"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.

My school careers advisor (male) tried to put me off studying engineering and said I should do a humanities subject.

That is shocking and goes against the code of ethics that all qualified careers advisers sign up to.

There is no research that has taken place on humans who have not already been socialised and who don't live in a sexist society

The research that exists shows that when you make it easier for people to remain in the roles preferred by society - women in caring for example , then people stick to the society rules more

Not exactly surprising is it?

Based on Sweden I believe

Clear and sound advice.

OP:

He has to employ someone who is a woman on paper.
You've been told repeatedly this is illegal but you don't seem to hear this.

But I'm not here for a debate on transgenderism
You're on the wrong forum

And yes, per a previous poster, I would be concerned about an employee sharing emails about recruitment and HR with members of h** family.

That’s not quite true, as one of the challenges is women leaving the workforce. If you’re in a company that supports you, offers phased return and promotion / profile raising opportunities even if you’re part time, you retain more women. Good firms increase the number of women working in the field.

The other is to accept that you can rarely recruit someone with all necessary skills , so be prepared to train

It's because this idea that it is ok to discriminate against individuals if it is for a good cause is becoming increasingly acceptable - borrowed from the American DEI approach.

There is a ton of research on the fact that in the most egalitarian societies, there is also the most significant tendency to select into more traditional male and female categories. I am sure you know this. Scandinavian countries have worked hard to try and get more women into jobs like engineering and construction, but it has no lasting impact.

If you think this is caused by socialization, you are saying that the more egalitarian a country is , the better they treat women, the more free women are to pursue what they want, that somehow this is related to stronger socialization into traditional sex roles.

And that in cultures where there is less egalitarianism, where there are fewer opportunities for girls to do what they want, where there are more traditional views about sex roles - somehow these women are being socialized to choose traditionally male occupations.

It's very difficult to see what you might actually mean by socialization in this case since you are saying these societies socialization somehow conditions girls to behave the opposite to their cultural view of sex differences.

I do think, as it happens, that at the population level men and women have somehowt different interests, and also that they make somewhat different career choices because of that and also for reasons revolving around being mothers.

I don't think the research on diversity in workplaces supports the kinds of efforts that involve trying to social engineer men and women to choose the same kinds of work if they don't enjoy them so every workplace has an even split.

Which is what it would take, and why companies are hiring women from cultures that don't reward work that is often more female dominated to make up the numbers.

Ugh, hate positive discrimination. What a shame. Doesn’t sound particularly legal either but doesn’t siund like the employer cares.

If I was him, I’d ask that HR / his boss confirm in writing that this role is exempt from the equality act requirements regarding sex discrimination.

@MangyInseam I am very familiar with the research and there is not one piece of reputable research on career choices that doesn't recognise the significant impact of societal expectations and socialisation on education and career choices.
There is also a significant amount of research on societal barriers and enablers in relation to education and career choice for different groups.

Career choices are not biologically driven. The idea of a 'gendered brain' is a myth.

If a particular group are underrepresented in a subject or career it is not due to biology. If sectors are not retaining particular groups this is not due to biology.
Its structural.

For example, recent research showed that black men were underrepresented in the legal sector. Are you suggesting this is due to biology? Are black men less interested in law because of their biology? Or are there societal and structural aspects at play?

Er...but you can. It just happens that the ones with the skills are men, the ones without women this time. But the company wants women.

Yes, this is how I feel about it too. Like his company are saying it's somehow OK to be discrimatory, in the interest of a good cause. And let's be clear, I'm coming from a perspective of having to fight for my own career in a male dominated environment. But I wouldn't have wanted male applicants to be blocked in order to get where I am today.

I sat on an interview first shift panel for an NHS Chief Exec once.
One of the other members was an absolute arse who tried to hide his sexism and misogyny by saying the opposite of what he really thought (we know the type “Women can be good at their jobs too” kind of shite)
We had 6 candidates and the 3 we picked after careful deliberation were all men. Arsehole pipes up “well I really think we should interview a woman too just to be fair” then looks round waiting for his pat on the back. HR person just looked gobsmacked and wasn’t sure what to say so I just asked him why
He gibbered for a bit before I rescued him by saying we should interview the BEST candidates regardless of their sex. HR person heartily agreed
Women should be given the same opportunities and I actually think CVs should be blind in terms of sex (blank names) for at least the first sift.

@HopHoppinggreen "Women should be given the same opportunities and I actually think CVs should be blind in terms of sex (blank names) for at least the first sift." - this is a fabulous idea! Totally agree

The trouble with blind CVs is it doesn't account for men being socialised to be better at telling their achievements on average. You only have to look at people telling bits how clever and brave they are Vs girls how pretty they are to see where that comes from. Unfortunately psychometric tests are apparently also gender biased so odds are you need gender accounted for in each stage even if only behind the scenes.

