|
|
|
|
|
|
by chrisrhoden
4811 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
"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.