I understood gender discrimination once I added “Mr.” to my resume • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by tehwalrus » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 4:21 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #43

tehwalrus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a proposal going around the Lib Dems in the UK at one point[1] to make it illegal to have names on CVs; because they describe gender, and sometimes race, too. The proposal went on to say that that people should apply for jobs using their National Insurance number (like a social security number, but basically just used as a UID with the tax office - I don't know what else a SSN does, but it seems to be more…

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).

In general, it could be enforced as a random identifier generated with each electronic application; this just burdens employers with implementing an electronic applications system, which is too high a regulatory burden (and would make dropping off a CV in person impossible/illegal, which is stupid.)

It could be a hash of the persons name, too, but then the public would have to learn what a hash was...

NI number works well in the UK, because it's convenient (and the original suggestion was specifically for the UK.) A similar system could be used anywhere.

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

#362

Post by sokoloff » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 4:27 PM UTC

blibble wrote: post #338

klipt wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

discrimination based on sex for insurance is now unlawful in the UK, as of last year. 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 annuity case is batshit-crazy, IMO. Sad that we've gone so far in the chase for fairness that we demand equality in the name of fairness in cases where it makes no sense.

I'm all for fairness. Equal is not fair in all cases, nor is fair equal in all cases...

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

#363

Post by tehwalrus » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 4:29 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #166

tehwalrus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a proposal going around the Lib Dems in the UK at one point[1] to make it illegal to have names on CVs; because they describe gender, and sometimes race, too. The proposal went on to say that that people should apply for jobs using their National Insurance number (like a social security number, but basically just used as a UID with the tax office - I don't know what else a SSN does, but it seems to be more…

I guess that would put an end to linking your github account from your resume. Considering that doing that is an invaluable tool to people lacking "real" work experience, either recently or in general, I think that could end up hurting a lot of people.

There was never any plan to restrict anything else (although if your github URL is your name, like mine, I guess it would defeat the purpose.) The point was that people often put their name (like in the article) in a large font at the top - replacing this with a faceless number just reduces the initial "put the girls and people called 'Singh' in that pile over there" nonsense, at makes people actually read the CVs.

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

#364

Post by lrem » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 4:46 PM UTC

whiterabbit2 wrote: post #264

anologwintermut wrote: post #169

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.

That's quite probably why my wife gets her contract renewed in half-year increments (and she feels like everybody wants to know if she's already pregnant)...

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

#365

Post by alanctgardner2 » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 5:01 PM UTC

alan_cx wrote: post #92

zmj wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you post this?

Seriously, have a think about it. That comment might be smarter than it first appears.

The first part is weird and a little creepy. Really, he should listen to what she has to say, not look at a picture and say 'Yeah, I'd objectify her, she has a point'. Plus he had to click a few links deep to find a picture, so he went out of his way to see what some other commenter looks like, solely on the basis of gender. That's at least sexist, maybe you could really stretch and say it's salient to the conversation.

The second, parenthetical statement is what tips it way over the edge. It's like making a comment about 'culturalism' and then adding a footnote saying 'BTW, I'm totally not racist'. He obviously realizes that absent any context, saying "I spent at least 30 seconds hunting for a picture of you on the internet, person I've never met" is not socially appropriate. So he tries to shore it up with the fact that he's married, so obviously he has no interest in any other women outside of clinically judging their suitability for objectification.

This is further supported by the incredible, scientific claim that men's ability to process someone's comments on a message board is directly impacted by their ability to first judge that person's attractiveness - in a purely objective way, remember, he's married. No doubt this gentleman has a Firefox extension dedicated to finding all HN commenter's faces so he can better understand the cryptic squiggles they produce on his screen.

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

#366

Post by anologwintermut » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 5:20 PM UTC

whiterabbit2 wrote: post #264

anologwintermut wrote: post #169

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.

I personally doubt the problem is mainly maternity leave. 3 months time off for a good employee is not that bad (though if you had an equal male candidate, sure on sheer cost reasons you'd hire them). The problem is they are more likely to leave permanently or the perception they are more likely to put up a stink about discrimination if you say they are not pulling their weight.

Imagine what would happen if a guy came in and said "I like this job, but my real passion may be art. There is a %50 chance in the next 5 years I am going to leave my job to peruse that." You'd try to avoid hiring them.

Of course, this has terrible consequences in that it effectively discriminates against women in hiring, but simply trying to get hiring managers "not to be sexist' isn't going to fix the problem. You are asking employers (men and women) to weigh their personal ideals ( gender equality) against financial incentives(retaining employees, not paying to).

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

#367

Post by wglb » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 5:37 PM UTC

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 would hesitate to call tom uninformed.

HR tends to be the first line of defence between a job seeker and a hiring manager

From my experience (longer than tptacek's) there are BFE (big freaking enterprises) that use HR to screen, but in every one of those, if an external applicant could find a hiring manager, HR reduced to a pro-forma deal.

Even at the executive hiring level, if HR is meaningfully involved, it is with a specialist hired to do nothing but that.

As a "first line of defence" they are the opposite of qualified. External candidates and internal hiring managers find ways around them if they are at all involved. Otherwise, the result is not filled with qualified folks.

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

#368

Post by pbiggar » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 5:42 PM UTC

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #326

papsosouid wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've had the opposite experience, where when people notice that I'm female, certain companies get excited for the chance to have a "token woman" on their team My wife noticed that too. She has basically the exact opposite experience as the author. Her name is also gender neutral, but more commonly male. As soon as she added "Ms." she started getting interviews. Comments like "it will be so nice having another woman…

Summing up your wife's experience with the one in the article, perhaps what employers like the least is the ambiguity of getting a CV where they don't know if the applicant is male or female? I do know I have felt somewhat embarrassed when I had to reply an email to people with a gender-neutral name. Although maybe that's because there are no such names in my country, so I find the situation odder than most people. B…

Interesting about there being no gender-neutral names. How does naming work where you're from (and where is that)?

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

#369

Post by JulianMorrison » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 7:24 PM UTC

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #346

JulianMorrison wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

De jure, de facto, potayto, potahto.

Discrimination is prejudice plus power. Men are the ones with the power right now and "sexism against men" can not exist. Not in this society.

Come up with a list of MRA talking points and I'll laugh at you.

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

#370

Post by hrktb » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 7:37 PM UTC

whiterabbit2 wrote: post #264

anologwintermut wrote: post #169

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.

Actually the best remedy to this could be to give father equal length paternity leaves.