5 ms·

Ok, something about this story seems a bit amiss. Gayle Laakmann is complaining about people thinking she is a recruiter, supposedly because she's a woman. Hmm

Ok, something about this story seems a bit amiss. Gayle Laakmann is complaining about people thinking she is a recruiter, supposedly because she's a woman. Hmm, I'm curious - who is this person? How does she portray herself? Are there any other possible reasons people might view her as someone working in the general HR space? http://www.gayle.com/consulting/ http://www.gayle.com/consulting/ I can't imagine why a consultant who helps with "Technical Interview/Recruiting Consulting" (as well as "Acquisition/Acqui-hire interview prep") would be perceived as a recruiter. Definitely due to gender.

shittyanalogy 12y ago
Also, who cares what field she says she's in? She's clearly making a lot of money on her books, why doesn't isn't she considered primarily an author? I don't think it's a problem that there aren't enough women who say that they are programmers. I think the issue is gender bias in the workplace seemingly causing a lack of women in technology rolls.
- gaylemcd 12y ago
  The example referenced is actually about someone asking "So when you were a recruiter at Google, ..." This is after a talk I gave on coding that covered data structures, algorithms, etc. If someone refers to be as an author now, that's totally fine.
mcv 12y ago
If it was a man who claimed to be a programmer and who wrote the book on passing technical interviews for programmers, would you doubt he was a programmer? But because she's a woman who knows both programming and job interviews, you latch onto her recruiting aspect, and not her programming side. And note that people assumed she was a recruiter and not a programmer after she'd been talking code for an hour, not after she'd been talking job interviews for an hour. It's not just about what she is, it's about how people choose to look at her, based on her gender.
- vonmoltke 12y ago
  Speaking for myself, if Gayle was a man, I would doubt he as a programmer as well. It's overall image, not gender. In fact, one of the posters highlighted in the blog post said just that, even though the author chose to take it as sexist anyway.
  - gaylemcd 12y ago
    Um, actually, this is what the highlighted post said: "when you 'talk about' code for an hour and still ppl think you're a recruiter, that's not about gender - that's about your tech skill: people don't think you are a good coder. You looked like a saleman in that case if you are a guy or a recruiter if you are a girl. The key thing here is not your gender. You were looked down upon not because you are a female engineer, it's solely because you are an incapable coder thus don't deserve the certain level of respect you expected." So, first of all, the person is denying that it was about gender while basically saying that it is. If man -> sales If woman -> recruiter That... sounds like gender to me. Moreover, this person was suggesting that "incapable coder" -> not a coder. Which is sort of weird.
    - vonmoltke 12y ago
      > So, first of all, the person is denying that it was about gender while basically saying that it is. If man -> sales If woman -> recruiter Thus, the gender bias is as to which non-technical role the poster puts you in, not whether they think you are non-technical. Yes, I was wrong to indicate there was nothing sexist at all about the post. I was thinking primarily of the non-technical part. > Moreover, this person was suggesting that "incapable coder" -> not a coder. Which is sort of weird. I see that sentiment expressed about programmers of all types. It's the idea that if you are not at a certain level you are a faker, and thus not really a "coder". I see such accusations leveled at people constantly, without regard to gender. The core point I was making is that you are not being typecast as non-technical for being a woman. You are being typecast for the writings for which you are best known, not for being a woman. EDIT: So, I posted this reply from my comments view four hours after my GP post. Then I went back and read your other comments. In that context, I change my opinion. The submitted blog post needs the details you posted in this thread, and on it's own does present a very strong argument.
