[tmeasday]

Does it bother you if a male candidate gets a position that maybe there's a better qualified female candidate who wasn't considered because "maybe she wants to start a family" or some bullshit? Do you let that (potential) bias affect your judgment of whether the guy "deserved" it?

Biases exist. Meritocracy is an illusion. Deal with it.

[true_religion]

I think what's getting lost in this discussion is that Affirmative Action isn't a trigger for "hire a woman over the more qualified man".

All it mandates is that if on paper two candidates are equal scores, your process should pick the female/minority candidate. Historically, if you left it up to people in the organisation they'd go with their "gut" feelings and pick whomever was of a similar background to them.

If two candidates aren't equal, you always pick the better candidate.

[discombobulate]

That's mandated discrimination.

[selllikesybok]

Not in the sense of the word that you seem likely to be using, no.

[discombobulate]

I checked the definition of the words before I posted.

Please, enlighten me?

[discombobulate]

> Does it bother you if a male candidate gets a position that maybe there's a better qualified female candidate who wasn't considered because "maybe she wants to start a family" or some bullshit?

Yes. I try and have a coherent worldview. And I don't think discrimination is useful for productivity.

[tmeasday]

So then all candidates are tainted and you may as well not worry about it.

My point is discrimination exists no matter what. So try not to let it bother you.