150
drdre
22d

Heard a CEO say at a conference that they hire the most competent candidate. Unless there is a woman in the candidates. Then they hire the woman.
That seems pretty sexist to me.

Comments
  • 37
    That's fucked up
  • 25
    mEriToCrAcY iS bAd FoR oUr SoCiEtY! muH sOciAL jUsTiCe!!
  • 10
    Sexist it is
  • 1
    Yes and no. Maybe they are just trying to create diversity?
  • 41
    @ReverendLovejoy forced diversity is useless
  • 4
    I'm reminded also if you are too old, it doesn't matter if you are a woman !
  • 8
    @Nanos When you are too old for anyone to hire you in your field, but you still have 20 - 30 years to go until you can go without work
  • 6
    @ReverendLovejoy which is idiotic.
  • 1
    @ReverendLovejoy
    Diversity?
    By deciding that a woman can never be the most competent candidate?

    If it's a good paying job I don't mind applying though, they won't expect anything of a measly incompetent woman, so should be an easy ride. ;)
  • 2
    @ReverendLovejoy Is it possible to artificially create diversity? If so, is that the right way to go about it?
  • 2
    I think of this vast untapped pool of older talent sitting idle, imagine the GDP improvements we could have if we employed them !
  • 6
    That's what happens when you have idiotic policies pushed down from top level management like "50% of our (95% male) workforce need to be women by (1 year from now)".
  • 2
    First, it is impossible to know for sure during hiring process if a person is better than the other. It might look better but turn out to be a problem. So this isn't really an issue.

    Furthermore, until now (still happens) many women were not hired because they "could" get pregnant and disturb the work. Well, doing this for a while as a way of compensating centuries of discrimination is not a big deal. And whatever, usually managers are hired among the incompetent pool so I don't see any problem in hiring a woman a bit less experienced.
  • 10
    @agarrido you’re saying that you would sacrifice skilled workforce for... what? This so-called ‘social justice’? Diversity?
    Are you even hearing yourself?
    I have nothing against women in technical fields. Encouraging women to work in these fields is a right thing to do. But I’d never hire a women that is less skilled than any other man.

    Gender should not be a criterium for whether you’re hired or not.
  • 0
    @ReverendLovejoy

    As long as folk don't start changing themselves to be eligible.

    I'm reminded of:

    https://thesun.co.uk/news/2956978/...

    https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/...
  • 2
    @Nanos woman with obviously fair skin pretends to be black. 🤔I don't really know which party is more idiotic: the woman or the association.
  • 6
    If there are two women in the candidates, they hire the black one because while being a woman is good, not being a white woman is even better.

    Being a white or Asian man of course means you're totally worthless trash. That's "progressive" these days.
  • 5
    @irene

    I'm reminded of an ex-girlfriend who being a light skinned Asian told me that darker people didn't like her because they thought she was white, and white people didn't like her because they thought she wasn't white.

    I thought she was the ideal colour !

    No tan lines. :-)
  • 5
    @agarrido well, if you don’t know how skilled an applicant is, then clearly you have a flawed assessment system.

    My point still stands: gender should not be a hiring criteria per se. Skill should be. I can have as many people I want in a team, if they have no skills, the team is not going to be productive, regardless of whether I’m hiring unskilled women or men.
  • 2
    @Nanos eh... But Asians are not Asians because they are white skinned. They have very distinct facial features 😐
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop you hit the nail on the head.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop black Asian ftw. 😁
  • 2
    @irene

    Some groups don't look like the stereotypical group, so to speak, in PC terms.
  • 6
    @RantSomeWhere it's actually what Github was promoting. This shithead company promoted sexism and racism under the guise of diversity: https://businessinsider.de/diversit...

    It's also why I'm not on Github, because I don't feel welcome there given my colour and sex. I mean, a Jew wouldn't sign up with a Nazi company either, right?
  • 6
    My brother studies biology and the student parliament managed to enforce the stupidest shit ever for any job the university offers in this field:

    In the job interview, you get asked questions like "are you gay?", "are you a woman?", "are you trans?" and so on. For each question you answer with yes, you get a point (you count the points yourself, it's anonymous). When two candidates are equally suitable in terms of experience, the one with more points wins.

