9 ms·

At one company I worked at, most of our tech/finance staff was male. When we interviewed for a junior data science position, we had one female candidate who ma

At one company I worked at, most of our tech/finance staff was male. When we interviewed for a junior data science position, we had one female candidate who many would consider to be very attractive. Most or all of the other interviewees were male. That became a matter of some consideration, because there were arguments that she would be too disruptive within the office because of her age, appearance, and gender. What's fascinating is that the "right" answer was not clear here. Should we consider those factors, effectively making her personal characteristics a negative, or should we continue with the knowledge that she would likely get too much attention (some of which she might find uncomfortable)? In the end, we chose a male candidate who seemed to be a better fit based on skills and academic focus. But had it been an equal match based on background alone, I think we still would have chosen the man. FWIW, I was providing only analysis of the candidates based on their in-person interview performance primarily related to general problem solving, so I did not affect the selection based on those personal factors.

Planktonne 3y ago
> What's fascinating is that the "right" answer was not clear here. I think you've misidentified the problem. The issue has nothing to do with the applicant, and everything to do with a team culture that would find it 'disruptive' to have a member who was young/female/attractive. The right answer is to work on fixing that culture.
- version_five 3y ago
  Maybe. Fixing the culture in that way is not obviously the company's biggest priority. We can agree that it's an ideal, but it also takes resources away from other things and may involve other tradeoffs (even firing some people) that could be worse for the business and employees overall. It's not the kind of decision that can just be made in a vacuum.
  - Planktonne 3y ago
    It might not be a short term priority, but it should definitely be a long term one. Currently, the company is restricted to only a subset of potential applicants (male, mid-to-late career, ugly-to-average) for any future hiring needs; that's quite limiting. There's also the possibility of lawsuits for various kinds of discrimination in the future.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      OP admitted to actionable sexual discrimination and his post is an admission of liability... it's only a matter of time.
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
        don’t be a bystander, privately dox this guy and his work history and figure it out what company to report edit: its most likely Netherlands and not the US, less familiar territory for me
        freejazz 3y ago
        It's not on me to report, but if the interviewee in question saw this, she'd have a slam-dunk case. It's a full on admission that they did not hire because of her sex. They clearly have no problems hiring an attractive male, so the fact that they wont hire attractive females is prima facie sexual discrimination. On top of the general context where they are basically not hiring women because they are afraid the men in the office can't behave themselves (fucking disgusting perspective IMO).
        yieldcrv 3y ago
        yeah you report it to ppl in the company who might flip on the company and contact the interviewer (I’ve been this prior interviewer before who was told I was discriminated against, paunched an EEOC case and got financial settlements with the company) You can also get a hungry lawyer to launch ads and try to find prior interviewers
- nicenewtemp84 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - fvdessen 3y ago
    I think it is perfectly possible and normal to expect men to act decently despite whatever sexual urges they may feel, and the same goes for women.
    - nicenewtemp84 3y ago
      1) no one is perfect. That's why there are locks on executive doors and drawers, even though companies 'trust' their employees. 2) even men acting 'decent' can be a problem. What if the men are so decent, so often, that it makes the woman uncomfortable. I help my male coworkers once in a while. A beautiful young girl I might help much more often. Multiply that by every male employee and this woman will be drowning in 'decent' attention.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        1) Right, you have locks on the doors. You don't not hire entire genders of employees because they may or may not steal... 2) lol, no.
        nicenewtemp84 3y ago
        1) you avoid hiring thieves. Companies do this everyday through background checks. Similar to how this company avoided hiring an extra hot woman. Since you can't not hire men, you have to resort to removing the problem from the other side. 2) lol, yes.
        freejazz 3y ago
