Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory

@apawloski, you're right, it is easier said than done, as most things are.

the "solutions" section on the above link is particularly helpful with specifics.

The title is the most important bit.

It is, as you note, the only bit people who don't read the article will read. (And as it happens, I did read it, but don't let that stop you from jumping to conclusions.) That includes people who don't click through from the HN front page, but the message will lodge in their brains regardless.

It is also, presumably, what the author feels is a good one sentence summary of the article: he cannot hire women, because it is illegal... so he has no choice but to hire men only from now on (subtext: stop blaming him for the 15-1 gender imbalance at his company, nothing to do with him, honest).

Another way of putting this: if the author knows full well that it is NOT discriminatory to employ women, why did he lie to us in the article's most prominent sentence?

I get that people like this have noble intentions. But this obsession with hiring women... it's gotten out of hand. You see an imbalance of one sub-group of people in your field and you want to fix it. But you don't understand what the problem is.

The problem is that women aren't getting paid enough. The problem is that women get treated with less respect, or are given busy-work, aren't given the same opportunities. The problem is sexual harassment. The problem is a lack of sensitivity. The problem is the boys' club. Etc, etc, etc.

NONE of those problems get solved because you hired a woman. Once they get the job, they still face all of the same hurdles the rest of their career, because you didn't do anything to fix the cultural disparity which is (one of the) reasons why there aren't more women in the field to begin with.

I mean... do you seriously think that the only reason there aren't more women in tech is because nobody offered them the job? There is no secret nation-wide cabal of hiring managers excluding women from positions. They're just not applying. Dealing with the reasons for that would be a lot more productive than wandering around college campuses with a quadrocopter looking for girls.

Because there is a difference between making decisions based on gender, race, age, religion, etc... and making decisions based on the ability of the applicant to perform their duties. If your goal is to add someone to your team with skills that you believe are likely to be easier to find in a woman, you are not permitted to disregard men - just as if you are looking to hire someone to do heavy physical labor, you are not permitted to disregard women.

That doesn't mean you can't consider those differences in skills. If you don't interview a more qualified man who possesses those skills (and it seems extremely unlikely in this case that you will) then you don't need to feel bad not hiring one.

If you are hiring for a warehouse position where the only skills required are the ability to lift as much weight as high as possible and you receive a female applicant who has a PhD from Harvard and can't lift 25 lbs, choosing instead to hire a man who can do significantly more labor would be a good decision, not discriminatory. Likewise, if you believe that there are actual skills that you are attempting to hire for that favor women, that's not discriminatory.

> At least be forward with what you're looking for, why should a male apply for a position that he wants, fits PERFECTLY but only get rejected because the company was veiling it's intentions to hire a woman?

I agree that this would be a mistake. The difference comes in how good the fit is. If you are looking for something specific that the man is unable to provide, then it's not a perfect fit.

The job the person is applying for is an engineer and workplace diversify-er. How does the white male accomplish the second criteria?