Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Women Only Professorships
Options
Comments
-
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »But lainey, this isn’t necessarily a male thing. In my first graduate job, my boss told me that some dude and I got the same score in the interview and the tie-breaker was that it was thought that I’d fit into the all-female team better.
I never said it was. In fact, I explicitly said that it wasn't just a male thing. People tend to hire people who are like them. This means, though, that a lot of tech companies end up being heavily or exclusively male for this reason. And they can say 'women don't apply', sure, but an all-male workplace puts women off applying, and thus the cycle continues.
This is why there are initiatives to get more women into tech.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »People tend to hire people who are like them. This means, though, that a lot of tech companies end up being heavily or exclusively male for this reason.
According to US federal employment data, there were close to 1 million unfilled IT jobs in the United States alone at the end of October 2019. More than 80% of employers say that recruiting tech talent is one of their biggest business challenges.
In such a tight market, companies can't afford to turn anyone away who has the skills. If a woman has the skills, she will get the job.And they can say 'women don't apply', sure, but an all-male workplace puts women off applying, and thus the cycle continues.
Silicon Valley's highest-paying tech companies offer median salaries ranging from $133,000 to $171,000, according to Glassdoor. I don't think a qualified woman would turn down that level of salary because she might have to work in a male-dominated environment.
In any case, these environments are far from "all-male." In 2018, Facebook had women filling 22 percent of its technical roles, while 20 percent of Google's tech workers were women. Women are in a minority, sure, but a woman will have no issue finding female colleagues.0 -
but seems aligned with another paper from 2014 I posted here - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=112109231#post112109231
and that paper was focused on situation in US.
I don't get your point in a capitalist system, effort normally equals reward and if time and working hours have no meaning it really sets back workers rights on a whole.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »I never said it was. In fact, I explicitly said that it wasn't just a male thing. People tend to hire people who are like them. This means, though, that a lot of tech companies end up being heavily or exclusively male for this reason. And they can say 'women don't apply', sure, but an all-male workplace puts women off applying, and thus the cycle continues.
This is why there are initiatives to get more women into tech.
Can you explain this please:"Countries with greater gender equality see a smaller proportion of women taking degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)" jobs that are typically higher paid than average.
Dubbed the “gender equality paradox”, the research found that countries such as Albania and Algeria have a greater percentage of women amongst their STEM graduates than countries lauded for their high levels of gender equality, such as Finland, Norway and Sweden
Source
So if in the UK for example, 29% of STEM graduates are female, do you not think that the likelihood of a man being hired is greater than a women, considering that 7/10 applicants will be male?0 -
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »But lainey, this isn’t necessarily a male thing. In my first graduate job, my boss told me that some dude and I got the same score in the interview and the tie-breaker was that it was thought that I’d fit into the all-female team better.
This is the thing. I have never heard of any company that will hire purely on technical merit alone, you have to be liked and they have to see you in the role. If you're too old, too ugly, voice is rough, that's all tough ****. You have to have a certain technical standard and after that it's a bunch of other intangible stuff, otherwise they wouldn't bother with lengthy interviews at all. Maybe it's different in a centrally planned economy where it could all rely on the outcome of a test, but companies don't have to hire you for any or no reason and it's the same for everyone else. It's a rough world, a lot of the time women win roles males wouldn't be considered for.
lainey_d you seem so convinced you "interviewed well" but you have no idea of that. They might have been expecting a deeper analysis, maybe they got that from another candidate. It's also a subjective process. Also you seem quite arrogant and entitled with how you're conducting yourself here. "They might as well have come out and said it's because I'm a woman."... do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? You're coming across as unstable and no wonder they didn't choose you. Even if you weren't though, there is no saying that you know you interviewed well, did you recite what you learned in a book? Interviews are about liking the individual and believing they will be an plus for the company on many different levels.0 -
Advertisement
-
All such posts are advertised internationally now anyway. I don't see how they're any more attractive to top-class women scientists if they exclude male candidates than any open competition would be. If anything, these posts will come with built-in resentments and presumptions that the women who get them couldn't earn them in open competition because they're not good enough - no matter their actual qualities. Hardly an enticing feature.As you can see from my earlier posts, I think this is a disgraceful political stunt but I realise on reflection that there is one way in which I may be proved wrong.
If these new posts attract top-class women scientists who have no connections in Ireland, they could have beneficial effects in disrupting a cosy scheme for insiders and raising standards in our universities.
