Hiring women only - this actually happened

[Fojos]

And while you're right about formal education not being the only qualification - you also make the assumption without thinking, that there's no possibility the female applicant could have done the same - like you said - being interested and involved from a younger age. I said equal qualification, I made no statement as to what sources of qualification.

Thus the point I gave. I don't make any assumption. I'm looking at the bigger picture. Yes, a woman might as well have been interested from a younger age, just like a guy, but in reality, it's much less likely, thus, women on average possibly have a smaller chance of landing a job.

The reality is that average women at year 5 of computer studies will have much less experience than equivalent average men, not the exception.

We can't base our thinking on "What if?" in these cases.

[Endus]

I doubt you'd step into an airplane with an incompetent female pilot who was given the job merely because she was a woman. You'd want the best possible pilot.

Again, no affirmative action program allows for incompetent or unqualified people to be hired, in the first place. It's a straw man argument.

[Pann]

Because the male applicants won't even be looked at even though they could be better.

Seeing as the OP is not exactly forthcoming with information for all we know they could be looking for an equal number of male and female interns but have already enough applicants from male students. Even if this is not case, there is nothing stopping the OP from registering his interest in a similar position, most companies will not over look a strong applicant and will keep their records on file if they do not have a current position for them.

[helmaroc]

I doubt you'd step into an airplane with an incompetent female pilot who was given the job merely because she was a woman. You'd want the best possible pilot.

This comparison blows. First why would the female pilot be incompetent in the first place? Second an internship to get more females into the field is not a big deal. If the roles were reversed and the field was female dominated then they would try to get more men interested in the field by gaining experience through a summer internship.

[Ragedaug]

Ironically you probably also support abolishing the civil rights act. You and you libertarians think it should be legal for a private company to refuse service to a black, yet get soooo pissed when a private company wants to hire more minorities or females, i just cant get over how hypocritical you people are.

Ironically, the Civil Rights Act was primarily about encouraged desegregation and preventing discrimination. The Civil Rights Act is specifically against (Title VII) denying employment to someone based on gender (amongst other things), so the Civil Rights Act goes against what Google is doing (allegedly).

I'm completely for the Civil Rights Act. I am against an employer refusing to service anyone based on ethnicity or skin color. I don't get worked up at all that a people in a company may desire a certain type of employee, I only get "pissed" as you say, when they act on that desire and refuse to hire someone because they are not what they desire.

I also find it ironic that you don't find discriminating against a black person and a white male the same. I don't understand how you think it's OK to discriminate against one and not the other.

[Oneirophobia]

This isn't a role that would ever require life or death decision making get real

They apply affirmative action like this in Fire Fighting, so I suppose it could happen.

Are are tests you must pass to become a Fire Fighter, such as a minimum weight you must lift. If you can't pass the physical exam, such as lifting that weight or the other physically demanding tests, you can still get the job if you fall into the affirmative action categories at the expense of someone physically qualified.

Now imagine your disappointment if you find yourself in a burning building and this skinny little guy of which ever ethnicity you choose who is exhausting himself from merely moving about in his heavy fire-retardant outfit is the only one available to lift your unconscious body out of the burning building...

[Sickjen]

That isn't how hiring works. If you're "more qualified", then you're generally overqualified, and that's an actual reason to not hire you, not a reason to prefer you.

Plus, it's not like you've seen the applicants' qualifications. By assuming the women are less qualified and that's why they need the program, you're perpetrating exactly the discrimination that the program is intended to redress.

Who assumed that? In this case there asking for women with no experience not a person a women. That in it self is sexism.There is no denying that you could say women or i'll represented but what makes this pure gold is the applicants qualificationcan be slim to none on experience. You should read the article i posted. The problem in this field isn't the employers but how many undergraduates there are coming from said field. You can't increase a representation of women in a work environment by basically saying you can have slim to know experience especially for google. I'm going to assume the best of the best work there so taking anyone less qualified is wrong. You can't turn this debate around it doesn't work like that. Just keep in mind sexism works both ways.


Representation will go up when there are more female graduates point and case.

I'm pro equality. meaning equal opportunities male of female.

[Mythricia]

It's hilarious how everyone assumes that the female applicants that will be hired are by default less qualified.

They have a set of qualifications for the positions - if they're met, you're in. Now imagine if there's a huge amount of male applicants, and a small portion of female applicants, all equally qualified - guess what'll happen - they'll end up recruiting mostly men. That's what they want to avoid clearly, as is literally in the statement of their ad.

Storm in a freaking teacup, just because it's a gender issue and it's the new hotness for men to feel victimized.

[Ragedaug]

Again, no affirmative action program allows for incompetent or unqualified people to be hired, in the first place. It's a straw man argument.

Anecdotally, I've seen it happen. Not to fly an aircraft per say, but I've seen it in other jobs I've worked. Hiring unqualified people in the name of AA.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

It's one of those threads where idiots don't even read and just dissagree because "reasons".

Wasn't necessary directed at you but people who seem to think AA hires are incompetent like...

Garian:
I doubt you'd step into an airplane with an incompetent female pilot who was given the job merely because she was a woman. You'd want the best possible pilot.

Don't pretend their aren't people who share his opinion.

[Fojos]

They have a set of qualifications for the positions - if they're met, you're in. Now imagine if there's a huge amount of male applicants, and a small portion of female applicants, all equally qualified - guess what'll happen - they'll end up recruiting mostly men. That's what they want to avoid clearly, as is literally in the statement of their ad.

And what's wrong with most men getting the position here? If 1000 people apply, with 10 openings. Let's say 100 are qualified women and 900 are qualified men. Why is it wrong for the end result to be 9 men and 1 woman hired?

[Faroth]

Again, no affirmative action program allows for incompetent or unqualified people to be hired, in the first place. It's a straw man argument.

The only hiring program that allows for incpompetent people to be hired is government elected positions.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. Carry on, all.)

[Deleted]

And nobody will ever do that because of the immense education required for that shit. They go through a metric ton of simulation first IF they pass previous tests. :I If someone passes said test, said someone pulled straight from the street, they still passed, thus they can qualify for the job presented, even if not by conventional means.

There are situations, namely life-or-death situations, where you simply want the most qualified person for the job regardless of sex.

Obviously that's not happening in the OP's case. It will only breed resentment.

At least when a woman is the most qualified person for something, men will actually respect that. Mature men anyway.

Now what frustrates me are the lengths to which people are willing to go to force equality. If people are going to destroy a man's career in order to put a less qualified woman first, then I will have absolutely no part of it. Especially in fields where jobs are finite. Men are simply going to have to learn irreplaceable skills in order to avoid this nonsense. If "equality" is still forced then it goes beyond the realm of mere politics and into the realm of injustice.

[Ragedaug]

It's hilarious how everyone assumes that the female applicants that will be hired are by default less qualified..

You are making an assumption that other folks are folks are assuming that. The reason people don't like AA is only due to the chance of a more qualified applicant getting passed over in the name of everything the Civil Rights Act was against. "Why make a rule that leaves that chance out there" is what most folks are saying.

[Orange Joe]

Life as a white, heterosexual, middle class male is a piece of cake, so why not throw the others a few crumbs every now and then?

Could have fooled me.

[Ragedaug]

The only hiring program that allows for incpompetent people to be hired is government elected positions.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. Carry on, all.)

Well done sir!! Well done!

[Mythricia]

And what's wrong with most men getting the position here? If 1000 people apply, with 10 openings. Let's say 100 are qualified women and 900 are qualified men. Why is wrong for the end result to be 9 men and 1 woman hired?

Because they want to diversify. I don't care what their reason is. It's their company, they have decided they want to do it that way, seems fine by me. I haven't read any research but it seems logical to me that a more diversified workplace works better too, so that may very well be part of their reason.

Also you're ignoring what was said earlier in the thread - the simple fact that there exists a 9:1 ratio (in your example) of male to female hires in a field of work, makes it that much harder for any woman trying to get into the field at all. If 9 out of 10 professional race drivers are male, then you'll probably be swimming up-stream trying to find a team as a female drive. Or whatever arbitrary example you can make.

That has nothing to do with the ability of either gender to do the job, it has everything to do with how we humans assess risk and how we assume that a majority indicates superiority. It's a pretty simple idea.

[st33l]

A few things;
The whole "hire the most qualified" is woefully ill-informed as an argument. Companies don't hire the person with the highest qualifications, automatically. That person would often expect higher pay, or may in fact be overqualified. Which means you'd expect them to leave as soon as they can find a better position. So you hire people who meet the qualifications. Beyond meeting those qualifications, it's other factors that typically matter more in hiring. And no affirmative action program encourages taking people who aren't qualified.

Overqualified for Google?

And no, Google does hire the most qualified people it can find - or at least attempts to. Part of the being 'qualified' is of course the culture fit; but that's mostly it. I am very surprised that this has happened and I am not sure I quite believe it yet.

[Halyon]

There are situations, namely life-or-death situations, where you simply want the most qualified person for the job regardless of sex.

Obviously that's not happening in the OP's case. It will only breed resentment.

At least when a woman is the most qualified person for something, men will actually respect that. Mature men anyway.

Now what frustrates me is the lengths to which people are willing to go to force equality. If people are going to destroy a man's career in order to put a less qualified woman first, then I will have absolutely no part of it. Especially in fields where jobs are finite. Men are simply going to have to learn irreplaceable skills in order to avoid this nonsense. If "equality" is still forced then it goes beyond the realm of mere politics and into the realm of injustice.

How, Google won't hire unqualified idiots for permanent positions. This is a SUMMER INTERNSHIP. It's basically a course. -Anyone- can do that. NOT anyone can stay when it's over. They specifiy it to an under-represented gender is to try and potentially get them more interested in the field to allow diversity and more acceptance of said diversity flowing.

It's not discrimination when this is a side-running temporary thing to normal hiring. Had it been like "we're only hiring women for permanent positions for the next year", THEN I'd fully agree and grab my torch&pitchfork right alongside you.

But it isn't.

Your comparison is crap at best.

[Fojos]

Again, no affirmative action program allows for incompetent or unqualified people to be hired, in the first place. It's a straw man argument.

Where I live women have lower physical requirements to become firefighters and police, much lower.
They called the one responsible for this and asked a few questions:

Why can't the requirement be lowered for men as well in that case?
- Because then we'd have a bunch of unqualified policemen on our hands.

Do women somehow bring something else into this, are they better in other areas, maybe while dealing with people?
- No, there is no difference.

That's all I need to say.