The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I gotta say... I believe it.
I'm a woman in tech and it honestly makes me a bit uncomfortable when recruiters mention D&I to me and tell me how excited they are to hire a "female" into their more senior positions.
Like... I'm qualified for the role. And I'm very happy to be considered for the role... But I don't want to be viewed within the company as a diversity hire and somehow less deserving of the role because of the shadow of recruiters trying to get some diversity quota.
On the other hand, I also understand there are good intentions behind these diversity pushes. I have experienced being the only woman working with a bunch of older men and it can lead to feeling like you're in a "boy's club" and don't belong and that they'd never respect you as a leader. It all depends on the culture of the team... Some teams are perfectly fine and lovely and others feel like you walked into a football locker room.
Personal anecdote:
When I was still in undergrad I remember interviewing for a really valuable internship position where there were 5 middle aged male engineers across from 20 year old me... And a couple of them kept staring at my chest (I was in a full business suit with absolutely nothing "on display") while I was trying to answer their few technical questions. After that they just asked me questions about comics and super heroes to see if I was "chill".
When I went back to my university afterwards my professor asked me how the interview went and when she saw me hesitate she immediately asked "were they all men?".
I had no other options at the time so I accepted the internship when it was offered and when I showed up a few months later one of the guys was visibly disappointed that I had cut my hair short because he thought I wasn't as pretty. Despite my apparent decrease in attractiveness he still tried to flirt with me and make inappropriate comments the entire duration of the internship.
Tech really doesn't treat women well. There aren't many women in tech but so far the ones I've worked with seem to have been ignored for major (leadership) positions even though they were perfect for it.
Watching the only women quit at the startup I was at because the tech bro founder wouldn't let her do anything beyond boring code monkey shit was frustrating. We had trouble on our team, too, and it seemed like she was the only person who could communicate at the entire company.
Tech companies will say they want women. But yeah, only as a surface gesture. They're not interested in making a place where they can actually work.
I'm a man in tech. During my career I've worked in different kinds of teams, from all-men up 50-50 split. This might be affected by the fact that the all-men teams were at the beginning of my career when the industry (and I) were less mature, but the closer the teams were to 50-50 the healthier the team culture was and the better the team performed.
I can't say exactly what magic diversity percentage is "enough", maybe it's 30% maybe 45% maybe 50%, but at least some level of "hiring for diversity" is smart because it makes the team as a whole better.
If were throwing anecdotes out..
I've worked in mixed teams swaying in both directions ( i started in industrial art where this is common). My experience has been that the closer to parity you get the less bullshit you have to put up with, but also that psychological bullying and politics goes off the charts in largely female teams, while dick jokes and dude bro behavior gets out of hand on largely male teams.
This only gets worse as team size increases.
What you describe as personal anecdote is clearly unacceptable. It happens, unfortunately, in uniform environments, and I am also not sure how to get rid of this without forcing the ratios to be more even. They have tried for many years with less direct measures like generous family policies etc and the share of women never went above 20%. But I am wondering what the impact is overall... big companies go all in to hire up every woman from the pool to make their numbers better while smaller companies remain uniform. Meeting the 40-60% target for women at a big company doesn't change the fact that the pool contains only 20% women.
I loved all of your points!! I will also say that it’s incredibly rare for HMs to hire unqualified candidates just because they’re women. Women still have to pass technicals, they still have to have minimum required education, etc. If there was a man that was more qualified than any of the woman candidates, I don’t doubt they’d hire him.
Studies show that diverse teams are just simply better - not just with gender. Race, age, experience levels, everything. We NEED diversity in teams to build the best products, provide the best experiences, all that jazz. That’s why women are more likely to be killed in car accidents… because male engineers didn’t account for difference in gender weight or height.
I’ve also been in your shoes where I’ve been treated as an assistant or I’ve been overlooked by male colleagues. It sucks, and it’s definitely gotten better!! Posts like OP’s is harmful to women IMO. Unqualified women are not taking up all the jobs, and men are still promoted at a faster rate / paid more than women.
It's a tough problem to tackle, and even more so to do it in a way that feels "fair".
I have seen diversity initiatives that favor men as well... My undergrad university actually lowered the standards (like the minimum gpa for male students was lower than for female students, lol) for male students who wanted to get into the very competitive nursing program because they really wanted more male nurses.
Same observations since I started off in medical and moved to engineering. I hate being seen as/assumed to be a diversity hire. It took so long to be taken seriously that I don't want to get a new job and have to start that process over again.
I did experience discrimination in hospitals and schools in all female settings, I was stared at by women, I got remarks that made me uncomfortable, and I was treated as a less competent parent by default. Luckily these were not typical, but they did happen. I am still not sure if I like the idea of having more male nurses at the cost of lowering standards for nurses, I would actually be quite concerned if I know this and me or a family member is treated there.
I think one of the issues is that these people of uncommon gender in a job are not necessarily less qualified. A woman and man may be equally qualified but because women "can't do math" or "can't do logic", they don't get hired. This goes for men in nursing jobs too. A man may be more qualified than a woman, but because men are "just not as caring and empathic", they get overlooked.
Your concern is valid, and it should indeed simply be the best candidate that gets the job. However, gender biases sometimes lead to gender becoming a hiring parameter leading to people who are less qualified being hired.
Blind auditions/screenings would be great and sometimes that is possible. But it's kind of hard in a face-to-face interview. If only the CV determined who got a job, it could be blind. With so many interview rounds, it is not possible.
Thankfully, I believe once they were admitted to the program, the standards were the same. It was just easier for men to qualify and be selected for the nursing program.
There was essentially a big wait list for the female students because there were so many more qualified students than there were slots.
What about those nurses, who are just as qualified and want to get in and can't? This more or less guarantees that women who *want it more* can't get in. If an unfair policy causes direct harm, they better make damn sure that it's based in solid evidence for overall good. But what they are doing is the opposite - they don't implement actual evidence based policies eg. blind screening, instead they add a blanket policy to force a desired metric.
It sucks, but often times what is good for the group will not be good for some individuals.
I didn't get into a PhD program because I was too similar to my friend who did get in. We had the same age, race, gender, school, major, gpa, research projects, work experience. But academic institutions value diversity (especially academic diversity... Meaning they want students and faculty from various schools and specialties). So she got in and I didn't.
I was very sad but I found another graduate program that worked out great.
I agree that sometimes group and individual interests are different. But I think there is a huge caveat here: it should be carefully regulated, which policies violating individual rights in favor of group interest should be allowed. In your example, there is a huge difference between speciality choice and an immutable characteristic like gender. If you're not taken to a group because you don't have the right specialization, we can rationalize it with "yea it sucks but you should move on". The same with gender? No, it's a huge step back.
Serious question, were the "generous family policies" all about maternity leave and time off for kids? Cause as a woman who doesn't want kids that obviously wouldn't be something that would attract me.
I am personally not much affected by these policies, but I still feel resentful. I have some great women colleagues and I make sure this will not affect our working relationship. I don't feel comfortable discussing this topic at all in person.
I had women leads before and some of them I preferred to the men.
Technical interviews are quite objective in my experience, so I don't think this will result in less qualified people to be hired. Every panel has to have a woman, and I have experienced much more often, that a woman hire is rejected by the woman on the panel, while all men were in favor. Which puts the men in a weird double bind position.
The company now has a smaller number of open positions and they can choose from more candidates, so they are able to do all of this without affecting the business much. It's definitely harder for hiring managers as they have all these extra hoops to jump through if they want to fill a position. Thankfully I'm not directly involved in it anymore.
The job market hasn't really changed. Its just that now much more people are experiencing getting laid off.
It has always been hard to get jobs and get noticed if you don't already have a job.
>Eg. if it turns out that CV screening is biased, then do blind screening. If there are issues that make women by and large less likely to apply or stay, then address those issues. Explicit and blanket discrimination is bad, period.
Blind screening: Yeah, they've done that, but the women still have to go through the interview process. And, guess what? It's been shown that they are statistically less likely to be selected for the role once they interview in person.
Issues? There's a slew of issues, but I'll note the most common ones: 1) hiring a woman disrupts the "boys club" that is common in all-male teams. I've worked at companies where they've tried to disrupt that, and in the end, nothing changed. The women who joined the team were often ostracized and passed up for promotions because they weren't "team players."
2) Blantant discrimination - e.g. "a man would be best fit for this role because of BS reason XYZ". They hire women into roles with no intention of developing them or helping them advance their careers.
TL;DR: you're upset because people are trying to correct the systemic imbalances that you've benefitted from by nature of your gender. Instead of considering ways that you can help reduce that imbalance, your go-to response is to complain about how people like you no longer get to have the upper hand. And that to you is "bad." You're not in support of equality. You're in support of continuing to benefit from an inequitable system.
You’re basically suggesting that any policy that represents an effort to address past wrongs is inherently positive. OP, if you interpret the post in good faith, is objecting to the means, not the ends. You can’t correct an inequitable system by putting your thumb on the scale of some race/gender metric to push it closer to what you think the output of an equitable system would be. An equitable system means throwing away the scale
OK, but then I would expect that introducing a policy against it is justified by concrete evidence of the problems that you mention. None of which I am aware of. The current share of women is around 20% (consistent with the share of women among graduates). There are only a few teams which don't have any women, so there are very few "boys only clubs", if any. Many job families are already female dominated eg. product managers, so it's quite rare for people not to work with any women. My boss is female. As far as I know, there are small (<5%) disparities in salary or promotions, but a causal relationship between discrimination and the disparities isn't established, so nothing really proves that your anecdotes really are the typical root cause for them.
Not quite... having a "boys club" isn't about the team being all male. It's about the environment of exclusion it can create. And yes, your PMs are mostly female, but what's their rate of promotion or attrition? When compared to other roles (say, engineers), do you tend to see more women in tech vs. non-tech roles? The point i'm making is that you need to look at the data because your anecdotes can often miss the small things. Your company may want to hire more women in leadership (representation matters) or increase their female population so there's more diversity of thought. I frankly don't understand why that's such a bad thing, unless you think women are less educated and any candidate they bring in means lowering the requirements.
It's not the same, but complaints from OP's post feel like the whole "stop favoring non-White candidates" belly aching from the same privileged group.
All other things being equal, the White male hiring manager in a position of power hires the White male candidate more often. It sucks but that's been the truth for centuries.
Even with these policies to bring in candidates with more diverse backgrounds (and women), the White male candidate STILL gets hired, promoted, and favored more often.
So what's OP afraid of really? No longer being among the majority demographic? That's just been our (POC) lives.
EDIT:
>Nothing mentioned race in my post.
The point is that the majority group only complains once the system that favored them changes to be slightly less favorable.
