4 ms·
I don't understand your logic here. If we're saying that losing out on good but low-confidence candidates is a bad thing for a company, and we want to fix it,
by J-dawg 10y ago
I don't understand your logic here.
If we're saying that losing out on good but low-confidence candidates is a bad thing for a company, and we want to fix it, why don't we adapt our processes to favour the people being disadvantaged? If this ends up helping women more than men, then fantastic.
But why bring gender into our solution at all? Focussing on one gender just because we think they are more affected by an issue just introduces more unfairness. Focus on the issue itself.
- taeric 10y agoEvidence shows that it does affect one gender more than the other. There is no "thinking" involved with this. Raw data showing that we pay women less than men is plentiful and fairly conclusive. So, my logic here is your debate is to simply get people arguing that are on the front lines. You are the one that "thinks" you are just as affected as women in this. If you truly feel that you want to help, drop your self persecution and help. Again, do I think you are purposely sidelining actual progress? No. I doubt that. However, I do think discussing what are feminine and masculine traits is a distraction. And the most likely outcome from the position you are advertising.