        1) So according to you, the entire gender is the issue. That's facially gender discrimination. I'm not sure what's so difficult about this for you to understand. 2) No. You are the problem. You have a backwards perspective that barely grants women agency, let alone treats them as equals. And you are incredibly hung up over the fact that some women ARE attractive. For most normal people, that doesn't get in the way of us working. Not sure why it's a problem for you.
- michaelteter 3y ago
  > The right answer is to work on fixing that culture. Indeed, but that is something that will still take many years to change (assuming it will ever change). And in the given moment, we must do our best within the current scenario. Also, it can be difficult to fix a culture when cultural norms vary quite significantly from region to region. It's not even one particular gender who is resistant to change depending on the region or the norm.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Grustaf 3y ago
  This is more nature than culture though.
  - Planktonne 3y ago
    There's nothing inherent in our nature that makes them unable to interact with the opposite sex normally. Countless men and women in countless contexts manage this every day. It's absolutely a culture rather than a nature issue.
    - Gud 3y ago
      Define "normally". Up until a few hundred years ago it was completely normal for the victors to rape and pillage(and still is, in many parts of the world). We see the same behavior in the animal kingdom. I would argue acting decent(civilized) is the abnormal behavior, a recent phenomena.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        Are you genuinely asking if it's normal to rape? If you have this much trouble determining what "normal" behavior in today's society is (hint, rape is explicitly unlawful) then you aren't even pretending to be remotely reasonable in any way that's worth engaging with.
    - Grustaf 3y ago
      Normal is a cultural concept.
- ativzzz 3y ago
  > The right answer is to work on fixing that culture. Why? What if the company is OK with their monoculture? Or what if they're OK with dealing with the higher cost of cultural transition later once they are more profitable? Kind of like ignoring tech debt - ignoring cultural debt. Or maybe they're OK with staying a smaller size and have no need for more inclusive culture? Just spitballing, looking at a company like Riot Games or Blizzard who are now dealing with the cultural fallout (lawsuits etc) after years of ignoring "cultural debt". But what if they hadn't ignored it? Would they be as successful as they are today? Maybe they succeeded in part because of their now "toxic" culture and they are paying their debts that they ignored, or maybe they succeeded in spite of their "toxic" culture. Diversity has a cost associated with it - namely that people need to be more empathetic and need to be much better communicators. Also people have trouble interviewing and picking out good candidates from different cultural backgrounds by default. A lot of people who are not used to diverse environments need training - training that they don't want to receive. Would be be better for society if people were able to deal with diversity? Yea, but maybe not for a startup or small company who would need to pay for it, especially in early stages
  - freejazz 3y ago
    >Why? What if the company is OK with their monoculture? Because it's illegally discriminatory. I guess not all of us want to live in a better society, but those of us that do have voted for representatives that have made sexual discrimination illegal.
Detrytus 3y ago
Well, in my company it worked different way. Being female, even average looking one was an instant advantage (with the exception for overweight/obese ones). Seven times of ten female would be hired over equally qualified male (which doesn't mean our company is predominately female, there's simply not that many women in the IT, so they are small minority of the candidates). Simply put: it seems that our teams preferred to have at least one female member, just to keep things interesting.
- hulitu 3y ago
  > Simply put: it seems that our teams preferred to have at least one female member, just to keep things interesting. Women bring equilibrum in a men's team. My experience was that men cannot control their ego when there are no women around.
yieldcrv 3y ago
The idea that the bright minds at your office could only come to that false dilemma of two questions is more damning than anything else.
freejazz 3y ago
Not hiring a female engineer because she's attractive is prima facie sexual discrimination...
ahzhou 3y ago
I don’t think it’s right for the hiring team to decide if an individual will “get too much attention”. IME, women are all too familiar with the challenges of working in a male-dominated workplace, but ultimately just want to pursue a career they enjoy. The “right” decision is to respect that drive and not to infantilize them by making decisions on their behalf.