gaylemcd 12y ago
If you read just that, okay fine. But if you're going to the front page of the website, you'd also see PROGRAMMER there. (Way to, by the way, cherry pick examples. Why not use this page? http://www.gayle.com/projects/ http://www.gayle.com/projects/ Oh, right, because it doesn't prove the straw man you'd built.) But that wasn't the example referenced. The example referenced about doing a talk on coding topics (data structures, algorithms, code) for an hour and having some ask about my "prior" role as a recruiter.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Why not use that page? The link is buried in the "writing" dropdown. To even find the link I had to "view source", which I only did after you pointed it out. I went to your homepage, and "programmer" is just a small piece of the subtitle. I look at your first 6 panels, 4 of which (the leftmost 4) are about recruiter/interview stuff, 1 is programming, and 1 is "other". I scroll down to your blog and books, and everything on the homepage is about recruiting or interviewing. If the vast majority of your homepage is recruiting, it's hardly unreasonable to think you are a recruiter. That's true even if you slap the word "programmer" and "CS degree" in a couple of places. If you believe your webpage portrays you as a programmer, I suggest you might want to work on your messaging. Consider the possibility that your in-person messaging is similarly off. (Of course, you seem pretty successful as a recruiter/author/interview coach, so perhaps leave the messaging as is and just be more aware of it.)
  - gaylemcd 12y ago
    ... but that wasn't the situation described. This isn't about someone going to my webpage - or to a particular subpage - and concluding "recruiter". This is about someone talking to me AFTER A TALK ABOUT CODING and starting a sentence with, "So when you were a recruiter at Google, ..."
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      On your site, you advertise that you give talks on HR and recruiting and every talk listed is on that topic. To be clear, "Cracking the coding interview" is a recruiting/HR talk even if coding is involved. I wasn't there. I can't rule out the possibility that you a) didn't list this talk on your site, b) discussed a completely different topic than all your other listed talks and c) convey a completely different impression than your online persona. But I hope you can understand why I, and many others, find this claim a bit implausible.
lk145 12y ago
No recruiter, out of every recruiter I have ever spoken with from Google down to smaller startups, has ever discussed code with me beyond what languages I know and if I have experience writing tests. It is absurd to talk with someone about code for an hour and assume they are a recruiter.
- GhotiFish 12y ago
  that is absurd, completely and totally absurd. In fact I have trouble even imagining the most misogynistic of people sitting in on a talk about "coding" and coming to the conclusion that the person talking is a recruiter. What was the talk on? Coding? Seems a bit broad, what was it actually on? Was it about passing technical questions in for programmer interviews? Details about some of the questions and ways methodologies to reach solutions? If something seems utterly absurd to you, it might be because it is.
  - lk145 12y ago
    > This talk discussed coding at far more depth than the vast majority of recruiters could do. How many recruiters could tell you about big O time? Binary trees? Breadth first search? Not many. Source https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8291665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8291665 Interesting you can't imagine this, because as a woman, similar situations as Gayle's have happened to me and to every female programmer I know. I have talked about code to people at language and framework-specific meetups only for them to later assume I'm not a programmer.
dblohm7 12y ago
Perhaps she was somebody who figured out that writing books and consulting about interviews and recruiting was more lucrative? I'm not about to doubt somebody's credentials because she saw and opportunity and took it.