Much more likely, however, is that these jobs will go to women insiders in areas like media studies and social science where they will keep doing the same job but for much more money and no boss to keep them busy.0 -
paleoperson wrote: »This is the thing. I have never heard of any company that will hire purely on technical merit alone, you have to be liked and they have to see you in the role. If you're too old, too ugly, voice is rough, that's all tough ****. You have to have a certain technical standard and after that it's a bunch of other intangible stuff, otherwise they wouldn't bother with lengthy interviews at all. Maybe it's different in a centrally planned economy where it could all rely on the outcome of a test, but companies don't have to hire you for any or no reason and it's the same for everyone else. It's a rough world, a lot of the time women win roles males wouldn't be considered for.
lainey_d you seem so convinced you "interviewed well" but you have no idea of that. They might have been expecting a deeper analysis, maybe they got that from another candidate. It's also a subjective process. Also you seem quite arrogant and entitled with how you're conducting yourself here. "They might as well have come out and said it's because I'm a woman."... do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? You're coming across as unstable and no wonder they didn't choose you. Even if you weren't though, there is no saying that you know you interviewed well, did you recite what you learned in a book? Interviews are about liking the individual and believing they will be an plus for the company on many different levels.
Sure, it's impossible to 'prove' that my gender had anything to do with it, and that's how it keeps happening. Because people make these justifications. I'm not going to keep repeating myself over and over. I know another woman who interviewed with them and she had the exact same feeling - that it was a boys club and she felt uncomfortable. We both had the feeling they were ticking some box by interviewing us. Can we prove it? No, it's impossible to prove. But I know their three hires were all young white men. No, it's not inconceivable that they were the best candidates for the roles, but we both came away feeling like we were never in with a real chance. I would have no problem with just having had a bad interview, or messing up on the technical challenge, or just not gelling with the people, but it didn't feel like that.
And this overlaps with the lack of women applicants for tech jobs - if you walk into a place and realise you're the only woman in the room of 50+ men, it puts you off working there, and on goes the cycle. That company now has that image and female developers will look elsewhere. There are plenty of far more diverse places to work.
There's a fine line between hiring someone you think you'll get on with and hiring someone who is exactly like you to the point of discriminating against the other candidates, and this is where the problem lies. This is why unconscious bias *is* a problem. We all had to undergo training on it in a former job of mine and it was eye opening.
What's also eye opening is the number of men on here saying that they can't recruit women, and then completely disregarding the opinions and lived experiences of women posting here.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »I know another woman who interviewed with them and she had the exact same feeling - that it was a boys club and she felt uncomfortable
No its not a boys club, we live in a country of equal opportunities (for now). If the real world makes you feel "uncomfortable" then you need to man up. Life is tough, deal with it. Those who learn to deal with hardships are the ones who rise to the top.0 -
Kidchameleon wrote: »No its not a boys club, we live in a country of equal opportunities (for now). If the real world makes you feel "uncomfortable" then you need to man up. Life is tough, deal with it. Those who learn to deal with hardships are the ones who rise to the top.
Oh no, what happened here.
You know we have progressed enough in society where we have time to complain about the chips on our shoulder and how the patriarchy keeps us down. Even the thought of an existing male dominated workforce is enough to put you off working as it would be all men.
Yet in other countries motivating factors are food/housing and social security.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »Because it's a cycle. If certain education paths are careers are hugely male dominated, young girls and women are given the message 'this isn't for me'. I've always been a giant computer nerd but was massively put off by being the only girl in the class in secondary. My teacher even openly dissuaded me from doing a comp sci degree because of how isolating it would be, surrounded by only male students and taught by all male professors. It's intimidating and annoying. I wanted to learn, not have to listen to stupid comments and faux compliments about how I was good at coding 'for a girl' when I was the best student in the class.
It's also a well known fact that there is massive bias in hiring in that people tend to hire people who are like themselves. This is not only gendered - it also manifests in things like class/background/accent, but in certain professions, an all-male interview panel means it's highly likely that they'll choose a new hire who is just like them because they'll 'fit in' better, regardless of which candidate is actually more competent. I went through a number of software developer interviews fairly recently (in the last 18 months) and was rejected from more than one for not being a 'cultural fit'. They might as well have come out and said it's because I'm a woman. I got through all the technical challenges just fine and I interviewed well. I just knew when I saw the office full of men with beards in black T shirts that I was never going to get the job, and lo and behold I was right.
Lots of men in this field like to believe that women don't get hired because they're not good enough or that any woman hire is automatically a 'diversity hire'. I've now been on panels myself where a man had to be talked through the simplest challenges and couldn't answer the most basic questions, and yet the men on the panel wanted to hire him because he 'seemed cool', i.e. just like them. They didn't want to hire the 43-year-old single mother because it would mean having to stop swearing constantly in the office and holding meetings in the pub, not because she lacked technical skills and ability.
I understand that men feel hard done by by initiatives which encourage hiring women but honestly...it doesn't even begin to make up for the years of disadvantage women have faced in STEM fields.
