Fair. But as long as I keep coming across racially insensitive comments like in the original post, and commenters who strongly believe these kinds of comments are a legitimate perspective, I'm not going to be able to just leave them as is. And I don't see a way to constructively engage with those kinds of comments that doesn't end in this type of exchange.
Consequently, I'm going to request that you delete my account (...If that's a thing that you can do on here. I'm not really sure. Otherwise a ban seems close enough.) I think just lurking on here would be a better option under these circumstances.
Ah yes, another top-tier scientific publication: Vox. Was that research peer-reviewed by Cosmo? I'm delighted that you think that puts the issue of bias in hiring to rest.
Clearly sexism and racism were abstract concepts I just made up for the purposes of this thread, and not something that has real, detrimental consequences to people in your workplace. Or, at least it doesn't effect you, so it must not affect anyone else, right?
But by all means let's keep fixating on these male nurses, and their heartbreaking plight! You seem to keep veering into that topic and away from sexist hiring for women in tech. Not a surprise, I'm sure you apply the same level of avoidance to the women applying to your company.
> If you witnessed your company wrongfully reject women candidates from the hiring process then by all means your company was biased against women.
This is a part of it. There is also an unconscious bias against women in hiring. There's plenty of overt sexism, but unconscious biases are significant too. That whole "gut feel"-based hire is remarkably sexist and racist. As are resume callbacks in favoring male and anglophile names. As are mentoring and promotional opportunities should one sucessfully land the job. As is unaddressed sexual harassment on the job.
Re-read my point regarding statistical biases. The existence of a 20/80 ratio is maintained by biased hiring and attrition. You seem to believe 20% out of 50% is the "correct" ratio because the current ratio is 20%. And now you're trying to claim the sexist bias in tech is equivalent to pink-collar professions which men traditionally avoid. And on we go again with your wonderfully sexist circular logic and reductionist equivalencies.
The fact that you allegedly had never witnessed neither sexism nor racism on the job (while expressing plainly racist and sexist attitudes) tells me that you've been by and large minimizing the problems in your workplace and pretending they don't actually exist. You are very much a part of the problem here.
Selection bias pushes men towards high-status, high-paying fields and women towards low-paying, pink collar fields. You do realize that if one sector disproportionately hires men, then there are a disproportionately high number of women in the remaining sectors, yes? The women that aren't hired for those tech roles don't just vanish into thin air - they still need a job, whether it's in tech not.
But beyond the statistical biases, the highly-gendered nature of tech prevents women from being seen as a "good cultural fit" by hiring managers. It discourages women from pursuing CS in school, and pushes women out of tech when then do manage to get a foothold. Whereas nursing actually encourages men to apply much more proactively because people don't get hilariously defensive in that field regarding rectifying the gender disparity. But I'm certain you have lengthy, sexist rebuttals prepared for how sexism isn't real, with analogous comparisons about on the job sexual harassment and diversity hiring.
>Do you really think that a company can achieve 50% women in tech without biasing their interview process in favor of women?
I strongly recommend looking up the word "bias" in the dictionary.
Systemic and institutional bias in tech hiring isn't disproven by of the existence of female-dominated fields. Yes, some fields are female dominated while others are male-dominated. (Such a revelation!)
It sounds like you're angling for the "male nurses are oppressed by the matriarchy!"
trope, or some kind of gender essentialist nonsense. I'll be sure to adjust my insults accordingly, now that you've moved on from blatant racism to sexist dogwhistles.
Do go on, I'm curious to see at what point you move on to full-blown misogyny. I'm looking forward to seeing how many words you write insisting that you're not misogynistic either, while making offensive guesses as to the root cause of these biases in hiring.
Yes, underrepresentation of the population is literally the definition of bias. Unless you want to go with the tautological nonsense you're doubling down on.
And you're once again insisting that racial slurs are just as bad as diverse hiring. Really vying for Grand Dragon, eh? I'm sure that if you just explain, once more, in even lengthier detail, how that totally isn't racist, it'll stop making you look like a reprehensible person!
> So the answer is yes? Companies should strive to be 50/50 men and women tech roles even though the ratio in the workforce is 80/20?
The answer is: "No, I do not see the obvious circular logic." The tech sector is 80/20 due to hiring bias in the population that defines the workplace demographic. It could be 0% women and your fallacious argument would still conveniently hold.
And you follow that up with quotes of ...yourself. And commentary on your self-quoting. You don't seem to get that it's not that I don't comprehend your premise. It's that your premise, and by extension you, are being reprehensible and racist. You do not seem to understand that saying racist things is racist. And that you are racist. And reprehensible. For being so racist.
> So tech companies should strive to be 50% women even though the tech industry is only 20% female (or slightly less)?
You seem to not understand what the term "representative" means. Or notice the circular logic implicit in your argument.
> Identify where I've said this?
You mean the last several posts of yours, where you've said it repeatedly, that you're now hilariously trying to backpeddle? You're welcome to re-read your posts. And the quotes I have of your posts, claiming racial slurs aren't so bad, and diverse hiring is worse.
> And lastly, trying to equate harboring different opinions on affirmative action in employment to being a leader in the KKK is really not called for.
It's not that the opinions you expressed are different, it's that they're repugnant. There's a difference.
Overrepresentation of the population. Do I really need to explain how 23% compares to 50%?