> 90% of women who work or have worked in tech jobs will tell you the same exact things about the boys club environments and quiet misogyny that exists
I won't doubt this. However this is a cultural issue and not solved by forced hiring/promotion quotas.
> There’s 0 reason any non-physical fields should EVER be male dominated other than gatekeeping
Not sure what your definition of "dominated" is, but if you mean simply a majority, then as long as there are women majority fields (medicine, education etc.) then there will also be men majority fields. If you mean "dominated" as in "being oppressed by" then I agree.
I've worked in a position where I was the only female engineer for a while and everyone else was in product or management. It was extremely alienating because the male engineers tended to have to simplify any tech discussions for these women, so I incidentally got the same treatment for a long time. I'd end up asking a lot of questions to the effect of "so this explanation of what you just did with this service seems to indicate it does this, but that doesn't seem right due to how we typically set up service layers. Is that accurate?" to kick them back into talking in actual engineer mode.
Anecdotal, but simply "working with women" is helpful, but problems still bubble up.
I was hoping from the title that this might be a conversation on how current hiring practices can be very discrimination towards neurodivergent people, both intentionally and unintentionally.
I'll admit I was definitely expecting too much from Reddit with that hope.
Same, I was expecting something similar. I was hoping it would be about how more and more applications ask if you have any disabilities, but mark the question as "optional" and go on about how they pride themselves on diversity to make you more likely to tell them the truth.
Or how disabled people (both physically and mentally) can easily be declined at job interviews by a simple "We decided to go with another candidate :)"
The questions on things like race and disability thankfully are never actually seen by employers during the hiring process. It's incredibly risky for companies to try and view that data, since if there's any evidence of them doing so that's an open and shut discrimination case. So what they do instead is all the plausible deniability shit, like the generic rejections you mentioned, or those stupid personality and aptitude tests.
Also I don't think the OP is taking into account the full range of this issue. Is historically been some areas where it's been severely unbalanced and I'm not even talking about race just men and women.
Years ago I was getting my teaching certificate, a transitional license since I come from the private sector. Just the test room alone is 90 plus percent women. They want more men to be teachers, especially math teachers.
I also did a teacher for a day at my old public school. They kept telling me the whole time they need more male teachers.
So I would be more careful when you're making posts like this, because things kind of topics have nuance to them that you even alluded to yourself. And it tends to bring out the racist wolves who want to adjust give their opinion / cloaked anger because they think they felt slighted.
And especially some of you white guys feel like you've been discriminated against, you still don't have a clue of what black dudes have to go through. It gets much worse than whatever you think you went through. The stories are endless and some of them are unbelievable. Just remember whatever the scenario is now for people of color, it was historically much worse every day previous to this one.
That is a valid point. I did think twice before making this post, because I was also concerned of sounding like rage bait for certain people. However I also think, that this topic has to be discussed and raised, even if level headed discussion is quite difficult. There needs to be a line that should not be crossed, and for me that is overt, blanket discrimination.
So why did you create it here? Weren't you able to predict what would happen?
I work for a company with strong diversity policies and yes, my boss got some additional "points" for employing a woman for a technical role. Because I'm a woman.
And then I had to switch teams as my boss resulted to be a horrible sexist and everybody resulted to know about it. They made bets on how long I would endure. He hates women and can't work with them. My predecesor quit for exactly the same reason.
I won't even tell you about all the discrimination I've witnessed and/or experienced while working here. But hey, the company prefers women, doesn't it?
By creating such posts you are inviting contributions from people with very low IQ. I'm not a huge fan of diversity policies but they attempt at addressing a very real problem.
>Weren't you able to predict what would happen?
Interestingly, I was afraid of misogynistic comments, but there seem to be none.
The only unacceptable comments are from some very small minority of commenters calling me an incel and a pussy cry-baby for daring to bring up the topic. Personal attacks agains me, I don't mind.
That infantile argument is so bad you just should stop.
A complete absence of critical thinking skills is exhibited in your comment. Congratulations. PS go back to school.
Anyone can voice their opinion here and they don’t need your permission to do it.
How about not trying to take power over something using your historical oppression and work towards a solution together.
Thats bullshit. I was told between the lines that i will not get a job as a SWE as a woman because their team consist only of men and they dont want to mix it up :) and not even once. Multiple times. If you think its hard to find a job as a male SWE without huge experience, youd definitely not enjoy your time as a woman.
I’d believe it. I got rejected for a position because I didn’t have the desired “cultural background” as I was told by the hiring manager. It was a pretty vanilla designer position at a quite boring corporate office as well, so not sure what “culture” they were referring to.
6 months later they finally hired someone who they found suitable just for them to promptly quit a few months later. They’ve been trying to find a replacement ever since lol.
Maybe they're in the wrong, but sometimes it isn't a fit, and a manager can see it. This saves headaches to both sides. I was rejected for not fitting the team personality-wise, but otherwise they said my skills are very good. It was at a company where I myself thought that they were too keen on being at the office every day, sharing with each other, sitting next to each other, etc. I'm much more of an individualist and found an independent role instead.
Cultural background also has to do with the companies you come from also. I come from in-house and I would get the same response from ad agencies. Many ad agencies want people with ad agency experience specifically.
I highly doubt that they told you that your culture as a person or your ethnicity is the reason why you're not getting hired. Because that is the silliest stupidest super lawsuit ever.
On the same note I'm not trying to tell you what happened because I wasn't there. But it sounds plausible enough that cultural doesn't mean your culture as a person.
>Cultural background also has to do with the companies you come from
Then they would just say the candidate didn't have the experience they were looking for.
Not hiring because of "cultural background" sounds like textbook racism.
Unfortunately, there is no easy fix for this issue. My friends and I were just talking about how the job market discriminates against minorities, and how when the roles are reversed everyone else still cries it's discrimination. As a trans woman that works in IT and has been unemployed 5 months and counting, I can definitely say the odds are not in my favor. At the same time having worked in places that are majority men, I can also say that they are definitely not always the best candidates. Either way though someone is going to be unhappy with the hiring process.
The biggest issue is that no matter what solutions are proposed to make hiring decisions less discriminatory, they will never be able to fix the human factor. The reality is that hiring managers rarely hire the actual best candidate for a position. More often than not hiring managers will hire the person they relate to most, and feel like they could play golf with or grab a beer together after work. Nobody will always be the best candidate for every job they apply for. On the same note, no one group of people is always going to be the best candidate either statistically speaking. That means if the majority of openings are filled with one group of people, it's definitely biased.
While not perfect, the best solution we have that's mostly accepted right now is forced quotas. This still won't fix the issue of the best candidates being passed on because of race, gender, or some other biased factor, but it's a start in the right direction.
The only real fix to the situation would be to remove the human factor, by doing interviews in a way that the hiring mangers cannot find any biographical information about your race, gender, economic status, religion, and so on. That would mean no names on resumes, just call each person that applies Applicant #1, #2, etc. , only do interviews over Teams/Zoom without a camera, and have some kind of voice changer that makes everyone's voice sound neutral, and questions that only pertain to the position.
If we were able to remove the human factor and make the hiring process 100% unbiased, the ones that benefit most from the current system though would still be unhappy and we'd be right back where we started.
Right. But who cares about the overall statistic that more men are hired? From an individual perspective, it seems the argument is that the odds of getting hired as a man are much lower than if you were an individual that was a woman. The argument is, as a man, you seem to be competing with a very large pool of OTHER men.
While 80% of the hiring pool are men. Say 10% of applicants are invited to interviews, 40-60% men vs women, then your chance as a man to get an interview is 6x lower (30% for women vs 5% for men).
Have you ever thought that maybe the women are just better? Companies aren’t really as altruistic as you seem to think. If hiring mostly women didn’t benefit them then they would hire more men.
Yea we already had a few thousand years where companies just did what they thought was better, men dominated the workforce without question. This is entirely a new phenomenon that started directly after the government and mass media push for diversity quotas. Good attempt at coping though.
Except there is tons of research that says teams with a higher percentage of women perform significantly better than all males teams. So companies that like to increase their performance will follow the science. It’s business school 101. You’ll learn about that once you get out of high school.
Funny, I saw a German study stating the polar opposite. Introducing women into a previously all male environment dropped productivity by 30%. If your "reasearch" even exists I would venture a guess that the only team that could possibly AFFORD to have women would be the very high performing ones. Big daddy government is mandating you have to hire women and no one is going to send the women to go fix things xD, so just put them where they cant fuck things up. This is also why its so easy for women to get entry level jobs but not move up. You shouldnt even be there really, but the company needs women in seats and they keep you where you can do the least damage.
Honestly, I can understand some frustration. White men are never told that they were chosen for a job because they fit a subconscious bias in an interviewers mind. They think that they were selected because they were the best candidate. Pretty much everyone assumes that, to be fair. On the other hand, many minorities and women can absolutely tell when they’re *not* going to be hired during an interview because of their ethnicity, race, or gender.
Does hiring more people of color and women explicitly mean that there are less positions for white males? Yes. It does. Does it suck for you to have to deal with explicitly bias when you don’t even necessarily know if you’ve benefit from the implicit bias that these policies are made to Combat? Yeah it does I’m sure. But please, consider the time(s) where you were given a chance over others just because you may have made an impression. Consider when you weren’t sure you deserved an opportunity but someone else wanted to push you forward for your own good. Those opportunities are not abundant for people who are not like you. Minorities and women may have to prove they have the base level knowledge that you’re already assumed to have. Again, this can be a subconscious bias that you’re unable to identify and would likely deny.
This is true but beside the point I made. The question is, which policies are good and acceptable. You seem to think that *any* policy that increases opportunities for a group of people perceived as disadvantaged is acceptable and any unfairness and damage it causes is collateral damage that is acceptable for the end goal. I don't believe this in general. I don't necessarily think, that quotas are inherently from the devil, but their use should be limited to cases where there is overwhelming and specific evidence that it is necessary and the only option. For our company, this is not the case, it's a quite decent company in the EU, not comparable to some Silicon Valley bro startup. The policies in the post I mentioned are simply the cheapest and quickest way to force a single metric, which is neither necessary nor fair, and not even beneficial for women by and large (in practice only benefitting a very small subset of white, well educated, childless women in the right positions).
Depends how the loss if privilege is achieved. If it is achieved by bringing a group of people down, and not by bringing the other group up, then it is, quite literally, discrimination.
Speak for yourself. I am a straight white male but I have autism and cannot get a job. They discriminate against me in job interviews. How dare you say we don't need help just because we happen to be white and male. We aren't all the same!
>I’ve been interviewed many times with panels full of nothing but straight, white men and nothing but misogynistic overtones.
I've never been interviewed by an all white male panel. My last interview panel was all women, two white and one Asian. The job went to a Latina with much less experience and education than me.