You seem to love playing the victim for someone who was supposedly the best coder in the class ...0 -
Advertisement
-
lainey_d_123 wrote: »Sure, it's impossible to 'prove' that my gender had anything to do with it, and that's how it keeps happening. Because people make these justifications. I'm not going to keep repeating myself over and over. I know another woman who interviewed with them and she had the exact same feeling - that it was a boys club and she felt uncomfortable. We both had the feeling they were ticking some box by interviewing us. Can we prove it? No, it's impossible to prove. But I know their three hires were all young white men. No, it's not inconceivable that they were the best candidates for the roles, but we both came away feeling like we were never in with a real chance. I would have no problem with just having had a bad interview, or messing up on the technical challenge, or just not gelling with the people, but it didn't feel like that.
Companies try to hire based on what will be best for the company, whether that is men, women or otherwise. You have no evidence otherwise apart from your own "feeling". The other woman who didn't get through the interview can't be said to be unbiased either and is hardly going to disagree.lainey_d_123 wrote: »And this overlaps with the lack of women applicants for tech jobs - if you walk into a place and realise you're the only woman in the room of 50+ men, it puts you off working there, and on goes the cycle. That company now has that image and female developers will look elsewhere. There are plenty of far more diverse places to work.
With the greatest of respect - that's just tough. Nursing or childcare or primary school teaching, glamour modelling, professional dancing can be good careers but males are often put off them because they are full of women. It's nobody's fault how many males or females are there. Some females enjoy male company more than female company and would prefer it there. Your levels of entitlement is off the charts - that if a job exists, then how dare the demographics be in a way that would put girls off it. What if there's a club that you want to go to but it's full of very old people - most people would be put off going when they realize that, a fraction might go anyway. I'm pretty sure very few would say "GGGrrrRRRrrrRRR how dare the club not be full of the demographics of people I want to be there and hence putting my demographic off going there". Same with being full of young people in some clubs.lainey_d_123 wrote: »There's a fine line between hiring someone you think you'll get on with and hiring someone who is exactly like you to the point of discriminating against the other candidates, and this is where the problem lies. This is why unconscious bias *is* a problem. We all had to undergo training on it in a former job of mine and it was eye opening.
What about your own biases of having flunked the interview and not knowing why? Your own unconscious biases that we can't prove but know are there?
Companies find it worth it to be subjective in making the final say of candidate. The actual "bias" here would be in forcing or incentivizing positions to be picked against males and for females. What if some positions just do end up better from having a male in a particular position instead of a female with similar ability and attributes? It may sound unfair but the male individual could typically have better prospects in the position, have better comradary, less drama and be more competitive. Is that actually bias then or just a good company decision?
The companies have large sums of money behind them as evidence that they are making good decisions. The only evidence you have is a bunch of "feelings" that you were discriminated against.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »Yes, because men are just so terribly hard done by in the working world. Some STEM companies are 90+% men while men make up < 50% of the population, but this is some great injustice now that women are being given the tiniest fraction of what men have taken for granted for decades?
OK.
There is explanations for this that isn't the bias and sexism you speak of,
Men and women _tend_ to have different interests, and this shows in what they specialize in, I have no doubt you are a great coder, but it is unusual for women to go into STEM - not sexist, not saying they're not good enough, it's just a fact - they have tried to get more women into STEM and more men into nursing in the scandanavian countries and it backfired! - the differences are still there!
Here is a good video
https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54
You probably think JP is a sexist pig though ... :rolleyes:0 -
Kidchameleon wrote: »No its not a boys club, we live in a country of equal opportunities (for now). If the real world makes you feel "uncomfortable" then you need to man up. Life is tough, deal with it. Those who learn to deal with hardships are the ones who rise to the top.
Exactly the kind of attitudes I'm talking about.
And then some employers are scratching their heads wondering why female developers are heading elsewhere.
As people have pointed out, tech as a whole is short of good candidates. A competent female developer isn't going to 'stick it out' in some cesspit with people who think and talk like you. They'll look elsewhere.0 -
Your perception.Deleted User wrote: »Except that I talked about a shift in perceptions about the steps or process towards gaining success. It's about a change in perception over the last thirty to forty years.
Russia barely counts as developed.I suspect India is far less socially mobile than the US.. You might want to think about perspective here. (ahh I missed the developed world... err... Russia I suspect is worse]
But if it is such a great place for entrepreneurs and they believed so much in the American Dream then why have they the worst social mobility of the developed world?The US was/is extremely good for entrepreneurs. It used to be far better a place for them, but it's digressed somewhat due to tax and other regulations. It's still a great country for those who want to develop/create a business.
I'm not familiar with that phrase. If you mean what I think you mean how am I moving the goalposts exactly? The country which is amazing for entrepreneurship and the American Dream and the fewest protections and entitlements for workers has the worst social mobility.And you're jumping goalposts.
I notice older people far more than younger people being critical of "hard work". So I'm arguing against the apparent trend and development of such attitudes "nowadays".Except, of course, I have no idea why you said it in relation to the quoted piece.
