[K-Wall]

I am confused with the section about job descriptions. A firm must not have gender biased descriptions is the OP assertion yet the ere article that was cited specifically states the "BETTER" descriptions are feminine.

So to solve the issue of low representation of woman in tech the industry must introduce a bias towards men?

[laurenbee]

I'd vote in favor of removing gendered language altogether. The descriptions listed are vague and kind of meaningless.

For example, in the "masculine" company description, the words "dominant" and "boasts" are just fluff. Plus, who cares if you "are determined to stand apart from the competition"? Isn't everyone? And the "feminine" description is so passive and unclear that it makes me think the company could be an engineering support group and not an actual engineering firm.

I would suggestion something like, "We are a leading engineering firm with clients including X, Y, and Z." It's short and to-the-point. This way, it is clear that the company is an engineering firm, and hopefully clients X, Y, and Z are illustrious enough that they speak to the firm's capability/status.

[kgunette]

i replied to a few threads about this re: "re-evaluate your job post descriptions" - i did not draft those descriptions, they are linked to the actual original content by ERE. everything on the site is not original content. i find the descriptions could use some work, but do a decent job of illustrating the point that language matters, especially when the goal is simply to expand the pool of people that respond positively to your post.