Here is the US BLS breakout of demographics by occupation category: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
The comment is open to interpretation, and you are free to interpret it in a less charitable way. The ambiguity is absolutely something we can and should criticize the comment for
My prior, expressed in my earlier comment, is that cluelessness and gender are orthogonal.
Though "saving a click" typically refers to spammy clickbait news articles that bury the lede, which a statistical table directly relevant to the conversation does not qualify as.
I’m not sure the percentage of companies that use software for highlighting candidates, but Anthropic almost certainly does and this [2] source says 75+% do.
So since men wrote the software that didn’t highlight the candidate, is it the clueless men that caused this?
[1] https://www.zippia.com/software-developer-jobs/demographics/
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/6/22659225/automated-hiring-...
Nobody would have bat an eye if he said "clueless guys" or "clueless gents", and given the prevalence of women in HR, that wording would actually have more chances of having a sexist background to it.
>given the prevalence of women in HR, that wording would actually have more chances of having a sexist background to it.
The reason there are more women than men in HR is clearly because the men they do hire are too clueless and get fired faster. Ever have an HR department with all men? Most dysfunctional department I’ve ever interacted with! “Clueless HR men” is just redundant. The ~25% that exist are DEI hires. So it wouldn’t be sexism, it would be reality.
Having a free pass for doing evil stuff is what gave man their bad rep, should we now for equity give women a pass to become the new slave lords?