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

I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 391 posts

Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume

#341

Post by JimmaDaRustla »

Not to negate the point, but I witnessed some MALE gender discrimination when applying to a local IBM office for a college co-op.

Ratio of females to males is low in computer programming courses, but 100% of females were interviewed for an IBM position, and 0% of males were interviewed (approx. 6 females and 16 males). This happened twice in back-to-back years.

It seems the whole gender discrimination has taken a swing in the opposite direction for this small office - work hard to find female workers over male workers. But I haven't figured if they are doing this because they care about female workers, or they want to boost their public image? Are they giving females a chance to prove themselves to work for IBM, or are they just filling the most menial jobs with females to balance out their gender ratio?

This doesn't seem like the "give the job to the person best fit for it" mentality, but maybe to them the "first glance" isn't enough to make that decision. Plus, this was just a co-op, almost anyone in the class could perform the position. I decided to view IBM's actions as a form of tactic to develop female presence in IT industry rather than gender discrimination.

Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume

#342

Post by Tichy »

pjmlp wrote: post #309
whiterabbit2 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In some countries that can happen to dads as well, because you can share the time with the kid afterwards. The point is that not hiring women because they have kids, is stupid, as the same can happen to men as well. Except for the pregnancy time, of course.

What happens is that women usually get to do the reduced time because they have a higher claim to their kids. It is not only the paternity leave, but also for example working part time later on. Dads don't get the option to do part time instead of their wives a lot. Of course it happens, but it is not the usual thing to expect.

Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume

#343

Post by Tichy »

ajdecon wrote: post #109
crazygringo wrote: post #3

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.

> And the worst part is, it's surely conscious on nobody's part. There have even been studies showing this effect. There are studies showing that the unconscious effect exists. But it's definitely conscious at times. I know a few people in HR in Silicon Valley, and here are a few things they've heard from actual hiring managers: "You don't have any kids? Great, we can work you harder!" "If he had to reschedule the ph…

I've heard that companies like men with wives and kids, because wives will drive them to work harder. Can't afford to lose your job if you have to support a family either.

Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume

#345

Post by mgkimsal »

Tichy wrote: post #340
whiterabbit2 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"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?

You'd need to narrow it down some - what percentage of women in "industry X" don't have kids. I don't know if the numbers would be significantly different, but they might for some industries.

Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume

#346

Post by jack-r-abbit »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #337
jack-r-abbit wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot one: - Cause some coworkers to resent a person for being hired just to fill a quota rather than on merit.

You know what? I resent the current nearly all male quota.

You might want to look up the definition of quota then. It might not mean what you think it means.

The solution to discrimination is not more/different discrimination.

Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume

#347

Post by pjmlp »

Tichy wrote: post #342
pjmlp wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some countries that can happen to dads as well, because you can share the time with the kid afterwards. The point is that not hiring women because they have kids, is stupid, as the same can happen to men as well. Except for the pregnancy time, of course.

What happens is that women usually get to do the reduced time because they have a higher claim to their kids. It is not only the paternity leave, but also for example working part time later on. Dads don't get the option to do part time instead of their wives a lot. Of course it happens, but it is not the usual thing to expect.

It all depends on which country one speaks about.

Many European countries, have shared leaves between parents.

Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume

#349

Post by Proleps »

ritchiea wrote: post #205
badclient wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It saddens me to know there are people who think the presence of women infringes on their right to make sexist remarks. And that making sexist remarks is such a vital part of their everyday life that hiring women is the unacceptable route. It is a problem when "sexist remark" has a much more vague definition in court than in everyday life.

Wherever you work, whatever you do, you have to trust the people you work with for that relationship to be ongoing and productive (i.e. staying out of court). It sounds like you have a problem trusting women not to take you to court rather than a problem with the court system. Which sounds an awful lot like misogyny.

> Wherever you work, whatever you do, you have to trust the people you work with for that relationship to be ongoing and productive (i.e. staying out of court)

Americans seem to like having things escalate. Going to court is the first reaction to everything in stead of asking someone to apologize or talking things out. The incentive for going to court also seems to be very high, you can get large sums of money for small things. Money is the biggest reason people work in the first place.

Re: I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume

#350

Post by tptacek »

Peroni wrote: post #308
tptacek wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human resources people are the ones who negotiate on behalf of the company to get cheap health insurance. They aren't hiring managers.

That's an incredibly uninformed opinion you've got there Thomas! HR tends to be the first line of defence between a job seeker and a hiring manager. The majority also conduct the phone interview and occasionally the first face to face interview. Finally, who do you think hires other HR staff? So, yes. Human resource people are hiring managers. More so than most.

I've never worked for a company in which HR had any real influence over selection, but then, I've mostly worked for startups.

We have HR. They don't screen.

I might suggest ratcheting back "incredibly uninformed".

Post reply on HN