"You have to employ a woman"

[MatterOfThyme]

Not sure if I'm posting in the right place but feeling really annoyed about this!

DH is recruiting to grow his team. His HR have told him he can ONLY interview women, in order to have equal representation (he already has 2 men on his team). Now, DH couldn't care less if the person he employs is male or female - he's bothered about their experience and aptitude.

As a woman though, this really riles me. It positions women as some sort of pity case. If I got a job purely because the other candidates were men, I'd be livid. DH has had some really excellent men applying and been told he can't interview them because of their gender. Conversely, he's being encouraged to interview completely unsuitable female candidates.

It seems like a sort of reverse-discrimination.

Great advice, thank you!

Had he had more women to look through, there would no doubt have been some good ones.

And this is the issue they need to address.

Because he's human. It's not like he's told me their names or any personally identifying info. Nor was that in any email threads with HR because GDPR.

The men and the companies that think diversity matters are magically the ones who find talented women when apparently according to some they just don’t exist. Must be magic.

Not really, certainly in my industry (oil and gas) there is a genuine lack of female engineering graduates which feeds into the initial problem of not enough girls studying STEM subjects. As a company we only really managed to get more women in when we started to recruit overseas from other O&G centres from around the world, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Algeria, Brazil, Malaysia etc.. What was interesting chatting to these grads was how much more emphasis was placed on STEM subjects at school and uni compared to the UK. It makes for a very colourful and cosmopolitan work place but we just get very few applications from women UK nationals. My company works closely with local schools and colleges, we have open days, attend career fairs and offer work experience placements to school kids, very few women seem interested and it was mostly the boys who seemed genuinely excited about 'big engineering' and the prospect of working overseas in challenging environments. Often I saw school girls get top grades in maths/physics/chemistry only to go off and study some humanities subject at uni.

Yes, I work in a university STEM department and we are all fighting over the same (low) numbers of females. It all goes back to A Level choices in Year 11.

We guarantee an interview to any candidate who meets ALL essential criteria AND is from an under-represented background. I think this is the fairest approach. Obviously regular interview training is a must for those recruiting.

we only really managed to get more women in when we started to recruit overseas

A fairly common observation is that poorer, less sex-egalitarian countries have more equal sex ratios in technical fields.

It seems that those women that do manage to get into higher education there are far more invested in securing hard technical skills for their financial security, rather than studying humanities.

There are far more women in STEM in India and other countries, as you say, than in the UK or Nordic countries.

But then does it make sense, as a UK recruiter to be pulling in women from overseas in order to achieve "sex equality"?

If the aim is to "reflect" UK demographics, as is often cited for "diversity", then recruiting from overseas is actually doing the complete opposite by reducing UK representation...

Companies will be claiming bonus marks for having a more "representative" workforce (sex/race/whatever) by having pulled in a lot of cheaper foreign labour... (Cynical, moi?)

This is where systems such as TRAC which NHS uses are quite useful as the applications are anonomised. Although you can usually work out a rough age if someone gives the year of A levels, you do not know if they are make or female until you have actually invited then to interview, when the list of names appears on the schedule.
I interview for NHS posts and we try to have balanced and diverse teams where we can but the only fair way to do that is if you have 2 equal candidates post interview and you choose in a way that adds diversity to the team. Ironically for us that would mean the male over the female, but it is cultural diversity we need most, so we might choose an international recruit in an attempt to have staff from different cultural backgrounds.

I have a daughter with an engineering degree. I'll never forget just how stark the bias was at her graduation ceremony with the males all there for masters and the females bachelors. From the word go females are fighting against a world that believes they are no good at STEM, its not even down to one sector its society in general. How can they achieve well when they are constantly put down.

If we're going to be pedantic, if he got a male identifying as a female applying, he'd probably be allowed to employ them as they tick the 'female' box (and a big plus for inclusivity). So...gender.

So he doesn't HAVE to employ a woman?

From the word go females are fighting against a world that believes they are no good at STEM

Genuine question, who is steering otherwise capable girls from studying STEM subjects? I have worked closely with local schools and colleges and spoken to numerous teachers and careers advisors who go to great lengths to promote STEM subjects and careers to young women?? As mentioned before even when they do pick up good grades in Maths and physics they often elect to study something completely unrelated. Scandanivan paradox ill

Again a gen

agggh, pressed post too soon

I agree re what’s the problem.

Not sure if I’d place individual rights over societal change. I don’t know.

The change has to start somewhere somehow. Motivation to make it happen has to be there.

I work in education and girls that are good at maths opt for accountancy rarely engineering. There’s an ethnic minority difference too- more likely to pursue STEM. Perhaps it’s family attitudes/society attitudes that must change.

TV is a big influence imo When OBEM is on there’s an increase in numbers for midwifery interest.
Big bang theory - interest in physics increased.

He has to employ someone who is a woman on paper. But I'm not here for a debate on transgenderism

NecessaryScene

But then does it make sense, as a UK recruiter to be pulling in women from overseas in order to achieve "sex equality"?

To be honest there is a general shortage of good engineers, both men and women. If a company can fill a niche position immediately with a Nigerian female engineer then it is seen as a win for diversity, sex equality and project resourcing.

I’ve heard similar too

Women tend to rule themselves out.

Women aren't a minority

If they were stupid enough to put that in writing he better make sure to keep a hard copy because HR may apply the tactics when choosing a candidate at his next promotion bid.

