Let me be frank: I received a 1 page resume of a female computer scientist, where the word "women" was mentioned 8 times (organizations, etc). We did not interview that person, since frankly we were scared.
> Let me be frank: I received a 1 page resume of a female computer scientist, where the word "women" was mentioned 8 times (organizations, etc). We did not interview that person, since frankly we were scared.
I know this is usually verboten on Hacker News, but I find no other way to encode this thought...
Boy, you guys sure sound like assholes. Sounds like she dodged a bullet.
I wrote "frank" because I frankly exposed the events that actually took place (receiving the resume, word counting in it, decision). What facts are you frank about?
Would you like a resume where the word "men" appears 8 times? Or "whites"? Would you like to work with people who tout being white, Danilo Campos?
Wow. By all means – keep hanging yourself, this is fascinating.
Let's break down your profound false equivalence, here.
Men are an over-represented demographic in tech. Women are not. Women, in their under-representation, find comfort and camaraderie in the company of other women. The reasons for this are many but let's simplify to the most obvious one: women are the targets of sexism. By sharing company with other women, they can avoid hostility and discrimination based on their gender while still dealing with the subject of their passion: technology.
Further, the under-representation of women in technology is a problem. It limits the diversity of experience and opinions in this industry, which limits the scope of solutions that are discovered. It limits the pool of potential applicants for any given role.
Any individual who works to remedy these issues is a positive force.
Same goes for white people. The vast majority of powerful folks in any given western sphere of power are old white guys. They don't need any further help.
You've done a chilling job at justifying overt gender discrimination here. Those more classically trained in the academics of this villainy can do a much better job explaining it than I have, but boy – what a doozie.
And if you really thought you were in the right, you wouldn't be posting with a throwaway. If this were a truly defensible position, I'd encourage you to write up a hiring post on your company blog. "Why we don't hire women who care about advancing the cause of gender diversity in tech," you'd title it.
This has nothing to do with over-representation. In our small company, we have several female employees, including programmers. We consider all applicants purely based on their merits, minus potential problems- fear of future litigation in this case.
The fact that we are afraid to post this on the company blog, etc is simply the evidence of the diversity circus, that will speeds up selling the competitive American industry to China.
In the USSR, Cuba and North Korea you could not publicly say many things, which made its economy less competitive.
I don't care about your small company – in the broader world of technology, lack of gender diversity is a problem. And you chose not to hire someone because she cared passionately about addressing that problem.
That's fucked up, man.
> We consider all applicants purely based on their merits, minus potential problems- fear of future litigation in this case.
So you believe that if this person were terminated they would not be rational enough to know that it was about performance and not about gender.
And what would be the source of the presumption of such irrationality, I do wonder. Maybe you can fill us in!
> This will not earn you credit here: this is a hackers forum, not a government tribune.
Making sure I convey to you that your actions make you look like a dick is much more important to me than receiving "credit." And you're so obviously over-the-top wrong that anything more than ad-hominem is really just gilding the lily.
You may not care about his company, but the hiring manager should. Small companys are vulnerable so they have to be extremely careful when hiring. A bad higher can quickly become both expensive and stressful.
Remember a small company have no professorial hr department and internal legal counsel that can help reduce this kinds of risk.
I am not saying that this necessary is right, but it is easy to get forced into an decision that is less then ideal.
I agree that more women need to quit "talking about being a female founder", but not interviewing someone based on the fact that they go to women's organizations/etc? That's wrong and very likely illegal.
Sorry, scared? Can you please elaborate? Were you concerned the candidate would be spending too much time at conferences? Or too much time... being a woman? I'm honestly not clear.
Scared of her being litigious (e.g. if she has performance problems and gets fired (like any other employee in our company), she would accuse us of discrimination)- stuff like that.
People who attend conferences about women aren't a protected class. So it wouldn't be illegal unless you could demonstrate that filtering out people who attend conferences about women systematically discriminated against women. This would be fairly difficult at best, and almost impossible unless it were a large organization with an obvious gender imbalance.
Let me be frank: I received a 1 page resume of a female computer scientist, where the word "women" was mentioned 8 times (organizations, etc). We did not interview that person, since frankly we were scared.
You should delete your comment immediately. You have violated long-standing and well-enforced laws against gender-based discrimination on hiring. You openly admit that you did not hire a qualified female candidate primarily because of her gender. Your comment could, and if it comes to it, would be used in litigation.
You have completely missed the point of the comment that you are responding to. It's not that she's a woman, but that she put so much of her efforts into that identity.
Or maybe you're joking, but jokes don't go well in discussions like this.
Women scare a lot of men. That is no doubt the real subtext of imagery of armed to the teeth, chain mail bikini clad women in certain types of fiction.
But I have found it is socially unacceptable to remark on that fact.
I believe they're referring to a fear of legal problems because the individual was obviously very passionate about the issue of women in tech. Not commenting on the legality of such a concern, just pointing out what they were likely concerned about.
I know this is usually verboten on Hacker News, but I find no other way to encode this thought...
Boy, you guys sure sound like assholes. Sounds like she dodged a bullet.
Y'know. Frankly.