back to article Ladies in tech, have you considered not letting us know you're female?

It's one of the most pervasive problems in tech: ingrained sexism that sees women looked over for promotion or often not given a job in the first place. Fortunately, someone has arrived at the perfect solution and this time it's someone worth listening to: an old rich white guy. John Greathouse is a California-based venture …

  1. Crazy Operations Guy Silver badge

    Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

    "Nothing is my problem, it's everyone else's."

    1. itzman

      Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

      Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

      "All my problems are down to my being unfairly oppressed".

    2. MyffyW Silver badge

      Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

      Tomfoolery aside, in my experience anybody with any sense recruits based on the substance of the resume and your conduct at interview. If there are dinosaurs out there using other methods you probably don't want to work for them anyway.

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

        in my experience anybody with any sense recruits based on the substance of the resume and your conduct at interview. If there are dinosaurs out there using other methods you probably don't want to work for them anyway.

        Call me a dinosaur then. Some years ago interviewed several women for a position and only one really stood out. Presented well. Knew all the right words and even managed to get them all in the right order. Owner of the business wanted to hire her on the spot and I urged caution until we had talked to her referees. All her referees said they would never rehire the lazy bitch again.

        1. tskears

          Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

          >> All her referees said they would never rehire the lazy bitch again.

          So the entire female gender is condemned because this one example had learned how to play the system.

          Oh... that's right, Men don't play the system. They're all totally honest and upstanding, and you know that when you hire them you'll receive twelve hours work for eight hours pay.

          >> Call me a dinosaur then.

          You're a dinosaur.

          1. Kurt Meyer

            Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            @ tskears

            The Pompous Git said: "All her referees said they would never rehire the lazy bitch again."

            That is one applicant.

            You said: "So the entire female gender is condemned because this one example had learned how to play the system."

            That is an entire gender.

            One person /= an entire gender.

            That's called putting words into someone's mouth. It is a common tactic of the imbecilic, when they have no argument to refute a statement.

            Oh... that's right, you're not interested in reason, or logic, you're fighting against oppression.

            What do you do for a living when you're not posting fuckwitted nonsense on the Reg?

            I ask because I want to make sure that whatever organization would employ someone so berift of basic intelligence as you seem to be, never receives any of my time or money.

          2. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            So the entire female gender is condemned because this one example had learned how to play the system.

            Are you mad? I said nothing about the entire female gender. [Feminine is a gender BTW and female is a sex]. She had manifestly not learnt how to play the system. Had she done so, then her referees would have been friends set up to verify she was all she claimed to be. They weren't. They were genuine ex-employers who had been burned when they employed her. Clearly she either thought we wouldn't contact her referees, or so delusional that she had done a perfect job before being sacked for laziness/incompetence.

            More than happy being a dinosaur; some people dig my bones ;-)

          3. Terrance Brennan

            Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            I don't believe his intent was to say all female applicants were horrible. I believe he was saying you needed to look at other factors than just the CV and interview. Checking references can provide good information on any and all applicants, not just female ones.

            Anyone who ignores an applicant based on their own prejudices is going to miss out on good people. Anyone who ignores the fact than any and all classes of applicants can contain some wankers is going to hire some crap people.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

          This doesn't ring true.

          1) most references are curated by the candidate and thus they don't use negative ones

          2) it isn't strictly legal to torpedo someone's chances that highly. It's why 'no comment' is pretty damaging.

          Yes, a reference can tip you off, but not in the terms you put. At best I think you're grossly inflating it.

          Plus, I should mention... If most of the other candidates were women, then why didn't you hire one of the runners up who DID check out?

          1. Kurt Meyer

            Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            @ DrLifecandy

            "Plus, I should mention... If most of the other candidates were women, then why didn't you hire one of the runners up who DID check out?"

            How do you know he didn't? Why do you make that assumption based on no visible evidence?

            The Pompous Git tells the story of one applicant, who wasn't hired. That's it, that is his entire post

            Why do you, and others, feel the need to extrapolate your own outcomes onto his post? You are making a guess, which says more about your own bias than anything else.

            Christ, this entire thread might be entitled "Logic and Reason's Excellent Adventure."

          2. Pompous Git Silver badge

            @ drlifecandy Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            This doesn't ring true.

            1) most references are curated by the candidate and thus they don't use negative ones

            2) it isn't strictly legal to torpedo someone's chances that highly. It's why 'no comment' is pretty damaging.

            You seem to lack comprehension skills. I wrote referees, not references. A reference can be quite easily cobbled together by the applicant and I make no doubt many are. What an applicant cannot do is be the person at the other end of the telephone answering my questions.

            If it's illegal to contradict a job applicant's claims these days then I'm truly glad that I'm retired.

            All of the other applicants were women. It's very rare for blokes to apply for a job as a receptionist regardless of the other duties required in the provided example. And of course we hired one of those other women. Just how fucking stupid do you think we were?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

        in my experience anybody with any sense recruits based on the substance of the resume and your conduct at interview. If there are dinosaurs out there using other methods you probably don't want to work for them anyway.

        Then you're possibly as arrogant and/or ignorant as the article author. Even the most enlightened and liberal of us, no matter how much they may deny it, have subconscious biases of one form or another, whether it be against women, indians, gays, veterans, vegans, white men, etc. The only way to be truly fair, is to not give your unconscious brain a chance to activate its prejudices - a blind audition.

        1. 45RPM Silver badge

          Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

          @AC "The only way to be truly fair, is to not give your unconscious brain a chance to activate its prejudices - a blind audition."

          I don't necessarily disagree - but then you have to mandate that all CVs are purged of anything which gives away the authors sex (regardless of what sex, religion, nationality, sexuality the author is). Little things like Name, Educational History, Hobbies could be a giveaway, and perhaps even the Address might provide a hint. It's not a bad idea, per se, but I don't think that its workable - at least, not without rendering the CV (an important first step before interview) essentially useless.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            "It's not a bad idea, per se, but I don't think that its workable"

            You don't use CV's, you use application forms and separate the personal details from the qualifications and experience sections. Scoring is therefor blind, and while skills and education ight drop hints (someone going to a girls college is most likely to be a girl, after all), as it's the grade that's marked, and marking is reviewed by sample, you can get into a lot of trouble if you're not being fair.

            This system has worked for us for near 20 years.

            At interview: That's a different matter. However, even there we have an approach that's fairly open and equal: Three interviewers, one of whom is from HR and scoring is done against pre selected questions. Technical tests are marked blind (candidate number only) to ensure no bias there.

            AKA if you apply yourself, you can make it work.

        2. Terrance Brennan

          Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

          Bullshit! I do not doubt many people who hire are biased and let that affect their decisions; but, don't give me that bullshit that no one can overcome their built-in bias. I have been involved in hiring and have always looked at all applicants from the view of having to rely on them and their work; not, who would I like to go to the members only club with (even if I had been a member of any club other than flunkies united). Is this person going to make my job harder or easier. Will their performance make my hiring decision look good or daft? The best hire I ever made was a female engineer who was selected over several male applicants based on her resume and interview performance. Once hired she proved me right and did great work with minimal supervision. Intelligent people separate their personal feelings from work decisions. I do not have to like anyone I work with or for, or who works for me; we all just have to do our jobs in a professional manner and carry our own weight. Get on with the program.

          The point of this rant is not that there is not bias in hiring; but, that it is not inevitable.

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            but, don't give me that bullshit that no one can overcome their built-in bias.

            So I'm told, but I have trouble with that concept. Another word for "bias" is "discrimination"; that is you make a choice in favour, or against certain things. Personally, I have always discriminated against men , inanimate objects, jellyfish etc when it comes to having sex. I have only ever been turned on by women. Though there was a particularly attractive vacuum cleaner in a catalogue once...

        3. Elf

          Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

          *Raises Hand* I have lived on the West Coast of America most of my life an thus I am tolerant of most cultures, colors, sexual orientations, political backgrounds &c. ... and I freely admit to hating Vegans.

      3. Evil Auditor Silver badge

        Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

        @MyffyW

        I guess then that your recruitment decisions are taken by some sort of machine without human intervention in the decision-making process? No? Then it's just as prone to bias as the dinosaurs have been doing all along.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

      "Nothing is my problem, it's everyone else's."

      In this case, it's your fault for being a woman, not his fault for being an insensitive idiot who cannot get the blood to the right brain as soon as he identifies "hmmm, woman". Fool. It reminds me of this saying that it's better to be a fool in silence than to open your mouth and confirm it.

      What will it take for people to realise what I've known for years: diversity is actually beneficial? It's not just gender, by the way, there's race, skin, hair colour, dress sense, background - provided you have a management style that can turn the inevitable sparks into something positive it's almost causing shareholder harm if you don't actively set out to get mixed teams. The only thing they must share is dedication and enthusiasm for whatever they need to do, and that is explicitly the job of leadership. Yes, LEADERSHIP, not management. You manage kit, you lead people.