I've not read the full thread, but isn't this the same as some instances of reverse discrimination where employers will hire a certain ethnicity even if they're not the most suitable candidate? I have heard of several instances of this happening.

Men have gotten jobs for years just because they were men and it didn't bother them or anyone else.

Nor am I.

But sex is important.

Genuine question, who is steering otherwise capable girls from studying STEM subjects?

I blame the schools for using girls to 'police' boys.

It's a well known tactic to sit a girl near a boy who is a bit of a pain. It means that when girls are in male dominated classes they are always seated away from their friends and next to or between two boys.

It can be quite off putting and the first thing I did on my PGCE was put the girls in a class together.

You are making a few big assumptions that seem unwarranted to me.

One being that these choices are all socialized. There is some good evidence that suggests that the less you try and force men and women into certain jobs, the more freedom you give them, the more you see them segregate into somewhat different sectors.

If true, you are getting into a situation where you are, for ideological reasons, going to try and socially mold women into taking certain roles that aren't what they would normally have chosen. So you are really sacrificing women's personal interests around career to the ideology of diversity for diversities sake.

The other assumption is that every industry would be better if they meet certain diversity quotas. That's a huge assumption, even without getting into the very weedy question of what quota would be appropriate.

Genuine question, who is steering otherwise capable girls from studying STEM subjects? I have worked closely with local schools and colleges and spoken to numerous teachers and careers advisors who go to great lengths to promote STEM subjects and careers to young women??

Do they though? Admittedly 20-odd years ago, but my secondary school would have prided itself on being an equal opportunities college, BUT, there was one boy doing Textiles, and one girl (me) doing CDT. There were two of us in A-level physics, but after being continously picked on by the physics teacher I switched subjects, and I don't remember how the other girl did (I do remember she didn't speak to me after for abandoning her).

At Uni there were maximum 4 women out of 100 in my lectures - I was often the only woman in the room. And that's intimidating. 5' tall me walking into a room of men. I am very stubborn, but a woman less determined to get that technical degree would likely make a different choice - a different choice that would never occur to the similarly less-determined men who aren't experiencing it.

Personally, I've read a load of unconscious bias stuff, and know it factors in, so any women meeting the job spec gets an interview. Even then, my team is 2/3rds male purely because getting the candidates in the door is hard. I can't count how many times I've met other managers and they've commented how unusual it is to see a technical woman in my position.

It does women no favours to suggest that it's all fine and good, when the stats show it clearly isn't.

My school careers advisor (male) tried to put me off studying engineering and said I should do a humanities subject. Luckily I had several other teachers who were much more encouraging and believed in me but if I'd been less pigheaded it probably would have put me off. Most other women on my course reported similar from teachers, friends, relatives.

Anecdotally, it does mean the ones you end up with tend to be less likely to drop out because by that time they're Making A Point. Unfortunately being stubborn only takes you so far and constantly fighting against bias wears you down eventually.

The women's engineering society and I think the iet did a big study on drop out points a few years back, I think it showed that women tend to drop out when they have kids, I think because the workplaces are often set up to make it virtually impossible to balance childcare and have any career prospects so why bother with the stress? I hope WFH will improve this.

If what you're saying is true, this is illegal positive discrimination and your DH would be well advised to push back against it and make sure he has everything in writing.
I do agree with what some others have said, that women often undersell themselves, so he will want to bear that in mind- I've found in my career that it doesn't hurt to put borderline applicants (regardless of sex) through to interview as they can often shine in ways you wouldn't have expected from their written applications.
I don't care what anyone says, discrimination on the grounds of an irrelevant protected characteristic is always wrong in my book. Yes to positive action: wider advertising, tackling bias, mentoring young women etc. I've done some of this myself in my career and if it's helped one other woman it was worth the time I put in to it.
I don't think that positive discrimination helps women in the long run at all- it undermines us, emphasises what we can't do rather than what we can, causes backlash, and has helped to create the oppression Olympics which causes so many issues now.

You are making a few big assumptions that seem unwarranted to me.

I'm not. I teach, write and research this for a living. I'm making no assumptions, everything I've said is based on experience and research.

One being that these choices are all socialized. There is some good evidence that suggests that the less you try and force men and women into certain jobs, the more freedom you give them, the more you see them segregate into somewhat different sectors.

Can you share this research? That's not my understanding of the subject.
There is evidence of sex socialisation with regards jobs and careers in children as young as 6.
There is also evidence that when it comes to choosing subjects and careers people (both men and women) will choose jobs that are appropriate for their sex over jobs that actually interest them.

If true, you are getting into a situation where you are, for ideological reasons, going to try and socially mold women into taking certain roles that aren't what they would normally have chosen. So you are really sacrificing women's personal interests around career to the ideology of diversity for diversities sake.

Again, nobody is trying to socially mould women or force them into jobs and careers which don't interest them. It's about acknowledging that socialisation and sex based stereotypes exist and they impact education and career choices. Again, this is a well researched area.

Are you saying socialisation has no impact? That men are interested in particular things and that is entirely innate?

The other assumption is that every industry would be better if they meet certain diversity quotas. That's a huge assumption, even without getting into the very weedy question of what quota would be appropriate.

Again, there is a lots of evidence to show that having a diverse workforce is a good thing. It's beneficial for the organisation and individual employees.