Fecking Victorians only working 70 hours a week. Entitled bastards.It's pretty obvious what I mean by entitlement... considering you shifted it to "wanted".. It's a fairly common discussion piece that people feel entitled to certain benefits which people from other generations didn't consider themselves entitled to, but were rather the fruits of their hard work. I don't really feel like spelling out the obvious here.
Which I suppose in a way, proves my point about people wanting things simplified. Thanks!
0 -
paleoperson wrote: »Companies try to hire based on what will be best for the company, whether that is men, women or otherwise. You have no evidence otherwise apart from your own "feeling". The other woman who didn't get through the interview can't be said to be unbiased either and is hardly going to disagree.
No, in a lot of cases, the people interviewing will hire based on who they think they'll get on with. Which is logical, in many respects. The problem, as I keep effing saying, is that you can end up with a bunch of people who are just like each other, which isn't particularly good for the company at all.
As I have already said, I was on an interview panel where one of the candidates was a very smart, skilled woman. She performed better than anyone that day in the technical tests, she interviewed well and was very pleasant. Yet the others on the panel wanted to hire a young man who really wasn't very competent at all compared to her, because he seemed like good craic and was eager. They were willing to overlook the actual evidence in front of them about who was the better candidate and take a punt on the guy they liked the look of...the one who happened to be just...like...them. This is the very definition of unconscious bias. They weren't applying the same criteria to every candidate and considering everyone equally, they were essentially looking for someone to have the craic with, go to the pub after work with, etc. A single mother in her 40s didn't fit in with that image, so in my mind, they were unfairly biased against her for reasons out of her control and which had little to nothing to do with the actual job.With the greatest of respect - that's just tough. Nursing or childcare or primary school teaching, glamour modelling, professional dancing can be good careers but males are often put off them because they are full of women. It's nobody's fault how many males or females are there. Some females enjoy male company more than female company and would prefer it there. Your levels of entitlement is off the charts - that if a job exists, then how dare the demographics be in a way that would put girls off it. What if there's a club that you want to go to but it's full of very old people - most people would be put off going when they realize that, a fraction might go anyway. I'm pretty sure very few would say "GGGrrrRRRrrrRRR how dare the club not be full of the demographics of people I want to be there and hence putting my demographic off going there". Same with being full of young people in some clubs.
And this is why we are where we are. Trying to address unconscious bias (towards either gender) makes me 'entitled'. You would literally rather come up with all kinds of arguments than actually acknowledge the fact that in 2020 people are still put off jobs because of their gender (male AND female).What about your own biases of having flunked the interview and not knowing why? Your own unconscious biases that we can't prove but know are there?
Companies find it worth it to be subjective in making the final say of candidate. The actual "bias" here would be in forcing or incentivizing positions to be picked against males and for females. What if some positions just do end up better from having a male in a particular position instead of a female with similar ability and attributes? It may sound unfair but the male individual could typically have better prospects in the position, have better comradary, less drama and be more competitive. Is that actually bias then or just a good company decision?
The companies have large sums of money behind them as evidence that they are making good decisions. The only evidence you have is a bunch of "feelings" that you were discriminated against.
Aaaand here you go again. Trying to gaslight me into believing I flunked the interview rather than just accepting that maybe they really did want to hire someone like them, and that maybe the fact that there isn't one woman in the entire place isn't 100% a coincidence.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »And then some employers are scratching their heads wondering why female developers are heading elsewhere.
Shoved in because of quotas, then leave because they dont like it. That is not my "attitude", that is factual. Its simple and backed up by research. Males like things, females like people (in general)
You are not coming off as the STEM type you claim to be, you are ignoring science0 -
Kidchameleon wrote: »Shoved in because of quotas, then leave because they dont like it. That is not my "attitude", that is factual. Its simple and backed up by research. Males like things, females like people (in general)
You are not coming off as the STEM type you claim to be, you are ignoring science
Oh, you're just a run of the mill sexist.
Nice.
Please link to these 'facts' about women being shoved in because of quotas and leaving because they don't like it.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »Sure, it's impossible to 'prove' that my gender had anything to do with it, and that's how it keeps happening. Because people make these justifications. I'm not going to keep repeating myself over and over. I know another woman who interviewed with them and she had the exact same feeling - that it was a boys club and she felt uncomfortable. We both had the feeling they were ticking some box by interviewing us. Can we prove it? No, it's impossible to prove. But I know their three hires were all young white men. No, it's not inconceivable that they were the best candidates for the roles, but we both came away feeling like we were never in with a real chance. I would have no problem with just having had a bad interview, or messing up on the technical challenge, or just not gelling with the people, but it didn't feel like that.
