

Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory - beweinreich
https://medium.com/women-and-work/1fe5e4fe7165

======
Anechoic
The original process the OP describes is exactly what many affirmative action
opponents _think_ AA does, that is only consider one demographic and ignore
all the others.

If you want to open opportunities for women, you post the job notice in places
where women will see it. That will get you qualified candidates, and if you
find a women who is the best person for the job, you hire her.

edit: spelling

~~~
Kluny
Like where? Ladies' Craigslist?

~~~
Anechoic
Look for a woman's organization (things like The Society of Women Engineers
for engineering jobs, student groups that cater to women, perhaps in a hall
were sorority members hang out, etc).

Looking at Syracuse, <http://wuc.syr.edu/> and
<http://multicultural.syr.edu/programs/index.html> might be avenues.

------
columbo
Wanting to increase diversity is a good thing, so kudos for that. However you
should -never- -ever- -ever- indicate a preference towards a race, gender,
sexual orientation or religious affiliation. Did I say ever? Ever. Ever. Ever.
It's discriminatory, it's demeaning and it's illegal.

If you want to increase diversity then, well, don't just say 'I need women!',
rather go to where the diversity is.

There are a ton of groups, meetups, community boards that would love to know
you are 'hiring' not that you are 'hiring <insert minority>'. For example:
<http://www.meetup.com/Women-Who-Code-SF/>

~~~
xemoka
But how is that not discrimination masked in sheep's clothing? At least be
forward with what your looking for, why should a male apply for a position
that he wants, fits PERFECTLY but only get rejected because the company was
veiling it's intentions to hire a woman?

In my opinion, being female is equivalent to a skill—sure a hard coded skill,
but a skill none-the-less. When you need to connect with a particular
audience, how else are you supposed to hire someone with that skill? We've
painted ourselves into a PC corner where discrimination is okay if we hide it.

~~~
chrisrhoden
Because there is a difference between making decisions based on gender, race,
age, religion, etc... and making decisions based on the ability of the
applicant to perform their duties. If your goal is to add someone to your team
with skills that you believe are likely to be easier to find in a woman, you
are not permitted to disregard men - just as if you are looking to hire
someone to do heavy physical labor, you are not permitted to disregard women.

That doesn't mean you can't consider those differences in skills. If you don't
interview a more qualified man who possesses those skills (and it seems
extremely unlikely in this case that you will) then you don't need to feel bad
not hiring one.

If you are hiring for a warehouse position where the only skills required are
the ability to lift as much weight as high as possible and you receive a
female applicant who has a PhD from Harvard and can't lift 25 lbs, choosing
instead to hire a man who can do significantly more labor would be a good
decision, not discriminatory. Likewise, if you believe that there are actual
skills that you are attempting to hire for that favor women, that's not
discriminatory.

> At least be forward with what you're looking for, why should a male apply
> for a position that he wants, fits PERFECTLY but only get rejected because
> the company was veiling it's intentions to hire a woman?

I agree that this would be a mistake. The difference comes in how good the fit
is. If you are looking for something specific that the man is unable to
provide, then it's not a perfect fit.

~~~
LuminousPath
If they're actively seeking somebody who's purpose is to bring the female
perspective to a development team, how do you do that without being
discriminatory?

"Hiring a person who is very familiar with application usage and development
from a female perspective"?

This applies to the original argument the article made. Phrases like that
sound creepy and off-putting to applicants.

~~~
chrisrhoden
The reason it's creepy and off-putting is because there is no such thing as
the female perspective, and the phrase smacks of someone who is creepy.

------
tptacek
You can't create a gender-specific role in your company and then hire for it.

What you can do is gender-specific lead generation. Create a role that's not
gender specific, then market the role (news flash: tech hiring is marketing)
using women as a target market.

This process doesn't guarantee you women for your roles. At your scale (and
ours) there's nothing you can do about this. You're going to have more men
than women. When you hit the scale of, apparently, Etsy, you can start to see
demographic shifts in your company that correspond to how you market your
openings.

------
antonID
The problem is that this is discriminatory. If you are not hiring based solely
on qualifications, and instead on gender, it is discriminating. If you were to
switch the genders and say that you are only hiring men, it would be clearly
sexist. However, if you do not accept well qualified men who would fit the
job, it is seen as "breaking gender barriers". You should be hiring based on
the applicant's experience, education, and how they fit in with company
culture.

