4 ms·

> Being a female developer gives you an advantage by having employers instantly agree to interview you Wrong. > in the hopes that your talent is enough to war

by mnicole 14y ago

> Being a female developer gives you an advantage by having employers instantly agree to interview you Wrong. > in the hopes that your talent is enough to warrant a place Offensive. The gate swings both ways here; getting an interview as a woman isn't any easier than getting one as a man at any place worth working in this industry, especially right now when the demand for quality is high. If they're lowering standards for their female candidates, that hurts the business and the people alike. Etsy is doing it because they know they can ramp those engineers up with their existing staff without putting their business at risk, so more power to them if they're able to solve both problems at once and have it work to their (and everyone's) advantage long-term. If a company does it for the sole purpose of trying to balance things out without consideration of how it could affect both production and morale, they'll sabotage themselves and further underscore the argument that women aren't as competent to begin with.

papsosouid 14y ago
>The gate swings both ways here; getting an interview as a woman isn't any easier than getting one as a man at any place worth working in this industry, especially right now when the demand for quality is high. If they're lowering standards for their female candidates, that hurts the business and the people alike. Your second statement does not follow from the first. If we get 10 resumes of people who seem competent, any of them is likely to be fine. The ones who get interviewed are the ones who get hired. The fact that company policy is "all female applicants are to be interviewed" means we hire more women. Our standards aren't lowered as a result, we still don't hire incompetent women. The effect on the company isn't to lower standards, it is just to hire more women. The effect on women who apply is that they are far more likely to get a job than a man who applies.
- mnicole 14y ago
  The argument was not written as "10 resumes come in, any women in those 10 are guaranteed an interview." It was "Women get interviewed no matter what." Even if the intent means well, these types of threads are cluttered with resentment of these practices. If I knew that I was being interviewed because it was company policy to do so even if my skillset would have landed me there anyway, I'd feel weird about it.
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    >It was "Women get interviewed no matter what." Which is precisely what we do, and precisely what I said we do. >Even if the intent means well, these types of threads are cluttered with resentment of these practices Why shouldn't they be? >I'd feel weird about it. I don't blame you, I would too. The companies making these decisions aren't concerned about how you feel about it though, they are concerned about appearing to be "the good guys" in the eyes of the people who are making an issue out of gender balance.
    - mnicole 14y ago
      Right. It's offensive to me that this is happening and I'd be concerned that my colleagues would be resentful that I had it easier than their male counterparts in getting through the door.
Peroni 14y ago
Wrong? According to who? I speak for the UK market, of which I have significant experience sourcing, interviewing, hiring and placing developers of all shapes and sizes over a number of years. As far as the UK market is concerned, my claim is categorically correct. I find it incredible that you consider my other statement offensive. I posed that statement as a counter-argument to your original point and you're taking my counter-argument and twisting it into a completely subjective retort. There's a simple reason why this post got flagged off the front page almost as quickly as it appeared and that's because the entire debate is completely circular and pointless. I've yet to see a submission to this site that presents an attempted solution to this issue and the reason for that is because you can't solve a problem that doesn't exist.
- mnicole 14y ago
  Perhaps it was not your intention, but your post read as if women applicants are interviewed no matter what, and if they are deemed "good enough", they're hired for the sake of balance. That's what I found both incorrect and offensive, speaking from my own experience (though not based in the UK). Apologies if this was not the case. I'm also not the same commenter as the parent you were originally speaking with, which could also be some of the confusion.

by mnicole 14y ago

papsosouid 14y ago

>The gate swings both ways here; getting an interview as a woman isn't any easier than getting one as a man at any place worth working in this industry, especially right now when the demand for quality is high. If they're lowering standards for their female candidates, that hurts the business and the people alike. Your second statement does not follow from the first. If we get 10 resumes of people who seem competent, any of them is likely to be fine. The ones who get interviewed are the ones who get hired. The fact that company policy is "all female applicants are to be interviewed" means we hire more women. Our standards aren't lowered as a result, we still don't hire incompetent women. The effect on the company isn't to lower standards, it is just to hire more women. The effect on women who apply is that they are far more likely to get a job than a man who applies.

mnicole 14y ago
The argument was not written as "10 resumes come in, any women in those 10 are guaranteed an interview." It was "Women get interviewed no matter what." Even if the intent means well, these types of threads are cluttered with resentment of these practices. If I knew that I was being interviewed because it was company policy to do so even if my skillset would have landed me there anyway, I'd feel weird about it.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >It was "Women get interviewed no matter what." Which is precisely what we do, and precisely what I said we do. >Even if the intent means well, these types of threads are cluttered with resentment of these practices Why shouldn't they be? >I'd feel weird about it. I don't blame you, I would too. The companies making these decisions aren't concerned about how you feel about it though, they are concerned about appearing to be "the good guys" in the eyes of the people who are making an issue out of gender balance.
  - mnicole 14y ago
    Right. It's offensive to me that this is happening and I'd be concerned that my colleagues would be resentful that I had it easier than their male counterparts in getting through the door.

Peroni 14y ago

Wrong? According to who? I speak for the UK market, of which I have significant experience sourcing, interviewing, hiring and placing developers of all shapes and sizes over a number of years. As far as the UK market is concerned, my claim is categorically correct. I find it incredible that you consider my other statement offensive. I posed that statement as a counter-argument to your original point and you're taking my counter-argument and twisting it into a completely subjective retort. There's a simple reason why this post got flagged off the front page almost as quickly as it appeared and that's because the entire debate is completely circular and pointless. I've yet to see a submission to this site that presents an attempted solution to this issue and the reason for that is because you can't solve a problem that doesn't exist.

mnicole 14y ago
Perhaps it was not your intention, but your post read as if women applicants are interviewed no matter what, and if they are deemed "good enough", they're hired for the sake of balance. That's what I found both incorrect and offensive, speaking from my own experience (though not based in the UK). Apologies if this was not the case. I'm also not the same commenter as the parent you were originally speaking with, which could also be some of the confusion.