3 ms·

>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, especia

>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.

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.