7 ms·

Does it bother you if a male candidate gets a position that maybe there's a better qualified female candidate who wasn't considered because "maybe she wants to

Does it bother you if a male candidate gets a position that maybe there's a better qualified female candidate who wasn't considered because "maybe she wants to start a family" or some bullshit? Do you let that (potential) bias affect your judgment of whether the guy "deserved" it? Biases exist. Meritocracy is an illusion. Deal with it.

true_religion 10y ago
I think what's getting lost in this discussion is that Affirmative Action isn't a trigger for "hire a woman over the more qualified man". All it mandates is that if on paper two candidates are equal scores, your process should pick the female/minority candidate. Historically, if you left it up to people in the organisation they'd go with their "gut" feelings and pick whomever was of a similar background to them. If two candidates aren't equal, you always pick the better candidate.
- discombobulate 10y ago
  That's mandated discrimination.
  - selllikesybok 10y ago
    Not in the sense of the word that you seem likely to be using, no.
    - discombobulate 10y ago
      I checked the definition of the words before I posted. Please, enlighten me?
discombobulate 10y ago
> Does it bother you if a male candidate gets a position that maybe there's a better qualified female candidate who wasn't considered because "maybe she wants to start a family" or some bullshit? Yes. I try and have a coherent worldview. And I don't think discrimination is useful for productivity.
- tmeasday 10y ago
  So then all candidates are tainted and you may as well not worry about it. My point is discrimination exists no matter what. So try not to let it bother you.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
rustynails 10y ago
Meritocracy is not an illusion. Not everybody practices it. However, I've always tried to hire the best candidate. I remember one guy who came in, dressed smartly. He had a good power handshake and spoke with great confidence. The work we were doing was complex and we needed stayers, not high flyers. Of 10 candidates interviewed, he was the only one I didn't hire. You may say that decision wasn't based on merit. I saw his qualifications and experience and judged all of the potential the candidates suitable. I then eliminated on suitability to the environment. Some of us do believe in meritocracy. It's most probably the reason I reject most of the MSM today. Anyone who is honest should be appalled at almost every media outlet for extreme sexism.

true_religion 10y ago

I think what's getting lost in this discussion is that Affirmative Action isn't a trigger for "hire a woman over the more qualified man". All it mandates is that if on paper two candidates are equal scores, your process should pick the female/minority candidate. Historically, if you left it up to people in the organisation they'd go with their "gut" feelings and pick whomever was of a similar background to them. If two candidates aren't equal, you always pick the better candidate.

discombobulate 10y ago
That's mandated discrimination.
- selllikesybok 10y ago
  Not in the sense of the word that you seem likely to be using, no.
  - discombobulate 10y ago
    I checked the definition of the words before I posted. Please, enlighten me?

discombobulate 10y ago

> Does it bother you if a male candidate gets a position that maybe there's a better qualified female candidate who wasn't considered because "maybe she wants to start a family" or some bullshit? Yes. I try and have a coherent worldview. And I don't think discrimination is useful for productivity.

tmeasday 10y ago
So then all candidates are tainted and you may as well not worry about it. My point is discrimination exists no matter what. So try not to let it bother you.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

rustynails 10y ago

Meritocracy is not an illusion. Not everybody practices it. However, I've always tried to hire the best candidate. I remember one guy who came in, dressed smartly. He had a good power handshake and spoke with great confidence. The work we were doing was complex and we needed stayers, not high flyers. Of 10 candidates interviewed, he was the only one I didn't hire. You may say that decision wasn't based on merit. I saw his qualifications and experience and judged all of the potential the candidates suitable. I then eliminated on suitability to the environment. Some of us do believe in meritocracy. It's most probably the reason I reject most of the MSM today. Anyone who is honest should be appalled at almost every media outlet for extreme sexism.