4 ms·

You are missing the point and flailing at straw men. I don't care about the female ratio (Neither I think does any one who downvoted the OP). I am not going to

by eshvk 14y ago

You are missing the point and flailing at straw men. I don't care about the female ratio (Neither I think does any one who downvoted the OP). I am not going to discuss the utility of the HR department, the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy (which is particularly freaking sexist).

enko 14y ago
> I am not going to discuss the utility of the HR department, the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy this attitude, to me, is unbelievable. Of course they are human beings. What else would they be? If you're going to make a claim about HR, make it on its merits. I have said they're nothing but a bunch of good looking girls. They have zero understanding about any of the roles they're hiring for, and no incentive to learn. Care to contradict me?
- wazoox 14y ago
  I've been interviewed at a few large tech companies in the past 15 years, and the HR guys were... well, guys. And not remarkably good looking. I'm afraid that your opinion is just that, your opinion. And it's a sexist one with that.
  - enko 14y ago
    > your opinion is just that, your opinion And I never claimed otherwise. But I really resent your accusation of sexism, since I believe I am extremely fair to both sexes. It is a plain fact that the attitude towards HR departments here is mostly negative. It is another plain fact that those departments are mostly female. If these facts are sexist, then reality is sexist. Oh, and the all-male "IT department" is also richly deserving of criticism, though not by me since I jumped that ship long ago. I look forward to your devout claims of sexism when such a criticism does occur, however. It boils down to this: if you put the wrong people in charge of very important stuff, then (long term) you are fucked.
    - lincolnq 14y ago
      OK, I'll bite. Your social error, leading to claims of sexism, was linking bad HR people and women. I believe you when you say that's what you've observed. But, whether you like it or not, it's not okay (in public, at least) to make statements which link gender, race, etc., with competence. No fair, you (or some other reader) might say. I'm just reporting my observations. But I claim that you have a responsibility to do more than simply report your observations, and it's because people are stupid. When we read "A and B go together," we humans immediately and instinctively (system 1) draw causal conclusions about A and B. It doesn't matter if it's anecdotal evidence; it doesn't matter that correlation does not equal causation. Not for System 1, anyway. And those causal conclusions lead to making bad subconscious assumptions, and later lead to actual sexism down the road. All because of comments like yours -- "A and B go together". So don't do it. Suppress your urge to report your observations when they could lead to others making sexist/racist assumptions in the future. Bad HR department? Say "bad HR department" and leave the part about gender out. (I would say that this only applies to speaking/writing in public. In private, you know who your audience is, and what conclusions they will draw from your words, so you can afford to be freer.)
      - Dylan16807 14y ago
        >linking bad HR people and women You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the original complaint. The idea was that HR itself is a problem. It's not about people being bad at HR. And your suggestion to 'Suppress your urge to report your observations when they could lead to others making sexist/racist assumptions in the future.' deeply bothers me. If we pretend things don't exist because they look sexist/racist/etc, we get in even deeper problems of trying to figure out what is real.
      - nostrademons 14y ago
        People are responsible for their own stupidity. (Although personally, I don't see what the gender of the HR department adds to the discussion anyway.)
        enko 14y ago
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  "Wah Wah Wah horrendous sexual remarks Wah Wah Wah closet feminist Wah" I think this about sums up the comment. You mentioned cute women in HR as ones who are cute and don't know about the job to properly hire. The next avenue to attack is "denigrating" booth 'people' because we are not allowed to hilight the obvious sexuality of the (shudder) women.
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    Where did he contrast cute women in HR with anyone else in HR? Oh wait, he didn't. You're objecting to a sexist comparison that never existed. The guy just dislikes HR.
white_devil 14y ago
the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy (which is particularly freaking sexist) I'm sure women all around the world are extremely interested in Ryan Gosling's personality.
reinhardt 14y ago
So from his whole rant about HR incompetency and almost calling them organisational cancer, the thing you took offence at was the only positive trait he attributed to them? The fact that you interpreted it as "reducing" says more about you than him.
trevelyan 14y ago
Sounds like the sexism is more on the side of whoever hired ten male programmers and two female hr staff.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  The alternative would be more sexist. If you covered up everyone's names and fed their voice through a obfuscater you'd still end up with a similar ratio. There are a lot more women in HR than men, and there are a lot more men in programming than women. There are many reasons why this is the case, many of which relate to sexism, but the fact that your overall result is gender-skewed is not in any way indicative of sexism in the hiring process.
jrs235 14y ago
Reduction to mere eye candy is not sexist. It's superficial. A guy saying a guy is mere eye candy wouldn't be sexist, same with a girl reducing a girl to eye candy. HR is often filled with attractive people. His comment pertaining to not canning all of HR because they are the only cute GIRLS is sexist.
xradionut 14y ago
It's obvious when I go to conferences and user group meetings that the majority of us programmers, admins and managers can spot most recuiters and HR folks at a glance. And it's offense to have clueless people in those postions, even more so when they are hired for looks.
bluesnowmonkey 14y ago
Diverse organizations perform better. Diversity of genders, ages, backgrounds. They are more balanced and have healthier decision-making processes. We've been tribal creatures for thousands of years and we've evolved to work best in mixed groups like that. So if you're going to send a spaceship to Mars for a couple of years, you'd better mix some women in there, whether you consider it sexist or not. Likewise if you're going to put some people in a high-pressure startup for a couple of years, where they're spending almost all of their time and energy at the office, you'll probably have better and more consistent outcomes with a diverse group. That means both men and women, junior and senior, deep thinkers and fast movers.