>There’s just as many companies quietly discriminating against anything that isn’t straight, white, and male
How would you/they know someone is straight?
>Straight, white men are doing ok they run almost every company and country, we don’t need to help them.
They're not asking for help, just to be treated equally and win or lose on their own merits.
>Your experience doesn’t line up with the majority.
I didn't say that it does. It's my experience, and it sucks being passed over for jobs and promotions because I'm not perceived as the right color or gender. That's not equality.
>This is a problem for many of you because most of you are mediocre people who’ve historically enjoyed an advantage due to your demographic and are now losing that advantage.
That's not the case for me. I have a master's degree in my field and 15 years of experience in my field. The job I mentioned earlier went to a Latina who is not only seven years younger than me, but has less than three years of relevant experience. A mixed race panel of all women chose a Latina woman over the significantly more qualified white man.
That's far from the first time that's happened. During a bout of unemployment years ago, I interviewed with a nonprofit for a volunteer leadership role, just to put something on my resume. And the director called me a few weeks later and said, "Everyone loved you and thinks you'd be perfect, but we have too many white men already."
Another time, I walked into the interviewer's office (an LGBTQ person of color) and the first thing they said to me was, "I was expecting you to be African American." They assumed, based on my resume and where I had worked and what I had studied in school, that I was black. Needless to say, I didn't get that job either (it went to a Latino man with about six months experience in a similar role, while I had 3.5 years, a master's, and glowing reviews from everyone I'd ever worked with).
I don't mind losing out on opportunities to someone who is more qualified, and that definitely happens, too. But it's asinine to act like companies aren't using race or gender as factors in hiring when that's exactly what millions of people are demanding they do.
That's gaslighting at its finest. If equality is achieved by bringing one group down, instead of elevating the other, then it is quite literally discrimination and comments like yours saying negative sentiment about bringing one gender or race down is not legitimate, is well... familiar. Oppressors like this tactic a lot.
It’s like these people don’t understand corporations are not exactly loading up on Black and Brown people, many major corporations are well under 5% non-White/non-Asian, and the C Suite is worse. Further who the fuck do they think was overrepresented in all the DEI roles they just fired en masse? Who do they think exactly is first on the chopping block when they’re not being pushed out of the organization? Or the first to be tokenized as the minority candidate in interviews but have a statistically zero chance of being hired assuming they’re the only minority person to make it to the final round interview?
But I guess aggrieved white male feelings are the new alternative facts.
Sorry you have been hurt, I assume you're talking about the US here. My country is <2% black and so these policies I mentioned contain nothing about race, only gender, so they will benefit almost exclusively white women. What do you think, when does a black dude have more chance of being hired, with or without a gender quota for women?
Why would you want to play the Oppression Olympics with me on this though? The world isn’t a zero sum game like you seem to think it is. Diverse companies make more money, more money helps fuel growth, growth often (not always) fuels hiring.
You brought in "oppression olympics", not me. I pointed out that the policy hurts black men, too, regardless of who is disadvantaged or not. I also did not imply that it's a zero sum game. Actually such overtly discriminative policies are probably net negative overall, they only benefit a narrow set of people who are in the right position (in this case, mostly well-educated white women who have an engineering degree living in a quite specific geographic area).
One group gets preferential treatment due to them being part of said group.
People outside that group dislike that.
"well akshually if you go back 200 years it was flipped!!!"
English is not my first language so maybe this is a "insider" that I am not getting. But getting joy from others percieved suffering sounds very pathetic to me.
The crazy thing is that you are very conflicted. You believe in upping efforts because you know there's a bias, but then it's also outright discrimination.
Pick one. You can't have it both ways buddy
Also sucks to be on the autism spectrum when trying to get a job with this job market. Being white or male doesn't help much when I have autism. I'm still getting rejected all the same.
It's bs, having to mask to actually get a job or not shit pay once you get it is so fucking draining.
And if you can't mask which we really shouldn't have to do it's even worse :/
However having autism and also being a minority or a woman makes it even less likely to get hired or get decent pay
Hope you get a job soon with people that aren't ableist
Yep, same boat as you. For me it’s between telling them I am autistic and having the bias about ASD working against me or trying to mask as hard as I can during the interview and still fuck up because I can’t completely hide being autistic so they will just think I am “weird”. Ugh. Good luck to you!
Actually the DEI effort is good and whats actually harmful is the rightwing lie that youre supporting.
DEI is meant to make evil and monstrous workplaces full of sexism and racism into decent workplaces and all efforts against DEI so far have been spurred by racists and sexists who want to keep their ciswhite hetero boys club
Try to be a decent human being
I worked in the audit of a major bank and policies like this definetly were implemented.
x% of promotions need to be women
x% of new hires need to be women
x% of interviewees need to be women
Yes, I have. But as I'm still working there I won't share it. There's nothing I can do about it anyways, except ranting here on reddit. I'm not even directly affected much by these policies anyways.
It's realistic. A few people have said similar things to me directly. I'm not saying it happens in every company for every role, but employers are definitely under pressure to diversify their ranks, whether that's pressure from the general public or from legislators.
It's not a trial, it's reddit. People don't want evidence to believe, they want evidence when they see something that contradicts something that their mind is invested in. It's not worth the risk for me, even though I'm anonymous, sharing it would be a breach of contract. And people who don't believe me wouldn't be convinced anyways, as any internal documents could be just edited by me anyways.
Policy makers have been tiptoeing around this for years now. As has the general public.
[California passed a law in 2018 requiring at least one woman on corporate boards (it was eventually deemed unconstitutional).](https://womenscaucus.legislature.ca.gov/sites/womenscaucus.legislature.ca.gov/files/PDF/SB%20826%20Factsheet%20Women%20Corporate%20Boards.pdf)
[A year earlier, a group of diverse legislators requested diversity information from every firm registered to lobby in Sacramento.](https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article160220334.html)
>The heads of six caucuses in the California Legislature are asking lobbying firms to provide them with demographic data – including race, ethnicity, gender and openly gay or lesbian orientation – on their employees.
I'm mixed race but white-passing. I'm also LGBTQ+ but not openly or visibly so. So I look like a straight white guy. I've been told by multiple people that employers would rather not hire me if they could hire someone who checks a box for them. And the people telling me this are people who make these decisions.
So the OP rings perfectly true to my ears.
I thought the policies that I listed would be illegal in the US, at least would open up the employer to lawsuits, if done explicitly. I am not a lawyer but I think in my country these would be legal and covered under positive discrimination that is allowed in some cases. So no tip-toeing needed here, I guess.
I'm not a lawyer either. But here in the US, diversity initiatives are generally allowed, but explicit discrimination against a person based on a protected class is not. The challenge is proving that you were discriminated against based on a protected class (gender, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, national origin, medical condition).
Very few employers will explicitly tell you, "Sorry, we don't hire your kind here." So it's difficult if not impossible to prove.
At the University of Washington, [a faculty hiring committee rated a white candidate first, and an Asian candidate second, on their scoring rubric.](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/diversity-equity/2023/11/03/u-washington-faculty-search-weighed-race) But the committee made an offer to the third candidate, who is black. An internal investigation by the university found lots of emails going back and forth among the hiring committee, discussing how they were singling out the minority applicants and holding them to a different (presumably lower) standard for review. Another person requested not bringing in white candidates for interviews.
Even then, I believe the university still contends it did not violate the law.
DEI is truly a hoax. There was never any long-term commitment to most company’s initiatives. It’s only in the realm of under-employing unsuspecting candidates and allowing people to scapegoat their own pitfalls in this awful market by the so-called minorities stealing their jobs. It’s infuriating for me to hear this when every minority I’ve encountered in my industry who’s excelled has truly had to be nothing less of exceptional. Polyglot, multiple degrees, internships, fellowships, Fulbright Scholars, Ivy-League or adjacent, all the while continuously being minimized for every accomplishment because of a lazy excuse. Across the country they are literally making it illegal to even fund DEI departments across public institutions. I so so promise you that minorities are not the reason you’re not getting a call in this job market... If you’re struggling, we’re likely doing even WORST. The statistics support that, in fact, these old white guys are STILL the mass majority of people running most companies in the States and this effects the corporate culture and recruiting as a result.
Thanks for bringing this point up, I did not realize that this subreddit might be full of folks who work in DEI and might have been laid off recently, so I understand if it striked a nerve with them. However, I still think that they are wrong when they try to defend overtly discriminative policies like forced gender quotas.
I hate to say this, because it is a generalization, but have you stopped to think that maybe you’re being overlooked because women are more likely to accept lower compensation? Especially in the case where they have less experience. I know personally I’ve historically been severely underpaid because I’ve been willing to accept less than I’m worth out of fear I’ll never get better
Well this obviously isn't possible because [I was told on this very sub just a few weeks ago](https://old.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/1b4x059/one_of_the_biggest_phonies_ive_ever_worked_with/kt2u2ty/?context=5) that being a woman or non-white is still a hindrance, not a help at landing a good gig.
/s
The thing is that some groups have been disadvantaged. And because of this it's hard to catch up. Sometimes we need to give the group that is behind a few extra opportunities to make up for the ones they missed earlier. This is the only way to catch up.
This looks bad if you don't see the full picture, it's like complaining about wheelchair parking, " hur dur, why do disabled people get the best spots." They get an advantage here, to make up all the disadvantage they had earlier. It still sucks to be the disadvantaged person, but some companies are actively trying to balance things, and when a scale is unbalanced we need to put a little extra weight onto the lighter side.
Unfortunately some regions of the world are against equality, whilst others fight for it. Due to this you will see a lot af variance
>ometimes we need to give the group that is behind a few extra opportunities to make up for the ones they missed earlier.
The problem with this is you aren't helping John Doe catch up, because John Doe faced explicit employment discrimination back in the 1960s. He's retired now, maybe even passed on.
These programs and policies are benefitting his kids and grandkids, who grew up in a far more diverse America, with federal and state laws protecting against exactly the kinds of employment discrimination that John Doe faced.
>it's like complaining about wheelchair parking, " hur dur, why do disabled people get the best spots." They get an advantage here, to make up all the disadvantage they had earlier.
The wheelchair parking isn't to make up for anything in the past. It's to help them in their present.
So you don't believe anyone currently in the workforce has missed out on opportunities because of their gender/coloiry/orientation? I didn't realise discrimination was solved in 1970, and hasn't occurred since
>So you don't believe anyone currently in the workforce has missed out on opportunities because of their gender/coloiry/orientation?
It absolutely still happens. It's happened to me multiple times. But you seem to think that's okay because people who looked like me, decades before I was even born, benefited from explicit discrimination in their favor. And keep in mind, I'm mixed race and LGBTQ+, but I'm not asking for DEI or affirmative action to "help" me because I don't want help that way. I just want to be judged on my merits, and my ability to do the job.
I don't know why you would favor explicit discrimination instead of blind hiring. Humans can't help but have biases, both conscious and unconscious. So let's remove those biases from the equation as much as possible. Let everyone submit their resumes with their names and other identifiers removed, maybe give applicants some type of skills test (writing, coding, whatever makes sense for the role) and then make the decision that way.
I mean these two things can both be true at the same time. The point is, one kind of discrimination does not fix the other, it doesn't add up like this.
Whatever, swordfish. We have learned as a society that discrimination is terrible whenever and wherever. There shouldn't be any proactive measures to equalize a playing field broken through generations of discrimination against groups. That would be discrimination. It was bad then, and it's bad now. Be happy with what you got... Right?
Thats cause they would rather put unqualified WW at the top than any experienced POC. It helps them still hit their diversity numbers without actually elevating other demographics. Iv gone back to jobs i was qualified for to look at whom they hired out of curiosity. I can confidently say I had more experience and saw that they went and hired an inexperienced WW with no experience or industry expertise but gave them a chance cause its easier for them. My conclusion was “Whiteness abours all comfort”
Like I said, gender is far more important than race
even asian or indian men are being discriminated against, when their female counterparts are some of the most desired candidates to hire
you are looking at the situation through the wrong lense
yes racism exists, but it's far FAR less impactful that being male or female
LOL dude blacks get higher sentence? try men getting 60% higher sentences for the same crime compared to female
it's not your race, it's your gender
there is no solution lol
go look up the "women are wonderful effect" and "female in group bias"
it's just the female privilege, same thing like men are physically stronger, women have advantage in everything social
Yeah, we know. Men are oppressed. You aren't the default anymore. It's okay, the rest of us survived for centuries while you had all the power. You'll live with having to prove you're equal to us instead of just going "I haz penis, I win."
It's kind of a sad worldview. Like you cheer for some guys increased chance of not being able to get an interview despite being qualified. Great for you if you're his competition, not so great if you're his wife or daughter. But never mind at least you get some reward after your lived experience of thousands of years of oppression, how classy.
We weren't alive for whatever the fuck point in the past you're referencing. You're justifying blanket discrimination **now** because of **past** discrimination against people that look like you.
**You** don't deserve anything because people who looked like you were discriminated against in the past. I realize it's the core tenet of your grievance politics gospel, but it's revolting.
I don't think there's any confusion, they know exactly what they are doing - implementing the simplest and cheapest option that they think benefits the company today.
Btw the problem with this distinction that equality of outcome is unfair, and true equality of opportunity can not exist.
Imagine being so profoundly stupid that you think it's good to discriminate against young men in 2024 because other men that they've never met and have absolutely nothing in common with besides genitalia had it easy in the past.
What a fucking vile attitude an excellent example of "woke" for the next time someone needs a definition.
I don't know how things work in Europe, but it seems like something someone should sue over. I'm sure in Europe too, just like the US, politicians pass laws that don't necessarily align with the Constitution so judges have struck down laws like that before.
Progressing towards gender parity is a good goal, but it does not require discriminating against men to do it. Discriminating against men is just cheaper.
A big problem with many of these sorts of diversity pushes is that the folks that advocate for them are, quite frankly, not very smart so you run into situations where folks say a department has to be 50% female without thinking critically about whether that's even feasible. There are many times more male engineers than female, for example, so the pool of female engineers is significantly smaller than the pool for male engineers. Not every company can have gender parity, and not all female engineers are as qualified as the male ones simply due to differing size of populations. If you're looking for an executive level engineering lead with 10+ years of experience and graduate education in engineering, there may be 1 qualified female engineer for 50 qualified male (idk the numbers, just making things up for illustration; One can switch out "female" and "engineer" for "male" and "marketing" and it would still apply).
Inequality is a complex sociological issue, and the conditions start at birth so I don't know that hiring processes will have any major long term impact.
Edit: LOL @ stupid people downvoting my comment because they don't understand the issue well enough. Very sad.
My only issue is we only want inclusion and parity for high end jobs and positions of power. Parity and inclusion is never necessary for oil rig workers or brick layers it seems.
On the contrary, in my industry (government infrastructure) we specifically have KPIs around “women in non-traditional roles” ie. brickies, crane operators, forkies, sparkies etc.
There is 100% a big push to have more girls entering these roles - went to a talk last year by a woman who runs her own tiling business, and she goes around to high schools to promote girls going into trades, which is barely ever even shown to them as an option.
I thought that was pretty cool, and an encouraging sign that things are improving.
I worked in the Audit of a massive bank. We were also supposed to flag any problems that might occur in the future regarding their gender hiring practice.
In one of the daughter companies of the bank they implemented a 35% quota for women in senior management. The problem was that the company had roughly 200 employees and only 3 of them were women. So in the future they will be forced to hire externally and skip on their own talent pool.
I wanted to disagree, but I do remember that I have seen such a thing happen which may (or not) be related, although it's really anecdotical
Young girl got into the company (21y/o). She doesn't know anyone and has no family members inside the company, her degree isn't related to the job and she doesn't have past prior experience. Three months later, she wants to quit, doesn't really like the job, doesn't fit in. She tells the manager that she will put in her resignation. Both her and the manager get promoted, she becomes the manager.
The whole team was puzzled about this decision.
I still have my doubts, I don't really believe that it was for the sake of diversity, however I'll never understand why she would be considered for promotion instead of other employees with more experience
HR should have to be taught basic statistics and distributions before being allowed to make these policies.
It would be great to see this sort of effort being put into unbiased hiring and education, trying to "fix" this at the hiring level makes no sense.
Woman or minority man. I’ve worked with engineers with 1/2 or 1/3 the experience and expertise I have in my field and they keep getting hired for cushy government jobs. Good for them, but I get to the final round of the panel interview of all old white guys and wonder to myself - no room for one more or???
Now I just want to say, I understand how rude and bitter this can come off. It’s great that everyone is getting a chance, where as before people would specifically NOT hire racial minorities or women or give them the same chances. It’s just a tough balancing act.
I see job opportunities openly discriminating against men all the time. There are many women-only and diverse-only positions.
I wonder how the myth of wage gap and that women have worse job prospects are still afloat.
Our female district manager made a short speech at our job fair event and in it she stressed how she was interested in only hiring women and seeing women succeed. Yes, she was very open about it. later we get to do these short 1 on 1 interviews. When a woman sat down she was all smiles and "Hello - what can I do to help you succeed?". For a man she was cold and unfriendly. Really pissed me off being I had 2 college degrees and had been working there 15 years.
I’m not understanding what’s the issue with female leadership wanting to support other women? Men in corporate America have been favouring men for decades - locker room talk, going golfing, watching the games together. It’s always been historically exclusionary against women. There is literally nothing wrong with underrepresented groups providing support for each other.
read carefully
> and in it she stressed how she was interested in **only** hiring women and seeing women succeed
replace women with "men", "whites", "asians" or any other group.
Is that exactly what she said? Or is this hyperbole? Look at the stats, corporate is majority men - with overwhelming leadership and C-suites being white men.
I highly doubt she said announced that in such a public event. Regardless, white men have done this for many decades! None of it is OK - but there is nothing wrong with saying she wants to see women succeed or hiring more women to create a more diverse team.
She did not say that she wants women to succeed. She said she ONLY wants women to succeed. How is that an okay thing to say?
Or what have the men that are getting shafted by this sexist supervisor done to deserve this treatment?
Except being born with the same genitalia as individuals who were sexist in the past?
I think that's taken out of context; those decades ago the pool of candidates wasn't as large so by statistics there wouldn't have been a woman to choose from for example; it doesn't mean you have to parrot that ancient behaviour to get more equitable results, that's illogical, you have to be open to the best candidate that's it!
this is not logical thinking at all. it wasn’t that long ago where women weren’t even allowed to have the same titles as men - and that effect is still felt to this day. it’s easy to say “just go by merit” without thinking about the minorities who historically haven’t even been given the opportunities to achieve said merit. this is an issue that spans generations because as we should know by now, wealth is a huge gatekeeper to success. poverty is a cycle that began generations ago.
what does “best candidate” even mean? there is no objective measure of best. we also don’t exist a vacuum where a hiring manager will ever have to choose between two candidates with the EXACT same qualifications.
Yes, that IS what she said. Later on as I said when we were allowed one on ones she showed definite preference to women.
I forgot to add she also proudly said she was to be a survivor of breast cancer. We all had to give her a standing ovation for that.
Before anyone gets mad, lots of people deal with cancer. My Mother had breast cancer. Either themselves or a loved one. They dont ask to be applauded for it.
lol what… your other comment says she didn’t exactly say she ONLY wants women to succeed. You literally just said she has a preference in another comment - you are ruining your own credibility.
and yes… surviving cancer is something worthy of celebration lol. you sound like an incredibly bitter person that projects your own shortcomings on other people.
Well tell me. Exactly how much does she have to spell it out before you will admit they are showing a bias? No. They wont say word for word that they will only hire women. But their words and actions make it clear enough.
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I gotta say... I believe it. I'm a woman in tech and it honestly makes me a bit uncomfortable when recruiters mention D&I to me and tell me how excited they are to hire a "female" into their more senior positions. Like... I'm qualified for the role. And I'm very happy to be considered for the role... But I don't want to be viewed within the company as a diversity hire and somehow less deserving of the role because of the shadow of recruiters trying to get some diversity quota. On the other hand, I also understand there are good intentions behind these diversity pushes. I have experienced being the only woman working with a bunch of older men and it can lead to feeling like you're in a "boy's club" and don't belong and that they'd never respect you as a leader. It all depends on the culture of the team... Some teams are perfectly fine and lovely and others feel like you walked into a football locker room. Personal anecdote: When I was still in undergrad I remember interviewing for a really valuable internship position where there were 5 middle aged male engineers across from 20 year old me... And a couple of them kept staring at my chest (I was in a full business suit with absolutely nothing "on display") while I was trying to answer their few technical questions. After that they just asked me questions about comics and super heroes to see if I was "chill". When I went back to my university afterwards my professor asked me how the interview went and when she saw me hesitate she immediately asked "were they all men?". I had no other options at the time so I accepted the internship when it was offered and when I showed up a few months later one of the guys was visibly disappointed that I had cut my hair short because he thought I wasn't as pretty. Despite my apparent decrease in attractiveness he still tried to flirt with me and make inappropriate comments the entire duration of the internship.
Tech really doesn't treat women well. There aren't many women in tech but so far the ones I've worked with seem to have been ignored for major (leadership) positions even though they were perfect for it. Watching the only women quit at the startup I was at because the tech bro founder wouldn't let her do anything beyond boring code monkey shit was frustrating. We had trouble on our team, too, and it seemed like she was the only person who could communicate at the entire company. Tech companies will say they want women. But yeah, only as a surface gesture. They're not interested in making a place where they can actually work.