We can rarely recruit people with all the skills we need

They tend to either have the hard skills or the soft skills ( and I bet you can guess which sex features most in which category)

It takes just as long to train a code guy to ask questions , understand the data and problems as it takes to train a collaborative guy to code

Sex (not gender) and skin colour are not the same. You are essentially saying that because skin colour doesn't seem to biologically affect people in a certain way, sex doesn't either. That's a ridiculous argument.

And there is a significant difference between saying that people's behaviour is affected by socialization, and that poeple's behaviour is only affected by socialization. Again, if you are making that leap you have a problem, that's not a valid argument.

In fact, if you read what I said carefully, it's clear that I agree that socialization affects people's choices - that is why there is a difference between the choices women make in egalitarian vs non-egalitarian cultures.

The question is why the women in more egalitarian cultures, where girls are not only allowed to go into more traditionally male dominated work but are in fact wanted there, are seemingly, in your view, being socialized against making that choice. Whereas the girls in what are clearly less egalitarian - and let's be clear, often much more sexist, cultures, are more likely to make the choice to go into these male dominated areas.

That seems an extremely counter-intuitive claim being made because you have an a priori belief that all things being equal, women and men would have the very same interests.

No, neither would I. I worked in a very male dominated environment for years - 16% women, today, probably less at that time. I'd have been really upset to be judged on a basis other than competence.

A much better approach is to deal quite differently with aplications and interviews for everyone. For example, ots of people who are very good, both male and female, don't interview well, and lots of interviews are really poorly done. And in many cases the efforts to make them an even playing field make than even worse - it's really difficult to get the measure of any candidate who is shy or not language oriented, and often the people who do best are the smooth talkers, and even the liars.

Reaching more people doesn't have to be done in a sex-specific way, it just needs to be done well.

Sex (not gender) and skin colour are not the same. You are essentially saying that because skin colour doesn't seem to biologically affect people in a certain way, sex doesn't either. That's a ridiculous argument.
It's not ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is the suggestion that education and career choices are biologically driven. There is no evidence of this.

And there is a significant difference between saying that people's behaviour is affected by socialization, and that poeple's behaviour is only affected by socialization. Again, if you are making that leap you have a problem, that's not a valid argument.

But your biological sex does not impact your career choices. Any difference in interests are on an individual level and are significantly affected by society and environment.

In fact, if you read what I said carefully, it's clear that I agree that socialization affects people's choices - that is why there is a difference between the choices women make in egalitarian vs non-egalitarian cultures.

The question is why the women in more egalitarian cultures, where girls are not only allowed to go into more traditionally male dominated work but are in fact wanted there, are seemingly, in your view, being socialized against making that choice. Whereas the girls in what are clearly less egalitarian - and let's be clear, often much more sexist, cultures, are more likely to make the choice to go into these male dominated areas.

This isn't the 'gotcha' moment you think it is.
There was some research a number of years ago which seemed to suggest that in societies which were considered more egalitarian women were making choices that reflected their interests and weren't choosing male dominated careers but it's not as straightforward as it sounds.
Some Scandinavian countries score highly when assessed on gender bias especially in relation to STEM careers and we know that countries with high levels of gender bias have fewer women working in male dominated sectors. This impacts things like pay, support for female stem employees etc.

That seems an extremely counter-intuitive claim being made because you have an a priori belief that all things being equal, women and men would have the very same interests.

I do believe that. I'm yet to see any convincing evidence that education and career choices are biologically driven.

It is an interesting point. But my feeling is why are we not spending time empowering and skilling up women to be equally good at doing this for themselves as men...instead of bending the system to account for any shortcomings? For Pps arguing that roles should recruit lesser skilled women and train them rather than more readily skilled men, surely it's the same. Train women to stand up to men in recruitment and then they can be judged equally on their actual abilities.

It is an interesting point. But my feeling is why are we not spending time empowering and skilling up women to be equally good at doing this for themselves as men...instead of bending the system to account for any shortcomings?

Good point. Although it starts at birth and how we treat girls and boys. It continues though education and by the time people try to address it people hold deeply ingrained views and ways of seeing the world.

If this interests you the book Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez is excellent.

I would absolutely second the Invisible Women book was a real eye opener for me

My phone just helpfully deleted a long and thoughtful reply so, in summary, it's far too complicated to just work with young people and expect that to solve the problems. You need to provide role models, ensure the workplace isn't hostile, work with society to reduce the pushback they get for choices, show people what options are available...etc., etc., etc....

I'd also recommend invisible women, it's a great book. Some limitations to the research though as it was written a while ago and things have moved on, plus some of the worst offenders are truly awful at sharing the good they do. Obviously she also has an agenda!