by eshvk 14y ago

enko 14y ago

> I am not going to discuss the utility of the HR department, the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy this attitude, to me, is unbelievable. Of course they are human beings. What else would they be? If you're going to make a claim about HR, make it on its merits. I have said they're nothing but a bunch of good looking girls. They have zero understanding about any of the roles they're hiring for, and no incentive to learn. Care to contradict me?

wazoox 14y ago
I've been interviewed at a few large tech companies in the past 15 years, and the HR guys were... well, guys. And not remarkably good looking. I'm afraid that your opinion is just that, your opinion. And it's a sexist one with that.
- enko 14y ago
  > your opinion is just that, your opinion And I never claimed otherwise. But I really resent your accusation of sexism, since I believe I am extremely fair to both sexes. It is a plain fact that the attitude towards HR departments here is mostly negative. It is another plain fact that those departments are mostly female. If these facts are sexist, then reality is sexist. Oh, and the all-male "IT department" is also richly deserving of criticism, though not by me since I jumped that ship long ago. I look forward to your devout claims of sexism when such a criticism does occur, however. It boils down to this: if you put the wrong people in charge of very important stuff, then (long term) you are fucked.
  - lincolnq 14y ago
    OK, I'll bite. Your social error, leading to claims of sexism, was linking bad HR people and women. I believe you when you say that's what you've observed. But, whether you like it or not, it's not okay (in public, at least) to make statements which link gender, race, etc., with competence. No fair, you (or some other reader) might say. I'm just reporting my observations. But I claim that you have a responsibility to do more than simply report your observations, and it's because people are stupid. When we read "A and B go together," we humans immediately and instinctively (system 1) draw causal conclusions about A and B. It doesn't matter if it's anecdotal evidence; it doesn't matter that correlation does not equal causation. Not for System 1, anyway. And those causal conclusions lead to making bad subconscious assumptions, and later lead to actual sexism down the road. All because of comments like yours -- "A and B go together". So don't do it. Suppress your urge to report your observations when they could lead to others making sexist/racist assumptions in the future. Bad HR department? Say "bad HR department" and leave the part about gender out. (I would say that this only applies to speaking/writing in public. In private, you know who your audience is, and what conclusions they will draw from your words, so you can afford to be freer.)
    - Dylan16807 14y ago
      >linking bad HR people and women You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the original complaint. The idea was that HR itself is a problem. It's not about people being bad at HR. And your suggestion to 'Suppress your urge to report your observations when they could lead to others making sexist/racist assumptions in the future.' deeply bothers me. If we pretend things don't exist because they look sexist/racist/etc, we get in even deeper problems of trying to figure out what is real.
    - nostrademons 14y ago
      People are responsible for their own stupidity. (Although personally, I don't see what the gender of the HR department adds to the discussion anyway.)
      - enko 14y ago
TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
"Wah Wah Wah horrendous sexual remarks Wah Wah Wah closet feminist Wah" I think this about sums up the comment. You mentioned cute women in HR as ones who are cute and don't know about the job to properly hire. The next avenue to attack is "denigrating" booth 'people' because we are not allowed to hilight the obvious sexuality of the (shudder) women.
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  Where did he contrast cute women in HR with anyone else in HR? Oh wait, he didn't. You're objecting to a sexist comparison that never existed. The guy just dislikes HR.

white_devil 14y ago

the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy (which is particularly freaking sexist) I'm sure women all around the world are extremely interested in Ryan Gosling's personality.

reinhardt 14y ago

So from his whole rant about HR incompetency and almost calling them organisational cancer, the thing you took offence at was the only positive trait he attributed to them? The fact that you interpreted it as "reducing" says more about you than him.

trevelyan 14y ago

Sounds like the sexism is more on the side of whoever hired ten male programmers and two female hr staff.

potatolicious 14y ago
The alternative would be more sexist. If you covered up everyone's names and fed their voice through a obfuscater you'd still end up with a similar ratio. There are a lot more women in HR than men, and there are a lot more men in programming than women. There are many reasons why this is the case, many of which relate to sexism, but the fact that your overall result is gender-skewed is not in any way indicative of sexism in the hiring process.

jrs235 14y ago

Reduction to mere eye candy is not sexist. It's superficial. A guy saying a guy is mere eye candy wouldn't be sexist, same with a girl reducing a girl to eye candy. HR is often filled with attractive people. His comment pertaining to not canning all of HR because they are the only cute GIRLS is sexist.

xradionut 14y ago

It's obvious when I go to conferences and user group meetings that the majority of us programmers, admins and managers can spot most recuiters and HR folks at a glance. And it's offense to have clueless people in those postions, even more so when they are hired for looks.

bluesnowmonkey 14y ago

Diverse organizations perform better. Diversity of genders, ages, backgrounds. They are more balanced and have healthier decision-making processes. We've been tribal creatures for thousands of years and we've evolved to work best in mixed groups like that. So if you're going to send a spaceship to Mars for a couple of years, you'd better mix some women in there, whether you consider it sexist or not. Likewise if you're going to put some people in a high-pressure startup for a couple of years, where they're spending almost all of their time and energy at the office, you'll probably have better and more consistent outcomes with a diverse group. That means both men and women, junior and senior, deep thinkers and fast movers.