5 ms·

1. If you list boxes you don't have to tick, you are automatically discriminating against women. Men are more likely to apply missing skills than women. 2. TL

by ilc 5y ago

1. If you list boxes you don't have to tick, you are automatically discriminating against women. Men are more likely to apply missing skills than women. 2. TLDR. 3. I want to be told why I should spend 15-30m with your recruiter to talk to you for 45m to then do 3-4h of interviews. If your pitch isn't strong enough... screw it. I have better things to do. Remember, we all know what engineer's time is worth. I value my personal time at the same hourly value. So, you are asking me for $20-50 for a 15m call. Your opportunity better be worth it.

des429 5y ago
"If you list boxes you don't have to tick, you are automatically discriminating against women. Men are more likely to apply missing skills than women." lol. wut
linkdd 5y ago
> If you list boxes you don't have to tick, you are automatically discriminating against women. Men are more likely to apply missing skills than women So, wanting the best people for the job is discriminating? Well, cancel me then. IDGAF about that kind of interpretation. A job offer that lists the technological environment and the skills you may need to develop is just an honest job offer. If it happens to appeal more to men than women (and I seriously doubt that claim), so be it.
jstx1 5y ago
> If you list boxes you don't have to tick, you are automatically discriminating against women. Men are more likely to apply missing skills than women. If you argument was true, isn't OP doing the right thing by explicitly stating that the boxes aren't mandatory? The alternative - not pointing it out explicitly, or only listing mandatory requirements - would filter out more women since they're more discouraged by the requirements than men are. I don't think any of this is discrimination either way but your argument isn't even self-consistent - it sounds like you should be supporting the way OP has written the ad.

by ilc 5y ago

des429 5y ago

"If you list boxes you don't have to tick, you are automatically discriminating against women. Men are more likely to apply missing skills than women." lol. wut

linkdd 5y ago

> If you list boxes you don't have to tick, you are automatically discriminating against women. Men are more likely to apply missing skills than women So, wanting the best people for the job is discriminating? Well, cancel me then. IDGAF about that kind of interpretation. A job offer that lists the technological environment and the skills you may need to develop is just an honest job offer. If it happens to appeal more to men than women (and I seriously doubt that claim), so be it.

jstx1 5y ago

> If you list boxes you don't have to tick, you are automatically discriminating against women. Men are more likely to apply missing skills than women. If you argument was true, isn't OP doing the right thing by explicitly stating that the boxes aren't mandatory? The alternative - not pointing it out explicitly, or only listing mandatory requirements - would filter out more women since they're more discouraged by the requirements than men are. I don't think any of this is discrimination either way but your argument isn't even self-consistent - it sounds like you should be supporting the way OP has written the ad.