If you are worried about a gender gap, you should be looking at why fewer
females apply. Once you remedy this, you will be able to consider an equal
amount of applicants, and you should then choose them based on their
experience instead of their gender. The title of this article makes it out as
if people are trying to stop you from hiring women, when in fact, you are
instead trying to justify discrimination.

~~~
f18
That's a fair point. It's hard to pin down why fewer women apply. Is it
cultural, social, our industry? Are these things that a single company can
sort out or change? How would you encourage or solve the problem of too few
women applying, without crossing the ethical, gray, broad boundary of
discrimination?

~~~
Ugh_seriously
Fewer women apply because there are _fewer women in the field_. It's that
simple. If you consider that a problem, the author of the article is trying to
solve it at the end of the road, when the solution lies at the beginning. The
beginning is in school, and the problem is most certain sociological.

------
mooism2
No, it turns out that hiring someone because of their gender is
discriminatory.

Disqualifying all male candidates due to their gender is discriminatory, just
as disqualifying all female candidates due to their gender is discriminatory.

~~~
jasonlotito
That's what the article says.

The problem is they want a diverse workforce. So the question becomes how do
they hire for that?

~~~
Peroni
_The problem is they want a diverse workforce._

I'm sure the vast majority of companies want the exact same thing but there
comes a point where you simply have to accept that we work in a significantly
male dominated industry and to get to a point where more than 20% of your
staff are female means you have to compromise somewhere in order to achieve
that balance. Unfortunately that compromise isn't always going to be
appropriate.

~~~
fein
Yes they want a diverse workforce, but I think the issue is more that they
_need_ a diverse workforce. We should probably examine the _need_ part first.
In most cases its a PR/ government requirement issue, which means that maybe
this wouldn't be a goal if the PR and regulatory pressure didn't exist.

I don't know of a right way to get more women into the IT space, but the
diversity requirements imposed on businesses don't seem to have the effect
that seems to have been intended.

------
btilly
Um, your wife and co-worker are right. This is not how to hire women.

Also I find it interesting that you were considering a woman for job as a UI
designer. Why not another engineer?

Here is a potentially better way to do it. Is your female co-worker
comfortable presenting in public? If so, have her give a technical talk with
cool demos and say you're hiring. That's not a bad way to find potential
employees. And if there are women available, seeing a female face of the
company will make them more interested.

But if she comes back with a smart guy, hire him. Because you're looking for a
good employee first, and not a woman first.

------
voidlogic
How about you just keep hiring the best person for the job, but take care to
be reflective and ensure you are fairly considering the female candidates...
maybe make sure your female engineer is on the hiring committee?

Put another way, rather than trying to explicitly seek awesome female
employees, just make sure the awesome female candidates don't slip through. I
think execs often mistakenly think they can fix cultural issues by fiat, when
what is really needed is dedication and time.

I think what constitutes imbalance also needs to be defined. If 10% of
qualified engineering candidates are female does having 10% of your
engineering staff be female constitute balance? I think the case could be made
it does; however, in relation the birth ratio of our species is it certainly
imbalance.

~~~
jasonlotito
> maybe make sure your female engineer is on the hiring committee?

Doing that for the reasons you are suggesting is hypocritical. On one hand,
you want the best person for the job, but then you are suggesting that the
female engineer is apart of the decision making process, as if her gender is
what qualifies her to hire engineers, or, more precisely, female engineers.

That's not what you intended to say, I know, but that's how easy it is to slip
up in this regard.

> what is really needed is dedication and time.

Dedication to what, specifically? If the best people every time you hire is a
white man, then you are losing the value that a diverse work force provides.

~~~
voidlogic
"Doing that for the reasons you are suggesting is hypocritical."

I think that is your own projection; The OP already mentioned that his female
engineer is an awesome engineer, so I'm assuming she is qualified to be there
from an engineering perspective (and I'm not saying she needs to be the only
engineer there). And the organization is looking for a check to make sure the
hiring team is not discriminating against women, having a woman there
hopefully should help. At a minimum it would prevent outright sexist remarks
during the discussion of candidates as making them in her presence would
reasonably constitute sexual harassment. Also not to be over looked, the
presence of a successful female engineer from the hiring organization may also
make female candidates more comfortable.

As for dedication, I mean dedication to not over looking awesome female
candidates, intentionally or otherwise.

~~~
jasonlotito
> I think that is your own projection

It's not. Regardless, everything else you say ignores the fact that you are
bringing the woman in specifically because you think she'll be better at
hiring women. It's a strategy.

