[jasode]

> "You need to be aiming for a 50/50 men-to-women ratio."

This advice is completely ignorant of other forces outside of the hiring managers' control. For example, women only account for ~12% of the graduates in computer science and computer engineering.[1]

As for the job description rewrites such as:

"We are committed to understanding the engineer sector intimately." "Sensitive to clients’ needs,"

Sorry, but that is ridiculous goop.

I can't believe that any woman of substance requires new-age touchy-feely rewrites to respond to job descriptions. In my opinion, it's patronizing and underestimates the technical reasons that may attract women to the job.

As an analogy, if only 1% of kindergarten teachers are male and we wanted to "fix" that ratio, please don't rewrite job descriptions with sports metaphors such as "we're recruiting teachers to keep kids from fumbling the ball and get them across the goal line."

[1]http://cra.org/uploads/documents/resources/taulbee/CS_Degree...

[dragonwriter]

> This advice is completely ignorant of other forces outside of the hiring managers' control.

The advice is from a CEO, presumably to CEOs (whose set of concerns include longer range strategic goals, and whose tools are broader, than those who are merely "hiring managers".)

> For example, women only account for ~12% of the graduates in computer science and computer engineering.

People who are qualified to work as computer programmers are not exclusively graduates in computer science and computer engineering. I'd be surprised if even the majority of working programmers had degrees in one of those fields.

[KuraFire]

“I can't believe that any woman” — stop right here. Whenever anyone on HN ever says this, they're really showing themselves to:

1) lack imagination 2) lack empathy (egregiously so) 3) generally be wrong about whatever follows next

What you're doing here is saying you think all women who would have an interest in tech are exactly the same. This is IDIOTIC and you're revealing yourself to seeing women as "a demographic" rather than as 3.6 billion unique individuals who each have their own unique personality, interests, etc.

Also, you're revealing your massively shortsighted perspective and utter inability to educate yourself a little on the matter before chiming in with your assertions, but let me help you improve perspective and learn something new:

Study: Women Do Not Apply To ‘Male-Sounding’ Jobs http://time.com/48578/study-women-do-not-apply-to-male-sound...

You Don’t Know It, But Women See Gender Bias in Your Job Postings http://www.ere.net/2013/03/01/you-dont-know-it-but-women-see...

> A scientific study of 4,000 job descriptions revealed that a lack of gender-inclusive wording caused significant implications for recruiting professionals tasked to recruit women to hard-to-fill positions underrepresented by women.

So, your assertion that it's "ridiculous goop" has actually been proven (repeatedly) by scientific studies, and is a tremendously stupid assertion to begin with (it hinges on the assumption that all women are exactly the same).

Perhaps next time, before opening your mouth, assess whether you actually have any fucking knowledge of what you're about to assert.

[jasode]

>What you're doing here is saying you think all women who would have an interest in tech are exactly the same

No, I asserted the opposite by specifically qualifying the women I was targeting with the clause "of substance". That's the part of my quote you left out to make it look like I was lumping "all" women together.

I just showed those supposedly better job descriptions to a female coworker I would categorize as a "woman of substance" and she just rolled her eyes at it. The word "intimate" is groan-inducing and out of place.

I don't personally know Marissa Mayer (ex Google, now CEO Yahoo) or Carol Bartz (ex AutoDesk) but I don't believe women of such caliber require baby talk. In my opinion, it would be quite insulting to them.

>Study: Women Do Not Apply To ‘Male-Sounding’ Jobs

I never asserted that a text can't be overtly (even offensively) male gendered. That part I agree with. However, the over-zealous post-modernism rewrite does not always make the end result gender-neutral. On the contrary, the article shows that the end result looks silly and idiotic. (EDIT TO ADD: the article's author recently commented in this thread and she herself conceded[1] that the wording in those "improved" job descriptions could use some work so I'm not totally off base in my criticism.)

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8020992

[DanBC]

>I never asserted that a text can't be overtly (even offensively) male gendered. That part I agree with. However, the over-zealous post-modernism rewrite does not always make the end result gender-neutral. On the contrary, the article shows that the end result looks silly and idiotic.

You didn't read the study, did you?

[jasode]

I did. I contend you're reading too much into the study by American Psychological Association by the authors Gaucher, Friesen, & Kay called, “Evidence That Gendered Wording in Job Advertisements Exists and Sustains Gender Inequality.”

They polled 96 random women.

The study in its limited form did not (or even try to) differentiate the characteristics of any women who would find terms such as "intimate" in an engineering post as patronizing and incongruous.

I'd prefer not to alienate those type of women. To do so would run counter to the objectives the article is trying to promote!

[kgunette]

Great TIME link KuraFire, added to the resources section of the site - thanks.

[jpgvm]

Wow, calm down political correctness police.

Firstly, he didn't assert shit. He said he believed things to be a certain way - at no point did he state any of his -opinion- was fact.

Secondly. What he had to say was really not that sensationalist. If you strip away your political correctness glasses you will see that he was just saying that he thinks women would prefer to be hired (and attracted to a position) by their ability, not some specially crafted touchy-feely job description.

Whether you agree or not is another thing entirely but seriously back of the the PC Police attitude, it doesn't do you any favours.

The "you clearly know jack shit" assertion is just outright offensive though and doesn't belong anywhere let alone here.

[dang]

> Wow, calm down political correctness police.

Personal attacks are not allowed here. Please don't.

[jev]

Please explain how it is a personal attack to imply their tone needs work. Or is this just tumblr-style rage against "tone policing"?

[dang]

"Calm down" is patronizing; "political correctness police" is pejorative. This is language one uses not when trying to have a civil, substantive discussion, but when trying to skewer an adversary.

I called it a personal attack because it's needlessly personal: it implies that the other person is an overwrought ("calm down") fanatical ("political correctness") bully ("police"). If that doesn't meet your definition of "personal attack", I'm happy not to quibble. Either way, though, it doesn't meet Hacker News' definition of civil, substantive discussion, and therefore is inappropriate here.

[KuraFire]

Do you have a hard time reading?

"Sorry, but that is ridiculous goop." <- this is about as explicit and concrete an assertion of his opinion stated as fact as you can get.

Also, you should really stop with the multiple cases of whining about "political correctness". It doesn't make you look like a decent person at all, because what you're really saying is that you think not being a fucking self-entitled shmuck who ignores evidence but makes massively sexist sweeping statements equates to "political correctness".

(PRO TIP: http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/43087620460/i-was-reading... )

The status quo is clearly failing our industry and our community. Any argument made against changes or even just _suggested_ changes, especially those backed up with mountains of scientific research and evidence, is a toxic argument in favor of more status quo, and cultivates the upholding of deeply misogynistic and racist systems of oppression.

[dang]

> Do you have a hard time reading?

Personal attacks are not allowed here. Please don't.