4 ms·

Jerks exist in the world. Frankly I don't see the big deal. It's clearly not a company he (or many other people) would like to work for. That happens a lot. Int

Jerks exist in the world. Frankly I don't see the big deal. It's clearly not a company he (or many other people) would like to work for. That happens a lot. Interviewing is a two sided process - the company has to like the candidate, and the candidate has to like the company. So it's a case of the candidate not liking the company. Surprisingly, even among men, not every man likes every other man. While I don't agree with the CEOs statement, I think people should be allowed to hire whoever they want. If somebody doesn't want to hire women, so be it. There are companies that don't want to hire men, too.

fleshweasel 13y ago
This kind of silly shit is much easier to say when you're a member of that racial or gender group that more people want to hire.
- facepalm 13y ago
  The reverse exists, too, and I am pretty sure there are enough companies who want to hire women to give all women in IT sufficient choices. What do you suggest - should the CEO be imprisoned? Disallowed from doing business? Go to brainwashing camp to set his brain right? It's easy to get angry about such cases, but think about what you want to achieve. Perhaps he had some bad experiences with women. It's unfortunate, but perhaps it should be respected if he doesn't want to work with women. The opposite way, women not wanting to work with men, is being cheered on by the "good people" all the time. Also, in recent months I had lots of interviews where I didn't get hired. So what is it to me if certain groups are more likely to be hired? Even assuming it is true - it didn't help me that I am a man, the companies still didn't like me.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >I am pretty sure there are enough companies who want to hire women to give all women in IT sufficient choices. Why are you sure of that? Is it because you have to be to overcome the cognitive dissonance of supporting the right to discriminate against women but not feeling like you yourself are a sexist, or because you have information that I'm not privy to? edit: Maybe the "law of averages" tells you that for each group with an opinion, there's an equally large counterbalancing group with the opposite opinion?
    - facepalm 13y ago
      I am sure because every week there are stories on HN about companies paying extra to lure women into IT. So apparently there are not enough IT women on the market to satisfy the demand of companies. And even the companies who don't make a public announcement about it - many of them will probably also want to hire women, because it just seems slightly weird if an office is all-male. It's like a party without women.
  - mmatants 13y ago
    This may not be about changing that particular CEO's attitudes but about sharing the experience with the rest of us, so that we all may extract something out of it. It's a statement that "this happened" - we make of it what we will.
    - facepalm 13y ago
      OK - why not. As I said, I am not surprised that jerks exist in the world. The way to deal with them is to not join their company.
tbrownaw 13y ago
While I don't agree with the CEOs statement, I think people should be allowed to hire whoever they want. The trouble with this is that a set of biases can become near-universal. I have the right to associate (or not) with whoever I choose. But if everyone (or nearly everyone) choose not to associate with people from a particular group, that is harmful to society[1]. So, there are exceptions made to your freedom of association. IIRC these exceptions only apply to companies with more than 50 employees, which seems a decent balance between "we're all friends here" small/family businesses (individual rights win) vs "you are a cog in a wheel" megacorps (the good of society wins). [1] For example, I understand that people refusing to hire ex-convicts is a significant contributor to recidivism.
- facepalm 13y ago
  I know there are such laws - not sure if I agree with them, but OK (literally not sure - maybe it is good, maybe not - to be sure I wouldn't like it if it were my own company). But how are they being enforced, with so many possible candidates? Disabled people, women, different ethnic backgrounds, different schools, ex-convicts... One you go over 50, you have to have at least one of each of them? Or if you hire employee 51 and the candidate is an ex-convict, you have to hire him?
- gizmo686 13y ago
  Economic theory would suggest a limit on this effect with regards to hiring.

fleshweasel 13y ago

This kind of silly shit is much easier to say when you're a member of that racial or gender group that more people want to hire.

facepalm 13y ago
The reverse exists, too, and I am pretty sure there are enough companies who want to hire women to give all women in IT sufficient choices. What do you suggest - should the CEO be imprisoned? Disallowed from doing business? Go to brainwashing camp to set his brain right? It's easy to get angry about such cases, but think about what you want to achieve. Perhaps he had some bad experiences with women. It's unfortunate, but perhaps it should be respected if he doesn't want to work with women. The opposite way, women not wanting to work with men, is being cheered on by the "good people" all the time. Also, in recent months I had lots of interviews where I didn't get hired. So what is it to me if certain groups are more likely to be hired? Even assuming it is true - it didn't help me that I am a man, the companies still didn't like me.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >I am pretty sure there are enough companies who want to hire women to give all women in IT sufficient choices. Why are you sure of that? Is it because you have to be to overcome the cognitive dissonance of supporting the right to discriminate against women but not feeling like you yourself are a sexist, or because you have information that I'm not privy to? edit: Maybe the "law of averages" tells you that for each group with an opinion, there's an equally large counterbalancing group with the opposite opinion?
  - facepalm 13y ago
    I am sure because every week there are stories on HN about companies paying extra to lure women into IT. So apparently there are not enough IT women on the market to satisfy the demand of companies. And even the companies who don't make a public announcement about it - many of them will probably also want to hire women, because it just seems slightly weird if an office is all-male. It's like a party without women.
- mmatants 13y ago
  This may not be about changing that particular CEO's attitudes but about sharing the experience with the rest of us, so that we all may extract something out of it. It's a statement that "this happened" - we make of it what we will.
  - facepalm 13y ago
    OK - why not. As I said, I am not surprised that jerks exist in the world. The way to deal with them is to not join their company.

tbrownaw 13y ago

While I don't agree with the CEOs statement, I think people should be allowed to hire whoever they want. The trouble with this is that a set of biases can become near-universal. I have the right to associate (or not) with whoever I choose. But if everyone (or nearly everyone) choose not to associate with people from a particular group, that is harmful to society[1]. So, there are exceptions made to your freedom of association. IIRC these exceptions only apply to companies with more than 50 employees, which seems a decent balance between "we're all friends here" small/family businesses (individual rights win) vs "you are a cog in a wheel" megacorps (the good of society wins). [1] For example, I understand that people refusing to hire ex-convicts is a significant contributor to recidivism.

facepalm 13y ago
I know there are such laws - not sure if I agree with them, but OK (literally not sure - maybe it is good, maybe not - to be sure I wouldn't like it if it were my own company). But how are they being enforced, with so many possible candidates? Disabled people, women, different ethnic backgrounds, different schools, ex-convicts... One you go over 50, you have to have at least one of each of them? Or if you hire employee 51 and the candidate is an ex-convict, you have to hire him?
gizmo686 13y ago
Economic theory would suggest a limit on this effect with regards to hiring.