shittyanalogy 12y ago

Also, who cares what field she says she's in? She's clearly making a lot of money on her books, why doesn't isn't she considered primarily an author? I don't think it's a problem that there aren't enough women who say that they are programmers. I think the issue is gender bias in the workplace seemingly causing a lack of women in technology rolls.

gaylemcd 12y ago
The example referenced is actually about someone asking "So when you were a recruiter at Google, ..." This is after a talk I gave on coding that covered data structures, algorithms, etc. If someone refers to be as an author now, that's totally fine.

mcv 12y ago

If it was a man who claimed to be a programmer and who wrote the book on passing technical interviews for programmers, would you doubt he was a programmer? But because she's a woman who knows both programming and job interviews, you latch onto her recruiting aspect, and not her programming side. And note that people assumed she was a recruiter and not a programmer after she'd been talking code for an hour, not after she'd been talking job interviews for an hour. It's not just about what she is, it's about how people choose to look at her, based on her gender.

vonmoltke 12y ago
Speaking for myself, if Gayle was a man, I would doubt he as a programmer as well. It's overall image, not gender. In fact, one of the posters highlighted in the blog post said just that, even though the author chose to take it as sexist anyway.
- gaylemcd 12y ago
  Um, actually, this is what the highlighted post said: "when you 'talk about' code for an hour and still ppl think you're a recruiter, that's not about gender - that's about your tech skill: people don't think you are a good coder. You looked like a saleman in that case if you are a guy or a recruiter if you are a girl. The key thing here is not your gender. You were looked down upon not because you are a female engineer, it's solely because you are an incapable coder thus don't deserve the certain level of respect you expected." So, first of all, the person is denying that it was about gender while basically saying that it is. If man -> sales If woman -> recruiter That... sounds like gender to me. Moreover, this person was suggesting that "incapable coder" -> not a coder. Which is sort of weird.
  - vonmoltke 12y ago
    > So, first of all, the person is denying that it was about gender while basically saying that it is. If man -> sales If woman -> recruiter Thus, the gender bias is as to which non-technical role the poster puts you in, not whether they think you are non-technical. Yes, I was wrong to indicate there was nothing sexist at all about the post. I was thinking primarily of the non-technical part. > Moreover, this person was suggesting that "incapable coder" -> not a coder. Which is sort of weird. I see that sentiment expressed about programmers of all types. It's the idea that if you are not at a certain level you are a faker, and thus not really a "coder". I see such accusations leveled at people constantly, without regard to gender. The core point I was making is that you are not being typecast as non-technical for being a woman. You are being typecast for the writings for which you are best known, not for being a woman. EDIT: So, I posted this reply from my comments view four hours after my GP post. Then I went back and read your other comments. In that context, I change my opinion. The submitted blog post needs the details you posted in this thread, and on it's own does present a very strong argument.

gaylemcd 12y ago

If you read just that, okay fine. But if you're going to the front page of the website, you'd also see PROGRAMMER there. (Way to, by the way, cherry pick examples. Why not use this page? http://www.gayle.com/projects/ http://www.gayle.com/projects/ Oh, right, because it doesn't prove the straw man you'd built.) But that wasn't the example referenced. The example referenced about doing a talk on coding topics (data structures, algorithms, code) for an hour and having some ask about my "prior" role as a recruiter.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Why not use that page? The link is buried in the "writing" dropdown. To even find the link I had to "view source", which I only did after you pointed it out. I went to your homepage, and "programmer" is just a small piece of the subtitle. I look at your first 6 panels, 4 of which (the leftmost 4) are about recruiter/interview stuff, 1 is programming, and 1 is "other". I scroll down to your blog and books, and everything on the homepage is about recruiting or interviewing. If the vast majority of your homepage is recruiting, it's hardly unreasonable to think you are a recruiter. That's true even if you slap the word "programmer" and "CS degree" in a couple of places. If you believe your webpage portrays you as a programmer, I suggest you might want to work on your messaging. Consider the possibility that your in-person messaging is similarly off. (Of course, you seem pretty successful as a recruiter/author/interview coach, so perhaps leave the messaging as is and just be more aware of it.)
- gaylemcd 12y ago
  ... but that wasn't the situation described. This isn't about someone going to my webpage - or to a particular subpage - and concluding "recruiter". This is about someone talking to me AFTER A TALK ABOUT CODING and starting a sentence with, "So when you were a recruiter at Google, ..."
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    On your site, you advertise that you give talks on HR and recruiting and every talk listed is on that topic. To be clear, "Cracking the coding interview" is a recruiting/HR talk even if coding is involved. I wasn't there. I can't rule out the possibility that you a) didn't list this talk on your site, b) discussed a completely different topic than all your other listed talks and c) convey a completely different impression than your online persona. But I hope you can understand why I, and many others, find this claim a bit implausible.

lk145 12y ago

No recruiter, out of every recruiter I have ever spoken with from Google down to smaller startups, has ever discussed code with me beyond what languages I know and if I have experience writing tests. It is absurd to talk with someone about code for an hour and assume they are a recruiter.

GhotiFish 12y ago
that is absurd, completely and totally absurd. In fact I have trouble even imagining the most misogynistic of people sitting in on a talk about "coding" and coming to the conclusion that the person talking is a recruiter. What was the talk on? Coding? Seems a bit broad, what was it actually on? Was it about passing technical questions in for programmer interviews? Details about some of the questions and ways methodologies to reach solutions? If something seems utterly absurd to you, it might be because it is.
- lk145 12y ago
  > This talk discussed coding at far more depth than the vast majority of recruiters could do. How many recruiters could tell you about big O time? Binary trees? Breadth first search? Not many. Source https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8291665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8291665 Interesting you can't imagine this, because as a woman, similar situations as Gayle's have happened to me and to every female programmer I know. I have talked about code to people at language and framework-specific meetups only for them to later assume I'm not a programmer.

dblohm7 12y ago

Perhaps she was somebody who figured out that writing books and consulting about interviews and recruiting was more lucrative? I'm not about to doubt somebody's credentials because she saw and opportunity and took it.