    This is especially awful because over two thirds of the students are female. So just like this, statistics will make sure that straight white male student will 100% not be able to get a job. My brother has skipped a class at school and has insane grades, he's applied to like five jobs, and each time this point system was openly admitted to be the reason for him not getting the job.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop come to Slavic country. Almost everyone is white.
  • 0
    @Nanos if a "black" does not look like a black then it's not black. We would not call a non pure breed corgi a shepherd even if at some point it was inbred with a shepherd. Same for human breeds.
  • 6
    Ok, have to add this real world example of why this type of forced diversity is bad.

    A relative of mine (white, male) went to air traffic control school. He graduated at the top of his class and got a perfect 100% on the exit exam.

    He was not offered a job by the FAA.

    Why?

    Because the minority students in the class got bonus points which put their scores over 100% (and they got enough that even if their scores were below 100% to begin with they wound up over 100%) so they got offers first.

    Who would you rather have landing _your_ plane?
  • 4
    I even think it would be nice to implement some system to ensure sexism doesn't play a role in getting a job. It would be rather easy to implement, just look at the percentage of women vs men applying for the job, weigh them according to degree and grades, and then compare to the percentages of men vs women getting the job.

    But no, let's always favor the women and go from disadvantages caused by sexist employers to LEGALLY ENFORCED sexism. Liberal pseudo-feminism is the worst
  • 1
    @kenogo I mean, how can they verify whether you're homosexual, bisexual, trans, etc.?

    Either way, that's fucked up.
  • 0
    @RantSomeWhere what I wonder is if "gender should not be a factor" is now because of this or if a woman isn't hired because the risk of pregnancy you'd also say it? Of if you said it in the past when people wouldn't cry about sjw
  • 3
    @RantSomeWhere They can't, but my brother refuses to play with that system by lying and giving himself more points than some other person might have given themselves because they didn't lie.
  • 2
    @RantSomeWhere they should not even have to verify. Just ignore the fact. It's irrelevant for the job.

    Well, unless the job is for female stripper, then it is pretty important 🤔🤔🤔
  • 3
    And then they wonder why on earth some straight white men don't understand that they should just go and die under a bridge and instead vote conservative parties. Must be because they're nazis.
  • 4
    @ReverendLovejoy How do you determine "qualified"? Obviously, this is different depending on the job.

    Would you support lowering requirements for one group over another? For example, if a firefighter has to carry 150lbs 100ft within a certain time frame in order to pass training and there are too few women who can manage that, would you support dropping the limits?

    The problem I have with forced diversity is that people _don't_ look for qualifications first and then diversity. Usually, the process inverts itself and diversity is looked at first and then qualifications. This is exactly what the OP was saying. Competency and qualifications don't matter if a woman applied because the company wanted more female employees.

    I can't stand behind that.
  • 4
    @JustThat you reminded me of my female colleague which temporary quit the company I work in. She got a job in another one, had almost no tasks and someone told her she was hired because they wanted more females without actually needing another developer. When she told me that I could not believe at first.
  • 10
    Imagine you need a brain surgery for you or a loved one... and the surgeon is operating you not because of qualification and experience but because of genitalia he/she has. Or a pilot or a teacher or an athlete.. Progressive left is progressive..
  • 3
    This is sexist, but it can be taken in two ways.
    The first is the obvious "women are never the most competent," which is a fair reading, and presumes a lower average. However, I find the other is probably more likely to occur.
    Say we have 5 candidates who are all highly competent, 3 women and 2 men. We don't know for certain right now which one is the most competent, could be a man, could be a woman.
    According to this CEO, we automatically drop the 2 men from the pool, and only choose from the women. In this way, we have just discriminated against the men by action. Remember, we don't know who the most competent person in this is. Could be a man, could be a woman, but we'll never know for sure now because we eliminated 2/5 of the group. Now we can only find the most competent woman.
    Now imagine that with 30 candidates split up however you want with at least 3 of each sex. That's why there are people against this stuff. No different than if biological sex were swapped to race, etc.
  • 3
    @jysk131 if they are all seemingly equal they should be chosen at random. And I mean really random. By a coin flip or number generator.
  • 2
    @irene If they are, I agree. Names in a hat, RNG, whatever. But only for very similar candidates, both in their knowledge and personality, as the latter may indicate a better fit at the company. But knowledge should be weighted more heavily.
  • 0
    @agarrido

    When my girlfriend was looking for a job, I suggested she should mention that her boyfriend has a vasectomy, then less risk of her getting pregnant.