And this overlaps with the lack of women applicants for tech jobs - if you walk into a place and realise you're the only woman in the room of 50+ men, it puts you off working there, and on goes the cycle. That company now has that image and female developers will look elsewhere. There are plenty of far more diverse places to work
This hits on a key issue for women trying to compete with men in the workplace. My assumption from reading your posts is that you lack confidence and self-esteem - this is a well documented factor in the gender earnings gap. You seem like you go into each interview already mentally beaten. You "feel" uncomfortable, you "feel" like men will look past you and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy because you come across as arrogant and aloof in the interview (as someone who has interviewed hundreds of people I can tell you that nerves and shyness can easily come across as arrogance under the stress of an interview and it is up to the hiring manger to be able to tell the difference, which they often can not, especially in tech where EQ can be in short supply).
I have worked in female dominated industries and built businesses in female dominated industries. When I walk into a meeting with one of my clients and their team is all female, guess what I do? I just get on with the job as an adult and a professional. I don't spend time second guessing what they think of me and whether or not they like me more than a women.
I appreciate that on average women have more confidence issues than men, experience higher negative emotion than men, and are more neurotic than men. I understand that the self confidence I have been born with and the benefits of being a "young white man" make everything easier for me. Guilty as charged. But you don't get ahead by trying to pull down the man ahead of you. You should get ahead by figuring out what they are doing to win and then copying that behaviour yourself - that's how I learned from my mentors. It's a different story if you are in the public sector or a nonprofit, but in the private sector it's dog eat dog. Leave your sob stories at the door. Harsh, but true.
I have worked in companies that were largely 50-50 gender. Like every organisation, performance runs on a bell curve with a whole spectrum of abilities and dedication. In my "lived experience", there are two types of women who I have worked with. The first group are absolute killers who don't have any truck with head starts or positive discrimination, or BS identity politics - they just worship the bottom line and do everything they can to be the best and let the chips fall where they may. In my experience, these women do extremely well and I was lucky enough to be mentored by some of them. The second category are the ones who always want someone to blame for why they don't get ahead in life. They have their excuse ready before the game even starts. Its far easier to blame men/patriarchy etc. for their failures than to take personal responsibility. IMHO young women are being lured into believing the victim narrative and it serves them very poorly in the workplace and in life.lainey_d_123 wrote: »What's also eye opening is the number of men on here saying that they can't recruit women, and then completely disregarding the opinions and lived experiences of women posting here.
Is mens "lived experience" of not being able to successfully recruit women" less valid than womens "lived experience" of not getting a job they wanted? Where is the equality in that?0 -
This hits on a key issue for women trying to compete with men in the workplace. My assumption from reading your posts is that you lack confidence and self-esteem - this is a well documented factor in the gender earnings gap. You seem like you go into each interview already mentally beaten. You "feel" uncomfortable, you "feel" like men will look past you and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy because you come across as arrogant and aloof in the interview (as someone who has interviewed hundreds of people I can tell you that nerves and shyness can easily come across as arrogance under the stress of an interview and it is up to the hiring manger to be able to tell the difference, which they often can not, especially in tech where EQ can be in short supply).
I'd say it's more like I pick up easily on the atmosphere in a place and strongly dislike being patronised. An interview is a two-way process. The candidate is also there to weigh up the company. Why on earth would I choose to work somewhere I felt uncomfortable with weird vibes if I could go down the road and work in a much nicer, more diverse, friendlier place? With better pay to boot?I have worked in female dominated industries and built businesses in female dominated industries. When I walk into a meeting with one of my clients and their team is all female, guess what I do? I just get on with the job as an adult and a professional. I don't spend time second guessing what they think of me and whether or not they like me more than a women.
Great, that's what I do. I spend most of my time in meetings where I'm the only woman. Your point is...?I appreciate that on average women have more confidence issues than men, experience higher negative emotion than men, and are more neurotic than men. I understand that the self confidence I have been born with and the benefits of being a "young white man" make everything easier for me. Guilty as charged. But you don't get ahead by trying to pull down the man ahead of you. You should get ahead by figuring out what they are doing to win and then copying that behaviour yourself - that's how I learned from my mentors. It's a different story if you are in the public sector or a nonprofit, but in the private sector it's dog eat dog. Leave your sob stories at the door. Harsh, but true.
You say that and then contradict it with the rest of the paragraph.I have worked in companies that were largely 50-50 gender. Like every organisation, performance runs on a bell curve with a whole spectrum of abilities and dedication. In my "lived experience", there are two types of women who I have worked with. The first group are absolute killers who don't have any truck with head starts or positive discrimination, or BS identity politics - they just worship the bottom line and do everything they can to be the best and let the chips fall where they may. In my experience, these women do extremely well and I was lucky enough to be mentored by some of them. The second category are the ones who always want someone to blame for why they don't get ahead in life. They have their excuse ready before the game even starts. Its far easier to blame men/patriarchy etc. for their failures than to take personal responsibility. IMHO young women are being lured into believing the victim narrative and it serves them very poorly in the workplace and in life.
