[columbo]

Wanting to increase diversity is a good thing, so kudos for that. However you should -never- -ever- -ever- indicate a preference towards a race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. Did I say ever? Ever. Ever. Ever. It's discriminatory, it's demeaning and it's illegal.

If you want to increase diversity then, well, don't just say 'I need women!', rather go to where the diversity is.

There are a ton of groups, meetups, community boards that would love to know you are 'hiring' not that you are 'hiring <insert minority>'. For example: http://www.meetup.com/Women-Who-Code-SF/

[tzs]

> However you should -never- -ever- -ever- indicate a preference towards a race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. Did I say ever? Ever. Ever. Ever. It's discriminatory, it's demeaning and it's illegal

Discrimination by private employers based on sexual orientation is not illegal in the United States under Federal law, nor under the state law of approximately 60% of the states.

There are long standing efforts to make such discrimination legal at the Federal level, and they have come close a couple times. [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_A...

[mdszy]

That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[xemoka]

But how is that not discrimination masked in sheep's clothing? At least be forward with what your looking for, why should a male apply for a position that he wants, fits PERFECTLY but only get rejected because the company was veiling it's intentions to hire a woman?

In my opinion, being female is equivalent to a skill—sure a hard coded skill, but a skill none-the-less. When you need to connect with a particular audience, how else are you supposed to hire someone with that skill? We've painted ourselves into a PC corner where discrimination is okay if we hide it.

[chrisrhoden]

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

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

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

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

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

[LuminousPath]

If they're actively seeking somebody who's purpose is to bring the female perspective to a development team, how do you do that without being discriminatory?

"Hiring a person who is very familiar with application usage and development from a female perspective"?

This applies to the original argument the article made. Phrases like that sound creepy and off-putting to applicants.

[chrisrhoden]

The reason it's creepy and off-putting is because there is no such thing as the female perspective, and the phrase smacks of someone who is creepy.

[zapdrive]

Let me get this straight. Do you mean to say that it is OK to discriminate against men, but not women?

[darkchasma]

Absolutely, if it's to set right the ratio that has been skewed due to the history of women's lack of equality. The stats don't lie in this case, women are getting screwed.

[agilebyte]

Do not forget to tell your applicants that they are there to make you feel like you are making the World a fairer place instead of doing their job based on their ability. I also hope that you have quotas for minorities, disabled, people with different sexual orientation and of different age too.

[darkchasma]

What a naive view. When hiring there are a number of factors that will determine whether they will be the successful applicant, their skill set being only one of them. Part of that is whether they will fit in with the group, are they able to take direction, are they able to manage themselves, etc. Having a workplace without diversity is a serious problem, diversity increases your competitive advantage, provides differing perspectives, and even encourages different opportunities.

[sodomizer]

"But how is that not discrimination masked in sheep's clothing?"

That's what it is. The inconsistency in the law has created a niche market, and people are taking advantage of it. That's why groups like "Women Who Code" exist; show up here to get a job.