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

Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 487 posts

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#471

Post by kamaal »

dangus wrote: post #37
eloff wrote: post #35

Nothing good can come from sticking my neck out on this, but: If I were paying for advertising for a software engineering position I'd get much better ROI by excluding women and older demographics simply because they're much less likely to be suitable for the job, statistically speaking, when we're talking about the wider population in general and not just software engineers. Not because they're less capable, but bec…

“It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me. An analogy to your justification: the most cost efficient thing to do with hazardous chemicals is to dump them down the drain.

>>“It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me.

That is the literal definition of capitalism. The opposite of it, 'Communism' - Every one gets to win the prize. isn't exactly known to work well.

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#472

Post by emj »

eanthy wrote: post #410
emj wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everytime you think "it is naturally so" you need to take a step back and wonder why you think that is. My experience is that most of my male coworkers do not have a natural interest in computer science or engineering. They are here for the money.

I will ignore how untrue that is for now and tell me why is it the same situation in university CS/engineering courses too then, 99% is men? Tech doesn't even make as much money as other industries such as sales/recruitment so doing it only for the money is not a valid point

What do you mean by "naturally so"? In my work place there are about 20% women doing hard CS things, my point is that for some reason it gets easier to hire women when you already have alot of them doing the same interesting stuff.

I think I interpret "naturally so" as some biological argument, but even if it alludes to what society makes us do, I still think it is incorrect. The reason is that working at broculture dev shops killed my will to code, so I really think it's a question of how a vocal fraction those 95% men create a culture of exclusion.

Remember we are both talking about personal experiences here, I do not think that all workplaces that do not have women are broshops, nor do I have solutions for more women in CS. For me it has been a pleasure to work in places with a lot of women doing "things that are naturally ment for men", that's one of the reasons why I do not like the term "naturally".

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#473

Post by raxxorrax »

hutzlibu wrote: post #448
raxxorrax wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women don't study IT because they dislike the grooming habits of their peers? And that is the fault of those icky nerds themselves? Because their hair is evidence of sexism? This is hilarious. I don't know if it is more insulting to nerds or to women, but I somehow like it. Seriously, I don't even know how to begin here...

People only read, what they want to read it seems. Nothing new. But if you want it explained, well above I just said, that many (not all!) IT nerds still fullfill the stereotype in my experience. And the stereotype is unwashed nerds, who have never been close to a women in a way they wanted, but they want to, but don't know how. So they behave weird with women around. That makes women uncomfortable and avoiding the s…

If they cannot accept shy and awkward nerds, it is on themselves to find arrangements. Still absolutely ridiculous assessment.

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#474

Post by lawnchair_larry »

pnutjam wrote: post #453
michaelmrose wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This appears to discuss secretarial work like data entry which women weren't so much suited for as pushed into by limited options. The fact that data entry was a female dominated profession because women were pushed into it and men discouraged from it doesn't serve to prove that current women are not able to work in the field.

Ask me how I know you didn't read the article. It touches on that, but mostly talks about how women were seen as convenient because they were cheap. The conventional wisdom was also that women would leave when they got married or had kids, but as computers got more powerful; the old boys club decided they needed to own those jobs too.

The narrative that a boys club consciously conspired to take any jobs is quite a silly one.

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#475

Post by rstuart4133 »

emj wrote: post #396
eanthy wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

women are already so benefited in the tech industry, getting hired just for their gender, getting scholarships in universities and so on. The media makes it seem exactly the opposite because it gets them views. The reason there is lack of women in tech is because they are naturally not interested in it not because anyone is preventing them. If anything female starting salaries are higher than males

Everytime you think "it is naturally so" you need to take a step back and wonder why you think that is. My experience is that most of my male coworkers do not have a natural interest in computer science or engineering. They are here for the money.

> My experience is that most of my male coworkers do not have a natural interest in computer science or engineering. They are here for the money.

So the conclusion we draw from that is ... women aren't as interested in money as men?

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#476

Post by Angostura »

pdub123 wrote: post #425
Angostura wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what proportion of the gender imbalance is accounted for by a "Thing vs People" disparity, according to those studies? Is it only a question of sex-related disposition? If so, what has caused disposition to change so radically over the last 30 years? And why, for example where over 50% of nurses men in the 1900s in the US, but it is now only around 7%? What caused men to apparently become so much less interes…

Gender Imbalance is a presupposition -- it begins from the place that a "gender imbalance" exists. I can't justify for you your presupposition [nor demonstrate the existence of your chosen, yet unjustified presupposition given the evidence], you'll need to do that for yourself. Sounds like the news & entertainment media told you something repeatedly (without evidence), and you accepted it on its face without critical…

> I can't justify for you your presupposition [nor demonstrate the existence of your chosen, yet unjustified presupposition given the evidence], you'll need to do that for yourself. Sounds like the news & entertainment media told you something repeatedly (without evidence), and you accepted it on its face without critical analysis

But you're pointing out the imbalance yourself...

> The most relevant finding here is that about 15% of women have the same level of interest in engineering as the average.

