11–20 of 93 posts
Women are found severely lacking in the tech sector, due to "bro-tard" style workplace and management. Not to mention, not many women graduate from the heavy tech degrees from universities.
Is this not why affirmative action was created in the first place?
No, it turns out that hiring someone because of their gender is discriminatory. Disqualifying all male candidates due to their gender is discriminatory, just as disqualifying all female candidates due to their gender is discriminatory.
That's what the article says. The problem is they want a diverse workforce. So the question becomes how do they hire for that?
I'm sure the vast majority of companies want the exact same thing but there comes a point where you simply have to accept that we work in a significantly male dominated industry and to get to a point where more than 20% of your staff are female means you have to compromise somewhere in order to achieve that balance. Unfortunately that compromise isn't always going to be appropriate.
If you want to open opportunities for women, you post the job notice in places where women will see it. That will get you qualified candidates, and if you find a women who is the best person for the job, you hire her.
edit: spelling
The problem is that this is discriminatory. If you are not hiring based solely on qualifications, and instead on gender, it is discriminating. If you were to switch the genders and say that you are only hiring men, it would be clearly sexist. However, if you do not accept well qualified men who would fit the job, it is seen as "breaking gender barriers". You should be hiring based on the applicant's experience, educa…
I think most people got this topic wrong, maybe because of all the promotion of women in IT, which mostly is good. If I was a woman, I'd rather apply for someone looking for a developer, than someone looking for a woman - because then I knew I was hired because of my skills and personality - not my gender. In legal terms, this is pretty much what you can do. You can hire a "person" not a person of a specific gender.
So how do they hire for that without discriminating? I think it's a fair question, and one that shouldn't be ignored out of some perceived bias.
Consider advertising your jobs at less male-dominated college campuses? RIT is one of the worst offenders in this regard. I think that'd be a start.
The more important question is: (ii) Why is it hard to get a female interface designer (I have no clue but am assuming it is so) and what can you do to solve this problem? Trying to hire female programmers/designers is good but is an indirect method. Why don't you take your cool gear to your local middle schools, high schools, etc. and meet with future female programmers, to motivate them into this field.
No, it turns out that hiring someone because of their gender is discriminatory. Disqualifying all male candidates due to their gender is discriminatory, just as disqualifying all female candidates due to their gender is discriminatory.
That's what the article says. The problem is they want a diverse workforce. So the question becomes how do they hire for that?
Put another way, rather than trying to explicitly seek awesome female employees, just make sure the awesome female candidates don't slip through. I think execs often mistakenly think they can fix cultural issues by fiat, when what is really needed is dedication and time.
I think what constitutes imbalance also needs to be defined. If 10% of qualified engineering candidates are female does having 10% of your engineering staff be female constitute balance? I think the case could be made it does; however, in relation the birth ratio of our species is it certainly imbalance.