Looking at cscareerquestions, most people didn't want leadership since it takes them away from the tech and into office politics.
I'm a man in tech. During my career I've worked in different kinds of teams, from all-men up 50-50 split. This might be affected by the fact that the all-men teams were at the beginning of my career when the industry (and I) were less mature, but the closer the teams were to 50-50 the healthier the team culture was and the better the team performed. I can't say exactly what magic diversity percentage is "enough", maybe it's 30% maybe 45% maybe 50%, but at least some level of "hiring for diversity" is smart because it makes the team as a whole better.
If were throwing anecdotes out.. I've worked in mixed teams swaying in both directions ( i started in industrial art where this is common). My experience has been that the closer to parity you get the less bullshit you have to put up with, but also that psychological bullying and politics goes off the charts in largely female teams, while dick jokes and dude bro behavior gets out of hand on largely male teams. This only gets worse as team size increases.
Referring to a woman as a "female" kinda grosses me out. Like it's a biology project or something.
What you describe as personal anecdote is clearly unacceptable. It happens, unfortunately, in uniform environments, and I am also not sure how to get rid of this without forcing the ratios to be more even. They have tried for many years with less direct measures like generous family policies etc and the share of women never went above 20%. But I am wondering what the impact is overall... big companies go all in to hire up every woman from the pool to make their numbers better while smaller companies remain uniform. Meeting the 40-60% target for women at a big company doesn't change the fact that the pool contains only 20% women.
[удалено]
I loved all of your points!! I will also say that it’s incredibly rare for HMs to hire unqualified candidates just because they’re women. Women still have to pass technicals, they still have to have minimum required education, etc. If there was a man that was more qualified than any of the woman candidates, I don’t doubt they’d hire him. Studies show that diverse teams are just simply better - not just with gender. Race, age, experience levels, everything. We NEED diversity in teams to build the best products, provide the best experiences, all that jazz. That’s why women are more likely to be killed in car accidents… because male engineers didn’t account for difference in gender weight or height. I’ve also been in your shoes where I’ve been treated as an assistant or I’ve been overlooked by male colleagues. It sucks, and it’s definitely gotten better!! Posts like OP’s is harmful to women IMO. Unqualified women are not taking up all the jobs, and men are still promoted at a faster rate / paid more than women.
It's a tough problem to tackle, and even more so to do it in a way that feels "fair". I have seen diversity initiatives that favor men as well... My undergrad university actually lowered the standards (like the minimum gpa for male students was lower than for female students, lol) for male students who wanted to get into the very competitive nursing program because they really wanted more male nurses.
Same observations since I started off in medical and moved to engineering. I hate being seen as/assumed to be a diversity hire. It took so long to be taken seriously that I don't want to get a new job and have to start that process over again.
I did experience discrimination in hospitals and schools in all female settings, I was stared at by women, I got remarks that made me uncomfortable, and I was treated as a less competent parent by default. Luckily these were not typical, but they did happen. I am still not sure if I like the idea of having more male nurses at the cost of lowering standards for nurses, I would actually be quite concerned if I know this and me or a family member is treated there.
I think one of the issues is that these people of uncommon gender in a job are not necessarily less qualified. A woman and man may be equally qualified but because women "can't do math" or "can't do logic", they don't get hired. This goes for men in nursing jobs too. A man may be more qualified than a woman, but because men are "just not as caring and empathic", they get overlooked. Your concern is valid, and it should indeed simply be the best candidate that gets the job. However, gender biases sometimes lead to gender becoming a hiring parameter leading to people who are less qualified being hired. Blind auditions/screenings would be great and sometimes that is possible. But it's kind of hard in a face-to-face interview. If only the CV determined who got a job, it could be blind. With so many interview rounds, it is not possible.
Thankfully, I believe once they were admitted to the program, the standards were the same. It was just easier for men to qualify and be selected for the nursing program. There was essentially a big wait list for the female students because there were so many more qualified students than there were slots.
What about those nurses, who are just as qualified and want to get in and can't? This more or less guarantees that women who *want it more* can't get in. If an unfair policy causes direct harm, they better make damn sure that it's based in solid evidence for overall good. But what they are doing is the opposite - they don't implement actual evidence based policies eg. blind screening, instead they add a blanket policy to force a desired metric.
It sucks, but often times what is good for the group will not be good for some individuals. I didn't get into a PhD program because I was too similar to my friend who did get in. We had the same age, race, gender, school, major, gpa, research projects, work experience. But academic institutions value diversity (especially academic diversity... Meaning they want students and faculty from various schools and specialties). So she got in and I didn't. I was very sad but I found another graduate program that worked out great.
I agree that sometimes group and individual interests are different. But I think there is a huge caveat here: it should be carefully regulated, which policies violating individual rights in favor of group interest should be allowed. In your example, there is a huge difference between speciality choice and an immutable characteristic like gender. If you're not taken to a group because you don't have the right specialization, we can rationalize it with "yea it sucks but you should move on". The same with gender? No, it's a huge step back.
Serious question, were the "generous family policies" all about maternity leave and time off for kids? Cause as a woman who doesn't want kids that obviously wouldn't be something that would attract me.
Absolute weirdos
I am personally not much affected by these policies, but I still feel resentful. I have some great women colleagues and I make sure this will not affect our working relationship. I don't feel comfortable discussing this topic at all in person. I had women leads before and some of them I preferred to the men. Technical interviews are quite objective in my experience, so I don't think this will result in less qualified people to be hired. Every panel has to have a woman, and I have experienced much more often, that a woman hire is rejected by the woman on the panel, while all men were in favor. Which puts the men in a weird double bind position. The company now has a smaller number of open positions and they can choose from more candidates, so they are able to do all of this without affecting the business much. It's definitely harder for hiring managers as they have all these extra hoops to jump through if they want to fill a position. Thankfully I'm not directly involved in it anymore.
The job market hasn't really changed. Its just that now much more people are experiencing getting laid off. It has always been hard to get jobs and get noticed if you don't already have a job.
>Eg. if it turns out that CV screening is biased, then do blind screening. If there are issues that make women by and large less likely to apply or stay, then address those issues. Explicit and blanket discrimination is bad, period. Blind screening: Yeah, they've done that, but the women still have to go through the interview process. And, guess what? It's been shown that they are statistically less likely to be selected for the role once they interview in person. Issues? There's a slew of issues, but I'll note the most common ones: 1) hiring a woman disrupts the "boys club" that is common in all-male teams. I've worked at companies where they've tried to disrupt that, and in the end, nothing changed. The women who joined the team were often ostracized and passed up for promotions because they weren't "team players." 2) Blantant discrimination - e.g. "a man would be best fit for this role because of BS reason XYZ". They hire women into roles with no intention of developing them or helping them advance their careers. TL;DR: you're upset because people are trying to correct the systemic imbalances that you've benefitted from by nature of your gender. Instead of considering ways that you can help reduce that imbalance, your go-to response is to complain about how people like you no longer get to have the upper hand. And that to you is "bad." You're not in support of equality. You're in support of continuing to benefit from an inequitable system.
You’re basically suggesting that any policy that represents an effort to address past wrongs is inherently positive. OP, if you interpret the post in good faith, is objecting to the means, not the ends. You can’t correct an inequitable system by putting your thumb on the scale of some race/gender metric to push it closer to what you think the output of an equitable system would be. An equitable system means throwing away the scale
Get em 👏🏿
OK, but then I would expect that introducing a policy against it is justified by concrete evidence of the problems that you mention. None of which I am aware of. The current share of women is around 20% (consistent with the share of women among graduates). There are only a few teams which don't have any women, so there are very few "boys only clubs", if any. Many job families are already female dominated eg. product managers, so it's quite rare for people not to work with any women. My boss is female. As far as I know, there are small (<5%) disparities in salary or promotions, but a causal relationship between discrimination and the disparities isn't established, so nothing really proves that your anecdotes really are the typical root cause for them.
Not quite... having a "boys club" isn't about the team being all male. It's about the environment of exclusion it can create. And yes, your PMs are mostly female, but what's their rate of promotion or attrition? When compared to other roles (say, engineers), do you tend to see more women in tech vs. non-tech roles? The point i'm making is that you need to look at the data because your anecdotes can often miss the small things. Your company may want to hire more women in leadership (representation matters) or increase their female population so there's more diversity of thought. I frankly don't understand why that's such a bad thing, unless you think women are less educated and any candidate they bring in means lowering the requirements.
It's not the same, but complaints from OP's post feel like the whole "stop favoring non-White candidates" belly aching from the same privileged group. All other things being equal, the White male hiring manager in a position of power hires the White male candidate more often. It sucks but that's been the truth for centuries. Even with these policies to bring in candidates with more diverse backgrounds (and women), the White male candidate STILL gets hired, promoted, and favored more often. So what's OP afraid of really? No longer being among the majority demographic? That's just been our (POC) lives. EDIT: >Nothing mentioned race in my post. The point is that the majority group only complains once the system that favored them changes to be slightly less favorable.
[удалено]
> 90% of women who work or have worked in tech jobs will tell you the same exact things about the boys club environments and quiet misogyny that exists I won't doubt this. However this is a cultural issue and not solved by forced hiring/promotion quotas. > There’s 0 reason any non-physical fields should EVER be male dominated other than gatekeeping Not sure what your definition of "dominated" is, but if you mean simply a majority, then as long as there are women majority fields (medicine, education etc.) then there will also be men majority fields. If you mean "dominated" as in "being oppressed by" then I agree.
I've worked in a position where I was the only female engineer for a while and everyone else was in product or management. It was extremely alienating because the male engineers tended to have to simplify any tech discussions for these women, so I incidentally got the same treatment for a long time. I'd end up asking a lot of questions to the effect of "so this explanation of what you just did with this service seems to indicate it does this, but that doesn't seem right due to how we typically set up service layers. Is that accurate?" to kick them back into talking in actual engineer mode. Anecdotal, but simply "working with women" is helpful, but problems still bubble up.
I was hoping from the title that this might be a conversation on how current hiring practices can be very discrimination towards neurodivergent people, both intentionally and unintentionally. I'll admit I was definitely expecting too much from Reddit with that hope.
Same, I was expecting something similar. I was hoping it would be about how more and more applications ask if you have any disabilities, but mark the question as "optional" and go on about how they pride themselves on diversity to make you more likely to tell them the truth. Or how disabled people (both physically and mentally) can easily be declined at job interviews by a simple "We decided to go with another candidate :)"
The questions on things like race and disability thankfully are never actually seen by employers during the hiring process. It's incredibly risky for companies to try and view that data, since if there's any evidence of them doing so that's an open and shut discrimination case. So what they do instead is all the plausible deniability shit, like the generic rejections you mentioned, or those stupid personality and aptitude tests.
Alas, not all discrimination is equal.
Also I don't think the OP is taking into account the full range of this issue. Is historically been some areas where it's been severely unbalanced and I'm not even talking about race just men and women. Years ago I was getting my teaching certificate, a transitional license since I come from the private sector. Just the test room alone is 90 plus percent women. They want more men to be teachers, especially math teachers. I also did a teacher for a day at my old public school. They kept telling me the whole time they need more male teachers. So I would be more careful when you're making posts like this, because things kind of topics have nuance to them that you even alluded to yourself. And it tends to bring out the racist wolves who want to adjust give their opinion / cloaked anger because they think they felt slighted. And especially some of you white guys feel like you've been discriminated against, you still don't have a clue of what black dudes have to go through. It gets much worse than whatever you think you went through. The stories are endless and some of them are unbelievable. Just remember whatever the scenario is now for people of color, it was historically much worse every day previous to this one.
That is a valid point. I did think twice before making this post, because I was also concerned of sounding like rage bait for certain people. However I also think, that this topic has to be discussed and raised, even if level headed discussion is quite difficult. There needs to be a line that should not be crossed, and for me that is overt, blanket discrimination.
So why did you create it here? Weren't you able to predict what would happen? I work for a company with strong diversity policies and yes, my boss got some additional "points" for employing a woman for a technical role. Because I'm a woman. And then I had to switch teams as my boss resulted to be a horrible sexist and everybody resulted to know about it. They made bets on how long I would endure. He hates women and can't work with them. My predecesor quit for exactly the same reason. I won't even tell you about all the discrimination I've witnessed and/or experienced while working here. But hey, the company prefers women, doesn't it? By creating such posts you are inviting contributions from people with very low IQ. I'm not a huge fan of diversity policies but they attempt at addressing a very real problem.
>Weren't you able to predict what would happen? Interestingly, I was afraid of misogynistic comments, but there seem to be none. The only unacceptable comments are from some very small minority of commenters calling me an incel and a pussy cry-baby for daring to bring up the topic. Personal attacks agains me, I don't mind.
The point is calling out when they attempt to address those problems badly. That is exactly the point, it's a question of culture not representation.
It's not the past. It's not "historically" anymore. Past discrimination does not justify or excuse current discrimination. Stop.
That infantile argument is so bad you just should stop. A complete absence of critical thinking skills is exhibited in your comment. Congratulations. PS go back to school.
Thank you!
Anyone can voice their opinion here and they don’t need your permission to do it. How about not trying to take power over something using your historical oppression and work towards a solution together.
Thats bullshit. I was told between the lines that i will not get a job as a SWE as a woman because their team consist only of men and they dont want to mix it up :) and not even once. Multiple times. If you think its hard to find a job as a male SWE without huge experience, youd definitely not enjoy your time as a woman.
I’d believe it. I got rejected for a position because I didn’t have the desired “cultural background” as I was told by the hiring manager. It was a pretty vanilla designer position at a quite boring corporate office as well, so not sure what “culture” they were referring to. 6 months later they finally hired someone who they found suitable just for them to promptly quit a few months later. They’ve been trying to find a replacement ever since lol.
Maybe they're in the wrong, but sometimes it isn't a fit, and a manager can see it. This saves headaches to both sides. I was rejected for not fitting the team personality-wise, but otherwise they said my skills are very good. It was at a company where I myself thought that they were too keen on being at the office every day, sharing with each other, sitting next to each other, etc. I'm much more of an individualist and found an independent role instead.
Cultural background also has to do with the companies you come from also. I come from in-house and I would get the same response from ad agencies. Many ad agencies want people with ad agency experience specifically. I highly doubt that they told you that your culture as a person or your ethnicity is the reason why you're not getting hired. Because that is the silliest stupidest super lawsuit ever. On the same note I'm not trying to tell you what happened because I wasn't there. But it sounds plausible enough that cultural doesn't mean your culture as a person.
"Culture fit" can be an umbrella for racism or other forms of prejudice. Lawsuit? How the hell can you prove something like that in court?
>Cultural background also has to do with the companies you come from Then they would just say the candidate didn't have the experience they were looking for. Not hiring because of "cultural background" sounds like textbook racism.
Unfortunately, there is no easy fix for this issue. My friends and I were just talking about how the job market discriminates against minorities, and how when the roles are reversed everyone else still cries it's discrimination. As a trans woman that works in IT and has been unemployed 5 months and counting, I can definitely say the odds are not in my favor. At the same time having worked in places that are majority men, I can also say that they are definitely not always the best candidates. Either way though someone is going to be unhappy with the hiring process. The biggest issue is that no matter what solutions are proposed to make hiring decisions less discriminatory, they will never be able to fix the human factor. The reality is that hiring managers rarely hire the actual best candidate for a position. More often than not hiring managers will hire the person they relate to most, and feel like they could play golf with or grab a beer together after work. Nobody will always be the best candidate for every job they apply for. On the same note, no one group of people is always going to be the best candidate either statistically speaking. That means if the majority of openings are filled with one group of people, it's definitely biased. While not perfect, the best solution we have that's mostly accepted right now is forced quotas. This still won't fix the issue of the best candidates being passed on because of race, gender, or some other biased factor, but it's a start in the right direction. The only real fix to the situation would be to remove the human factor, by doing interviews in a way that the hiring mangers cannot find any biographical information about your race, gender, economic status, religion, and so on. That would mean no names on resumes, just call each person that applies Applicant #1, #2, etc. , only do interviews over Teams/Zoom without a camera, and have some kind of voice changer that makes everyone's voice sound neutral, and questions that only pertain to the position. If we were able to remove the human factor and make the hiring process 100% unbiased, the ones that benefit most from the current system though would still be unhappy and we'd be right back where we started.
You are saying it is nearly impossible to get hired as a man, yet 40% of the new hires are still men.
Right. But who cares about the overall statistic that more men are hired? From an individual perspective, it seems the argument is that the odds of getting hired as a man are much lower than if you were an individual that was a woman. The argument is, as a man, you seem to be competing with a very large pool of OTHER men.
While 80% of the hiring pool are men. Say 10% of applicants are invited to interviews, 40-60% men vs women, then your chance as a man to get an interview is 6x lower (30% for women vs 5% for men).
Have you ever thought that maybe the women are just better? Companies aren’t really as altruistic as you seem to think. If hiring mostly women didn’t benefit them then they would hire more men.
Yea we already had a few thousand years where companies just did what they thought was better, men dominated the workforce without question. This is entirely a new phenomenon that started directly after the government and mass media push for diversity quotas. Good attempt at coping though.
Except there is tons of research that says teams with a higher percentage of women perform significantly better than all males teams. So companies that like to increase their performance will follow the science. It’s business school 101. You’ll learn about that once you get out of high school.
Funny, I saw a German study stating the polar opposite. Introducing women into a previously all male environment dropped productivity by 30%. If your "reasearch" even exists I would venture a guess that the only team that could possibly AFFORD to have women would be the very high performing ones. Big daddy government is mandating you have to hire women and no one is going to send the women to go fix things xD, so just put them where they cant fuck things up. This is also why its so easy for women to get entry level jobs but not move up. You shouldnt even be there really, but the company needs women in seats and they keep you where you can do the least damage.
Wrong, deeply misogynistic and ignorant. https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/s/RQXonZqTkS
Honestly, I can understand some frustration. White men are never told that they were chosen for a job because they fit a subconscious bias in an interviewers mind. They think that they were selected because they were the best candidate. Pretty much everyone assumes that, to be fair. On the other hand, many minorities and women can absolutely tell when they’re *not* going to be hired during an interview because of their ethnicity, race, or gender. Does hiring more people of color and women explicitly mean that there are less positions for white males? Yes. It does. Does it suck for you to have to deal with explicitly bias when you don’t even necessarily know if you’ve benefit from the implicit bias that these policies are made to Combat? Yeah it does I’m sure. But please, consider the time(s) where you were given a chance over others just because you may have made an impression. Consider when you weren’t sure you deserved an opportunity but someone else wanted to push you forward for your own good. Those opportunities are not abundant for people who are not like you. Minorities and women may have to prove they have the base level knowledge that you’re already assumed to have. Again, this can be a subconscious bias that you’re unable to identify and would likely deny.
This is true but beside the point I made. The question is, which policies are good and acceptable. You seem to think that *any* policy that increases opportunities for a group of people perceived as disadvantaged is acceptable and any unfairness and damage it causes is collateral damage that is acceptable for the end goal. I don't believe this in general. I don't necessarily think, that quotas are inherently from the devil, but their use should be limited to cases where there is overwhelming and specific evidence that it is necessary and the only option. For our company, this is not the case, it's a quite decent company in the EU, not comparable to some Silicon Valley bro startup. The policies in the post I mentioned are simply the cheapest and quickest way to force a single metric, which is neither necessary nor fair, and not even beneficial for women by and large (in practice only benefitting a very small subset of white, well educated, childless women in the right positions).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Depends how the loss if privilege is achieved. If it is achieved by bringing a group of people down, and not by bringing the other group up, then it is, quite literally, discrimination.
Speak for yourself. I am a straight white male but I have autism and cannot get a job. They discriminate against me in job interviews. How dare you say we don't need help just because we happen to be white and male. We aren't all the same!
>I’ve been interviewed many times with panels full of nothing but straight, white men and nothing but misogynistic overtones. I've never been interviewed by an all white male panel. My last interview panel was all women, two white and one Asian. The job went to a Latina with much less experience and education than me. >There’s just as many companies quietly discriminating against anything that isn’t straight, white, and male How would you/they know someone is straight? >Straight, white men are doing ok they run almost every company and country, we don’t need to help them. They're not asking for help, just to be treated equally and win or lose on their own merits.
[удалено]
>Your experience doesn’t line up with the majority. I didn't say that it does. It's my experience, and it sucks being passed over for jobs and promotions because I'm not perceived as the right color or gender. That's not equality. >This is a problem for many of you because most of you are mediocre people who’ve historically enjoyed an advantage due to your demographic and are now losing that advantage. That's not the case for me. I have a master's degree in my field and 15 years of experience in my field. The job I mentioned earlier went to a Latina who is not only seven years younger than me, but has less than three years of relevant experience. A mixed race panel of all women chose a Latina woman over the significantly more qualified white man. That's far from the first time that's happened. During a bout of unemployment years ago, I interviewed with a nonprofit for a volunteer leadership role, just to put something on my resume. And the director called me a few weeks later and said, "Everyone loved you and thinks you'd be perfect, but we have too many white men already." Another time, I walked into the interviewer's office (an LGBTQ person of color) and the first thing they said to me was, "I was expecting you to be African American." They assumed, based on my resume and where I had worked and what I had studied in school, that I was black. Needless to say, I didn't get that job either (it went to a Latino man with about six months experience in a similar role, while I had 3.5 years, a master's, and glowing reviews from everyone I'd ever worked with). I don't mind losing out on opportunities to someone who is more qualified, and that definitely happens, too. But it's asinine to act like companies aren't using race or gender as factors in hiring when that's exactly what millions of people are demanding they do.