Is mens "lived experience" of not being able to successfully recruit women" less valid than womens "lived experience" of not getting a job they wanted? Where is the equality in that?
Except I've been very successful, so what's your point?
All I've done is point out some instances of what I considered to be unconscious bias and given some reasons why women might not want to work in tech (or at least in certain companies) and instead of actually listening, you and others have chosen to tear me down.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »No, in a lot of cases, the people interviewing will hire based on who they think they'll get on with. Which is logical, in many respects. The problem, as I keep effing saying, is that you can end up with a bunch of people who are just like each other, which isn't particularly good for the company at all.
I know that's supposed to be the case, but I'm not sure there's any strong evidence of it being true. People who are like each other often understand and relate to each other really well. If you bring a bunch of different people from a bunch of different backgrounds or statuses, nationalities, political allegiances, ethnicities, sexual orientations, genders, things could get awkward more than anything else.lainey_d_123 wrote: »As I have already said, I was on an interview panel where one of the candidates was a very smart, skilled woman. She performed better than anyone that day in the technical tests, she interviewed well and was very pleasant. Yet the others on the panel wanted to hire a young man who really wasn't very competent at all compared to her, because he seemed like good craic and was eager. They were willing to overlook the actual evidence in front of them about who was the better candidate and take a punt on the guy they liked the look of...the one who happened to be just...like...them. This is the very definition of unconscious bias. They weren't applying the same criteria to every candidate and considering everyone equally, they were essentially looking for someone to have the craic with, go to the pub after work with, etc. A single mother in her 40s didn't fit in with that image, so in my mind, they were unfairly biased against her for reasons out of her control and which had little to nothing to do with the actual job.
Having better craic with someone could boost company morale though. Unfortunately the corporate world isn't fair like taking an exam is. Having the technical knowledge isn't always enough for some jobs.lainey_d_123 wrote: »And this is why we are where we are. Trying to address unconscious bias (towards either gender) makes me 'entitled'. You would literally rather come up with all kinds of arguments than actually acknowledge the fact that in 2020 people are still put off jobs because of their gender (male AND female).
I did acknowledge it, that was part of my point - that people are very often put off or attracted to jobs based on who is already there. It doesn't automatically make it a big problem to be solved or that could be solved in any reasonable way.
We were talking about women being put off by seeing more men there. How is women being put off by more men doing it bias?
The logical conclusion to your argument is that males are being biased against females now by deciding to do a computer science, engineering or similar degree.lainey_d_123 wrote: »Aaaand here you go again. Trying to gaslight me into believing I flunked the interview rather than just accepting that maybe they really did want to hire someone like them, and that maybe the fact that there isn't one woman in the entire place isn't 100% a coincidence.
It could be the case and I never said discrimination didn't exist. But it's something we all face, and it's this way you come over stating with such certainty about how it was because you're female. There's nothing stopping a woman from starting her own company and discriminating against males.0 -
Advertisement
-
lainey_d_123 wrote: »All I've done is point out some instances of what I considered to be unconscious bias and given some reasons why women might not want to work in tech (or at least in certain companies) and instead of actually listening, you and others have chosen to tear me down.
All I've done is point out some instances of what I considered to be unfair use of the victim narrative and given some reasons why men can find it hard to successfully recruit women or have difficulties working with women and instead of actually listening, you consistently try to shut me down by making out that this is in some way a personal or gender based attack. For the record, it's not - but I get the sense you'll never believe that.
Lets not keep going around in circles on this. I take your points on board and hope you'll consider doing the same.0 -
paleoperson wrote: »I know that's supposed to be the case, but I'm not sure there's any strong evidence of it being true. People who are like each other often understand and relate to each other really well. If you bring a bunch of different people from a bunch of different backgrounds or statuses it could get awkward.
You are literally defending a homogenous working environment which excludes entire groups of people. What exactly do you think discrimination *is*?Having better craic with someone could boost company morale though. Unfortunately the corporate world isn't fair like taking an exam is. Having the technical knowledge isn't always enough for some jobs.
Maybe, but once again, that means the role is not open to all. Which is the point I was making. You are now just defending that this happens, and saying it's fine.We were talking about women being put off by seeing more men there. How is women being put off by more men doing it bias?
The logical conclusion to your argument is that males are being biased against females now by deciding to do a computer science degree.
That's not logical at all.
It could be the case and I never said discrimination didn't exist. But it's something we all face, and it's this way you come over stating with such certainty about how it was because you're female. There's nothing stopping a woman from starting her own company and discriminating against males.
OK, so basically you agree that discrimination exists and you're fine with it.
Glad we got there eventually.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 49074
lainey_d_123 wrote: »You are literally defending a homogenous working environment which excludes entire groups of people. What exactly do you think discrimination *is*?