      Anyway, Guinness :)

      1. Tom Paine Silver badge

        Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

        I recently departed from a very large global American banks. One of the ones you'd have heard of, The effort put into diversity, with internal support groups for women, BME and LGBT staff was really significant; it was a management appraisal criteria, an d senior management spent a lot of time takling about it. It wasn't just talk. Pretty sure the others take similar attitude. You can see for yourself if you take a trip to Canary Wharf and lig about Canada Place people watching for a while. Now whatever else global megabanks are, warm-hearted charitable organisations ain't one of them They do stuff like that out of self-interest. Having people from many different backgrounds contributing to teams and decision making helps to reduce groupthink and improves the quality of decision making. Which is handy, as it's the morally right thing to do, as well.

        1. CAPS LOCK Silver badge

          "a very large global American bank"

          Hmm, I'd be wary of asserting that because banks do it it must be right. After all banks don't have a prefect track record in decision making. In fact I would go as far as to say that they are robber barons.

      2. Elf
        Pint

        Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

        This man's Guinness is on my tab, bartender.

    4. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

      Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

      Anyone who has any sense tries to recruit the best available person regardless of whatever. If you do not you end up with at best some marginally competent drones run by the dimmest of PHBs. That is a recipe for disaster.

  2. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: It's an advantage, stupid.

      In a perfect irony women are now preferred so much for STEM faculty positions in universities desperately trying to make themselves look more balanced, that academic posts are a significant percentage of female STEM PhDs jos

      Because more women are going into low paid junior academic posts and more men are being "forced" into Wall St and Silicon valley, the gender pay gap for STEM PhD is now one of the fastest rising.

      1. caffeine addict Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: It's an advantage, stupid.

        Have you got a source for that?

        /not snarking for once

        1. 45RPM Silver badge

          Re: It's an advantage, stupid.

          Aww. The original post from The Register's pet troll got deleted. By comparison with some of the things he's said previously, it wasn't particularly wrong or offensive (I mean it was both these things, but not unusually so by Bahboh's standards). And I'd brought him an extra large bag of troll biscuits too.

          Never mind, Bahboh will show his emasculated self again the very next time a Register article mentions women. Even tangentially. I can feed him then.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It's an advantage, stupid.

          >"@AC "The only way to be truly fair, is to not give your unconscious brain a chance to activate its prejudices - a blind audition."

          I don't necessarily disagree - but then you have to mandate that all CVs are purged of anything which gives away the authors sex (regardless of what sex, religion, nationality, sexuality the author is). Little things like Name, Educational History, Hobbies could be a giveaway, and perhaps even the Address might provide a hint. It's not a bad idea, per se, but I don't think that its workable - at least, not without rendering the CV (an important first step before interview) essentially useless."

          I've worked at somewhere that actually done this. The agency we used submitted the CV without the name or address, and a candidate number instead.

          Reading through a hundred CV's made me appreciate how little effort a lot of people put in, we binned over half the CV's on painful spelling mistakes on the basis that if a person couldn't be assed to run spellchecker on their CV and (or) proof read it, then their level of effort when actually working for us would be worse.

          Some CV's were incredibly good. I especially liked the ones which were so well written that when you read the hobbies and other interests section that it was clear what benefits and skills they got from their hobbies or interests and why those were important to the job role they were applying for.

          Conversely some were incredibly bad. For instance one dedicated more space to explaining why that individuals religion was important to them than explaining their experiance or suitability for the job they were applying for. That particular CV would have benefitted from having all of the religion information eliminated, IMO. If i'm looking at hiring then I don't need (or want) to know anything about your religion, sex, sexual orientation, political beliefs or membership of political parties etc and I do wonder precisely why this is on a CV. If I don't know then I simply cannot discriminate one way or the other.

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: It's an advantage, stupid.

            Reading through a hundred CV's made me appreciate how little effort a lot of people put in

            Very few people understand the purpose of a CV; simply, it's an advertising brochure designed to make the reader want to interview the applicant. The example CV I used for a number of job clubs I led during the 90s was less than a page and described what an "ordinary housewife" had achieved in relation to budgeting, problem-solving, logistics and so on. The Chinese-American woman who wrote that CV had successfully applied for the job of campaign manager for a Democratic campaign manager back in the early 1970s.

            I believe pretty much everyone running job clubs in Australia at that time used her CV as the best possible example. It took seconds to read and you really wanted to interview whoever wrote it. The average CV does the exact opposite which is just as well. I don't know any employer who likes interviewing; it's incredibly stressful.

            1. Elf

              Re: It's an advantage, stupid.

              The Silicon Valley Interview (circa The Bubble were all-damned-day affairs feared by the candidates And the interviewers. Imagine an eight hour day (we imagined them all the time, I still think they're Unicorn Farts but imagine anyway) and imagine eight bright and shiny candidates and eight engineers already teetering on a visit from nice folk in white coats that have to interview them, in Rotation. Sometimes we gang-b...saved time by interviewing them as a working unit of two or three. We took the candidate we had during lunch, to lunch, and the group took the candidates at large to dinner (where we drank copiously on the company AmEx because ...) then we sent them away and spent the next eight hours doing the work that was interrupted and discussing them.

              I bitch because it made for a Monster bitch of a day for everyone involved, however, it was freakin' Great for team building. People were hired that could do the job partly based on how they fit in the existing group but can contribute far more than the sum of their part because they add something unique to the group. My favorite example is actually a Digital Age magazine with really good papaer and ink you might have read at some point: We were right crazy bastards, and white guys were not In Charge, nor were we the smartest people in the room. I couldn't imagine working in a homogenous group of just Bros.

              And miss watching the 98lb Chinese Woman Middleware Developer drink the 240lb Berkeley UNIX Network Dude on Two-For-One Tuesday At The Pub? How about watching your QA team with enough piercings to carry 10g of metal through an airport security check (on the way to Vegas COMDEX)? Not a chance. I firmly support diversity in the workplace...if for no other reason than Quality Entertainment.

              [Seriously: When you work 60+ hours per week together, teams arent good enough. Better to be like Family. I've seen some funny looking Families, clearly bastards the lot of us and we've built some neat shit. I'll never go back to Doughy White Bro Corporate IT. I am pissed that MY Silicon Valley took this path instead.]

          2. tiggity Silver badge

            Re: It's an advantage, stupid.

            Being charitable, maybe the focus on religion was to find a workplace with similar religious ethos & ensure not employed anywhere that does not want a person obsessed by religion?

  3. Fan of Mr. Obvious
    Facepalm

    TMI

    The quotes would have been interpreted much differently if I did not have an image of John being a rich, white, egotistical, man. Feels like I cannot un-see him.

  4. tfewster Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    I haven't read the full article (paywall), but the extract sounded quite reasonable, even with the sarky comments from El Reg. Present a professional image, and you'll be treated as a professional. Post a "duckface" photo on LinkedIn and expect derision. (Yes, my profile photo shows my Movember 'tach, so I'm clearly not professional either). If you're going to stress your differences, make sure you explain how that difference brings benefits to $POTENTIAL_EMPLOYER

    I truly believe I'm colour and gender blind - if you can do the job, you get my respect. If not, excuses about it being harder for a woman or a black man in a white mans world don't go very far.

    Thumbs up for Jo, Sam, Wil, Nic and a number of other women I've worked with. Including the awesome Diane, who can beat most men in most fields.

    1. Trilkhai

      Did you read the article? He recommended obliterating all signs that the person is female — using initials if the woman has a feminine name, not having any photos online, and so forth. There's a huge gap between "don't look like an unprofessional hoochie-coochie girl" and "don't show any signs you're female."

      1. JLV Silver badge

        I read the article on two levels, despite El Reg doing its best to make the guy sound like an ass.

        1) his suggestions are a bit daft and frankly condescending. You shouldn't have to un-gender yourself to work in IT - you should just be good at it.

        2) but they also seem like they came from someone who did perceive a wrong and was making suggestions. For example, the classical musician blind testing - which I had heard of - it was probably very suitable for that field.

        Take github - would it make sense to stick to gender-neutral moniker? The original article may make you think about that strategy, whether you choose to do so or reject it. Could small adjustments to job sites help?

        His contribution is a data point, no more, no less. For all the righteous self-back patting from all the enlightened commentards who would never ever discriminate, we still do seem to have a diversity problem. Its causes are complex and not easy to solve and it seems churlish to me to burn the guy at the stake just for opening his mouth with what seems like a well-intentioned but awkwardly presented suggestion.

        Ladies, if you bristle at his "hide yourself " suggestion - I agree with you. But there might still be some insights to glean.

    2. Colin Millar
      FAIL

      "If you're going to stress your differences"

      Er - being a woman, being black, being disabled - somehow it is stressing your differences by merely presenting yourself as you are? Of course if all these people would just refrain from making such weird lifestyle choices instead of being the default white male hetero we could all go and happily live in a Fritz Lang nightmare.

      1. Steven Roper

        "If you're going to stress your differences"

        As an employer, I'm not interested in your sexual or ethnic differences. I'm not employing you because you're white or black or female or genderqueer, I'm employing you because I want someone who can read and write PHP, Perl, Python, Java and Javascript, or someone who can use Photoshop, InDesign, Scribus or Gimp. Where your ancestry originates or how you use your bedgear simply isn't germaine to these requirements.

        In fact, if you go to lengths to indicate your differences, I'm less likely to consider you, not because of racism or sexism or homophobia, but because your pointing out these differences suggests to me that you're a special snowflake, who plays the victim card when things don't go your way and are likely to cause problems within my team the moment someone slips up in their speech to the slightest degree. I don't need my cohesive and cheerful team constantly tiptoeing on eggshells wondering if an "outdated" word or "microaggressive" look is going to cost them their job.

        On the other hand, if your CV simply illustrates your skill set and what your worth is to my team then you'll get an interview, and if you turn out on the day to be an Aboriginal or woman or whatever it won't affect my decision to employ you one bit - if your skills are the best out of the applicants and you come across as fairly easygoing and relatable to my team, you'll get the job, end of.

        Finally, if I see gender studies or sociology on your CV, it goes straight in the bin and you don't even get a phone call, much less an interview. People who study these subjects are almost universally SJWs, and the worst ones are the white males out to virtue-signal their support for political correctness. I don't need toxic gender/race politics destabilising my team and destroying my productivity, thank you very much.

        1. craigb

          "the worst ones are the white males out to virtue-signal their support for political correctness"

          Perfectly said.

          Can I forward my CV as you sound like the sort of PHB I would want to work for.

        2. Pompous Git Silver badge

          I don't need my cohesive and cheerful team constantly tiptoeing on eggshells wondering if an "outdated" word or "microaggressive" look is going to cost them their job.

          ... if your skills are the best out of the applicants and you come across as fairly easygoing and relatable to my team, you'll get the job, end of.

          Precisely. You can even be lacking some technical skills (teachable stuff) and still get the job if you seem like you want to work and get on well with everyone else.

          Finally, if I see gender studies or sociology on your CV, it goes straight in the bin and you don't even get a phone call, much less an interview.

          When you have 3-400 applicants for one position, you're always looking for a reason to reject applicants so there's a manageable number at the interview stage.

          1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

            Precisely. You can even be lacking some technical skills (teachable stuff) and still get the job if you seem like you want to work and get on well with everyone else.

            Exactly. Skills are easier to fix than attitude.

        3. 45RPM Silver badge

          @Steven Roper

          Well said that man. And perfectly good reasons for trimming down the CV count too (well, if too many CVs come in then it's impractical to give them all an equal amount of attention). Other causes for filing in the round shiny cabinet of infinite capacity (as long as it's emptied every day) are hobbies which include religious activities, frequent misspellings and claiming to be an expert 'in Microsoft' (Microsoft what!?) but laying out the CV using spaces and tabs rather than the layout tools provided.</rant>

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            @45RPM Don't know why that got downvoted but have an upvote from me!

          2. Tom Paine Silver badge

            >Other causes for filing in the round shiny cabinet of infinite capacity (as long as it's emptied every day)

            >are hobbies which include religious activities,

            >

            So you illegally discriminate on religious grounds? Interesting. Where do you work, again?

          3. Dr Stephen Jones

            @45RPM

            So demonstrating your lack of gender bigotry by demonstrating religious bigotry.

            Well done.

            1. 45RPM Silver badge

              @Dr Stephen Jones

              Damn straight. But I’m including ‘Atheism’ as a pseudo-religion here too. In my experience, and I accept that others may have had more positive experiences, anyone who feels that they need to mention their belief system is likely to be inclined to try to ram it down your throat. And that could be disruptive to the team dynamic - whether the system that they’re trying to ram is Christian, Atheism, Judaism, Islam - whatever. I’m delighted for an applicant to be one of those things, and I might even be happy to discuss (politely) over a beer / tea / coke whatever - but I’m not happy for it to be such a defining feature of their character that they feel it merits mention above less divisive interests such as cycling / tennis / painting / football / writing poetry / playing in a band etc.

              Similarly, I wouldn’t be very interested in someone who puts their politics or sexual preferences front and centre. I mean, we all have a belief system / political viewpoint / sexual preference - but that doesn’t mean we should be sharing them freely in a work context.

            2. tiggity Silver badge

              Gender is something people cannot choose (albeit these days various medical treatments can make apparent gender appear different)

              As for religion, although many people indoctrinated from an early age (with obvious implications e.g. classic Jesuits quote) it is an optional belief set, not something "forced on you" by genetics (though obviously family / community pressures can massively reinforce such beliefs - I speak as someone who was brought up with a particular religion heavily promoted by all family members).

              If you are interviewing for a position where objective analysis of data is required then strong religious beliefs in a candidate would be a sign that candidate is happy to belive in something for which there is no evidence and thus may be seen as an indicator of unsuitability for the post.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Amen!

          Thank you Steven, you show that there are still rational managers out there, and I would be more than happy to work for you with the work environment you have established! =)

        5. Don Dumb
          Facepalm

          @Steven Roper - "I see gender studies or sociology on your CV, it goes straight in the bin and you don't even get a phone call, much less an interview. People who study these subjects are almost universally SJWs,"

          Citation Please......

          1. Tom Paine Silver badge

            He don't need no stinkin' evidence, he's got his common sense, dammit!

            Using the expression "SJW" pretty much signals "I'm a dick" IME.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Using the expression "SJW" pretty much signals "I'm a dick" IME.

              It may be a tad too generic, but I must admit I agree with that one. Overall you have two types of people: those who put in some effort to fit in, even if they don't have the easiest of personality, and those who are constantly seeking for the next reason to be annoyed/upset or otherwise disturb the team spirit and atmosphere you need to have to make not only people productive but also reasonably happy at their place of work.

              I am happy for people to speak their minds (as a matter of fact, I actively encourage sensible, work focused debate to the point of occasionally taking an adversarial position myself) but people whose main interest is finding something to argue/fight/moan/preach about are unwelcome and are in the main unlikely to be offered a permanent position.

              Come to think of it, it should make for a lovely, Monty Python-alike sketch getting a few of those types together..

              1. Steven Roper

                "Come to think of it, it should make for a lovely, Monty Python-alike sketch getting a few of those types together.."

                Go onto Youtube and look up "trigglypuff" if you haven't seen it already. You've got a university lecture hall with a moderate feminist, a right-leaning gay man, a rabid SJW in the audience and a bunch of MRAs all in one place. Don't forget the popcorn!

            2. Steven Roper

              "Using the expression "SJW" pretty much signals "I'm a dick" IME."

              As does using words that end in "-ist" and "-phobic" followed by "bigot" to describe anyone who doesn't share one's mindset, in mine.

            3. Dr Stephen Jones

              @Tom Paine

              "Using the expression "SJW" pretty much signals "I'm a dick" IME."

              SJW is a derisory term for the self-righteous, smug and intolerant personalities who attach themselves to some Left Wing political causes. Tom Lehrer wrote a song about them. Look it up.

              I suspect you hate the phrase SJW because it's a truthful and accurate description of your personality, too.

              This is just a wild guess based purely on intuition... and on your posting history.

        6. Tom Paine Silver badge

          As an employer, I'm not interested in your sexual or ethnic differences

          You're mugging yourself then.

          http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/25/meritocracy_is_bad_it_leads_to_massive_entrenched_inequality.html

          1. Steven Roper

            "You're mugging yourself then. ...meritocracy_is_bad_it_leads_to_massive_entrenched_inequality.html"

            Ok, let's rock.

            If I understand that article correctly, its argument is based on equating establishing equality with the provision of charity. I fail to see how the end result of that is "mugging myself." Not only that, I find this whole premise problematic - to borrow one of your lot's buzzwords - on several fronts.

            First of all, equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome. I believe in equality of opportunity; the principle that every one deserves a fair go, and a helping hand on an individual basis if they're struggling, but how they use that to help themselves or not is up to them. On the other hand, equality of outcome is not only unjust in increasing the burden on those who do help themselves, it is patronising and demeaning to the very "minorities" you are claiming to support, because by giving them a "leg up" based on their putative lack of privilege, you are saying they aren't capable of making the grade on their own. It's like setting quotas for women in STEM overriding the required qualifications: doing that is tantamount to stating that women aren't as smart as men, so the entry requirements for them should be lowered so the poor dumb bimboes can get in and make up the numbers. If that in itself isn't sexism and misogyny, what is?

            And before you try to call out that last argument as a strawman, consider this: If a specific number of positions have to be set aside in a given field for women and/or blacks, and the entry requirements do remain constant, if the number of female or black applicants is less than the number of places set aside for them, one of three possible things has to happen: 1) those places remain vacant (unlikely because that's a waste of institute resources); 2) those places are filled by whites and/or males (which denies the quota altogether); and 3) women and blacks whose qualifications don't meet the entry requirements are now considered for those places (vis a vis my original argument.)

            Second, the article talks about the fact that we help blind people and amputees because they need help, despite their lack of "merit" in seeing or walking. But this is false equivalence. Being blind or crippled is a genuine setback, and organisations exist to provide the assistance these people need to participate in society - organisations I'm more than happy to support, I might add. But being female or black or gay isn't such an impediment; to imply that it is, is to engage in the very sexism and racism you people claim so desperately to want eliminated. If you want people to treat everyone as human beings, you first need to stop telegraphing the arbitrary labels and differences you use to separate everyone into "victim" and "oppressor" groups.

            Third, all this PC puff about gender and race privilege and inequality is really a divide-and-conquer distraction implemented by the ruling classes to keep everyone from focusing on the only real cause of privilege: wealth and class. People don't give you favours and preferential treatment because you're white and/or male; they give them to you because you're rich and powerful. A wealthy and powerful black woman like Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg packs a damn sight more privilege than the drunken white male derro sitting sacked-out in the gutter. The main reason all this gender/race politics has been accelerated in recent years, probably has much to do with popular uprisings like the Occupy movement coming very close to exposing the massive and ever-increasing wealth gap dividing our society. That's your privilege, right there. Notice how the Occupy movement started out being about the "99% and the 1%", before it became inundated by feminists, gay rights activists, black rights protestors, and the like, which shattered it? Perfect divide and conquer.

            So what you people don't realise when you push this gender/race privilege stuff is that you're playing right into the hands of the ruling class, distracting and disunifying the masses from addressing wealth inequality, which affects everyone regardless of gender or race.

            Finally, let's get back to why my employing people on merit isn't mugging myself: I'm not running a charity. I support certain charities, yes, but my business isn't one, and as it stands, can't afford to be one. I'm not in the business of virtue-signalling for diversity, I'm in the business of developing web applications, publishing and marketing solutions for small to medium enterprises. Employing Aboriginal genderqueer women with no training or experience doesn't make my business any money; employing human beings, of whatever "kind," capable of maintaining web applications and designing brochures and books does. Then I can use some of that money to help out people who need help.

            Mugging myself would be employing a load of deadweight for appearances and quotas over people who can actually do the jobs I need done.

        7. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I'm afraid I discriminate against Java

          There, I wrote it.

          AC because of the over-engineered, strongly typed, statically bound, verbose hate mail I'd otherwise receive.

      2. Mr Dogshit

        Hey!

        Leave Fritz Lang out of this.

    3. Rich 11 Silver badge

      I truly believe I'm colour and gender blind

      I have no doubt that you do believe that. But does your belief match reality?

      Claiming an absolute in a subjective area is a fairly clear warning signal.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I have no doubt that you do believe that. But does your belief match reality?

        Claiming an absolute in a subjective area is a fairly clear warning signal.

        Which part of the word "believe" is difficult for you?

    4. LionelB
      Trollface

      Thumbs up for Jo, Sam, Wil, Nic and a number of other women I've worked with. Including the awesome Diane, who can beat most men in most fields.

      I'm guessing Diane was a bloke, then.

    5. Don Dumb

      @tfewster - "I truly believe I'm colour and gender blind"

      I suggest you submit yourself to academic studies on unconscious bias, you might not have any but it's much more likely that you are just not aware that you do (the clue is the 'un' in unconscious). The results of the studies may interest you.

      Most truly believe they wouldn't simply follow an order to kill an innocent person, it turns out that the vast majority actually would - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

      You don't know what you're capable of.

    6. Tom Paine Silver badge

      I truly believe I'm colour and gender blind

      I'm afraid you're kidding yourself; no-one is. And denying someone's identity isn't necessarily a good thing (though obvious it's well intentioned and preferable to "I don't hire <ethniticity>" racism of "No point hiring her, she'll just leave to have kids" or whatever,)

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @tfewster

      "I truly believe I'm colour and gender blind"

      And I truly believe honesty and transparency should be a top priority when you're looking for a job. If I can't trust you to speak the truth during your application then what guarantees do I have that you will do so when the company hires you?

  5. Dave 126 Silver badge

    For fucks sake! We will never solve our society's issues if we all go around pretending we're perfect, fair and enlightened. We are not. We can't fix our prejudices until we accept them.

    If we accept that we are all biased imperfect humans whose judgement is dodgy even with good intentions, and build systems that will compensate for that self-evident fact, we might stand a better chance of actually achieving a meritocracy. This might be too much of a pragmatic approach for some, but then I actually like people.

    This article was based upon some facile dogma of the most unhelpful flavour. This 'John' person might be right, he might be wrong - in either case his argument will stand or fall by itself. At least he proposed an idea that has a better chance of being objectively fair than some recruiter thinking to themselves "I must remember not to be sexist today, M'kay?"

    Please note that the responses I have made to Andrew Orlowski articles on occasion should reassure the author that it is her content, not her sex, that invokes this feeling in me. Further perusal of my posts will confirm I don't have much time for sexism. Being of a generation that read essays written on real paper by people of intellect (peer-reviewed papers and everything), wit and compassion, I'm confused as to why anyone would think we have anything to learn from this article.

  6. dan1980

    He is right about a few things.

    The first is that he actually accepts that a bias exists. Of course, to imply that it exists in everyone is inaccurate but accepting that there is a problem - in general - is a necessary first step.

    The second thing he is correct about is the implication (whether he intended it or not) that sometimes it is necessary to force people with biases to evaluate a thing or a person in such a way as to remove the effect of the bias.

    I am not suggesting that this should be accepted but simply that some people need to have their biases pointed out to them in this way before they understand. Some people will never learn, of course, but others will realise that they have been judging incorrectly.

    Not that I am suggesting that women should have to hide their gender - far from it. Instead I am saying that some people making these judgments won't accept their biases until they have them revealed in this fashion.

    And, of course, this kind of biases exists for race and age as well.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Recognition of bias was the reason for the bind auditions - but it wasn't to counter sexism.

      There was a belief that students at certain prestigious music schools or who trained with certain well known maestros were getting preferential treatment.

      Women being as good as men came as a big surprise to everyone

    2. Phil.T.Tipp

      I call bollocks on all this HR-speak grievance wankathon and attendant virtue-signalling, white knight bullshit until, and not before, there is equal representation of both sexes (yes, all two of them) in hands-on coal mining, forestry, sewage treatment, deep-sea fishing, petro-chem ops, building things, grave- and ditch-digging. Until then, no dice laydeez.

      1. Jeremy Puddleduck

        *Swoon*. You sound loverly...can I work with you, please *bats lashes and twirls hair*

      2. Just Enough

        No dice gentzz

        "Until then, no dice laydeez."

        How strange that you don't seek equal representation in child-care, textile workers, nursing, secretarial, shop assistants, care of the elderly, telephone receptionists and commercial cleaning.

        Or do they not count as real jobs in your macho-world?

        1. Matthew Taylor

          Re: No dice gentzz

          "How strange that you don't seek equal representation in child-care, textile workers, nursing, secretarial, shop assistants, care of the elderly, telephone receptionists and commercial cleaning."

          It's not strange at all. He's not the one saying that men and women should have statistically identical job distributions - his point was that the people who do say that are cherry picking the careers for which they demand equality.

          1. Just Enough

            Re: No dice gentzz

            I don't think any one is cherry picking jobs for equality. They are cherry-picking the jobs that they personally want to do. But doesn't everyone has the right to do that?

            You'd be as well saying that until you see a 50 year old DevOp working down a coal pit, you refuse to take complaints of age discrimination within the IT sector seriously. Fact is that most 50 year old DevOps don't fancy working down a pit. It's dirty, back-breaking and dangerous. So you are unlikely to find many campaigning for that right, or indeed working there.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Caveman, ugh

    And the rest of the world wonders why Trump can even survive as a valid candidate in today's United States...

    (American talking here, and the stupidity I have to endure is shameful)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Caveman, ugh

      And the rest of the world wonders why Trump can even survive as a valid candidate in today's United States...

      It's because all he has to oppose him is the clitorall hinny.

      1. Kurt Meyer

        Re: Caveman, ugh

        @ AC

        "It's because all he has to oppose him is the clitorall hinny."

        Hey, don't forget Gary "Aleppo" Johnson!

      2. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Caveman, ugh

        With experience relevant to the position she seeks.

        Lots of experience.

        She may not be the best, but she's the best we've got.

        // If I hear the words "email" or "Benghazi" one more time...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          // If I hear...

          Email, Benghazi.

  8. x 7

    It'll never work. Even if you hide them behind a curtain and disguise their voices, you can tell they're women because they smell different.

    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

      you can tell they're women because they smell different.

      Since I can too, I will take you at your word. However, I have come across very few with as keen a sense of smell.

      Last Saturday was at a quiz night and on our team was a young lady dressed in a men's suit and wearing a tie. Her hair was short and the only giveaways were the smell and lack of an Adam's apple.

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Perhaps a lady can attend interviews in a hazmat suit, this also has the advantage of making it difficult to see her lady face, being shapeless, and muffling her lady voice.

      1. x 7

        "Perhaps a lady can attend interviews in a hazmat suit, this also has the advantage of making it difficult to see her lady face, being shapeless, and muffling her lady voice."

        By doing that they just identify themselves as lesbians. Sounds like standard clothing

      2. JLV Silver badge
        Trollface

        Hey, so _that's_ why Saudis insist on the niqab. Silly me...

  9. Faceless Man

    I was going to be all sarky about this...

    ...and then he went and apologised. I presume someone pointed out he was basically saying "It's your responsibility to not go against the employer's biases" rather than "Employers need to do something about their biases".

    This is the thing about blind auditions for orchestras. It's not about women pretending to be men, it's about removing gender from the equation, so that any bias the listener might have is nullified.

    I was actually discussing this yesterday with a colleague, in much more general terms not confined to gender. The problem is we have a brilliant solution to the problem for one type of job. Orchestral musicians need to be able to play well, and the audition is how orchestras determine that. As a general rule, most other jobs aren't amenable to that kind of extreme anonymisation.

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: I was going to be all sarky about this...

      You can say its ok because he apologized, but I have to ask how it ever got published in the first place! I don't mean the Wall Street journal by the way, when they received the article they probably rubbed there hands in glee at the extra publicity this would generate, but having written the article, he didn't have someone in his firm (legal if nothing else) read it to make sure it was OK. And if he did do that, how did that person not point out to him that he was going to come across as a total dick with this article?

      Actually thinking about your last point, IT is one of the few industries which COULD actually do blind interviews. Do everything over the chat, hand over a program to be debugged, ask them to fix a problem remotely? All that seems very doable in a blind test setting. True you want to make sure someone will fit with the team, but testing their skills first, seems like a reasonable idea, and once you have who is the best candidate from the tests you can bring them in and talk to them. Just a thought?

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Re: You can say its ok because he apologized...

        He didn't say it was ok, he just acknowledged that the article's author realized what a dipwad he had been.

        I had the same burning rage to post a scathing comment on how women shouldn't have to hide their gender in any way to get a job and that was not what equality was about. I also deflated somewhat when I read his apology in the last part.

        The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and here I think someone has realized that he may have been talking with the best of intentions, but he blew it in a major way.

        The point now is to get men to focus on what matters : the competence of the person their are interviewing, not the presence or absence of curves just below the collar line.

        Coincidentally, I am currently conducting interviews for a training position for a customer. The job is to train people in Windows and MS Office. My criteria for getting an interview is : you have experience training people in Windows and Office. I have received dozens of CVs from people who do not have that experience on their CV. I don't care which gender they are, they're not getting the job. I try to avoid looking at the personal details until I have gone through the experience section in order to avoid bias. When I have an opinion on the CV, then I check who it is and where they live (because someone on another continent won't be available to start mid-October - and yes, this has happened more than once).

        1. Don Dumb

          Re: You can say its ok because he apologized...

          @Pascal Monett - " I am currently conducting interviews for a training position for a customer.....I try to avoid looking at the personal details until I have gone through the experience section in order to avoid bias. When I have an opinion on the CV, then I check who it is and where they live"

          Could you not 'blind' the CVs? Get someone else to strip the personal information you don't want to see. You can then look through all the CVs make your decisions and then go back to the originals to take it further.

          In the UK we now have anonymised applications, not sure if it's universal but it does cover public sector positions. The name (and perhaps a few other details) is not presented to the recruiter until they have sifted the applications for interview. It's a simple way to remove most unconscious bias, at least before the interview.

          1. Tom Paine Silver badge

            Re: You can say its ok because he apologized...

            Anonimised CVs are also used for first and second round (pre-interview) screening at a couple of large private sector orgs I've worked at.

          2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

            Re: Get someone else to strip the personal information you don't want to see

            That would be my first step if I had 50 employees and an HR department.

            Unfortunately, I'm working with one associate and one employee who are on other projects and mostly not present, so that is not really an option.

  10. Paul Fowler

    Blimey I think he's on to something. Being judged on the quality of your work, rather than the usual bullshit that passes for interviews.

    1. DougS Silver badge

      And if you're hiring an accountant, or a sysadmin, or a teacher, how exactly are you going to judge them on the quality of their work? Ask to see some books an accountant has worked on, some servers a sysadmin has maintained, and some kids a teacher has taught?

      Its all well and good to judge people on the quality of their work AFTER they are hired, but very few jobs allow are like the orchestra example and allow for an interview to consist of "do your job for a few minutes / hours and a fully informed hire / no hire decision will follow".

      1. Kurt Meyer

        Judging the applicants

        @ DougS

        "...how exactly are you going to judge them on the quality of their work?"

        Perhaps by asking to see samples of their work?

        You might contact their former employer(s) to ascertain whether or not the applicant produced quality work at their previous job(s).

        As mentioned above, you could ask the applicant to demonstrate their skills at the duties required for the job in question.

        That seems easy enough.

        1. DocJames
          Pirate

          Re: Judging the applicants

          You can judge them on process, outcomes or volume, if asking about quality of work.

          A proxy for volume is experience - I've done the job for 5 years. For outcomes the example of the orchestra is obvious; some IT jobs could esaily be managed too. Process - again that's easily standardised at lower levels (eg "describe how you'd fix this problem") but more challenging when asking for jobs higher in responsibility/variability.

          And none of this gets around the "do they fit in here" problem. Which is more marked in less diverse workplaces, as you don't fit in if you're very different and nobody else is...

          Icon: I leave as an exercise for the reader how to shortlist pirate recruits.

      2. Geronimo!

        I'm biased ... and I know it. So I can work around it.

        @ DougS

        Both as a freelancer and as an employee I have been put through tests or had to show and discuss technical cases, solve test cases.

        Prepare a few VMs with deliberate mis-configurations (Boot, network, etc) and you'll be able to see how somebody works or is able to solve a problem.

        Ask questions. If the applicant starts bragging immediately, ask nasty questions.

        So many options here, to see if the applicant is fit for the job (and not afraid to get into a discussion with the boss-to-possibly-be)

        Now, being an employer myself, my wife and I have agreed upon the following:

        CVs will be anonymised by her, so only the experience and education part remains.

        Any hint on gender, religion, disability or "race" (how I detest this word) are removed.

        Why? Because I am biased. I will probably treat applications from men older than me, people with "exotic" names or hobbies I don't like, the same.

        I don't like that about me, as there are other things I don't like about me.

        And I can work on those, try to change them, but that'll take time. So my wife (Procura in our company) takes care of that.

  11. Zaxxon
    Paris Hilton

    supply issue

    If you had 50 software engineer positions to fill and auto-hired every woman who applied, you would still not come close to 50-50. There is still fundamentally a supply side issue. Look in any college tech class. Not many females in there.

    I had a couple of entry level SE positions open back in the spring and got 600 applicants, mostly recent MS-CS grads. The women applicants were in the single digits. We did mange to hire one.

    At JavaOne a couple of weeks ago I don't think you could fill a small room with the few women who were there.

    1. x 7

      Re: supply issue

      "I don't think you could fill a small room with the few women who were there."

      They must have felt lonely. Everyone knows that women like to use the smallest room in groups

    2. Thatguyfromthatforum

      Re: supply issue

      So she must of been a very highly knowledgeable / skilled applicant or you just hired her because "female"? Genuinely interested because I see amazing male cs grads getting the shaft for female grads who don't have the basic level of knowledge to do the jobs they apply for.

    3. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: supply issue

      If you had 50 software engineer positions to fill and auto-hired every woman who applied, you would still not come close to 50-50. There is still fundamentally a supply side issue.

      I was talking to a surgeon some time ago. He was under attack from the feminazis for not training more women surgeons. He told me, sadly, he had accepted every single female who had asked to be trained by him.

  12. Mr Dogshit

    My own experience

    Admittedly fifteen years ago. I was one of two finalists for my dream job as a sysadmin. Decent money, interesting job, travel opportunities. Would they offer it to the candidate with eight years' experience and IT qualifications (i.e. me) or the beautiful girl with massive tits?

    Obviously the latter, even though she had no experience or qualifications.

    To make things worse, I had to go back to that place umpteen times afterwards to fix their kit.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My name is Sue, how do you do

    No wonder I can't find a job

  14. Tim Seventh

    I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude

    before this gets down voted to oblivion

    What John started is a really good point. If the ladies wanted unbiased tech interview, not revealing gender is a good way to do it. It is like the internet, you remain anonymous with others making judgment on your other skills.

    Part of this bias of gender came from majority of ladies putting so much time into fashion. In an economical technical based environment, fashion does not increase productivity. Only in a business and marketing based environment, it does increase profitability.

    So, a tech company HR will have bias that people that put a lot of time into fashion will be less productive because the same amount of time have been used for fashion. On the other case, there are companies (including tech) that hires ladies for the looks, which in exchange means those hired may not have the technical skill.

    Essential, the bias creates a cycle of ladies -> fashion -> less productive -> hire for looks -> less technical -> (repeat).

    Aside from the last part where he wants ladies to dress like men (wtf?) which kinda over stepped out of the line, it may feel like a disadvantage from the way he said but, it is actually an advantage for ladies.

    If they want a technical skill job, all they need to do is to not reveal the part that tells your gender and maximize their technical skills. If the tech employer cares, they will find out anyway. If you want a business and market job, they can use their fashion skill to maximize their chance of getting the job.

    Lastly, remember most of we guys can only get our job from our technical background. you girls can get a job with fashion alone, but you can choose not to when you need to. Use it at your advantage.

    1. Jeremy Puddleduck

      Re: I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude

      You, sir, are spouting pish, pure and simple. You seem worryingly obsessed with women "putting time into fashion". Based on my experience in the engineering field that could cover something as minor as ironing you clothes, having trousers that meet your shoes and brushing our hair. And if you think that makes us less productive then I worry about you, dear.

      Fashion is not the reason there is conscious and unconscious bias in the hiring process. Give me strength.

    2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude

      The point you're not getting, Tim, is that saying "all they need to do" is exactly like saying "if she got raped it's her fault for being dressed like that".

      Women should not need to do anything to get a job other than present their CV and competence, just like guys.

      And it's up to us guys to make it so that happens, not up to women to pretend to be guys to get a job.

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude

        Women should not need to do anything to get a job other than present their CV and competence, just like guys.

        I really can't believe this thread. Can't you fuckers realise that actually providing evidence that you are going to do what you are paid to do is vital? If, like the woman I mentioned below, all you are going to do is flash your tits and smile enchantingly, you are a complete fucking waste of space. The purpose of a business is to make money. No money, no pay. I despair...

        1. Jeremy Puddleduck

          Re: I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude

          @Pompous Git

          You, and your numerous sexist responses on this thread, are really quite vile, as I am sure you are aware.

          Women do more in STEM industries than "flash their tits and smile enchantingly", and despite the whinges on this thread, like most men the vast majority deserve their positions and almost certainly deserve equal pay (although probably don't get it). I work with a couple of really lazy (male) shits who astound me with their ability to do nothng, know nothing and yet float to the top. Does it make me assume all men are the same? Does it make me question the whole fairness of men getting jobs in male-domainted fields? No!

          Strewth, I wonder why more women don't both with this industry with such nice welcoming people like you shouting your mouth off. Thankfully you are one of the ever-decreasing neanderthals with such bloody stupid, ill-informed views.

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude

            @ Jeremy Puddleduck

            The woman in question gave three referees, all female, all said she had done nothing to earn her keep and it was clear that while she liked to give the impression that she was shit hot was as useless as tits on a bull. As it happens, I was really pissed off at the time because her predecessor was one of the most talented and hard-working people, regardless of sex (not gender) I had ever worked with. Our employer drove her away. Not me. I have never favoured one sex (not gender) over the other when engaging employees. I have always paid women the same rates, under the same terms and conditions as men.

            You have a very odd opinion regarding the word "vile". I suggest you look it up in a dictionary. You might also want to look up the word "idiot".

            1. Kurt Meyer

              Re: I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude

              @ Pompous Git Re:@ Jeremy Puddleduck

              Skills based hiring? What a concept!

              Jeremy, when you look up idiot, save yourself some time, use a mirror.

  15. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    IT Angle

    There is a significant problem in getting women to get tech degrees

    When my mom was in tech (back in the days of the mainframe, minicomputer and FORTRAN, about 30%-40% of her co-workers were women. It is definitely less than that now.

    My mom used to tell me that this was largely due to IT being an acceptable role for women, because they weren't meeting customers and it was a pretty new field--so not traditionally male.

    1. Martin

      Re: There is a significant problem in getting women to get tech degrees

      It's also the case that in the very early days of computing, programming was considered to be an admin job, hence it was done by women. It was only later that it was realized that actually, it's a bit harder (and more interesting) than just a straight admin job, so obviously it should be done by more competent men.

  16. 45RPM Silver badge

    What a load of old bollocks

    Why should women have to disguise who they are? Men don't. If anything the onus is on men to treat women as they'd expect to be treated themselves.

    Think about it. Last time you were giving a talk at a conference (if you're a chap) when was the last time you were asked a question like "so how do you find developing, as a man?" Ever? Never? Ah. Never. Thought so. It's not interesting. You get asked about the cool things that you've done.

    And so it should be with women. Their sex isn't interesting, what they've achieved is. So ask about that, respect them for that, employ them for that instead.

    And remember, chaps, it's not emasculating to be a feminist. It's emasculating not to be one.

    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: What a load of old bollocks

      Why should women have to disguise who they are? Men don't.

      That depends on how you define disguise. Back in the 70s, we sent a recent university graduate to a job interview under a false name. He failed to get the job. The following day he presented under his real name, long hair cut short, wearing a suit and tie instead of a t-shirt and jeans. He got the job.

      1. 45RPM Silver badge

        Re: What a load of old bollocks

        @Pompous Git

        Doesn't that just come down to good manners though? I wouldn't interview someone who'd provided a false name either, although it is a good deal easier to check these days (I imagine - I wasn't doing much interviewing in the 1970s, being far more interested in my Action Man and his torrid relationship with my sister's Sindys).

        As for their attire, I don't care about hair length - but I'd like them to come to interview smartly dressed, even if they spend every day of their working lives with me in jeans and a t-shirt (as long as the jeans and t-shirt are clean and presentable, and the t-shirt doesn't have any vulgar slogans on it (like 'Make America Great Again', for example!))

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: What a load of old bollocks

          Doesn't that just come down to good manners though?

          You are correct that good manners matter, but it wasn't just good manners. Any employer will tell you that fitting in is vitally important. In fact, and I have assisted a very large number of people find work, that is the most important factor in being hired. Technical skills while not unimportant, can be taught and often must be. New hires fresh from university often know sweet FA about the real world where the technical skills they were taught are less important than those they will learn on the job.

          Example: The Gitling reported that in 2nd year of a Comp Sci course he was being taught how to write a web application. He stuck his hand up and asked "What about security?". He was told that was something you added in after the application was finished.

          Presumably some "fully qualified" developers never find time for that. I can remember being able to access other people's tax records by changing a number in the address box of my web browser.

          I wouldn't interview someone who'd provided a false name either, although it is a good deal easier to check these days

          He was in fact interviewed. The false name is irrelevant except it might have aroused suspicion if he'd used the same name on the second day. The important thing was his "disguise". And he needed to be using his real name when he was hired.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What a load of old bollocks

          " I wasn't doing much interviewing in the 1970s, being far more interested in my Action Man and his torrid relationship with my sister's Sindys"

          Doubt things were overly torrid between Action Man and Sindy given his lack of, er, bits.

          As someone once pointed out, this makes "Action" Man a somewhat ironic name.

          1. 45RPM Silver badge

            Re: What a load of old bollocks

            @AC nobody knows if Action Man is well endowed or not. He could be hung like a rogue elephant. But we can’t get his plastic pants off to find out.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It is, of course, eminently reasonable that men should be thought of as more intelligent than women. After all, they have two brains to think with instead of being limited to only one. It is fortunate that men have been endowed with a penis; a most excellent organ, which it is well known that many men use to help them think. Unfortunately, women were not so well endowed by their creator and must make do with only using their brains for thinking. This has, as would be expected, led to great advancements by men throughout history, while women, being less competent, have not been so productive. It is fortunate then, that they have frequently been content to follow the wise advice of their men and undertake tasks that do not require so much intellectual rigor.

    Sorry, that was my penis talking. They always SOUND so eloquent, but they really just want to do some spelunking and then whitewash the place.

    1. Smooth Newt
      FAIL

      It is, of course, eminently reasonable that men should be thought of as more intelligent than women. After all, they have two brains to think with instead of being limited to only one. It is fortunate that men have been endowed with a penis;...

      Sorry, that was my penis talking.

      I very much doubt you have a penis, but I bet you have a lot of shoes.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Hey, thanks for your interest in my penis and my shoes, Newt!

        1. I checked again this morning. He's still there. :)

        2. Having checked my closet, I do seem to have more shoes than I remember. I have a pair of boots, dress shoes, tennis shoes, two pairs of sandals and a pair of slippers. I'm not sure if 6 pairs of shoes counts as a lot, but it's more than one pair. I had forgotten about the boots and the second pair of sandals (they just cut up my feet if I try to wear them), and I can't remember the last time I used the slippers.

        I did consider referring to "my dick" in the second paragraph, but thought I might try to be a bit family friendly, and thus also left off the bit about needing to "beat the bishop before he got out of hand" as well.

  18. Rich 11 Silver badge

    Could have been worse

    Well, at least his apology was sincere.

  19. Bigg Phill
    FAIL

    Try again but without the sarcasm

    "'The single most significant factor was the introduction of blind auditions during the late 1970s, in which a screen obscured the musicians' age, gender and ethnicity from the panel of evaluators.'

    You see, rather than expecting men to recognize their own inherent biases and prejudices and question them, the best solution is to leave them be and occasionally fool them. Don't worry, they won't mind if you don't do it too often."

    I stopped reading a little after this as I got sick of the condescending tone.

    A blind application process is a good way of removing any inherent bias by any person involved in the recruitment process. For example, studies have shown that people often assume that fat people are lazy.

    The person you're so scathing of may well be making some stupid points from their lofty tower of privelege but yours are far worse.

    Given the choice between hoping a human action will be self-corrected or eliminating it completely which option should an IT news site be advocating?!?

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My 2 cents as a 2016 CS Grad

    To say that there is some sort of opppression of women urging them to choose alternative career paths is frankly, horse shit. The 2 graduating girls in my class joined after doing a hnd in computer studies , but their grades were not taken into account when joining my uni course to get a full degree. Also their degree status, 2:1 etc was determined not by some overall calculation of the hnd and one year top up, but totally on their final year. So just to emphasise, I worked my ass off to get on the course and these ladies got a free pass because "reasons", I worked my ass off for the full three years and got a 2:1, just narrowly missing a first. Both ladies got a 2/1 and a 2/2 respectively. Both cheated their entire third year, in everything. This was pointed out and ignored because "reasons". One even admitted on Facebook that she regularly cheated her ccna chapters but that was also "none of the Uni's business what she posts on her private social media".

    Moving on to my point, every company that came to visit up and coming grads openly promoted taking women first, because "reasons", both girls were offered a job with large tech companies prior to the end of their degree without a final grade being a condition of employment. This was the exact opposite of everyone else on the course who was male, we had to hit our target grade to stand a chance of a job. After completing my degree not a single tech company would look at my cv, so I did a little experiment and gave myself a girls monicker. Every company emailed me back for an interview. "Co-incidence "I'm sure.

    So what now? These two girls from my class are working in tech, without the knowledge to do the jobs they have luckily gained, and the truly outstanding and hard working get the shaft. Out of our graduating class of 12 only 4 have jobs in the tech sector. Myself, another guy who moved back to Vietnam and was hired on merit, and the two girls. Sadly the only real "genius" of the group, a guy who walked away with the highest score for a degree in a decade is now working in retail because no one will hire him. My uni is in the top 5 for the UK, as for my job I left the uk and found a job within a week.

    "The other thing I know from work around the world is that women truly only get empowered when there's a collective of them." - Melinda gates

    So companies have to make a choice, hire the best and brightest or choose women purely based on their genitals. How this isn't sexist is beyond me, some special feminist mathematics I'm sure. I'm sure their are very talented women who are up and coming in the industry but to pander to a whole gender purely because of low numbers is truly sickening to me. Remind me again why I spent £50.000 on my degree?

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Go

      Re: My 2 cents as a 2016 CS Grad

      Get copies of the cheating, get the responses from your Uni in writing and if nothing happens, then go talk to a) the police and b) your local MP.

      Believe me, things will move then. Too late now in your case, I know, but maybe useful in the future.

    2. Michael Strorm

      Re: My 2 cents as a 2016 CS Grad

      "Remind me again why I spent £50.000 on my degree?"

      You only spent £50 on your degree? Not sure you have anything to complain about in that case! (^_^)

      P.S. Anyone making the anticipated correct but pedantic response to this comment gets a QI-style forfeit buzzer. So there. :-P

  21. Jess

    The aptitude for all tasks is not evenly spread through the genders

    The obvious issues are;

    Ensuring developing that aptitude is not biased against the 'wrong' gender.

    Ensuring that ability rather than gender is used in the selection of candidate.

    Someone having to pretend to be what they are not is ridiculous, however it would make a lot of sense for the early stages of a selection not to include anything that allows prejudices to get in the way of this.

    Already CVs are dropping date of birth, perhaps the names and other irrelevant information should be withheld on the initial selection round.

    This would at least reduce the problems of good candidates being ignored due to gender and unsuitable candidates getting preferential selection.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    "The really weird thing? She got the job anyway."

    After reading this it might be worth reading this piece too in todays El Reg: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/30/on_call/

    "Payback time: Adam let it be known he hadn't volunteered as a referee and – a bit peeved – “found myself unable to stop myself in describing what I thought of her IT skills in a fairly blunt manner.”

    The really weird thing? She got the job anyway."

    Just saying. I've experienced hopeless females hired and promoted just to fulfil the quotas and its frankly annoying. Its not about sexism - its just about quality. Trust me, if I could work in a software environment where at least 50% of my colleagues were capable female software engineers, I would love it. Nothing floats my boat like an intelligent woman does. But when they are a handful of token females who have (in my experience) zero interest in their domain and very little ability, it just raises serious questions about the hiring and engineering.

    Paris, asking me to do a code review for her. Oh, and it doesn't seem to compile, maybe I could help with that too?

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Chess

    A woman has never rippled to the top of the chess ratings nor become world champion. Chess is a more pure meritocracy than music because all you have to do is win, there is no peer assessment. Style does not matter. I understand that women can be as good as men at chess. There are just not enough women playing. So the odds of one becoming the best are stacked against them. In a similar way people born in Oxford are not likely to become the world champion. There will be a gender pay gap (and also an Oxford pay gap) because only the very best chess players get paid.

    Tech is the same. A typical tech interviewee will not be very good, this applies regardless of gender or ethnic grouping. If we had tech numerical parity then women would compete equally.

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Go

      Re: Chess

      Actually women have made it to the top of Chess. Never #1, although Judit Polgar defeated Kaparov whilst he was #1 in ~2003.

      You can talk about it being a meritocracy, but there was for a very long time institutional hostility against women competing in competitions. That's only changed really since the 70's.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sexist Nonsense

    "It's one of the most pervasive problems in tech: ingrained sexism that sees women looked over for promotion or often not given a job in the first place."

    Where is the evidence of this? There are relatively few women in technology but the main reason is because there are relatively few women who want to be, who study the right subjects and apply for technology jobs. I have been recruiting for developers, with a bias towards dual skilled people with SW and Physics, Elctronics, Biomedical engineering for 30 years and the number of women who have applied in that time is a tiny percentage perhaps one in fifty. Any women who applies automatically stands out and that alone is a big advanatge let alone a desire to balanced teams. The problem is that the number who are any good is no better than for the men so the handful who apply are then whittled down by the handful who are actually competent.

    Why do we endlessly worry about the proportion of women in tech, have lots of schemes to encourage women and yet pay no attention at all to areas where women dominate? If we look at current enrollment on degree courses the big issue is the lack of boys yet nothing is done to address this, in fact the opposite, everything is done to increase the imbalance.

  25. Jeffrey Nonken Silver badge

    I have to wonder who wrote the apology for him.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What gender bias?

    I've worked in IT since the mid-80's and from my experience, those with ability rise to the top regardless of their gender.

    Indeed, based on the percentage of women in senior positions I would suggest that women in IT are more likely to succeed than their male counter-parts.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: What gender bias?

      "I've worked in IT since the mid-80's and from my experience, those with ability rise to the top regardless of their gender."

      Regrettably that ability seems to be the ability to climb corporate ladders rather than anything else.

  27. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    Anonymous interviews have their own problems

    First up: it's known that all people have bias for their own kind (gender, class, ethnicity, football team, etc.)

    However, recent research into anonymous interviews / CVs indicates that they can be counter-productive, though there is also evidence to the contrary.

    http://www.economist.com/news/business/21677214-anonymising-job-applications-eliminate-discrimination-not-easy-no-names-no-bias

    Anyway, when it comes to raising funds and getting top jobs, it seems women can be successful: Elizabeth Holmes and Marissa Mayer seemed to do okay. Yes, yes, I know this is cherry-picking.

  28. PassiveSmoking

    Donald? Is that you?

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This article itself is sexist because it assumes that bias against women in certain roles only occurs in men when actually the stats show that women can be equally biased against female candidates. The fact is that everyone, male or female has biases and prejudices based on stereotypes.

  30. Chris Miller

    If you think there's a significant pool of untapped female ability in IT, there's a great opportunity. Start your own company and hire some of this underpaid quality talent. Back in the 60s when such a pool really existed, Steve (Stephanie) Shirley did precisely this, founded F International (now Xansa) and made rather a lot of money. Come on, what's stopping you?

    1. LionelB

      If you think there's a significant pool of untapped female ability in IT, there's a great opportunity. Start your own company and hire some of this underpaid quality talent. [...] Come on, what's stopping you?

      Probably the inevitable hordes of outraged numpties screaming about your company discriminating against men. <sigh>

  31. David Roberts Silver badge

    Logically correct, politically incorrect.

    Those with wide industry experience (not just in IT) may well have noticed that like recruits like.

    One striking example was a marketing team I worked with who looked like an experiment in cloning. All approximately the same height, build, hair colour and looked as though they shared a single wardrobe. Oh, and spookily they were the same gender. Male, as it happens. I think they spent a lot of thought on fashion issues.

    Bias exists everywhere, mainly unconcious but sometimes actively encouraged. It takes a broadness of view and moral integrity to rise above this. Now consider how many members of management you have encountered majored in these two attributes. Consider the involvement of those who fall short in this area with recruitment. The issue is how to circumvent or change the situation.

    Positive discrimination is one way. This is unfair in the short term but may be effective in the long term. Hopefully if/when there is gender equality the need will go away and it will cease to exist. Not good if you are a victim, though.

    I do note that many commentards are gender neutral in their aliases. Given the tone of some of the comments here this may be an effective way of getting a less biased hearing.

    On the education front, my daughter wanted to do an IT course at secondary school. She realised that there was an institutional bias but was willing to give it a go. However at the open day we met the IT guy who supported all the kit and contributed to the courses and he was (in my humble but industry honed view) such a hopeless technically clueless antisocial dipshit that trying to learn anything useful would be counter productive. We discussed it and decided to give the course a miss.

    She took an IT related course at University and after working in a number of roles both IT and non-IT she is working as an awesomely paid Business Analyst. Making Daddy very proud. So natural ability can get you there regardless, but I reckon that the problems really lie within schools. Things may have changed, of course.

    TL;DR he was, unfortunately, mostly logically correct in his analysis. Don't shoot the messenger. Don't force people to recant their genuinely held beliefs. This smacks of religious bigotry, not reasoned debate.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    It's one of the most pervasive problems in tech: ingrained sexism...

    Is it?

    How do you know this?

    Is this true too? It's one of the most pervasive problems in nursing: ingrained sexism that sees men looked over for promotion or often not given a job in the first place.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's one of the most pervasive problems in tech: ingrained sexism...

      Could I politely ask whoever gave me a downvote to explain why, as I was asking perfectly reasonable questions. Thankyou.

      1. whatevs...

        Re: It's one of the most pervasive problems in tech: ingrained sexism...

        I downvoted you.

        You're not asking a "perfectly reasonable question". You're being a typical passive-aggressive WASP. Let's see some tangible figures instead of the blatantly pulled-out-of-your-arse conjecture you present here.

        Tit.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It's one of the most pervasive problems in tech: ingrained sexism...

          I am asking a perfectly reasonable question: the author posits that ingrained sexism is one of the most pervasive problems in tech yet offers no proof of this whatsoever. I can similarly offer no proof but I don't think sexism is much of a problem in tech at all. So who wins? Who's right?

          I would definitely like to see some tangible figures, but I don't know how you measure sexism in a tangible fashion. And the author doesn't seem to know either. And it sure looks like you don't because you're just blustering without adding any value. Perhaps you get away with that approach in your day-to-day life, but it does you no favours here.

          Finally, before you descend to playground insults, you call me a WASP. If I take it you mean the standard definition of this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant - then you should look deeply at your own biases and prejudices rather than putting them all on show. You know nothing about me as I know nothing about you. Long may it stay that way.

          Seriously whatevs...: calm down, and start thinking.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's one of the most pervasive problems in tech: ingrained sexism...

      Actually, it's quite the opposite:

      A man who goes into nursing can expect to do his lumps in the trenches as an RN for a few years, same as everybody else, then his liklihood of being advanced to higher-paid, administrative/supervisory positions SKYROCKETS compared to his female colleagues.

      I was even advised, at my college, that if I could swallow my pride and get into a traditionally feminine field - nursing - I'd be making mad bank in a few years and wouldn't have to get my hands dirty at all a few more years after that.

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: It's one of the most pervasive problems in tech: ingrained sexism...

        I was even advised, at my college, that if I could swallow my pride and get into a traditionally feminine field - nursing - I'd be making mad bank in a few years and wouldn't have to get my hands dirty at all a few more years after that.

        I'll tell my friend who was forced to retire in his late 30s due to a bad back will find your "insight" quite fascinating. Just as well you're an AC because otherwise he might have come around and demonstrated a rather interesting use of a pick-axe handle for you.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not just IT

    My ex applied for a position in a Marine Fisheries Department at a large American University about 20 years ago and was told informally that the only way they would hire a woman was if they could piss off the back of the boat.

    I will not go into the details, but she got the position.

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just add '-ess' to the job title.

    That'll make the ladies take notice. After all, it works for lions.

    Oh and paint the interview room pink, and if you hire one of the feminines to waft around the office, make sure they get an appropriate company car. This'll do: http://www.seat.co.uk/about-seat/news-events/corporate/new-seat-mii-by-cosmopolitan.html

  35. Mark 78

    We can all think we are unbiased

    I was looking through the comments so far, and was surprised by the amount of people who think they are not biased in a situation like this. Just because we think we are unbiased does not mean we actually are.

    Why do you think drug trials have to be done as blind trials with people getting a placebo - I bet every single person in those trials believes they will give honest replies to whether the drug worked for them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: We can all think we are unbiased

      For a proper blind trial, make sure the job posting doesn't include the name of the hiring organisation, its location, or any actual details of the role on offer. Bias works both ways.

    2. LionelB

      Re: We can all think we are unbiased

      Agree with the first part, but placebo in drug trials is a poor example of unconscious bias. People in blind trials with placebo generally do respond honestly - it's just that placebo frequently works as well as the drug on trial (that's precisely what the trials are designed to test for - a drug is not deemed effective unless it outperforms placebo). Placebo is powerful medicine - strange, but true.

      OT: Homeopathic remedies are a fine example; for those people that believe they are effective, they frequently are. However, it's hard to perform satisfactory double-blind trials on homeopathic remedies (that's the remedies themselves, as opposed to the full treatment process) for the following reason: a plausible explanation for the apparent efficacy of homeopathic treatment is that it is down to a combination of the beliefs of the patient and practitioner, and in particular the level of personal attention involved (as compared, say, with typical medical practice). Therefore, to test whether the remedies themselves play any part whatsoever in the efficacy, the practitioner, as well as the patient (and, of course, testers) would need to be unaware whether they were using placebo (water), or a homeopathic remedy (water... sorry, my bias). It seems that most homeopathists object to this, on the (I guess kind of understandable) grounds that they would not be able to apply effective treatment if they were not confident they were prescribing a "real" remedy. The only way to perform a satisfactory trial, then, would be to dupe the practitioner (and patient) by sometimes replacing the remedies with placebo. This is not, however, considered ethical.

  36. TheJokker

    Sorry but it is sexist to automatically label men as sexist because women make choices that prevent them from being as successful in "tech" as men.

    People are getting fed-up with this sexist feminist nonsense. Watch as Trump steamrolls Clinton in America this fall by and large because of a populist backlash to the the liberal/feminist agenda...

    1. LionelB

      Sorry but it is sexist to automatically label men as sexist because women make choices that prevent them from being as successful in "tech" as men.

      Well, no, but it is surely worth questioning why women make choices that prevent them from being as successful in tech as men; in particular why woman tend not to perceive tech as an attractive career path, from primary education onward. Perhaps... just perhaps... this perception has something to do with the dominant (white, middle-class) male culture in tech.

      People are getting fed-up with this sexist feminist nonsense.

      Yeah... all that equal pay, right-to-vote nonsense...

      Watch as Trump steamrolls Clinton in America this fall by and large because of a populist backlash to the the liberal/feminist agenda...

      Right, because women love being labelled as fat pigs, dogs and slags. (Hey, your guy didn't do a lot of steamrolling in that debate. A lot of gurning, huffing and rambling, yes. Really presidential stuff.)

  37. Herby Silver badge

    The answer to the question "Sex?" is...

    YES.

    Of course now they phrase it differently, and say "Gender", for which there are several answers that can be provided.

    Me? One of the most competent programmers I worked with was of the female persuasion (Hi Joy!). She had learned programming from the ground up. You know they are a good programmer when they start adding up their checkbook in octal (she was programming a pdp-8 at the time).

    Life goes on. Understand that everyone has some "bias" and live with it.

  38. JustNiz

    > have you considered not letting us know you're female?

    This is ridiculous. It is at best a workaround rather than a solution. I'm not even sure it is really that, both because I don't think applicants hiding their gender is practically possible, and also I really question from personal experience whether there is actually a problem here, rather than just a PeeCee perception of one.

    I can only talk about my 35+ years as a Software Developer working at many different tech companies all over the EU and US. Honestly at all those companies without exception, they were without exception all VERY careful to be gender-neutral in interviewing. In fact if anything, it was most usual that they erred so much on the side of caution that females ususally got an easier ride during interviews and more forgiving evaluation after than an equally skilled guy would. Nothing I have personally seen in the entirety of my career suggests that the actual reason for a gender imbalance (in software engineering at least) is anything other than womens own choices and prejudices. And any result of free choice should always be perfectly fine whatever it is, not perceived as a problem to be fixed, especially just to meet some PeeCee metric. Let me just nip something in the bud before some SJW calls me an insensitive chauvinist a-hole or whatever. I realise that my actual first-hand experience does not coincide with what the "politically correct" brigade would have everyone think is going on everywhere. And I don't care.

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Summary of discussion to date...

    1. We are not biased, but everyone else is, especially when the don't agree with us.

    2. Everyone should be treated equally, yet we all know of over-promoted, under-qualified idiots who have sailed through the recruitment process and probably life. They should be punished.

    3. No-one should ever have to hide who or what they are, but blind recruitment is a good thing.

    4. Tech is rife with sexism, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not, yes it is, no...

    5. A handy insult beats a rational argument.

    6. What is is with middle aged men in Lycra. I mean, really?

    7. If we just all got along with each other better that'd be great, except that lazy coworker who we wouldn't pee on if they were on fire.

    (Point 6 wasn't explicitly discussed, I just feel it has merit.)

    I think we're done here.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019