    But I hear you can't say those sort of things these days.

    Though that didn't stop someone I knew from getting a job like this:

    Employer - "Good day, what religion are you ?"

    Future employee - "I'm religion X."

    Employer - "Oh good, you are hired!"

    That was the only requirement !

    Of course, I'm the wrong religion to get a job these days..

    <-- Atheist..
  • 0
    @jysk131

    Names in a hat reminds me of a school team I almost got on once.

    And a college course I almost got on once too..

    (Yes they really did pull all the names of applicants out of a hat!)

    So for those of us who are a tad unlucky..
  • 0
    @Nanos

    Now you might say, you can't be that unlucky your entire life, can you !

    Well...

    https://devrant.com/rants/2080969/...
  • 2
    @agarrido Your reasoning seems to be "interviews are useless, and women were discriminated against many years ago, ergo men should now be treated less favourably in interviews."

    I'm not following your line of thinking there.
  • 0
    @AlmondSauce Apparently, you are following it just fine. :)
  • 2
    @kenogo I've been asked questions like that previously in a similar setting. My favourite answer to them all is "I'd prefer not to say".

    If they want to guess whether I'm gay and identify as a coffee mug then that's on them, but as far as I'm concerned it's nothing to do with my competency for the role, so none of their business.
  • 1
    @AlmondSauce To be clear, you don't answer the questions loudly. You just tell them how many points you had in the end.
  • 4
    @agarrido the “meritocracy vs. gender equality” debate is a completely different topic.
    I am all in for hiring qualified, skilled female workers for the same wage as equally qualified, skilled males. The pay gap sucks. But what sucks more is when women are privileged when hiring.
  • 4
    @RantSomeWhere the gender pay gap is a long dispelled myth. If you really could get the exact same work cheaper from women, companies wouldn't hire men anymore to maximise profit. It's capitalism, baby!
  • 1
    @RantSomeWhere

    There is a slight downside to hiring one gender over the other which hasn't been picked up yet..

    In those places that do that, the birth rate falls below replacement rates.

    Perhaps that is why we have lost ancient civilisations..

    I guess once we have artificial wombs, that issue will be solved.

    But how far away are we from that and will we run out of technical people before we can develop the technology ?
  • 2
    @Nanos It's not like underpopulation were one of humanity's most concerning problems right now...
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop

    Underpopulation of smart people is, we are running out of them !

    http://xenosystems.net/iq-shredders...
  • 2
    @kenogo fair point, and I respect him for having good morals!
    @Fast-Nop maybe you’re right. But you get what I mean.
    @Nanos that sounds a bit far fetched, but it’s an interesting theory, do you have a source? 🤔
  • 2
    @RantSomeWhere

    Some related links, comments are interesting there.

    https://isegoria.net/2014/07/...

    https://jacobitemag.com/2017/06/...

    https://brenthuisman.net/iq-shredde...

    https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/...

    I notice this just beginning where I am, which as far as the rest of the world is concerned, is Utopia as we have 0% unemployment !

    But last year here 15% of the smartest childless women left.

    On the plus side, at least the fall in the population is keeping employment levels up..

    The population birth rate is now below replacement levels, where as the year before, it was just above.

    The number of occupied homes is about the same, but the number of people living in them has dropped.
  • 3
    @Nanos high IQ has always been a negative in producing offspring, that's nothing new. The same effect would hit in without any migration from anyone anywhere else.

    If you have highly intelligent people, they WILL delay their offspring production in favour of education, and even if they produce their 2.1 offspring per couple, their generational turnover will be longer. They will be outproduced by thugs knocking up some 16 year olds.

    And given how Western family laws are stacked against fathers, I decided to have 0.0 offspring. Problem solved, at least for me.
  • 0
    @Nanos

    With a lack of smart people, things like, getting your car fixed become an impossibility for example.

    A neighbour of mine is still waiting for theirs to be fixed a year later..

    One of the parts was sent away to someplace else, but they could't fix it fully, so they sent it back and now it doesn't even work a bit !
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop

    > I decided to have 0.0 offspring. Problem

    > solved, at least for me.