Maybe, but once again, that means the role is not open to all. Which is the point I was making. You are now just defending that this happens, and saying it's fine.
That's not logical at all.
OK, so basically you agree that discrimination exists and you're fine with it.
Glad we got there eventually.
Did you choose to ignore the many posts by myself and other wome on this thread who have had a different experience to yo as they were contrary to your experience?
When you say you are very successful, how long have you been working in IT?0 -
I see Queen’s University in Belfast has made Hillary Clinton their first female chancellor. Perhaps she’ll institute a program to advance lying, deceitful and dishonest female professors.
You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »You are literally defending a homogenous working environment which excludes entire groups of people. What exactly do you think discrimination *is*?
I'm defending a working environment that produces the best possible result for the company. I'm no fan of many unfair modern hiring processes, but it's hard to argue with something that is likely to end up with the best outcome for what they're attempting to do.
It's like picking a sports team - you don't just take into account individual performances, you have to go with the team as a whole. You could end up with a team that you believe will work really well together even if it means dropping some of the best performing players. Of course if one player was that incredibly good they would be playing regardless.
Actual discrimination would be basing your decision on things that won't produce the best performance. For example seeing yourself in the candidates position and wanting them to succeed - whether it's for "one of the lads" or "girl power". Or if someone from a particular group did you wrong that you would then discriminate against them to try to keep them down.
I agree that discrimination is often used as you're suggesting it be used though.lainey_d_123 wrote: »Maybe, but once again, that means the role is not open to all. Which is the point I was making. You are now just defending that this happens, and saying it's fine.
No role is open to all. If you told yourself that your technical performance is the only thing that you need to get a job then you were mistaken.
Many people have contradicted your statements on women treatment in computer programming though. You also seem to have a very black and white stance on it, using words like "excluded" - if you're a good enough asset you'll be hired no matter what. But yeah it's plausible, I'm not an expert on it, my only input in all of this was in how you wrote so much as a fact that was clearly unrealistic.lainey_d_123 wrote: »OK, so basically you agree that discrimination exists and you're fine with it.
Glad we got there eventually.
The alternative is forcing employers to hire people that have performed the best technically and leave them to work with what they get. It could be a viable option. That's not the reality we have right now for anyone though.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »Please link to these 'facts' about women being shoved in because of quotas and leaving because they don't like it.
Eh, this thread is about female only positions, what more evidence do you need? I notice you didnt ask me to link proof that women prefer "people" oriented roles and men prefer "thing" oriented roles in general. Perhaps because you know I am right about that, so rather concede that, you just call me a "sexist".
Tell me, what is sexist about stating a fact?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiR5sePw_LmAhXAXhUIHa4-AZEQFjAUegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw11PkLy7gNpbMoieIumqNM8
"Abstract
Sexual dimorphism in sociability has been documented in humans. The present study aimed to
ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between
the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and
cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object)
and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger
interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the
face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in
origin. © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc."0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »Sure, it's impossible to 'prove' that my gender had anything to do with it, and that's how it keeps happening. Because people make these justifications. I'm not going to keep repeating myself over and over. I know another woman who interviewed with them and she had the exact same feeling - that it was a boys club and she felt uncomfortable. We both had the feeling they were ticking some box by interviewing us. Can we prove it? No, it's impossible to prove. But I know their three hires were all young white men. No, it's not inconceivable that they were the best candidates for the roles, but we both came away feeling like we were never in with a real chance. I would have no problem with just having had a bad interview, or messing up on the technical challenge, or just not gelling with the people, but it didn't feel like that.
You, and the other lady, have the legal option to contact their HR department to voice your concerns over the matter, and an internal investigation will take place. Depending on the employee/company manual, external moderators might be brought in to ensure a lack of any bias, although in most companies, HR is predominately made of women.
You suggest that it was due to your gender, and suggest that it's impossible to prove, and so it will continue to occur. Nah. I don't buy it. The mechanisms are in place for women to seek an investigation should a concern regarding sexism be raised. The problem is that you would prefer not to initiate a formal inquiry, and rather than face the real possibility that you didn't fit the requirements of the position, you claim sexism instead.
Seriously. If you feel that there is that degree of sexism, then making a formal claim for an investigation is the only realistic way for them to be forced to change....And this overlaps with the lack of women applicants for tech jobs - if you walk into a place and realise you're the only woman in the room of 50+ men, it puts you off working there, and on goes the cycle. That company now has that image and female developers will look elsewhere. There are plenty of far more diverse places to work.
Why? I've worked in places where I was the only male, with 200 colleagues being female. I did it when I was 20 years old, and not terribly confident in myself. Since then, as my major is finance, the majority of any department I have worked in was female. Not male. It's the same now, that I've switched to teaching. The vast majority of my colleagues are female.
