Live data from Hacker News

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

qz.com

221–230 of 391 posts

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

#221
post #13

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.

> What's even sadder is that there's no obvious or easy way to fix it. There is no easy way to fix it, but there is a way to fix it. I won't go so far as to say that it's obvious to many people. The way to do it? Work to change men's attitudes and biases towards women. It can definitely be done, but it takes hard work and cultural change. I would recommend the book "The Macho Paradox" by Jackson Katz for anyone inter…

One of the things which stuck with me from my social psychology class in college was a comparison of gender discrimination in hiring practices comparing male interviewers with female interviewers. The take away was that female interviewers were more likely than male interviewers to end up with sexist hiring results. Their were a number of possible justifications given, such as that the women interviewers felt threatened by having another women take their job (they felt like a "token" member of a team), a sort of stereotype threat where the female interviewer held female interviewers to a higher standard (they didn't want to "confirm" negative stereotypes about women), ect.

I will try to find the citation.

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

#222

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.

With the way things are going, it is not an irrational or unreasonable fear that something you (as a man or a woman) do/say is going to offend someone (man or woman) and land you in trouble. This has nothing to do with man vs woman. Badclient said nothing of men or women... just "sexist remark". Nor was there any mention of anything that would fall under any reasonable definition of misogyny. Your response only furthers badclient's concern over vague definitions (and to some degree overuse/misuse of words as a means to an end).

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

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> allow women (and men) to get through it without having to constantly bite their tongues or else be seen as the problem Right. Bite my tongue and put on the kid gloves. Wouldn't want to discuss last nights episode of Game of Thrones in the break room, less be seen as a sexist jerk. People do have friends at work, and normal human interactions do take place there.

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 exerting moral authority. It is rare that this is not itself a form of discrimination. "I have zero tolerance for intolerant people."

I agree there is a place and time for everything. However, true friends are rarely made in polite company. I prefer to work with friends.

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

#224
I don't understand what is all the fuss about, when it comes to software developer women in 90% of cases are less efficient than men. (my anecdotal evidence, but also look at github, nobody's stopping women to post open source projects on github) And do you think that for remaining 10% women should be treated equally? Why should I spend more resources looking for women when quality men workers are easier to find? Does my feeling of compassion for the 10% of women who deserve to be hired is enough to compensate for the time I waste on filtering?

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

#225

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.

The way to fix it is to start a software company and then hire all the overlooked overqualified women on the job market. When people are being stupid like this, it's a market inefficiency; it means that the market price for a woman will be lower than for an equivalently-qualified man. As an entrepreneur, your job is to exploit that market inefficiency and in the process drive wages up to parity.

[deleted]

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

#226

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.

Wow, you just walked the conversion right into jerk territory.

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

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With the way things are going, it is not an irrational or unreasonable fear that something you (as a man or a woman) do/say is going to offend someone (man or woman) and land you in trouble. This has nothing to do with man vs woman. Badclient said nothing of men or women... just "sexist remark". Nor was there any mention of anything that would fall under any reasonable definition of misogyny . Your response only furt…

To be fair he wrote one line which in the context of the thread could easily be perceived as defending sexist hiring practices. He may not have said "man or woman" but he responded to a comment I made where I described a manager of mine who was fond of making sexist jokes and refused to take women seriously as job candidates.

In his position if I wanted to make a more general point about the court system I would have burned a few more sentences clarifying my point.

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

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it isn't a problem that needs fixing? Maybe making work another place of constant judgement and time under the PC microscope would not be a net positive? Remember there's a difference between bare-faced misogyny and garden variety politically incorrectness.

Nice observation. One of my colleague got a stern warning for using the word dick ( 'dont be a dick' kind of way) around female colleagues, because two women sitting behind him complained to management about it. I am sure he is not discriminatory, biased or misogynistic. I guess it wise to think about what you are saying and not say stuff like 'fuck off', 'stop bitching' which may be construed as inappropriate.

You don't have to be a woman to be offended by profanity. So it is hard to say (based on your few sentences) that this had anything to do with man vs woman. Perhaps the two people sitting behind the person were just offended by the language in a general "I don't think we should be cursing at work" sort of way. Not everything has something to do with the gender of the people involved. Wait... that can't be true... can it? ;)

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

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the recruiters have some negative real-life information that discounts your actual profile but no such negative information against your fake one. Your evidence doesn't show sex discrimination.

Hm. I believe you're suggesting that they somehow recognize me from my photo or my name, neither of which is very likely as I am not at all well-known. But that does bring up an interesting point - it could be they find me unattractive and thus having a photo is the negative factor (which is still gendered, but in a different way). If this were a true psych study and not one person's curiosity the fake profile should…

You don't have to be well known to be traceable. Perhaps your Facebook gets updated a lot during the day. Perhaps someone with your name is listed as a felon. Perhaps you have a terrible credit rating. There are a ton of possibilities why using a pseudonym could be beneficial.

I don't understand how the recruiter potentially finding you unattractive makes it "gendered".

Perhaps it's because you're too attractive and so you're threatening to them.

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

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the recruiters have some negative real-life information that discounts your actual profile but no such negative information against your fake one. Your evidence doesn't show sex discrimination.

Hm. I believe you're suggesting that they somehow recognize me from my photo or my name, neither of which is very likely as I am not at all well-known. But that does bring up an interesting point - it could be they find me unattractive and thus having a photo is the negative factor (which is still gendered, but in a different way). If this were a true psych study and not one person's curiosity the fake profile should…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN