[vilmosi]

>>> when it comes to google specifically, recruiters are supposed to actively go after "the best", so it shouldn't be a problem for that company in particular to go after the best female people.

The problem with your idea is that it's illegal and a law suit waiting to happen.

You simply can't hire someone because of their sex.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> The problem with your idea is that it's illegal and a law suit waiting to happen.

Also btw- "my idea" is not mine at all. It's the method of gender (and also race etc) quotas, already utilised in some countries.

Those are also countries that have very strict regulations about gender (etc) discrimination so it's perfectly possible to have legislation that hinders discrimination and supports equal treatment at the same time.

[vilmosi]

Quotas may very well be legal, hiring someone specifically to fill those quotas is not, as that is discrimination.

Think about it, if it was that easy, why aren't these tech giants already doing it?

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Because they don't care about diversity. That's what I'm saying.

[vilmosi]

I don't think that's true.

Why are they even publishing these numbers then? Even when it's not helping their image.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

But that's what companies do already. They hire women and men in different roles.

[vilmosi]

Not deliberately. They simply hire the best person for the job at a particular job opening. For whatever reason, the majority is of a particular gender.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> Not deliberately.

Yes, deliberately. The fact there's inequality in the distribution, when there is no good reason for it is evidence of some sort of bias in the selection process.

>> For whatever reason, the majority is of a particular gender.

For the reason that there is inequality between the two genders in society. You don't need to grasp for metaphysical explanations when you already know the two genders are treated differently in employment (as in many other matters).

[vilmosi]

>>> Yes, deliberately. The fact there's inequality in the distribution, when there is no good reason for it is evidence of some sort of bias in the selection process.

If it's unconscious bias, it's not deliberate. And it's much more than just selection bias, it's also a cultural/social issue. It happens way before someone enters the workforce.

>>> For the reason that there is inequality between the two genders in society.

I'm not denying that.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> If it's unconscious bias, it's not deliberate.

The bias might be unconscious, but the tendency to avoid hiring people from a certain group is entirely conscious. The person subject to the bias will find a way to rationalise and therefore justify their tendency to hire fewer of that group- "in my experience, most A candidates are not fit for the role" or "maybe group A is just not very good at this role because of human evolution" etc.

>> It happens way before someone enters the workforce.

It's 2016. That excuse -the whole "it's society's fault"- died sometime last century, when society's attention was drawn to the issues of gender inequality for the first time. We all know there are issues, we all know to keep an eye out for them- those of use who care about that sort of thing anyway.

As to the tech companies in particular, they don't have much of an excuse because the lack of diversity in their workplaces has often been pointed out.

[vilmosi]

>>> The bias might be unconscious, but the tendency to avoid hiring people from a certain group is entirely conscious

That statement doesn't make sense. Avoiding to hire people from a certain group is bias by definition. How can it be unconscious and conscious at the same time?

>>> It's 2016. That excuse -the whole "it's society's fault"- died sometime last century

What are you talking about, there's absolutely a cultural and societal element here.

>>> those of use who care about that sort of thing anyway

Oh get off your high horse. Some of us just don't recommend breaking the law to fix this.

Your solution to tech diversity is overly simplistic and unhelpful. Not to mention sexist and ILLEGAL.

At best, it would solve equality of outcome, but not equality of opportunity. Women might still be discriminated against during interviews, but "that's OK because we filled our quota for this year" ?! How is that fixing the problem?

Just curious, would you ask other industries to do the same and implement these quota requirements? Would you impose that sewage workers reach 50% gender parity?