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

I only got that job because I’m a girl

technologywoman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#41

Post by smokey_the_bear »

I also interned at Microsoft in college, and I'm sure the only reason I got the internship was because I'm a girl. MS hired only five interns from my school that year, and all were female, which is pretty remarkable given my school's sub 5% female representation. I also had an offer from IBM's Extreme Blue that summer, which I don't think had much to do with being female.

I also think being female made it a little easier to get my resume noticed, coming from a large state school. It probably helped me get my Google interview, but I don't think it actually helped me get the job much.

There have also been some negative things about being a woman in technology. Everyone has their advantages and disadvantages in life.

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#42

Post by Volpe »

btilly wrote: post #17
glaak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever seen a white person not be good at their job? Yet you don't associate their failures with their race. Why do so with black people? Also, read the studies. Black people and women actually have a harder time getting a job. So by your logic, of people getting jobs that they may not be the most qualified for, you'd be better off hiring women or black people. They have to be more qualified into to be seen as…

Have you ever seen a white person not be good at their job? Yet you don't associate their failures with their race. Why do so with black people? The specific situation that is burned in my mind was a black girl who was in a math PhD program at the same time that I was. The department wound up bending their rules to the breaking point to give her a Masters on her way out because nobody wanted to risk the discriminatio…

Discrimination causes a lot of problems, including that of having to 'over-correct'.

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#43

Post by columbo »

btilly wrote: post #27
alid wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry man, I appreciate your point but the general tone of your argument comes across like you think women are more of a 'risky' hire?

It is not politically correct to say that women are riskier hires than men. But given biology and current culture, women of child-bearing age clearly are riskier hires. Women have non-trivial odds of getting pregnant, sometimes unexpectedly. In the event of pregnancy, moms usually require more time off than fathers, and are more likely to never return to their jobs. That said, I am sympathetic to the position that em…

Regardless of if I agree with this statement (I don't) making a public statement like this is a very dangerous choice. You've effectively said "I wont hire women because they might go form babbies" on a public forum.

If you ever have or ever will turn down a woman for a position regardless of her abilities and this comment is found and tracked back to you that candidate (and any previous candidate you ever turned down) would have a pretty solid case against you and your company.

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#44

Post by bcoates »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #14
alid wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey man, here's the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2012/01/26/the-... "Companies with more women at senior levels earn upwards of 33% more on important financial metrics. Failure to resolve the obstacles that keep women from these roles means executives are leaving money on the table."

I would be very curious to see actual data (not hand-wavy conjecture) as to why that would happen. Most of what I've seen in that area is merely stereotyping of a different sort (women work by consensus etc).

Is it that surprising that there are a lot of good ol' boy companies and that they are perverse in ways beyond just not hiring women?

I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that women are automatically better executives.

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#45

Post by FireBeyond »

btilly wrote: post #27
alid wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry man, I appreciate your point but the general tone of your argument comes across like you think women are more of a 'risky' hire?

It is not politically correct to say that women are riskier hires than men. But given biology and current culture, women of child-bearing age clearly are riskier hires. Women have non-trivial odds of getting pregnant, sometimes unexpectedly. In the event of pregnancy, moms usually require more time off than fathers, and are more likely to never return to their jobs. That said, I am sympathetic to the position that em…

Meh to 'risk'.

I've seen employers tell my ex- that they were looking for someone to commit to multiple years, not just be fly-by-night. She agreed, and was laid off two months later due to 'change in business direction'.

It's the flip side of 'at will' employment. Unless a company is willing to put it in contract, I would recommend often showing little hesitation in not being more open about your future plans than you need to be.

If a company demands/expects loyalty, can you say that you expect they'll show the same loyalty when it's not working out for them? In the vast majority of cases (and it's not even necessarily malicious), absolutely not. You'll turn up one day, have a meeting with your manager, and, if you're (very) lucky, get some form of severance.

Quid pro quo.

