
Ask HN: How to deal with female name on resume? - watto1
I&#x27;m a female working in the finance&#x2F;tech industry. Applying to companies, I&#x27;m worried that the gendered name on my resume might be poisoning employers&#x27; perception of me: http:&#x2F;&#x2F;whatwouldkingleonidasdo.tumblr.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;54989171152&#x2F;how-i-discovered-gender-discrimination.<p>Do you believe that this kind of name-based bias is strong enough that I should somehow change my resume to show something other than my name? Also, I&#x27;m working with a recruiter, should I tell him my concern?
======
Mz
I would suggest you do further research before making a decision. It is
possible it will hurt you. It is also possible that it will screen out toxic
work environments where you wouldn't really want to be. Before deciding
whether to go with initials or not, if it were me, I would see if I could come
up with something on that angle of things.

From what I have read, some women are leaving tech to get away from the
horribly misogynistic work environments they have endured. There are some real
horror stories out there. If this can be used as a means to screen out
potentially toxic work places, it might be a more efficient use of your time
to go ahead and use the female name and let them not waste your time on
interviews and what not.

Best of luck.

(I will add that I am a woman, fwiw.)

~~~
zer00eyz
I agree with Mz that your going to screen out the toxic places by being
honest.

As a guy who has done hiring in the past, if I see a woman who has 5+ years in
the industry I'm automatically going to talk to her. Theres a lot of bullshit
out there, and you have probably put up with a fair bit more of it than most
other people/men. If your still here and still looking for a job its probably
because you want to be in the industry and like what you do.

------
JSeymourATL
> I'm working with a recruiter...

Don't waste your energy with a some bozo recruiter.

Instead focus your search on networking with senior executive level women.
Most companies (even in male dominate tech) have a few well positioned women.
And most get the Girl Power Network thing.

Check out Women in Technology for an event near
you>[http://witi.meetup.com/](http://witi.meetup.com/) ; and
www.womenintechnology.org

Also, The 25 Most Powerful Women in Finance for some additional target
ideas... [http://www.americanbanker.com/women-in-
banking/gallery/the-2...](http://www.americanbanker.com/women-in-
banking/gallery/the-25-most-powerful-women-in-finance-2013-1062210-1.html)

~~~
zer00eyz
There are lots of firms who ONLY get decent engineers through recruiters.

Techical recruiting is HARD, and honestly if your a small shop, with limited
HR going outside to get talent may be your only option.

~~~
JSeymourATL
The typical business model for a recruiter has the company pay him a fee for
placement. He does NOT work for job-seekers, but rather tries to broker a
match.

Most companies (especially small shops) would rather source a potential hire
through their own channels, than pay a headhunter fee.

------
tptacek
I don't think it's worth being concerned about (and I do believe we have a big
problem with gender bias in this industry), but if _you_ think it's a problem,
it's going to be one whether or not it really is, because it'll impact your
confidence. So, to ease your mind and table this issue: just use your first
initial instead of your first name. Super common, people do it all the time.

------
Someone1234
I'd argue it is more likely to help you in tech' than hurt you. Companies are
falling all over themselves to bring in more women.

No clue on finance however.

~~~
hackerboos
> Companies are falling all over themselves to bring in more women.

In the HN echo chamber maybe. I still think hiring managers are thinking
"maternity leave" especially in the US.

~~~
Someone1234
Which is odd as the US offers no maternity leave. A handful of states have a
little but it is often UNPAID maternity leave making it all but worthless.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Which is odd as the US offers no maternity leave. A handful of states have a
> little but it is often UNPAID maternity leave making it all but worthless.

That's a bit confused.

The US requires unpaid maternity (and other) leave via FMLA; a few states also
provide some degree of _paid_ maternity leave. (In both cases, "maternity" is
overly specific, but included, in what is generally described -- as in the
title of FMLA -- as "family and medical leave".) [0]

[0] [http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-
fami...](http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-family-and-
medical-leave-laws.aspx)

~~~
Someone1234
FMLA has so many loopholes it may have well not exist at all:

[http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/1421.htm#2a](http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/1421.htm#2a)

Plus let's be honest, unpaid maternity leave is worthless even if the FMLA
worked (it doesn't). That isn't maternity leave, that's "job assurance" if
people cannot afford to take leave, they won't. Its as simple as that.

