns that year were also Cpr E, the other two might have been computer science, for which I don't know the ratio. I don't think there was conspiracy among groups at MS to only hire women, I think the only people from my school who got interviews that year were women. And my impression was that MS handles intern recruiting differently than fulltime.

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

#82

Post by antihero » Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 9:18 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #17

glaak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever seen a white person not be good at their job? Yet you don't associate their failures with their race. Why do so with black people? Also, read the studies. Black people and women actually have a harder time getting a job. So by your logic, of people getting jobs that they may not be the most qualified for, you'd be better off hiring women or black people. They have to be more qualified into to be seen as…

Have you ever seen a white person not be good at their job? Yet you don't associate their failures with their race. Why do so with black people? The specific situation that is burned in my mind was a black girl who was in a math PhD program at the same time that I was. The department wound up bending their rules to the breaking point to give her a Masters on her way out because nobody wanted to risk the discriminatio…

How can you possibly know all the factors involved?

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

#83

Post by krigath » Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 10:10 AM UTC

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?

Depending on the country, they may in fact be more risky from a purely financial point of view. They could have children!

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

#84

Post by Volpe » Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 10:21 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #76

mc32 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Now what do you propose that we should do about it? Asians (Chinese and Japanese Americans were severely discriminated against in the US --to the point it was illegal for them to own property in some states (till '46). Yet, in a few decades, they were able to overcome the discrimination and even best whites as a whole. Much of that appears to me culture based, not even ethnicity based. Now, not all Asians do well an…

Jewish people are another example of a discriminated against minority which values education and has become successful. If you can get a group to actually acquire the skills that are needed, they succeed. But the problem lies in getting them to do so. And if they do so, getting the rest of the country to realize that they have done so. When I asked what should be done about it, I was being deliberately unfair. It is…

In the US, the Jewish people were never disenfranchised the way African-Americans were/are. I don't think they are comparable.

Why can't we admit the problem exists and work to reverse it. i.e give discriminated against minorities a chance where we otherwise wouldn't. It's not about 'fairness' it is about ending discrimination.

The privileged class love to discuss what works and what doesn't as an excuse not to do anything: The problem is so complex what can I do? Maybe nothing is the best thing to do!

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

#85

Post by dradtke » Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 3:42 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #37

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,…

If I've ever gotten undeserved benefits for being a white male, then nobody's ever told me about it. I won't deny that they exist, but from my experience it's more a case of cultural acceptance than outright discrimination. I love programming, and damn it, I'm good at it. Is my benefit simply the lack of feeling bad about my choice of career path, that I don't belong?

The problem is that (as far as I know) nobody's explicitly told "congratulations, you have gained additional benefits due to your gender and/or race!" It's easy to pinpoint moments of discrimination when you're the victim, but it's not so clear-cut when it ends up in your favor.

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

#86

Post by mc32 » Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 3:54 PM UTC

Volpe wrote: post #84

btilly wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jewish people are another example of a discriminated against minority which values education and has become successful. If you can get a group to actually acquire the skills that are needed, they succeed. But the problem lies in getting them to do so. And if they do so, getting the rest of the country to realize that they have done so. When I asked what should be done about it, I was being deliberately unfair. It is…

In the US, the Jewish people were never disenfranchised the way African-Americans were/are. I don't think they are comparable. Why can't we admit the problem exists and work to reverse it. i.e give discriminated against minorities a chance where we otherwise wouldn't. It's not about 'fairness' it is about ending discrimination. The privileged class love to discuss what works and what doesn't as an excuse not to do an…

I think he's referring to the European experience, ghettoes, etc.

Anyhow, yes we know a problem exists. I think the main problem is not so much discrimination (it's a problem, but not the bigger/basic problem) as having equal access to education (from society and from the parents -i.e. it's not just up to teachers to teach).

Without a good education, anti-discrimination will only allow you equal opportunity at shitty jobs) The second issue is just having fewer children allows parents to plow more money and attention into the fewer children they have. I think some of the fruit of fewer children is being seen by black parents as compared to latin american parents (who tend to have larger families) this despite latin families not being subject to the same discrimination in the US.

Re discussion. Pick any topic --this is what happens here. It's hardly surprising nor is it only seen in these discussions.

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

#87

Post by FireBeyond » Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 4:11 PM UTC

spindritf wrote: post #75

FireBeyond wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh to 'risk'. I've seen employers tell my ex- that they were looking for someone to commit to multiple years, not just be fly-by-night. She agreed, and was laid off two months later due to 'change in business direction'. It's the flip side of 'at will' employment. Unless a company is willing to put it in contract, I would recommend often showing little hesitation in not being more open about your future plans than y…

> Meh to 'risk'. I bet this one has a spot in top 10 most popular last thoughts.

Context is, as they say, everything. "Meh to 'risk' in the context of "I as an employer should consider females more risky".

But... touché.

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

#88

Post by zem » Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 6:14 PM UTC

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…

"risk averse" here really means "it may be a problem for society, but let someone else bear the cost of solving it". one point of antidiscrimination laws is to spread those risks and costs out evenly so that no one is unduly affected.

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

#89

Post by batista » Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 10:02 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #53

Volpe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discrimination causes a lot of problems, including that of having to 'over-correct'.

The assumption that past discrimination justifies reverse discrimination is a dangerous one, and gives lots of opportunities for those who want to discriminate to justify it to themselves. The US military addressed this exact problem by making extra resources available to black recruits who were interested in becoming officers to assist them in performing to the exact same standards that were required of whites. The…

>The assumption that past discrimination justifies reverse discrimination is a dangerous one, and gives lots of opportunities for those who want to discriminate to justify it to themselves.

The "past discrimination" was mass abductions from their countries, SLAVERY, Jim Crow laws, lynching, segregation, fewer rights and a hugely disproportionate percentage of the black population in prison.

The "reverse discrimination" is ...getting some more jobs or better grades.

Suddenly when it's for the benefit of the other side this 1/1000 less discrimination is "dangerous"?

I think white america can shut up and take it.

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

#90

Post by batista » Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 10:12 AM UTC

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…

>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.

Then the people should make sure that such businesses are PUNISHED, and women are free to take time of for pregnancy.

The way to ruin a society is to stifle it's reproduction. As for the business risk, it should be an _assumed_ risk of all businesses if they want to operate within a society of people.