    Similar here.

    Mine was more based on not being able to afford to raise kids.

    I know that doesn't stop a lot of folk who can't !

    It makes me wonder though, is that the real reason, or is my programming just fooling me into thinking that I made my own mind up ?

    After all, if we all did that..
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop

    > high IQ has always been a negative in

    > producing offspring, that's nothing new.

    I wonder if that is evolution trying to make sure that we are a best fit for our environment ?

    Eg. energy efficient.

    My hope there is that AI becomes smart enough that it can look after us, as pets..
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop

    > WILL delay their offspring production in

    > favour of education

    I'm reminded of countries that saw an increase in their education levels for children, resulting in less children working in the family farms, leading to a labour shortage and increased famines.

    Somewhat ironic that in some countries today we are sending our young to be educated and then they end up unemployed !

    Think how many crops they could have harvested if we left them at home !

    Perhaps the Amish approach is a more sustainable solution..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish
  • 1
    @Nanos

    Wasn't this given as one of the reasons why The Roman Empire fell apart ?

    That and not having a sustainable energy policy..
  • 1
    @Nanos I know that this phenomenon occurs in industrial states. It’s pretty much common knowledge - look up the model of demographic change.
    But I did not know that increased employment of women could contribute to that. Interesting.
    More and more females seem to choose career over family 🤔
  • 1
    @kenogo I'd still say "I'd rather not say" even in that case. Nothing to do with the job, so not information I'd be willing to provide.
  • 3
    @RantSomeWhere They have to, because even if they want a family, we're not in the 1970s anymore where the a single income could feed a family.

    On the other hand, income by capital has exploded since then. The Quandt family gets THREE MILLION EUR through their ownership of BMW shares. Not annually, not monthly. DAILY.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop

    > we're not in the 1970s anymore where

    > the a single income could feed a family.

    Shouldn't that just restrict families to a well paid job ?

    In the past I've been able to support a family of 4 on $50,000 USD a year, and there must be a job out there paying more than that these days. :-)

    Perhaps what we need is a Universal Basic Income with a bonus for how smart you are..
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop

    > income by capital has exploded since then.

    If only there was a way to gain capital !

    Wait, isn't that why I didn't have kids. :-)

    I hear the average kid can cost you $300k USD to raise to 18..

    Mind you, aren't we doing it all wrong...

    In my parents day, kids had to start work as young as possible and earn that money !
  • 3
    So this is how it feels to have the top rant of the day 😅
  • 4
    @ReverendLovejoy forced diversity is a form of discrimination.
  • 2
    no, that's equality as defined and required by feminism
  • 1
    If you are running a company then you'd want the best people to be employed in it regardless of gender. Any thing else is going to harm the company.
  • 1
    I will say that having more women provides better solutions and products since the team will be less likely to fall victim to groupthink. So even if they aren't the absolute most competent in skills, they still provide a valuable resource that would be missed.
  • 1
    @lordmirziteh men can think differently, you know...
  • 0
    @irene yes of course, but not as diversely as a team with diversity
  • 0
    @lordmirziteh not really. 🤔
  • 0
    @irene okay then we disagree and that's fine.
  • 0
    @irene it's only what I've learned in various management classes and experienced
  • 0
    @lordmirziteh I haven't noticed differences between men and women at my job. 🤷
  • 0
  • 2
    Probably, that also depends on the product that's being developed.

    If it's user facing and you have only hardcore CS geeks in the team, the result will probably be super cool tech with garbage UI and shitty workflow because there's nobody in the team who thinks even remotely like the other 99% of the population.

    However, that doesn't get better just because 30% of these hardcore CS geeks happen to have a vagina. This kind of "diversity" is a myth.

    Include people over 50 who can't read your crappy 10 px grey-on-grey fonts, include red/green blind folks, include people suffering from Parkinson who have to use the keyboard, and a Jew who tells you that your red/white/black colour scheme looks like a Nazi flag that will field a shitstorm.

    Also, grab John or Jane from the room cleaning staff. Let them try buying a ticket on your totally confusing vending machine and have them say it's full of shit, that helps.
Your Job Suck?
Get a Better Job
Add Comment