4 ms·
The OP should have left off "ladies" as that was unnecessary -- clueless is a sufficient descriptor for many people in many roles (whether genuine behavior, str
by tomrod 1y ago
The OP should have left off "ladies" as that was unnecessary -- clueless is a sufficient descriptor for many people in many roles (whether genuine behavior, strategic fiefdoming, or learned helplessness).
Here is the US BLS breakout of demographics by occupation category: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
- wongarsu 1y agoTo save everyone the click: HR managers: 76% female, HR workers: 75% female, HR assistants: 84% female.
- tomrod 1y agoThe distribution in other categories is fascinating, and HN doesn't format tables well. Though "saving a click" typically refers to spammy clickbait news articles that bury the lede, which a statistical table directly relevant to the conversation does not qualify as.
- e4325f 1y agoI found it useful at least.
- imtringued 1y agoThat doesn't make the remaining 24% more clueful. Identifying a department by the gender of its workers seems pretty suspect.
- wongarsu 1y agoI read the original comment as implying that the average HR person reviewing your resume will be a clueless woman. Not as implying that only women work there or that people of other genders working there are more clueful. The comment is open to interpretation, and you are free to interpret it in a less charitable way. The ambiguity is absolutely something we can and should criticize the comment for
- tomrod 1y agoNeat fact: statistical independence means that two factors are orthogonal. My prior, expressed in my earlier comment, is that cluelessness and gender are orthogonal.
- hollowonepl 1y agoI never implied any of that nonsense that I’ve perhaps triggered nor I want to be responsible for other people’s interpretations outside core meaning