The US is by far the worst western country when it comes to guaranteeing that
mothers and fathers will be able to spend time with their kids in the all
important first year. Don't even get me started on how bad the US treats
single parents.

~~~
dragonwriter
Upthread, you claimed:

(1) The US has no national maternity leave provision, and (2) A few states
provide maternity leave, but even that is only unpaid.

The fact is, the US _does_ have a national unpaid maternity leave provision,
and a few states provide _paid_ maternity leave.

> FMLA has so many loopholes it may have well not exist at all

FMLA covers about 60% of all employees, and is used by about 13% annually. So,
while it certainly doesn't cover everyone, it certainly has considerably more
effect than if it did not exist at all.

> Plus let's be honest, unpaid maternity leave is worthless even if the FMLA
> worked (it doesn't). That isn't maternity leave, that's "job assurance" if
> people cannot afford to take leave, they won't.

Its true that unpaid maternity leave obviously isn't as good as paid leave,
and people are less likely to take it at all, and likely to take less of it
than they would if the lead were paid. That doesn't change the fact that the
existence of FMLA as a national source of unpaid maternity leave makes your
early claim that there was no US national maternity leave, even unpaid, false,
nor does it change the fact that the existence of state _paid_ maternity leave
programs makes your further claim that the few states that offered maternity
leave offered only unpaid leave _also_ false.

> The US is by far the worst western country when it comes to guaranteeing
> that mothers and fathers will be able to spend time with their kids in the
> all important first year.

That's rather clearly true, but not what you claimed upthread, and, more
importantly, would have been _irrelevant_ where you made the claim upthread
about the nonexistence of required maternity leave in the US, since the US's
_relative_ position on maternity leave is immaterial to the issue, which is
that hiring managers might avoid hiring women because they might take
maternity leave. Since most positions _are_ covered by FMLA, and since FMLA
_does_ provide for maternity leave that employees have a right to take, hiring
managers might well be considering that, _even if_ the US maternity leave
provisions are poor compared to every other developed (not just "western")
country.

~~~
Someone1234
Congratulations you've nitpicked my remark to death.

But I won't conceded that what the US calls "Maternity Leave" is not in fact
it by any modern standard of the term, it is nothing more than a job assurance
program that even according to you only reaches 60% of people. And out of them
few can afford it (and even them not for its full duration).

A handful of US states offer legitimate Maternity Leave and they should be
congratulated for that. The federal government should be ashamed, FMLA is
pathetic, and their inaction lets people (both parents & children) down daily.

To be honest I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. That the
US is awesome? That maternity leave is fine? That you just want to be "right?"
If it is the first two points then we'll never reach consensus and if it is
the last point then this is all a waste of time.

~~~
dragonwriter
> To be honest I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make.

That your fact claims upthread (to wit that the US has no national mandatory
maternity leave, including unpaid, and that the small number of states that
provide more than what is nationally mandated require only unpaid leave) are
false and the conclusion they were offered upthread to support (that it is not
plausible that US hiring managers would act based on the concern that female
applicants might demand maternity leave) is unjustified, since the US has a
national mandate that covers most employees for unpaid maternity leave and the
handful of states that require something more than the national minimum
provide paid leave, and, whether or not those are _good_ maternity leave
mandates, they do exist, employees might make use of them, and hiring managers
might well act based on sex-based assumptions about which candidates would be
more likely to avail themselves of those mandatory leave programs.

~~~
aceperry
Someone1234's claims might be overstated, but it's not the crime that you're
making it out to be.

------
ellisv
Do you want to work at a company where it matters?

~~~
Qualman
A thousand times this. It makes me sad that you have to worry about this :(.
But if there's that strong a bias against your name, you probably don't want
to end up actually being present there.

My advice, working at an enterprise SaaS company: stick to your guns, and be
proud of your name! Good companies (like ours :) ) are actively seeking women
for technical positions to correct the bias.

~~~
erroneousfunk
What's the name of your company?

------
harigov
I don't think any reputable company does recruitment based on names. In fact,
most of the big name companies are trying to get more woman into workforce to
balance any bias there might be.

------
liquidcool
This is a tough one. What everyone assumes is that a only blatantly sexist
person will dismiss your resume because of a female name. Obviously, such
people will flunk you in the interview.

The problem is it completely ignores people who honestly don't believe they
are sexist (and may even consider themselves feminist), but suffer from an
unconscious bias. These people might be fine to work for and not be biased (or
blatantly so) in the rest of the hiring process.

I never thought of orchestras as havens of gender bias, but they totally were:

[http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-
leadership/2013/oct/14/b...](http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-
leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias)

And I'm sure the judges certainly didn't consider themselves as sexist.

