Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

I never suggested the interviewers were concerned for the kids -- my implicit assumption was simply that they want to avoid employee absence.

The only assumption I'm making is that P(absent|women with children) >> P(absent|no children or man). Do you dispute this prior? Similarly, you might also (unlawfully) ask about potential military service obligations if a person listed "Army Reserve" on their resume. Would that necessarily be motivated by anti-military bias? Of course not; it could simply reflect a desire that employees predictably show up to work. (As pointed out downthread, illegal != sexist.)

Note that I didn't say anyone was or was not sexist; I simply said they might not be.

View on HN

I don't care whether the people are sexist, yummyfajitas. The process is sexist. I saw it firsthand: it's harder for a woman with kids to get a tech job than it is for a man to get the same job, absent any difference in qualifications.

What, exactly, is it that you want to argue about here?

The process is designed simply to find employees who will show up for work, not to eliminate women. So the process isn't sexist either.

Just because something disproportionately harms women (or men) does not make it sexist. It is only sexist if the goal is to reduce the number of women (rather than the number of absent employees, as in this case).

Thank you for making my point: there are in fact hiring managers who think like you type.

Now, add to that this fun bit: when a woman has a kid and stays home with them, she winds up with a gap on her resume. During a normal career, an unexplained gap is an obvious topic of conversaton in an interview. Women with kids can't effectively avoid disclosing that they have children, even though it's technically unlawful to ask the question directly.

Yes but that cuts both ways: Women can cover a long gap in their resume in a socially acceptable fashion far easier than a man can. I know first hand: I wasn't "too ill to work my whole life until recently". Instead I was "a recently divorced former homemaker entering the workforce for the first time".

It doesn't cut both ways. It may be socially acceptable to stay home with your children for 2 years, but it isn't career-acceptable. Read the thread: women are penalized for returning to the workforce.

If a man took 2 years off, wouldn't his career also be harmed? I'm not saying it doesn't set a woman's career back to take time off. But women's lives are generally lived differently from that of men. There are good points and bad points to each side of that equation. And time taken off by a woman to stay home with kids is generally viewed more favorably than a lot of other reasons one might drop out of the work scene for a time. (Generally speaking, only going back to school is likely to improve your career after you go back.)

Going back to the original topic, I think that being active in FOSS, even at low levels @ a couple hours a week, is a good way to keep evidence of some skillset. This should hopefully help getting back into the workforce.

I would think so -- If you can figure out how to effectively put it on your resume.

I did lots and lots of volunteer work while I was a homemaker. I have a great many accomplishments to my name. But I have a lot of difficulty figuring out how to package it so it is taken seriously in a work environment. I am reminded of a comment made somewhere on HN about a member here volunteering on a project and not getting taken seriously because they were unpaid and saying they will never do that again because being unpaid so badly hurt their credibility.

Do women actually have higher absenteeism than men? My guess is that this is not actually true, and only assumed to be true. (I haven't seen any numbers either way.)

If this is not true, then the process is definitely sexist.

(I make no claims about the converse.)

A quick google search suggests they do.

http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/employee-developm...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-211-x/2009000/part-partie1-e...

Not all female absenteeism is due to children. Menstruation also plays a significant role (as evidenced by a 28-day periodic spike in absenteeism for women):

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12369

You have to wonder, sometime around when you typed the word "menstruation" into a comment on Hacker News about job interviews, did any kind of warning light go on in your head saying "maybe I'm off in the weeds here"?

I have a really neat-o idea. How about we interview people based on their ability to actually perform a task, and then set, oh, I don't know, a 5-10 day limit to the number of allowable personal days in a year? We don't even have to give the women more of those days, despite their children and special times of the month. Hell, if we're worried that they're going to exploit their personal days to take care of sick children, we can just reduce the number of days.

Then we never have to talk about this issue in interviews or, god willing, on Hacker News again. I think that's a win. What do you think?

I haven't seen statistics in a long time, but my recollection is that women are more likely than men to take time off work for caring for a sick child, taking the child to a doctor's appointment, meeting school counselors and so on. Women are also far more likely than men to quit their own job in order to follow their spouse to a new city when the spouse changes jobs. Quiting your job because you got offered a different one usually is a career move forward. Quitting because you are following someone else is a career setback. Married women are more likely than married men to attend whatever college is "local". Married men are more likely than married women to pick a college that suits their career goals and move the entire family there. Women are more likely than men to quit their job or take time off for caring other family members as well, not just children (such as elderly parents). And the list goes on and on...or did the last time I saw such stats.

why hire women at all? other than getting to pay them less.

i kind of wonder whether it's harder for women to get funding, too. what if they get pregnant? what if they have a family? on the other hand, i've heard enough comments from the older crowd here who have families and personal lives to think that maybe it's a moot point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com