Hacker News Reader

Comment by pinaceae | Hacker News Reader

well, it is a correct observation that HR (and marketing) departments have the highest female ratio in pretty much any company.

let's look at famous examples: Carly Fiorina? Marketing. Brigitte Ederer (Siemens)? HR. Meg Whitman? Marketing (started as a Brand Manager)

the cute moniker is unnecessary, I agree. the overall observation is correct.

i agree in particular with the fact that once HR takes over hiring from the team-leaders, the company has jumped the shark. one of the core tasks for a manager is hiring, ensuring his/her team is correctly staffed and has enough fresh blood to ensure senior people can move upward or away without disruption. if you don't, the Peter principle is in play.

overzelous HR is the ruin of a company because by definition HR has no clue about the core competencies of a company, no feeling for its customers nor products/services.

View on HN

You are missing the point and flailing at straw men. I don't care about the female ratio (Neither I think does any one who downvoted the OP). I am not going to discuss the utility of the HR department, the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy (which is particularly freaking sexist).

> I am not going to discuss the utility of the HR department, the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy

this attitude, to me, is unbelievable. Of course they are human beings. What else would they be?

If you're going to make a claim about HR, make it on its merits. I have said they're nothing but a bunch of good looking girls. They have zero understanding about any of the roles they're hiring for, and no incentive to learn. Care to contradict me?

I've been interviewed at a few large tech companies in the past 15 years, and the HR guys were... well, guys. And not remarkably good looking. I'm afraid that your opinion is just that, your opinion. And it's a sexist one with that.

> your opinion is just that, your opinion

And I never claimed otherwise. But I really resent your accusation of sexism, since I believe I am extremely fair to both sexes.

It is a plain fact that the attitude towards HR departments here is mostly negative. It is another plain fact that those departments are mostly female. If these facts are sexist, then reality is sexist.

Oh, and the all-male "IT department" is also richly deserving of criticism, though not by me since I jumped that ship long ago. I look forward to your devout claims of sexism when such a criticism does occur, however.

It boils down to this: if you put the wrong people in charge of very important stuff, then (long term) you are fucked.

OK, I'll bite. Your social error, leading to claims of sexism, was linking bad HR people and women.

I believe you when you say that's what you've observed. But, whether you like it or not, it's not okay (in public, at least) to make statements which link gender, race, etc., with competence.

No fair, you (or some other reader) might say. I'm just reporting my observations. But I claim that you have a responsibility to do more than simply report your observations, and it's because people are stupid. When we read "A and B go together," we humans immediately and instinctively (system 1) draw causal conclusions about A and B. It doesn't matter if it's anecdotal evidence; it doesn't matter that correlation does not equal causation. Not for System 1, anyway. And those causal conclusions lead to making bad subconscious assumptions, and later lead to actual sexism down the road. All because of comments like yours -- "A and B go together".

So don't do it. Suppress your urge to report your observations when they could lead to others making sexist/racist assumptions in the future. Bad HR department? Say "bad HR department" and leave the part about gender out.

(I would say that this only applies to speaking/writing in public. In private, you know who your audience is, and what conclusions they will draw from your words, so you can afford to be freer.)

>linking bad HR people and women

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the original complaint. The idea was that HR itself is a problem. It's not about people being bad at HR. And your suggestion to 'Suppress your urge to report your observations when they could lead to others making sexist/racist assumptions in the future.' deeply bothers me. If we pretend things don't exist because they look sexist/racist/etc, we get in even deeper problems of trying to figure out what is real.

People are responsible for their own stupidity.

(Although personally, I don't see what the gender of the HR department adds to the discussion anyway.)

> People are responsible for their own stupidity

No doubt, but this doesn't scale. Right now you and I both are suffering from bad hiring decisions from local government up. I cannot wait for the great wheel to turn and bad hirers to be punished in the afterlife.

> I don't see what the gender of the HR department adds to the discussion

HR is a girl's club, just like IT is a boy's club, and deserves to be called out as such. The gender is relevant, indeed central.

"Wah Wah Wah horrendous sexual remarks Wah Wah Wah closet feminist Wah"

I think this about sums up the comment. You mentioned cute women in HR as ones who are cute and don't know about the job to properly hire.

The next avenue to attack is "denigrating" booth 'people' because we are not allowed to hilight the obvious sexuality of the (shudder) women.

Where did he contrast cute women in HR with anyone else in HR? Oh wait, he didn't. You're objecting to a sexist comparison that never existed. The guy just dislikes HR.

So from his whole rant about HR incompetency and almost calling them organisational cancer, the thing you took offence at was the only positive trait he attributed to them? The fact that you interpreted it as "reducing" says more about you than him.

the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy (which is particularly freaking sexist)

I'm sure women all around the world are extremely interested in Ryan Gosling's personality.

Reduction to mere eye candy is not sexist. It's superficial. A guy saying a guy is mere eye candy wouldn't be sexist, same with a girl reducing a girl to eye candy. HR is often filled with attractive people.

His comment pertaining to not canning all of HR because they are the only cute GIRLS is sexist.

Sounds like the sexism is more on the side of whoever hired ten male programmers and two female hr staff.

The alternative would be more sexist. If you covered up everyone's names and fed their voice through a obfuscater you'd still end up with a similar ratio.

There are a lot more women in HR than men, and there are a lot more men in programming than women. There are many reasons why this is the case, many of which relate to sexism, but the fact that your overall result is gender-skewed is not in any way indicative of sexism in the hiring process.

It's obvious when I go to conferences and user group meetings that the majority of us programmers, admins and managers can spot most recuiters and HR folks at a glance. And it's offense to have clueless people in those postions, even more so when they are hired for looks.

Diverse organizations perform better. Diversity of genders, ages, backgrounds. They are more balanced and have healthier decision-making processes. We've been tribal creatures for thousands of years and we've evolved to work best in mixed groups like that.

So if you're going to send a spaceship to Mars for a couple of years, you'd better mix some women in there, whether you consider it sexist or not. Likewise if you're going to put some people in a high-pressure startup for a couple of years, where they're spending almost all of their time and energy at the office, you'll probably have better and more consistent outcomes with a diverse group. That means both men and women, junior and senior, deep thinkers and fast movers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com