But when presented with evidence, you feel a sense of cognitive dissonance and would prefer to simply presume some biological effect. Is there any evidence that this is a biological effect?

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#477

Post by astura »

teachrdan wrote: post #466
fffjdtcsebj wrote: post #357

Last year my main competitor went on a diversity hire drive. After hiring a bunch they tried to fire one of them due to poor performance. It ended up as a legal battle that is still ongoing. A number of the the other diversity hires got the message that they were now unfirable and decided to start slacking off as well. Now work there is pretty much frozen and they're bleeding customers. Im told they're 6 months away…

I want to apply the principal of generosity here, but the fact that your post perfectly illustrates the alleged perils of hiring non-white or Asian men--from a new account no less!--makes me wonder if anything resembling this story ever happened. Then again, everything in your narrative is so vague it's literally impossible to disprove.

Do people really know such detailed information of the HR issues of their competitors?

Plus it just sounds like a shit post - "You can't hire black people, they'll just slack off and sue you when you fire them."

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#478

Post by hutzlibu »

stakhanov wrote: post #470
hutzlibu wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not being attractive is a function of your genes" No. Genes play a role, but attractiveness is not so much about looks as it is about confidence and self esteem (and smell, of course). I was considered very ugly in my youth. And yes, I compensated with computers. I did not got much experience with girls in teenage years. Then I traveled, studied and grew in my mind and confidence. And today, well, lets just say, som…

...actually, the stuff you are saying is precisely the kind of thinking that will turn somebody who is merely unattractive into somebody who is creepy as hell. Exhibit A: Physical unattractiveness pairing off with acting like you're not unattractive, perhaps because of some misguided Disney-movie philosophy about how self-confidence makes you attractive. Somebody acting like Johnny Depp when they look like Patton Osw…

You missunderstood most of it, but you are correct:

It is even more creepy, when someone "acts" like looking good, when he actually believes inside, he does not.

But when someone believes he looks good and feels actually good in his body, no matter the weight fot example, then this person does look good. (to most people) But that does not mean, that suddenly everyone wants to have sex with him or her.

You seem to took the hollywood definition, that attractiveness is objectivly measurable on a linear scale. With sexiest woman toplist etc. That is bullshit. There are general things if course, like healthy body and mind, but attractiveness is highly subjectiv. Eastern areas for example love fat women. Weetern not so much (in general)

And I have seen really "ugly" men (by common standard) with very beautiful women in true love. Because the men had confidence amd strenght and knew is way around in this crazy world and the women loved that strength to feel save.

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#479

Post by pdub123 »

Angostura wrote: post #476
pdub123 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gender Imbalance is a presupposition -- it begins from the place that a "gender imbalance" exists. I can't justify for you your presupposition [nor demonstrate the existence of your chosen, yet unjustified presupposition given the evidence], you'll need to do that for yourself. Sounds like the news & entertainment media told you something repeatedly (without evidence), and you accepted it on its face without critical…

> I can't justify for you your presupposition [nor demonstrate the existence of your chosen, yet unjustified presupposition given the evidence], you'll need to do that for yourself. Sounds like the news & entertainment media told you something repeatedly (without evidence), and you accepted it on its face without critical analysis But you're pointing out the imbalance yourself... > The most relevant finding here is t…

No, imbalance would presume things are out of balance.

Your presumtion is that balance = men and women have the exact same interests and should therefore be represented exactly identically in occupations of things & people.

That is an irrational posture, foisted upon you by your media overlords, and accepted by you wholeheartedly without critical analysis.

I do not believe men and women are equal-- if they were, we wouldn't have two names for two genders in a dimorphic species.

If apples equal oranges, we wouldn't have two names for them.

I don't know what sort of mentality you live within, but it isn't a rational nor informed one, in my estimation.

Given the psychological science (again, many studies over the course of decades), and given the biological science (hormonal and brain differences between sexes), I think it is very clear: Women prefer working with people, men prefer working with things -- On average.

I don't think you understand how statistical distributions work. There are two distributions here: One for men, one for women.

They don't both fit onto the same normal distribution-- if they did, it would be bimodal, not normal.

Good lord, I see you're trying to argue against biological differences between men and women-- You must not be aware of hormone differences, which in fetal development, yield either a male or female.

OK, I am done talking with such a brainwashed person. Your ignorance does not offend me, I just think it's pointless to discuss this with an irrational person who prefers to block out the daylight of reality falling upon their presuppositions, and media-informed (not science-informed) perspective.

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#480

Post by pnutjam »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #474
pnutjam wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask me how I know you didn't read the article. It touches on that, but mostly talks about how women were seen as convenient because they were cheap. The conventional wisdom was also that women would leave when they got married or had kids, but as computers got more powerful; the old boys club decided they needed to own those jobs too.

The narrative that a boys club consciously conspired to take any jobs is quite a silly one.

Conscious or unconscious is really irrelevant.

There was a time that nobody would have considered education peasants. It was not a conscious bias.

Times have changed and will continue to do so, we need to do what we can to correct the mistakes of the past.

Post reply on HN