And I'm offended because it's wildly offensive. You've repeatedly insisted racial slurs aren't so bad, and diverse hiring practices are somehow worse. And seem to think some amount of explanation on your part will make it seem like it's a reasonable stance instead of a deeply and reprehensibly racist one. Instead it just makes you look like a verbose clan leader.
> You correctly highlight that diverse workers are often subject to more bullying and harassment. On the other hand, many tech companies do discriminate in hiring and that results in greater opportunities being extended to diverse candidates as compared to non-diverse candidates. Both of these are "real racism" (and sexism). Which one is more impactful than the other? That's a subjective question, and people with different experience are going to have different responses.
It's actually pretty clear which of these has the greater impact. Hint: if it were the latter, women and minorities would be over-represented rather than underrepresented in tech. Which I've already stated above.
And, no, comparing racial slurs on the job to diverse hiring is not apples-to-apples, it's apples-to-clan-hooded-racist. There is no way you can be making that comparison in good faith. But do continue tell me how racist slurs and diverse hiring committees are basically the same thing...
> This kind of rejection of different worldviews is the antithesis of inclusion.
Ah yes, the old "You're intolerant of our intolerance" chestnut. Every post of yours is just doubling down on insistently denying the realities of racial biases in hiring, and portraying any attempt to hire diverse candidates as the real racism. Oh, and look: more strawmen.
> Right, they are different. [Racial slurs] make people uncomfortable or alienated at their job. [Diverse hiring] keeps people from getting jobs in the first place on the basis of race and gender. Which one is more serious?
So, you're saying racial slurs are preferable to diverse hiring? Thanks for definitively putting the "Are you a racist?" question to rest. I think we're about done here.
And you do realize that you're equating diverse hiring efforts with getting called racial slurs on the job, yes? Those are two very different definitions of "actual" racism. And rather supports the breathtakingly racist claim above.
> Can you elaborate on why their study should not be accepted?
Forgive me, I didn't realize they were the leading authority on the nuanced sociological facets of unconscious prejudice during hiring. And here I thought a publication by psychology researchers or African American Studies professors would be the subject matter experts to seek out, not a blog post.
And I've heard hiring managers say racist and sexist comments on prospective employees all throughout my career. And neglect to mentor or promote them. And freeze them out of the team. I suppose the strawman you've set up outweighs the actual racist and sexist discrimination in hiring, which only seems to exist to you as some abstraction, rather than real people losing their livelihoods because of sexual harassment and racist bullying.
> Good thing I cited a source studying hiring the private sector as well.
Ah yes, the highly regarded International Journal of blog.interview.io. How did I miss this groundbreaking research?
How many times do I have to re-quote your own words to yourself? Did you not say the following?
> Many see getting called slurs as a small price to pay to get a chance to break into tech.
Because that's a breath-takingly racist assertion. And I did not say that. I suggest re-reading your post so that you understand that you wrote those words.
> First of all, it is a common practice at least as far as what I've experienced.
Funny, because I've literally never experienced or even heard of this practice at a single place I've worked at. So I guess that makes it a very uncommon practice?
> Studies in university STEM faculty recruiting found a 2:1 bias in favor of women
I'm referring to tech hiring in the private sector. Your citation is about tenure-track academic hiring in STEM, which encompasses a broad range of fields including ones that aren't male-dominated and is a very different can of worms than SV tech. But go ahead and continue to minimize the very real, disparate impact that discrimination in tech has, while insisting that trying to rectify that problem is, in fact, the real bias in hiring.
> Also, the notion that racial slurs are "the price of admission" is something you seem to have brought up - not me
> Many see getting called slurs as a small price to pay to get a chance to break into tech.
I'm still having trouble believing anyone who isn't a frothing racist can pass off "many" getting called racial slurs on the job as just business as usual. Or, "a small price to pay."
Whereas what I was saying is that the policies which you cited incentivisng more diverse applicants to apply doesn't even begin to counter the ubiquitous prejudice in hiring and on the job. If it did, minorities and women would be over-represented in tech rather than under-represented.
The whole "minority free pass" idea is what grates on me. Plenty of hiring managers have unconscious biases against women, minorities, older candidates, people with disabilities, etc. So, it's throwing more diverse candidates into a situation where diverse candidates are going to be disproportionately rejected.
But the employers who actually incentivize diverse candidates are also frequently over-emphasized despite it being an uncommon practice. The boilerplate EEOC "we encourage diverse candidates to apply" statement is usually just that: an empty boilerplate put there for legal purposes, backed with zero action behind it. More often than not, it's nothing close to what you've described above
> Many see getting called slurs as a small price to pay to get a chance to break into tech.
No, no they really dont!
What a horrifying thing to say. Normalizing racial and sexual harassment is a large part of the problem. Are you going to claim you don't understand how the tech industry is so homogenous while simultaneously claiming that racial slurs are just some inconsequential price of admission in tech?
Varies by industry and sector, but there's typically no "technical". It goes:
1) Resume + cover letter + cumbersome online job app,
2) phone screen,
3) On-site, and
4) Reference check.
Typically the interviews are more conversational, with an emphasis on behavioral questions, job history, and relevant skills. Academia and government have their own formats.
Consequently, I'm going to request that you delete my account (...If that's a thing that you can do on here. I'm not really sure. Otherwise a ban seems close enough.) I think just lurking on here would be a better option under these circumstances.
Sorry for the trouble.