331–340 of 391 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won't work everywhere; e.g. SSN equivalent in Poland has sex encoded as one of the digits (determined by whether it's even or odd).
"SSN equivalent in Poland has sex encoded" That gets supplied when sending a resume?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Women are picking the best man for the job as well. "The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student." http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109#aff-...
Yup. I don't dispute that. Quotas would work against that too. Quotas really are quite a multifaceted fix. - Directly and immediately drive up numbers. - Create a demand for women that pulls the supply. - Create a supply of women leaders with experience and skills. - And create somewhere for them to go, so they don't get discouraged and quit. - Change people's mental image of working with/for women from abstract and…
- reinforces prejudice at an everyday level as the group whoa re being quota-ed down resent losing their jobs to people who can't do them.
- sends a signal that excellence doesn't matter and that what you are is more important than who you are.
In a list of really silly suggestions to reduce prejudice, quotas are the stand-out silliest. We surely want to increase the number of any discriminated-against group because there is a level of untapped excellence in that group; if we get rid of prejudice then we can access that excellence. Quotas go against that idea; you reduce the level of excellence in the field overall, retard development and competitiveness and reinforce the prejudice that you're trying to combat!
I'll just wait and read it on my laptop, but this does look like a sign of Webkit bringing back the days of sites "best viewed in Internet Explorer 6".
I really want to read this, but the site goes completely bonkers on iOS. I can see some content but it's wedged behind this top banner. They don't really expect people to read through a tiny gap in their images, do they?
Another addition for my "don't waste my time" domain block list.
The whole content of the post is "I got rejected many times. I added a Mr. before my name. I got accepted many times."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can't discuss last night's episode of GoT without being seen as a sexist jerk, you might be a sexist jerk. The fact you keep suggesting you have to "put on kid gloves" suggests you might be a sexist jerk.
More of an insensitive libertine than a sexist. I cannot control what other people say, think or do. I can only control how I react to those situations. This makes it crucial to self sensor being offended more than being offensive. I agree with a lot of what this thread is about, but also am aware that overcompensation is also present. Being offended to a point as to intend to change someones behavior is a form of ex…
It's a subtle thing, really. One person can make remarks about women and shoes and it's funny because we know that's not his real opinion, another does it and it's offensive because he thinks it's true. It really is about what your real opinions and intentions are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company's assumption that the stereotype of how women handle work life balance applies to any specific woman. That's pretty much the definition of sexism. Also, the fact that a company would never ask if a man had any time consumer hobbies or other sorts of things that might prevent them giving 100% to their jobs, because when kids and women aren't involved, companies generally assume that their employees are gro…
By that metric, car insurance companies are also sexist - they charge individual men more because stereotypically men are riskier. Of course, that stereotype is based on data, but so is the stereotype that women take more time off when they have children. Why is it legal to discriminate based on data in some situations but not others? I think the only solution is to remove the logical justification for discrimination…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. I don't dispute that. Quotas would work against that too. Quotas really are quite a multifaceted fix. - Directly and immediately drive up numbers. - Create a demand for women that pulls the supply. - Create a supply of women leaders with experience and skills. - And create somewhere for them to go, so they don't get discouraged and quit. - Change people's mental image of working with/for women from abstract and…
You forgot one: - Cause some coworkers to resent a person for being hired just to fill a quota rather than on merit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company's assumption that the stereotype of how women handle work life balance applies to any specific woman. That's pretty much the definition of sexism. Also, the fact that a company would never ask if a man had any time consumer hobbies or other sorts of things that might prevent them giving 100% to their jobs, because when kids and women aren't involved, companies generally assume that their employees are gro…
By that metric, car insurance companies are also sexist - they charge individual men more because stereotypically men are riskier. Of course, that stereotype is based on data, but so is the stereotype that women take more time off when they have children. Why is it legal to discriminate based on data in some situations but not others? I think the only solution is to remove the logical justification for discrimination…
as a result car insurance prices for women increased significantly, while mens remained the same.
additionally annuity rates for men dropped, while those for women remained the same (the provider is no longer allowed to factor in that men on average die several years earlier).
That's really, really sad. And the worst part is, it's surely conscious on nobody's part. There have even been studies showing this effect. What's even sadder is that there's no obvious or easy way to fix it.
It's conscious on a lot of people's parts. I've also heard "no women, no sexual harassment suits" enough from people in tech to assume that there are a lot of bigots not dumb enough to admit it out loud. I could be going too far, though. Maybe the kind of dumb lockerroom overshare bluster amongst the employees and managers of sexually harassing companies and departments lends itself to admitting incriminating things…
Why is it bigot to think that? Seems like a valid concern, can't really blame companies for worrying about that?
It's of course a problem, but what is the proper solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we missed the key point that he implied he was a women with kids. Some set of hiring managers assumed a mother with kids would likely focus more on family then career. That assumption may or may not be dumb. It's certainly correctable if there is serious statistical evidence it is wrong (unlike someone just being a bigot). That wouldn't help this case though, because the inclusion of kids in the resume was an…
> Some set of hiring managers assumed a mother with kids would likely focus more on family then career. In the present times, some set of managers would assume it for ANY woman of childbearing age. And if a woman doesn't have kids, she's assumed to get pregnant and go on maternity leave.
Would you say that assumptions is completely unfounded? What percentage of women don't have kids?