It's totally up to you, but an easy solution is to use initials, such as AJ
instead of Allison Jane. For some reason, we almost always assume initials
belong to a man.

As for the recruiter, hopefully they know some stats about diversity,
including if they are trying to improve it. But in general, a recruiter does
not want to submit someone who won't pass the interview.

------
bjourne
Researchers in the US have demonstrated that black names (many blacks have
names like Tyrone and Aleisha which white people doesn't) are discriminated
against
([http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html](http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html)).

It's not far-fetched to speculate that employers would likewise value female
and male names differently. I'm just guessing but it feels to me like in the
software industry, there may be a bias against females for managerial and
project leader positions. Otoh, there is a clear bias in favor of females for
bottom-rung coder positions. It's not uncommon to see language in job ads that
they would like to see female applications.

------
ilaksh
I say do an experiment with initials if you can't find an existing study. Try
askscience on reddit for previous studies.

I bet it does affect interview rates.

But in general people hire for 'cultural' fit which means like them, so if you
find a female who is hiring then that is bonus points, for some men it is
minus points, but other things matter too like your perceived social class,
what school you went to, etc.

But you can't do anything about that stuff so best is to give them the benefit
of the doubt in terms of being able to judge you on your merits. But I think
people do want to click with their hires regardless of official policy. You
might be able to bond over technical details in your field or baseball teams
or whatever.

------
alltakendamned
No. Never. Be who you are and be extremely happy not to have to work for/with
people that think it is OK to filter out candidates based on the name or
gender.

Years ago, I was in the very unique situation of helping with the recruitment
of my own boss. When interviewing a woman, the CTO asked if she was planning
to have more kids. Her reaction was a very quick and assertive "Would you ask
me the same question if I wasn't a woman?". I was embarrassed by the question
and loved the answer. She was hired and we had a great working relationship
for the years after.

I think it is very much OK to put people on the spot when similar questions
come up.

------
davismwfl
I don't think this is a real common occurrence or something you should be
worried about (but I am also male). And like ellisv said, in the few times it
does would you really want to work at that type of place? My 2 cents, be
yourself and don't hide anything.

If you really feel it is hurting you though, then try using your first
initial. But either way, neither would stop you from getting an interview with
any company I have been apart of if you had the qualifications, and I think
that's true at most any reputable company.

------
drakonka
I've never even thought about this when applying for jobs and didn't notice my
name negatively affecting my chances (aside from a female name I also have a
very foreign sounding name even though English). I figure if someone is going
to discriminate against you based on your name/implied gender/whatever that
company is probably not one you want to be working for anyway.

------
Labyrinth
I don't think there is nothing to worry about. I mean your not me a dude with
95% looking female name. For the most part most of my interviews went well
though one army research organization one was a bit weird. I think at the time
they were "ok we have to ask questions, but lets not make it awkward".

------
JoeAltmaier
I'd be concerned. If you're lucky, an androgynous name like Robin or Jo can
help you. Otherwise, maybe use an initial?

Once you get an interview, it becomes harder to avoid the discrimination. But
at least you can get through the resume filter.

Its probably too much, to ask you to change your name.

~~~
MichaelCrawford
I have a friend whose last name triggers porn spam filters.

~~~
jgeorge
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem)

~~~
MichaelCrawford
His name really is just like that.

------
insomniac2
initials instead of full name maybe? I doubt it's an issue for finance, more
for tech perhaps? Depends on what role it is and what level you are at. It
matters less than it used to. There's more important things on a resume to
determine if you get an interview. Tailoring resumes to company and role is
more important.

------
pvaldes
The common way to do this in literature is using an alias. 'Little Bobby
Tables' is probably available again...

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Strangely, that one is _always_ available in the database!

------
dudul
I guess you should also find a way to change your look to trick the manager
during the in person interview.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
We've hired people without ever once meeting them! Remote workers, online
interviews, accepted and get to work. But we're a company that creates remote-
worker tools, so we're well-placed to make that happen.

~~~
dudul
Without even a skype/hangout session? Without getting their actual name/gender
for legal purposes?

~~~
xrange
Here's a question. How anonymous can an employee be? For the U.S. It seems
like you need to get a Social Security number for tax purposes. Is a name also
required?

~~~
Asparagirl
Employers are required to verify that the employee is eligible to work in the
U.S., meaning they're a citizen or else have the proper kind of visa, and are
not in the country illegally. And most companies will also do background
checks. So yeah, you'll need to give your name, and probably a Xerox of your
passport or driver's license, when you sign on to a company.

