5 ms·

Agreed. I worked at a company where my CTO said "Well we couldn't seriously consider hiring a woman for this team" after interviewing a female developer. I coul

Agreed. I worked at a company where my CTO said "Well we couldn't seriously consider hiring a woman for this team" after interviewing a female developer. I couldn't believe what I was hearing and it was a pleasure to leave the company shortly thereafter. It saddens me to know there are people who think the presence of women infringes on their right to make sexist remarks. And that making sexist remarks is such a vital part of their everyday life that hiring women is the unacceptable route.

MartinCron 13y ago
I couldn't believe what I was hearing and it was a pleasure to leave the company shortly thereafter I'm sad that you were forced to make that choice, I'm proud of the choice that you made.
- ritchiea 13y ago
  Thanks. Though ultimately it's not a moral choice or about doing the right thing, it's not the kind of environment I want to work in. And that comment absolutely was not where things began or ended with that guy.
badclient 13y ago
It saddens me to know there are people who think the presence of women infringes on their right to make sexist remarks. And that making sexist remarks is such a vital part of their everyday life that hiring women is the unacceptable route. It is a problem when "sexist remark" has a much more vague definition in court than in everyday life.
- ritchiea 13y ago
  Wherever you work, whatever you do, you have to trust the people you work with for that relationship to be ongoing and productive (i.e. staying out of court). It sounds like you have a problem trusting women not to take you to court rather than a problem with the court system. Which sounds an awful lot like misogyny.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    With the way things are going, it is not an irrational or unreasonable fear that something you (as a man or a woman) do/say is going to offend someone (man or woman) and land you in trouble. This has nothing to do with man vs woman. Badclient said nothing of men or women... just "sexist remark". Nor was there any mention of anything that would fall under any reasonable definition of misogyny. Your response only furthers badclient's concern over vague definitions (and to some degree overuse/misuse of words as a means to an end).
    - ritchiea 13y ago
      To be fair he wrote one line which in the context of the thread could easily be perceived as defending sexist hiring practices. He may not have said "man or woman" but he responded to a comment I made where I described a manager of mine who was fond of making sexist jokes and refused to take women seriously as job candidates. In his position if I wanted to make a more general point about the court system I would have burned a few more sentences clarifying my point.
      - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
        It would be really awesome if when people read/hear stuff that can easily be perceived in more than one way... they went with the better choice than the worst one. Not everyone perceives things the same way.. so why always assume they meant it the bad way you perceived it rather than finding out what they meant first? I think a lot of this trouble would go away. Also, badclient wrote exactly one sentence: It is a problem when "sexist remark" has a much more vague definition in court than in everyday life. This is a true concern that does not infer anything about which sex did which sexist thing... only that the definition of "sexist" is dangerously vague. If you think that translates to a "hate of all women", you have projected that upon badclient.
        ritchiea 13y ago
        If he wasn't responding to my comment then a general comment about the court system is off topic. I didn't bring up the court system. It would be strange for me to assume he is veering off topic rather than commenting on the situation I described.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Is this based on actual court proceedings you've encountered, or the "OMG saying 'hi' will be treated as a sexual advance!" boogyman?
  - pi18n 13y ago
    Well, here's a false dichotomy. I don't know why hiring decisions would be based on gender at all, though, so I don't know why badclient seems to argue for it here. Both men and women can be frivolously litigative.
- jessedhillon 13y ago
  There's this thing called the reasonable person standard. You should read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person If you find yourself so embattled with the courts, perhaps you should try and understand the behavior of reasonable people. I have to agree with rayiner -- this sounds like typical male-tech resentment for being called creepy one too many times.
  - badclient 13y ago
    You don't have to be so embattled in courts to be concerned about it. Your comment is equivalent to telling someone concerned about getting raped that getting raped is their fault.
    - mratzloff 13y ago
      No, it's not.
  - kaitai 13y ago
    How is "typical male-tech resentment for being called creepy" functionally any different for the female job candidate? "No, he's not sexist, he just doesn't like women... for good reason!" "No, he's not sexist, he just can't talk to women... for good reason!" "No, he's not sexist, he just has seizures when he sees the color pink, and women are more likely to wear pink." Who cares? The woman still doesn't get the job. The excuses are equivalent to a student saying they deserve an A for trying hard and having extenuating circumstances though they can't actually do what they're graded on. People take "sexist" and "racist" to describe intent. I don't give a s(*& about your intent. It's the effect that's relevant.
anologwintermut 13y ago
Did he give a reason ?
- ritchiea 13y ago
  He didn't have to, we all understood that he meant he wasn't comfortable cutting back on certain types of speech. And I'm not trying to be a PC zealot here. I've told and laughed at many an inappropriate joke. But I also have a lot of respect for the idea that you should not make people feel uncomfortable at work and you shouldn't go out of your way to dismiss candidates of a particular gender (or race or class) because you think you would offend that person and you are incapable of not offending them. Another notable thing about feeling like you can't hire certain people because they will be offended by things you say in the office is that you are making it clear that you have a narrow range of means to express yourself.
  - badclient 13y ago
    But I also have a lot of respect for the idea that you should not make people feel uncomfortable at work You can have a lot of respect for something and still have a hard time achieving it. You're suggesting that people that make crude jokes around a sex about that sex don't respect that sex. I find that assumption to be unfair and false.

