For all the hyperbolae of the headline, this article reeks of sour grapes and conjecture, if not outright paranoia.
In complete ignorance of exactly what qualities the company was selecting for in finding the best fit, he simply assumes that his claim to superior qualifications means some manner of reverse sexism was at play. He can claim all the liberal credentials he wants, but it's difficult not to read this as a minor tantrum... Even assuming his claim to superior qualifications (and that's quite the claim to make without access to another individuals resume and academic results, etc) this whole article reads like the misdirected frustrations of a wounded ego.
For one thing it's a dumbass approach to human resources to favour only those candidates who possess superior qualifications, and its one that I'm pretty sure has generally lost its currency. Any enterprise with a vacancy is not only looking for a puzzle piece who's competent to perform the designated tasks of a role, but someone who fits in the culture of the company, and there are always candidates who's work history and experience shines for reasons besides formal qualifications.
I just find this whole article objectionable. That a company has made a public commitment to diversity doesn't mean that the author and his friend failed to be interviewed because of their penises. Clearly they both have high opinions of themselves, but claiming discrimination just because a woman got the job and some vague notion that the hiring company "endorsed" a youtube video (really what?), well it smacks of pettiness and a complete ignorance of the thinking that goes into hiring decisions.
No matter the heights of the authors disbelief or his wounded pride in not even being interviewed, hiring the right person can be a dark art and just because it escapes this writers comprehension that a particular woman was favoured over him, is no kind of argument that discrimination was at play.
This kind of backlash is exactly why I decided it had to be posted anonymously.
The last thing I need right now is my real world identity being tied to a perspective strongly associated with the bigoted political right, especially in a field dominated by strong views in the opposite direction.
I understand your skepticism of my account. You only have my word to go on.
But let me ask you this. Assume for the moment I relayed the details accurately. If that happened to you, wouldn't you feel frustrated?
> But let me ask you this. Assume for the moment I relayed the details accurately. If that happened to you, wouldn't you feel frustrated?
I am always frustrated if I don't get a job I apply for.
I don't go on to assume that there are sexist reasons why I didn't get the job.
Look at all the other jobs you haven't got, and the people who did get them. How many of those people are "not particularly impressive", or have "less education" or "work history was less impressive. Fewer accomplishments at less notable companies."?
I had to walk away from my keyboard because your comment made me so angry.
You claim to want to help women, and yet the first time you think you might have been discriminated against your reaction is to write a blog post urging companies to avoid employing women so that better-qualified, better-experienced, you could get that job?
1. How does the author know that his resume and accomplishments are superior?
2. No company interviews everyone that ever sends a resume in. If they did, they'd never get any work done. Remember, the goal of a company is not to interview people, but to produce a product or service. Continuing to interview once they've identified candidates to their liking is a waste of time.
3. The entitlement in this article is just...ridiculous. He assumes that because he has a good resume he's owed an interview. Again the world doesn't work like that.
4. He says her accomplishments aren't as impressive, but that's largely subjective.
5. He then goes on to say this:
>Don’t discriminate against qualified male candidates just to boost your female numbers.
Do what I do instead.
Teach your daughter to love computers. When she grows up and can program circles around me, I’m sure the market will reward her.<
Why does she need to program circles around him to be rewarded by the market? Up-article he basically admits to not being the best programmer himself, but expects
future women to be super programmers just to get a spot at some startup. Why can't women have the freedom to be average like so many men are given? I mean, aren't we the industry that's constantly lamenting the number of bad programmers, most of whom are male?
6. I've interviewed and recommended for hiring tons of engineers for my company over that last 5 years. And one thing I can tell you is that the relative superiority of one's resume does not guarantee that a good employee. I've
interviewed people with Masters degrees, CS and Eng degrees, no degrees, you name it. And the one thing that I see is that the truth is in the interview; I'm not impressed by where someone went to school, how many degrees they have, or which prestigious company they worked for in the past.
This guys needs to just suck it up and realize that as men we have huge advantages in the tech marketplace wrt to employment, and also accept the fact that he has no idea whether or not the woman that was hired was truly a better candidate than he. Sheesh...next he'll be complaining that he can't get hired at Hooters....
I can't even count how many times I've been insulted or been accused of being an entitled white guy in the last 24 hours for telling this story. I think the reason why I anonymized it should be self-evident by now...
Rather than try to refute all those points which I've attempted to address elsewhere, I'll just ask you one thing.
You asserted that because my race and gender has enjoyed special privilege on the job market for so many years, that we should come to expect the kind of discrimination I experienced in order to fix the underrepresentation of women and minorities.
I understand that logic. I don't agree with it of course, but I'll concede it now for the sake of argument. Given that, can you tell me, when does the discrimination against my overprivileged group start to become wrong? What metrics can we use to declare victory in the struggle for equality of the races and sexes?
It matters because discriminating on the basis of gender is illegal. Period.
Not saying that's what happened (highly doubt it). But a pissing contest about who is discriminated against the most is not going to move the conversation forward or improve anything. There are, in fact, white cisgendered males who lack for job opportunities. Such people exist, and their problems matter to them, whether they do to you or not.
Is there more information that you haven't published?
There are plenty of reasons to choose a less qualified candidate that don't involve gender discrimination. Price. Nepotism. Change in spec.
You're obviously upset about this, so I know this won't be music to your ears, but without more evidence this seems like conjecture.
Considering how much discrimination and harassment women have faced in the tech industry over the years I think there should be a reasonably high bar before we start letting conjecture put a brake on progress.
I am certain that nepotism played no role. One of the ways this company is proud of its diversity is in the diverse backgrounds of its staff. They have publicly stated that they avoid hiring within their social circle.
There is only so much detail I can provide without compromising the anonymity of all involved. I want nobody involved to be caught up in any kind of drama associated with this. I just want to tell my story anonymously and move on.
In complete ignorance of exactly what qualities the company was selecting for in finding the best fit, he simply assumes that his claim to superior qualifications means some manner of reverse sexism was at play. He can claim all the liberal credentials he wants, but it's difficult not to read this as a minor tantrum... Even assuming his claim to superior qualifications (and that's quite the claim to make without access to another individuals resume and academic results, etc) this whole article reads like the misdirected frustrations of a wounded ego.
For one thing it's a dumbass approach to human resources to favour only those candidates who possess superior qualifications, and its one that I'm pretty sure has generally lost its currency. Any enterprise with a vacancy is not only looking for a puzzle piece who's competent to perform the designated tasks of a role, but someone who fits in the culture of the company, and there are always candidates who's work history and experience shines for reasons besides formal qualifications.
I just find this whole article objectionable. That a company has made a public commitment to diversity doesn't mean that the author and his friend failed to be interviewed because of their penises. Clearly they both have high opinions of themselves, but claiming discrimination just because a woman got the job and some vague notion that the hiring company "endorsed" a youtube video (really what?), well it smacks of pettiness and a complete ignorance of the thinking that goes into hiring decisions.
No matter the heights of the authors disbelief or his wounded pride in not even being interviewed, hiring the right person can be a dark art and just because it escapes this writers comprehension that a particular woman was favoured over him, is no kind of argument that discrimination was at play.
Besides, it was probably nepotism.