[token78]

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.

Besides, it was probably nepotism.

[StigmaPseudonym]

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?

[DanBC]

> 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."?

[StigmaPseudonym]

I've had a long career and have been turned down for jobs many times before. It happens. But I've never felt discriminated against until now.

[DanBC]

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?

[StigmaPseudonym]

I'm urging companies to avoid overcompensating for one form of discrimination by engaging in another.