MartinCron 13y ago

I couldn't believe what I was hearing and it was a pleasure to leave the company shortly thereafter I'm sad that you were forced to make that choice, I'm proud of the choice that you made.

ritchiea 13y ago
Thanks. Though ultimately it's not a moral choice or about doing the right thing, it's not the kind of environment I want to work in. And that comment absolutely was not where things began or ended with that guy.

badclient 13y ago

It saddens me to know there are people who think the presence of women infringes on their right to make sexist remarks. And that making sexist remarks is such a vital part of their everyday life that hiring women is the unacceptable route. It is a problem when "sexist remark" has a much more vague definition in court than in everyday life.

ritchiea 13y ago
Wherever you work, whatever you do, you have to trust the people you work with for that relationship to be ongoing and productive (i.e. staying out of court). It sounds like you have a problem trusting women not to take you to court rather than a problem with the court system. Which sounds an awful lot like misogyny.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  With the way things are going, it is not an irrational or unreasonable fear that something you (as a man or a woman) do/say is going to offend someone (man or woman) and land you in trouble. This has nothing to do with man vs woman. Badclient said nothing of men or women... just "sexist remark". Nor was there any mention of anything that would fall under any reasonable definition of misogyny. Your response only furthers badclient's concern over vague definitions (and to some degree overuse/misuse of words as a means to an end).
  - ritchiea 13y ago
    To be fair he wrote one line which in the context of the thread could easily be perceived as defending sexist hiring practices. He may not have said "man or woman" but he responded to a comment I made where I described a manager of mine who was fond of making sexist jokes and refused to take women seriously as job candidates. In his position if I wanted to make a more general point about the court system I would have burned a few more sentences clarifying my point.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      It would be really awesome if when people read/hear stuff that can easily be perceived in more than one way... they went with the better choice than the worst one. Not everyone perceives things the same way.. so why always assume they meant it the bad way you perceived it rather than finding out what they meant first? I think a lot of this trouble would go away. Also, badclient wrote exactly one sentence: It is a problem when "sexist remark" has a much more vague definition in court than in everyday life. This is a true concern that does not infer anything about which sex did which sexist thing... only that the definition of "sexist" is dangerously vague. If you think that translates to a "hate of all women", you have projected that upon badclient.
      - ritchiea 13y ago
        If he wasn't responding to my comment then a general comment about the court system is off topic. I didn't bring up the court system. It would be strange for me to assume he is veering off topic rather than commenting on the situation I described.
rayiner 13y ago
Is this based on actual court proceedings you've encountered, or the "OMG saying 'hi' will be treated as a sexual advance!" boogyman?
- pi18n 13y ago
  Well, here's a false dichotomy. I don't know why hiring decisions would be based on gender at all, though, so I don't know why badclient seems to argue for it here. Both men and women can be frivolously litigative.
jessedhillon 13y ago
There's this thing called the reasonable person standard. You should read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person If you find yourself so embattled with the courts, perhaps you should try and understand the behavior of reasonable people. I have to agree with rayiner -- this sounds like typical male-tech resentment for being called creepy one too many times.
- badclient 13y ago
  You don't have to be so embattled in courts to be concerned about it. Your comment is equivalent to telling someone concerned about getting raped that getting raped is their fault.
  - mratzloff 13y ago
    No, it's not.
- kaitai 13y ago
  How is "typical male-tech resentment for being called creepy" functionally any different for the female job candidate? "No, he's not sexist, he just doesn't like women... for good reason!" "No, he's not sexist, he just can't talk to women... for good reason!" "No, he's not sexist, he just has seizures when he sees the color pink, and women are more likely to wear pink." Who cares? The woman still doesn't get the job. The excuses are equivalent to a student saying they deserve an A for trying hard and having extenuating circumstances though they can't actually do what they're graded on. People take "sexist" and "racist" to describe intent. I don't give a s(*& about your intent. It's the effect that's relevant.

anologwintermut 13y ago

Did he give a reason ?

ritchiea 13y ago
He didn't have to, we all understood that he meant he wasn't comfortable cutting back on certain types of speech. And I'm not trying to be a PC zealot here. I've told and laughed at many an inappropriate joke. But I also have a lot of respect for the idea that you should not make people feel uncomfortable at work and you shouldn't go out of your way to dismiss candidates of a particular gender (or race or class) because you think you would offend that person and you are incapable of not offending them. Another notable thing about feeling like you can't hire certain people because they will be offended by things you say in the office is that you are making it clear that you have a narrow range of means to express yourself.
- badclient 13y ago
  But I also have a lot of respect for the idea that you should not make people feel uncomfortable at work You can have a lot of respect for something and still have a hard time achieving it. You're suggesting that people that make crude jokes around a sex about that sex don't respect that sex. I find that assumption to be unfair and false.