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#46

Post by glaak »

moistgorilla wrote: post #36
glaak wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I recall being told by one of my professors as an MBA student, attractive people -- both men and women -- are generally assumed to be more competent. This effect is stronger for women than men. However , attractive women in "masculine" fields, like engineering, technology, or construction, are generally seen as being less competent.

If you already objectively know that the person is qualified the fact that they are attractive is only a plus. I think the study you a mentioning is done with people that do not know the qualifications of the person they are viewing.

True, it is done with people whose qualifications are unknown. However, I would find it very hard to believe that the bias against attractive women in a "masculine" field would be removed as soon as you knew the qualifications. Diminished a bit? Sure. But removed? Unlikely. Your initial assumptions will give you a lens through which you view someone's accomplishments.

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#47

Post by btilly »

alid wrote: post #39
btilly wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not politically correct to say that women are riskier hires than men. But given biology and current culture, women of child-bearing age clearly are riskier hires. Women have non-trivial odds of getting pregnant, sometimes unexpectedly. In the event of pregnancy, moms usually require more time off than fathers, and are more likely to never return to their jobs. That said, I am sympathetic to the position that em…

You're right, it's not politically correct to say that. Nor is it legal to act on it. Why? Because it engenders discrimination. Women are different to men - culturally, biologically, etc et al. However any reference/inference/undertone to those differences as being 'risky' or 'negative' to business re-enforces negative stereotypes. As the studies are showing, there's an opportunity cost to not achieving gender balanc…

There is actually quite a bit of evidence suggesting that the reason why discrimination on gender is illegal in the USA is that the term was slipped in as a rider when the Civil Rights Act was going down to defeat, and then after JFK died in the rush to pass it they forgot to take that rider out.

See http://www.siop.org/tip/jan11/12highhouse.aspx for arguments both ways. (The one that I just presented was the conventional view back when I was being educated about women's rights some 20 years ago.)

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#48

Post by hwz »

moistgorilla wrote: post #23
breadbox wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience (and studies seem to bear this out), most people will automatically assume an attractive woman has poor skills in X (where X is anything that doesn't involve dealing with customers). So I don't think your "commonsense" argument actually holds in the real world.

"most people will automatically assume an attractive woman has poor skills in X (where X is anything that doesn't involve dealing with customers). " Could you provide a source on that please? Because from the wording of your statement it seems that what you are claiming is completely anecdotal. I remember studying in one of my psychology courses that attractive people are instantly assumed to be smarter and more succ…

A study found that this isn't really true for attractive women though. Attractive women who included their photo with their resume got less response than less attractive women who did the same. The result was the opposite for men.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378298/Attractive-w...

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#49

Post by spindritf »

alid wrote: post #6

This is such an important issue, and it affects bottom line! - a recent Forbes article highlighted that companies with more women at senior levels earn upwards of 33% more on important financial metrics. Global research group Catalyst recently interviewed 325 American chief executives and 10,000 female executives around the obstacles to womens' progression into senior leadership roles. 52% of women cited male stereot…

> companies with more women at senior levels earn upwards of 33% more on important financial metrics

There are two major problems with that. First is that it's just correlation, "greener" companies also do better but it's quite likely that they simply can afford to be greener.

Second why is no one buying that? I mean, if companies with many women at senior levels really did significantly better, speculators would bet on those companies, their stock prices would jump and there would be a boom for female execs (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/femfirmfinance.html). That is not happening.

Re: I only got that job because I’m a girl

#50

Post by glaak »

smokey_the_bear wrote: post #41

I also interned at Microsoft in college, and I'm sure the only reason I got the internship was because I'm a girl. MS hired only five interns from my school that year, and all were female, which is pretty remarkable given my school's sub 5% female representation. I also had an offer from IBM's Extreme Blue that summer, which I don't think had much to do with being female. I also think being female made it a little ea…

It is unusual that all 5 people hired were female. But, remember that coincidences happen. There are plenty of schools in which all 15 people hired are male. Unless there is some reason why your school specifically would be set apart, I don't think this is anything more than a strange coincidence.

It's possible that something in the middle is going on -- a recruiter asked a professor for recommendations and he/she happened to recommend mostly women.

Post reply on HN