Planktonne 3y ago

> What's fascinating is that the "right" answer was not clear here. I think you've misidentified the problem. The issue has nothing to do with the applicant, and everything to do with a team culture that would find it 'disruptive' to have a member who was young/female/attractive. The right answer is to work on fixing that culture.

version_five 3y ago
Maybe. Fixing the culture in that way is not obviously the company's biggest priority. We can agree that it's an ideal, but it also takes resources away from other things and may involve other tradeoffs (even firing some people) that could be worse for the business and employees overall. It's not the kind of decision that can just be made in a vacuum.
- Planktonne 3y ago
  It might not be a short term priority, but it should definitely be a long term one. Currently, the company is restricted to only a subset of potential applicants (male, mid-to-late career, ugly-to-average) for any future hiring needs; that's quite limiting. There's also the possibility of lawsuits for various kinds of discrimination in the future.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    OP admitted to actionable sexual discrimination and his post is an admission of liability... it's only a matter of time.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      don’t be a bystander, privately dox this guy and his work history and figure it out what company to report edit: its most likely Netherlands and not the US, less familiar territory for me
      - freejazz 3y ago
        It's not on me to report, but if the interviewee in question saw this, she'd have a slam-dunk case. It's a full on admission that they did not hire because of her sex. They clearly have no problems hiring an attractive male, so the fact that they wont hire attractive females is prima facie sexual discrimination. On top of the general context where they are basically not hiring women because they are afraid the men in the office can't behave themselves (fucking disgusting perspective IMO).
        yieldcrv 3y ago
        yeah you report it to ppl in the company who might flip on the company and contact the interviewer (I’ve been this prior interviewer before who was told I was discriminated against, paunched an EEOC case and got financial settlements with the company) You can also get a hungry lawyer to launch ads and try to find prior interviewers
nicenewtemp84 3y ago
[flagged]
- fvdessen 3y ago
  I think it is perfectly possible and normal to expect men to act decently despite whatever sexual urges they may feel, and the same goes for women.
  - nicenewtemp84 3y ago
    1) no one is perfect. That's why there are locks on executive doors and drawers, even though companies 'trust' their employees. 2) even men acting 'decent' can be a problem. What if the men are so decent, so often, that it makes the woman uncomfortable. I help my male coworkers once in a while. A beautiful young girl I might help much more often. Multiply that by every male employee and this woman will be drowning in 'decent' attention.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      1) Right, you have locks on the doors. You don't not hire entire genders of employees because they may or may not steal... 2) lol, no.
      - nicenewtemp84 3y ago
        1) you avoid hiring thieves. Companies do this everyday through background checks. Similar to how this company avoided hiring an extra hot woman. Since you can't not hire men, you have to resort to removing the problem from the other side. 2) lol, yes.
        freejazz 3y ago
        1) So according to you, the entire gender is the issue. That's facially gender discrimination. I'm not sure what's so difficult about this for you to understand. 2) No. You are the problem. You have a backwards perspective that barely grants women agency, let alone treats them as equals. And you are incredibly hung up over the fact that some women ARE attractive. For most normal people, that doesn't get in the way of us working. Not sure why it's a problem for you.
michaelteter 3y ago
> The right answer is to work on fixing that culture. Indeed, but that is something that will still take many years to change (assuming it will ever change). And in the given moment, we must do our best within the current scenario. Also, it can be difficult to fix a culture when cultural norms vary quite significantly from region to region. It's not even one particular gender who is resistant to change depending on the region or the norm.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Grustaf 3y ago
This is more nature than culture though.
- Planktonne 3y ago
  There's nothing inherent in our nature that makes them unable to interact with the opposite sex normally. Countless men and women in countless contexts manage this every day. It's absolutely a culture rather than a nature issue.
  - Gud 3y ago
    Define "normally". Up until a few hundred years ago it was completely normal for the victors to rape and pillage(and still is, in many parts of the world). We see the same behavior in the animal kingdom. I would argue acting decent(civilized) is the abnormal behavior, a recent phenomena.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      Are you genuinely asking if it's normal to rape? If you have this much trouble determining what "normal" behavior in today's society is (hint, rape is explicitly unlawful) then you aren't even pretending to be remotely reasonable in any way that's worth engaging with.
  - Grustaf 3y ago
    Normal is a cultural concept.
ativzzz 3y ago
> The right answer is to work on fixing that culture. Why? What if the company is OK with their monoculture? Or what if they're OK with dealing with the higher cost of cultural transition later once they are more profitable? Kind of like ignoring tech debt - ignoring cultural debt. Or maybe they're OK with staying a smaller size and have no need for more inclusive culture? Just spitballing, looking at a company like Riot Games or Blizzard who are now dealing with the cultural fallout (lawsuits etc) after years of ignoring "cultural debt". But what if they hadn't ignored it? Would they be as successful as they are today? Maybe they succeeded in part because of their now "toxic" culture and they are paying their debts that they ignored, or maybe they succeeded in spite of their "toxic" culture. Diversity has a cost associated with it - namely that people need to be more empathetic and need to be much better communicators. Also people have trouble interviewing and picking out good candidates from different cultural backgrounds by default. A lot of people who are not used to diverse environments need training - training that they don't want to receive. Would be be better for society if people were able to deal with diversity? Yea, but maybe not for a startup or small company who would need to pay for it, especially in early stages
- freejazz 3y ago
  >Why? What if the company is OK with their monoculture? Because it's illegally discriminatory. I guess not all of us want to live in a better society, but those of us that do have voted for representatives that have made sexual discrimination illegal.

Detrytus 3y ago

Well, in my company it worked different way. Being female, even average looking one was an instant advantage (with the exception for overweight/obese ones). Seven times of ten female would be hired over equally qualified male (which doesn't mean our company is predominately female, there's simply not that many women in the IT, so they are small minority of the candidates). Simply put: it seems that our teams preferred to have at least one female member, just to keep things interesting.

hulitu 3y ago
> Simply put: it seems that our teams preferred to have at least one female member, just to keep things interesting. Women bring equilibrum in a men's team. My experience was that men cannot control their ego when there are no women around.

yieldcrv 3y ago

The idea that the bright minds at your office could only come to that false dilemma of two questions is more damning than anything else.

freejazz 3y ago

Not hiring a female engineer because she's attractive is prima facie sexual discrimination...

ahzhou 3y ago

I don’t think it’s right for the hiring team to decide if an individual will “get too much attention”. IME, women are all too familiar with the challenges of working in a male-dominated workplace, but ultimately just want to pursue a career they enjoy. The “right” decision is to respect that drive and not to infantilize them by making decisions on their behalf.