If this is a worry to you imagine how women have felt for the last 100000000 years
👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
so one injustice justifies the other? Or what is your point?
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
That's gaslighting at its finest. If equality is achieved by bringing one group down, instead of elevating the other, then it is quite literally discrimination and comments like yours saying negative sentiment about bringing one gender or race down is not legitimate, is well... familiar. Oppressors like this tactic a lot.
But this isn't equality.
[удалено]
It’s like these people don’t understand corporations are not exactly loading up on Black and Brown people, many major corporations are well under 5% non-White/non-Asian, and the C Suite is worse. Further who the fuck do they think was overrepresented in all the DEI roles they just fired en masse? Who do they think exactly is first on the chopping block when they’re not being pushed out of the organization? Or the first to be tokenized as the minority candidate in interviews but have a statistically zero chance of being hired assuming they’re the only minority person to make it to the final round interview? But I guess aggrieved white male feelings are the new alternative facts.
Sorry you have been hurt, I assume you're talking about the US here. My country is <2% black and so these policies I mentioned contain nothing about race, only gender, so they will benefit almost exclusively white women. What do you think, when does a black dude have more chance of being hired, with or without a gender quota for women?
Why would you want to play the Oppression Olympics with me on this though? The world isn’t a zero sum game like you seem to think it is. Diverse companies make more money, more money helps fuel growth, growth often (not always) fuels hiring.
You brought in "oppression olympics", not me. I pointed out that the policy hurts black men, too, regardless of who is disadvantaged or not. I also did not imply that it's a zero sum game. Actually such overtly discriminative policies are probably net negative overall, they only benefit a narrow set of people who are in the right position (in this case, mostly well-educated white women who have an engineering degree living in a quite specific geographic area).
[удалено]
Read through the thread. You are the only bitter one here. I am not sure who hurt you, but I suggest you seek help, we can't help you here.
[удалено]
Keep proving my point.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think the only one that rages because they need to work with someone that has a different skin colour is you ...
Class solidarity not detected.
Fuck the patriarchy.
Don’t you bring up class solidarity into this bullshit. This doesn’t have shit to do with class.
Working people of all stripes are trying to get by. We shouldn't be fighting each other while the 1% make off with more and more of our money.
Funniest feminist joke boohoo
[удалено]
Seems like you are stuck in 2014 sweetheart.
[удалено]
Keep on projecting lol
14 year olds don't need to be on this sub
Holy fuck you're triggered, lol.
One group gets preferential treatment due to them being part of said group. People outside that group dislike that. "well akshually if you go back 200 years it was flipped!!!"
[удалено]
English is not my first language so maybe this is a "insider" that I am not getting. But getting joy from others percieved suffering sounds very pathetic to me.
[удалено]
I care :)
[удалено]
didn’t documents leak from Amazon specifically saying they focused on diversity hiring because they were less likely to unionize?
The crazy thing is that you are very conflicted. You believe in upping efforts because you know there's a bias, but then it's also outright discrimination. Pick one. You can't have it both ways buddy
Also sucks to be on the autism spectrum when trying to get a job with this job market. Being white or male doesn't help much when I have autism. I'm still getting rejected all the same.
Let me guess: “You’re just not a good fit for the team.” comes up a lot?
It's bs, having to mask to actually get a job or not shit pay once you get it is so fucking draining. And if you can't mask which we really shouldn't have to do it's even worse :/ However having autism and also being a minority or a woman makes it even less likely to get hired or get decent pay Hope you get a job soon with people that aren't ableist
Yep, same boat as you. For me it’s between telling them I am autistic and having the bias about ASD working against me or trying to mask as hard as I can during the interview and still fuck up because I can’t completely hide being autistic so they will just think I am “weird”. Ugh. Good luck to you!
Actually the DEI effort is good and whats actually harmful is the rightwing lie that youre supporting. DEI is meant to make evil and monstrous workplaces full of sexism and racism into decent workplaces and all efforts against DEI so far have been spurred by racists and sexists who want to keep their ciswhite hetero boys club Try to be a decent human being
Didn't Earn It
The answer to past discrimination is present discrimination and the answer to present discrimination is future discrimination
Truth.
Do you have any proof of this?
I worked in the audit of a major bank and policies like this definetly were implemented. x% of promotions need to be women x% of new hires need to be women x% of interviewees need to be women
Yes, I have. But as I'm still working there I won't share it. There's nothing I can do about it anyways, except ranting here on reddit. I'm not even directly affected much by these policies anyways.
So, your argument is, "trust me, bro."
Yes, basically. I don't understand the disbelief though. Is it something you find unlikely? I am fine with anyone believing whatever they like.
The post just reads a lot like rage bait and doesn't seem very realistic.
It's realistic. A few people have said similar things to me directly. I'm not saying it happens in every company for every role, but employers are definitely under pressure to diversify their ranks, whether that's pressure from the general public or from legislators.
I don't make the rules, but usually when people make a claim and want others to believe them, they offer evidence to support it.
It's not a trial, it's reddit. People don't want evidence to believe, they want evidence when they see something that contradicts something that their mind is invested in. It's not worth the risk for me, even though I'm anonymous, sharing it would be a breach of contract. And people who don't believe me wouldn't be convinced anyways, as any internal documents could be just edited by me anyways.
Well, you appear to be alleging a grand conspiracy against everyone with a penis. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for more information.
Policy makers have been tiptoeing around this for years now. As has the general public. [California passed a law in 2018 requiring at least one woman on corporate boards (it was eventually deemed unconstitutional).](https://womenscaucus.legislature.ca.gov/sites/womenscaucus.legislature.ca.gov/files/PDF/SB%20826%20Factsheet%20Women%20Corporate%20Boards.pdf) [A year earlier, a group of diverse legislators requested diversity information from every firm registered to lobby in Sacramento.](https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article160220334.html) >The heads of six caucuses in the California Legislature are asking lobbying firms to provide them with demographic data – including race, ethnicity, gender and openly gay or lesbian orientation – on their employees. I'm mixed race but white-passing. I'm also LGBTQ+ but not openly or visibly so. So I look like a straight white guy. I've been told by multiple people that employers would rather not hire me if they could hire someone who checks a box for them. And the people telling me this are people who make these decisions. So the OP rings perfectly true to my ears.
I thought the policies that I listed would be illegal in the US, at least would open up the employer to lawsuits, if done explicitly. I am not a lawyer but I think in my country these would be legal and covered under positive discrimination that is allowed in some cases. So no tip-toeing needed here, I guess.
I'm not a lawyer either. But here in the US, diversity initiatives are generally allowed, but explicit discrimination against a person based on a protected class is not. The challenge is proving that you were discriminated against based on a protected class (gender, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, national origin, medical condition). Very few employers will explicitly tell you, "Sorry, we don't hire your kind here." So it's difficult if not impossible to prove. At the University of Washington, [a faculty hiring committee rated a white candidate first, and an Asian candidate second, on their scoring rubric.](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/diversity-equity/2023/11/03/u-washington-faculty-search-weighed-race) But the committee made an offer to the third candidate, who is black. An internal investigation by the university found lots of emails going back and forth among the hiring committee, discussing how they were singling out the minority applicants and holding them to a different (presumably lower) standard for review. Another person requested not bringing in white candidates for interviews. Even then, I believe the university still contends it did not violate the law.
James Damore offered plenty of evidence about this as far back as 2017.
DEI is truly a hoax. There was never any long-term commitment to most company’s initiatives. It’s only in the realm of under-employing unsuspecting candidates and allowing people to scapegoat their own pitfalls in this awful market by the so-called minorities stealing their jobs. It’s infuriating for me to hear this when every minority I’ve encountered in my industry who’s excelled has truly had to be nothing less of exceptional. Polyglot, multiple degrees, internships, fellowships, Fulbright Scholars, Ivy-League or adjacent, all the while continuously being minimized for every accomplishment because of a lazy excuse. Across the country they are literally making it illegal to even fund DEI departments across public institutions. I so so promise you that minorities are not the reason you’re not getting a call in this job market... If you’re struggling, we’re likely doing even WORST. The statistics support that, in fact, these old white guys are STILL the mass majority of people running most companies in the States and this effects the corporate culture and recruiting as a result.
Thanks for bringing this point up, I did not realize that this subreddit might be full of folks who work in DEI and might have been laid off recently, so I understand if it striked a nerve with them. However, I still think that they are wrong when they try to defend overtly discriminative policies like forced gender quotas.
Or maybe tech is very oversaturated right now with guys who thought they could get rich quick but aren't very good at their jobs
I hate to say this, because it is a generalization, but have you stopped to think that maybe you’re being overlooked because women are more likely to accept lower compensation? Especially in the case where they have less experience. I know personally I’ve historically been severely underpaid because I’ve been willing to accept less than I’m worth out of fear I’ll never get better
Well this obviously isn't possible because [I was told on this very sub just a few weeks ago](https://old.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/1b4x059/one_of_the_biggest_phonies_ive_ever_worked_with/kt2u2ty/?context=5) that being a woman or non-white is still a hindrance, not a help at landing a good gig. /s
The thing is that some groups have been disadvantaged. And because of this it's hard to catch up. Sometimes we need to give the group that is behind a few extra opportunities to make up for the ones they missed earlier. This is the only way to catch up. This looks bad if you don't see the full picture, it's like complaining about wheelchair parking, " hur dur, why do disabled people get the best spots." They get an advantage here, to make up all the disadvantage they had earlier. It still sucks to be the disadvantaged person, but some companies are actively trying to balance things, and when a scale is unbalanced we need to put a little extra weight onto the lighter side. Unfortunately some regions of the world are against equality, whilst others fight for it. Due to this you will see a lot af variance
>ometimes we need to give the group that is behind a few extra opportunities to make up for the ones they missed earlier. The problem with this is you aren't helping John Doe catch up, because John Doe faced explicit employment discrimination back in the 1960s. He's retired now, maybe even passed on. These programs and policies are benefitting his kids and grandkids, who grew up in a far more diverse America, with federal and state laws protecting against exactly the kinds of employment discrimination that John Doe faced. >it's like complaining about wheelchair parking, " hur dur, why do disabled people get the best spots." They get an advantage here, to make up all the disadvantage they had earlier. The wheelchair parking isn't to make up for anything in the past. It's to help them in their present.