Perhaps some women may be turned off working in an environment made up mostly of males, but then, they're the ones displaying sexism. Your gender shouldn't be a concern. That's been drilled into us by the anti-harassment, and anti-sexism initiatives and laws for the last three decades. Women are protected in the workplace.There's a fine line between hiring someone you think you'll get on with and hiring someone who is exactly like you to the point of discriminating against the other candidates, and this is where the problem lies. This is why unconscious bias *is* a problem. We all had to undergo training on it in a former job of mine and it was eye opening.
It was eye opening because you found what you were seeking. A justification for your own bias. I've also done similar training as a manager responsible for hiring in various departments. It's mostly pseudo-psychology without any real evidence behind it to support it. There is some subconscious bias for groups, and there is a bias for managers who hire those of their own gender, or color. That's been shown for both males and females. However, it's also been shown in HBR related articles/research papers, that it's becoming more and more uncommon. Social conditioning has been having that effect for over 30 years now.
That's why we have laws and regulations regarding hiring practices. You really think the interviewers of a professional company, overseen by HR representatives are going to ignore those? Highly unlikely. In any case, there are mechanisms in place, should you feel that you were discriminated against. You just have to avail of them.What's also eye opening is the number of men on here saying that they can't recruit women, and then completely disregarding the opinions and lived experiences of women posting here.
Disregarding or disagreeing? You do realise that we are allowed to disagree with your impressions, since many of us work, or have worked professionally at many levels of employment?
Women are widely considered excellent staff for all levels of employment. It's not their gender that's the problem. The problem is, more often than not, their choices in life, and how they behave in the workplace, or during interviews. It's your personality, skills, and experience that comes under inspection... if you feel otherwise, take advantage of the many protections available under the law, or the companies HR guidelines. However, I doubt that you will.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Your perception.
Well, Duh! Of course, my perception. Really reaching for the obvious here...Russia barely counts as developed.
Hilarious. That's an objection?But if it is such a great place for entrepreneurs and they believed so much in the American Dream then why have they the worst social mobility of the developed world?
Sigh. Ok. Prove to me that they have the worst social mobility of the developed world... and while you're at it, give me a specific definition of what social mobility means and entails. Also, perhaps also connect your explanation to my original post that you quoted? (explaining the relevance)I'm not familiar with that phrase. If you mean what I think you mean how am I moving the goalposts exactly? The country which is amazing for entrepreneurship and the American Dream and the fewest protections and entitlements for workers has the worst social mobility.
You're shifting topics. Social mobility instead of what I was posting about.I notice older people far more than younger people being critical of "hard work". So I'm arguing against the apparent trend and development of such attitudes "nowadays".
I guess our experiences differ. Sorry, I really can't be bothered to spell this out for you. My post was pretty direct in its meaning.Fecking Victorians only working 70 hours a week. Entitled bastards.
And... another point completely unrelated to my post. You have a certain habit of doing this, I see.
Look. I'll put it plain. Either deal with what I've written and discuss it, or don't. But don't expect me to jump around to deal with unrelated points.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 49074
As a counter to lainey I will post the following experience
In my thirties when I was married and living in a commuter town I went for an interview for an IT role.
The opening words of the male interviewer were that I was married, lived in a commuter town and obviously had kids so how could I commit to the requirements of the role? I tried I didn't have kids, cod drive and had always commuted and the iui interview went on for an hour.
I was offered the job and explained to their head of HR that I'd no interest in working for a company with interviewers such as mine.
He got fired0 -
Advertisement
-
lainey_d_123 wrote: »I'd say it's more like I pick up easily on the atmosphere in a place and strongly dislike being patronised. An interview is a two-way process. The candidate is also there to weigh up the company. Why on earth would I choose to work somewhere I felt uncomfortable with weird vibes if I could go down the road and work in a much nicer, more diverse, friendlier place? With better pay to boot?
I'm kinda curious as to how you'll determine the working environment from the interview, without speaking to the employees with whom you'd be working with? Just as I'm rather envious of your ability to pick up easily on the atmosphere of a place without actually working there, or taking the time to explore the personalities or social structures currently in place there...
You made assumptions based on no evidence. Yup. Useful skill there.
And yes, definitely... you have choice. So do they. You weren't suitable for the position, and they chose someone else. Possibly a male. Possibly a female. Fact is, you don't know.Except I've been very successful, so what's your point?
For someone who has experienced a lot of discrimination in the workplace or interviews (since you keep making references to how common such discrimination is for women), you've been very successful. So.. the people discriminating against you were bumbling idiots?All I've done is point out some instances of what I considered to be unconscious bias and given some reasons why women might not want to work in tech (or at least in certain companies) and instead of actually listening, you and others have chosen to tear me down.
Well, I can't speak for others, but I'm "tearing" your posts down. Not you. Why? because it sounds like nonsense. There are too many indications of your own bias being involved. Claims based on foundations of vapor.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement