Hacker News Reader

Comment by tmeasday | Hacker News Reader

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

Biases exist. Meritocracy is an illusion. Deal with it.

View on HN

I think what's getting lost in this discussion is that Affirmative Action isn't a trigger for "hire a woman over the more qualified man".

All it mandates is that if on paper two candidates are equal scores, your process should pick the female/minority candidate. Historically, if you left it up to people in the organisation they'd go with their "gut" feelings and pick whomever was of a similar background to them.

If two candidates aren't equal, you always pick the better candidate.

That's mandated discrimination.

Not in the sense of the word that you seem likely to be using, no.

I checked the definition of the words before I posted.

Please, enlighten me?

> Does it bother you if a male candidate gets a position that maybe there's a better qualified female candidate who wasn't considered because "maybe she wants to start a family" or some bullshit?

Yes. I try and have a coherent worldview. And I don't think discrimination is useful for productivity.

So then all candidates are tainted and you may as well not worry about it.

My point is discrimination exists no matter what. So try not to let it bother you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com