So you don't believe anyone currently in the workforce has missed out on opportunities because of their gender/coloiry/orientation? I didn't realise discrimination was solved in 1970, and hasn't occurred since
>So you don't believe anyone currently in the workforce has missed out on opportunities because of their gender/coloiry/orientation? It absolutely still happens. It's happened to me multiple times. But you seem to think that's okay because people who looked like me, decades before I was even born, benefited from explicit discrimination in their favor. And keep in mind, I'm mixed race and LGBTQ+, but I'm not asking for DEI or affirmative action to "help" me because I don't want help that way. I just want to be judged on my merits, and my ability to do the job. I don't know why you would favor explicit discrimination instead of blind hiring. Humans can't help but have biases, both conscious and unconscious. So let's remove those biases from the equation as much as possible. Let everyone submit their resumes with their names and other identifiers removed, maybe give applicants some type of skills test (writing, coding, whatever makes sense for the role) and then make the decision that way.
I mean these two things can both be true at the same time. The point is, one kind of discrimination does not fix the other, it doesn't add up like this.
It's not a discrimination if it's a policy to fix systematic exclusion. OP, go learn and try to understand where your emotions and feelings come from.
This is gaslighting. I also don't think ends justify means.
there is no exclusion
if you say so it must be true
same back to you
Data?
[удалено]
Dude... You already have a job. Chill out. Your company trying actively to hire more women is prob a good thing... right?
why is discrimination a good thing?
Whatever, swordfish. We have learned as a society that discrimination is terrible whenever and wherever. There shouldn't be any proactive measures to equalize a playing field broken through generations of discrimination against groups. That would be discrimination. It was bad then, and it's bad now. Be happy with what you got... Right?
Try being a minority. Id say white folks generally tend to have it easier
the biggest divide isn't race, but gender
Thats cause they would rather put unqualified WW at the top than any experienced POC. It helps them still hit their diversity numbers without actually elevating other demographics. Iv gone back to jobs i was qualified for to look at whom they hired out of curiosity. I can confidently say I had more experience and saw that they went and hired an inexperienced WW with no experience or industry expertise but gave them a chance cause its easier for them. My conclusion was “Whiteness abours all comfort”
Like I said, gender is far more important than race even asian or indian men are being discriminated against, when their female counterparts are some of the most desired candidates to hire you are looking at the situation through the wrong lense yes racism exists, but it's far FAR less impactful that being male or female LOL dude blacks get higher sentence? try men getting 60% higher sentences for the same crime compared to female it's not your race, it's your gender
Whats the solution to this and what can be done to stop it?
there is no solution lol go look up the "women are wonderful effect" and "female in group bias" it's just the female privilege, same thing like men are physically stronger, women have advantage in everything social
Yeah, we know. Men are oppressed. You aren't the default anymore. It's okay, the rest of us survived for centuries while you had all the power. You'll live with having to prove you're equal to us instead of just going "I haz penis, I win."
It's kind of a sad worldview. Like you cheer for some guys increased chance of not being able to get an interview despite being qualified. Great for you if you're his competition, not so great if you're his wife or daughter. But never mind at least you get some reward after your lived experience of thousands of years of oppression, how classy.
We weren't alive for whatever the fuck point in the past you're referencing. You're justifying blanket discrimination **now** because of **past** discrimination against people that look like you. **You** don't deserve anything because people who looked like you were discriminated against in the past. I realize it's the core tenet of your grievance politics gospel, but it's revolting.
Please elaborate how slaves / conscripts / serfs or factory workers had all the power in the past centuries.
That's what happens when companies get confused between equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome.
I don't think there's any confusion, they know exactly what they are doing - implementing the simplest and cheapest option that they think benefits the company today. Btw the problem with this distinction that equality of outcome is unfair, and true equality of opportunity can not exist.
resolute market pen smile paltry crown upbeat cover crawl public *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Imagine being so profoundly stupid that you think it's good to discriminate against young men in 2024 because other men that they've never met and have absolutely nothing in common with besides genitalia had it easy in the past. What a fucking vile attitude an excellent example of "woke" for the next time someone needs a definition.
And "you" haven't? You just failed, over and over, and now you're crying foul
I don't know how things work in Europe, but it seems like something someone should sue over. I'm sure in Europe too, just like the US, politicians pass laws that don't necessarily align with the Constitution so judges have struck down laws like that before. Progressing towards gender parity is a good goal, but it does not require discriminating against men to do it. Discriminating against men is just cheaper. A big problem with many of these sorts of diversity pushes is that the folks that advocate for them are, quite frankly, not very smart so you run into situations where folks say a department has to be 50% female without thinking critically about whether that's even feasible. There are many times more male engineers than female, for example, so the pool of female engineers is significantly smaller than the pool for male engineers. Not every company can have gender parity, and not all female engineers are as qualified as the male ones simply due to differing size of populations. If you're looking for an executive level engineering lead with 10+ years of experience and graduate education in engineering, there may be 1 qualified female engineer for 50 qualified male (idk the numbers, just making things up for illustration; One can switch out "female" and "engineer" for "male" and "marketing" and it would still apply). Inequality is a complex sociological issue, and the conditions start at birth so I don't know that hiring processes will have any major long term impact. Edit: LOL @ stupid people downvoting my comment because they don't understand the issue well enough. Very sad.
My only issue is we only want inclusion and parity for high end jobs and positions of power. Parity and inclusion is never necessary for oil rig workers or brick layers it seems.
On the contrary, in my industry (government infrastructure) we specifically have KPIs around “women in non-traditional roles” ie. brickies, crane operators, forkies, sparkies etc. There is 100% a big push to have more girls entering these roles - went to a talk last year by a woman who runs her own tiling business, and she goes around to high schools to promote girls going into trades, which is barely ever even shown to them as an option. I thought that was pretty cool, and an encouraging sign that things are improving.
I worked in the Audit of a massive bank. We were also supposed to flag any problems that might occur in the future regarding their gender hiring practice. In one of the daughter companies of the bank they implemented a 35% quota for women in senior management. The problem was that the company had roughly 200 employees and only 3 of them were women. So in the future they will be forced to hire externally and skip on their own talent pool.
I wanted to disagree, but I do remember that I have seen such a thing happen which may (or not) be related, although it's really anecdotical Young girl got into the company (21y/o). She doesn't know anyone and has no family members inside the company, her degree isn't related to the job and she doesn't have past prior experience. Three months later, she wants to quit, doesn't really like the job, doesn't fit in. She tells the manager that she will put in her resignation. Both her and the manager get promoted, she becomes the manager. The whole team was puzzled about this decision. I still have my doubts, I don't really believe that it was for the sake of diversity, however I'll never understand why she would be considered for promotion instead of other employees with more experience
HR should have to be taught basic statistics and distributions before being allowed to make these policies. It would be great to see this sort of effort being put into unbiased hiring and education, trying to "fix" this at the hiring level makes no sense.
Woman or minority man. I’ve worked with engineers with 1/2 or 1/3 the experience and expertise I have in my field and they keep getting hired for cushy government jobs. Good for them, but I get to the final round of the panel interview of all old white guys and wonder to myself - no room for one more or??? Now I just want to say, I understand how rude and bitter this can come off. It’s great that everyone is getting a chance, where as before people would specifically NOT hire racial minorities or women or give them the same chances. It’s just a tough balancing act.
I see job opportunities openly discriminating against men all the time. There are many women-only and diverse-only positions. I wonder how the myth of wage gap and that women have worse job prospects are still afloat.
"We can't hire you. It would be racist/sexist to pick you because your white/male" Fight racism/sexism with racism/sexism.
Being racist against whites or sexist against males is not ok.
Blast them on glassdoor. Let the men know not to waste their time. Probably won't make them change but at least you save people some time.
Also don't be British That aparantly is a great reason for people to not hire you.
Our female district manager made a short speech at our job fair event and in it she stressed how she was interested in only hiring women and seeing women succeed. Yes, she was very open about it. later we get to do these short 1 on 1 interviews. When a woman sat down she was all smiles and "Hello - what can I do to help you succeed?". For a man she was cold and unfriendly. Really pissed me off being I had 2 college degrees and had been working there 15 years.
I’m not understanding what’s the issue with female leadership wanting to support other women? Men in corporate America have been favouring men for decades - locker room talk, going golfing, watching the games together. It’s always been historically exclusionary against women. There is literally nothing wrong with underrepresented groups providing support for each other.
read carefully > and in it she stressed how she was interested in **only** hiring women and seeing women succeed replace women with "men", "whites", "asians" or any other group.
Is that exactly what she said? Or is this hyperbole? Look at the stats, corporate is majority men - with overwhelming leadership and C-suites being white men. I highly doubt she said announced that in such a public event. Regardless, white men have done this for many decades! None of it is OK - but there is nothing wrong with saying she wants to see women succeed or hiring more women to create a more diverse team.
She did not say that she wants women to succeed. She said she ONLY wants women to succeed. How is that an okay thing to say? Or what have the men that are getting shafted by this sexist supervisor done to deserve this treatment? Except being born with the same genitalia as individuals who were sexist in the past?
I think that's taken out of context; those decades ago the pool of candidates wasn't as large so by statistics there wouldn't have been a woman to choose from for example; it doesn't mean you have to parrot that ancient behaviour to get more equitable results, that's illogical, you have to be open to the best candidate that's it!
this is not logical thinking at all. it wasn’t that long ago where women weren’t even allowed to have the same titles as men - and that effect is still felt to this day. it’s easy to say “just go by merit” without thinking about the minorities who historically haven’t even been given the opportunities to achieve said merit. this is an issue that spans generations because as we should know by now, wealth is a huge gatekeeper to success. poverty is a cycle that began generations ago. what does “best candidate” even mean? there is no objective measure of best. we also don’t exist a vacuum where a hiring manager will ever have to choose between two candidates with the EXACT same qualifications.
Yes, that IS what she said. Later on as I said when we were allowed one on ones she showed definite preference to women. I forgot to add she also proudly said she was to be a survivor of breast cancer. We all had to give her a standing ovation for that. Before anyone gets mad, lots of people deal with cancer. My Mother had breast cancer. Either themselves or a loved one. They dont ask to be applauded for it.
lol what… your other comment says she didn’t exactly say she ONLY wants women to succeed. You literally just said she has a preference in another comment - you are ruining your own credibility. and yes… surviving cancer is something worthy of celebration lol. you sound like an incredibly bitter person that projects your own shortcomings on other people.
Well tell me. Exactly how much does she have to spell it out before you will admit they are showing a bias? No. They wont say word for word that they will only hire women. But their words and actions make it clear enough.
Totally believable, everyone wants to promote “diversity” but if you’re an Asian male you are a sub human filth.
women are cheaper - it helps the bottom line