She's in there not because she's a great engineer, but because she is a woman
who happens to be a great engineer.

~~~
voidlogic
I think one persons "you think she'll be better at hiring women" is easily
another persons "she'll be good at making sure women are not unfairly turned
away".

>>It's a strategy. Yes it is. It is a strategy to avoid over looking awesome
female candidates, intentionally or otherwise. Calling this a strategy is
fair, calling is hypocrisy is not.

>>She's in there not because she's a great engineer, but because she is a
woman who happens to be a great engineer.

No, she is there because she is a member of a group you think you may be
discriminating against AND she is a member of the group you are seeking to
hire for. Like you said it is a strategy.

You seem offended by what I think are very pragmatic ways to deal with the
issue, care to suggest your alternatives? If you recall the OP is looking for
legal ways to address the issue-

------
jerrya
Build a work environment friendly to men and women.

Advertise your position for a designer.

Make sure that the ad is seen in plenty of places where women designers may
look. Do as much outreach to women as you want to. Speak to women tech
meetups. Pass your job position along to professors likely to know qualified
students and let them know the position is open to everyone, but you'd like to
hire more women in general and are having problems reaching out to women. Use
facebook, linked in, pinterest, to reach out to women developers.

Ask your #1 employee if she is interested in speaking to schools, meetups,
conferences. Sponsor her speaking.

Interview qualified candidates.

Then hire a qualified candidate apt to do well at your position.

Also, let it be known you are always interested in good candidates, regardless
of their specific expertise. Then when you find good candidates, make a
position for them. This works well with your outreach and internship program.

(Other activities: sponsor outreach to high school girls, sponsor women in
tech conferences, sponsor outreach to all high school students, create
internships (and advertise those internships all across campus))

------
oellegaard
I think most people got this topic wrong, maybe because of all the promotion
of women in IT, which mostly is good.

If I was a woman, I'd rather apply for someone looking for a developer, than
someone looking for a woman - because then I knew I was hired because of my
skills and personality - not my gender.

In legal terms, this is pretty much what you can do. You can hire a "person"
not a person of a specific gender.

~~~
jasonlotito
The issue is wanting a diverse work force. They want the benefits that a
diverse work force can provide, and that includes adding women to the team
[1].

So how do they hire for that without discriminating? I think it's a fair
question, and one that shouldn't be ignored out of some perceived bias.

1\. <http://www.ncwit.org/ncwit-fact-sheet>

~~~
bcoates
You can want a diverse work force all you like but you aren't entitled to one.
It's really quite simple, in America an employer doesn't get to pick the
gender of his employees. Not to make it all one gender, not for diversity, not
to have an exact 50-50 ratio, not to have all the typists be women and all the
filers be men or vice versa.

In other words, you don't get to "add women to the team" because it's not your
decision to make. If you're worried that your hiring process is biased against
women, you're allowed to bend over backwards to make your job offers
accessible to them, and go out of your way to make sure your workplace is not
intolerable to whatever women work there already.

~~~
jasonlotito
> You can want a diverse work force all you like but you aren't entitled to
> one.

Of course. No one is suggesting otherwise. That's not the point. At all. You
are the only one talking about entitlement in this context.

------
Peroni
I'm not sure I get it. The author asked his only female employee and his wife
for feedback and the feedback was categorically negative yet he decided to
proceed regardless?

I appreciate the intention but I don't think an 'honest' blog post is going to
quell the controversy his tactic will undoubtedly drum up.

------
nsxwolf
So he ends with "I’m hiring a female UI designer". That's illegal, and he's
shouting his intent to break the law.

------
pessimizer
Discriminate. If you have five candidates, all qualified, with marginal
differences, take the one that has been historically discriminated against.

That is the only way to build a culture (industry-wide) where there is a
diverse group of people making hiring decisions. Once that happens, diverse
bigotries will tend to cancel each other out, and the lack of a visible glass
ceiling in the profession will encourage more people to try to join it from
discriminated against groups.

Marginal discrimination by feel and intuition is mostly voodoo anyway.
Thinking Person X is the best person for the job because he worked on a
project at Company Y that you thought was interesting isn't necessarily
picking the best person for the job (unless the project is directly applicable
to what you're hiring them for), but it is necessarily compounding any
prejudicial hiring practices from Company Y that may or may not exist there.
In addition, at the margins is when people are chosen because they went to the
same school as you, or they share your hobbies.

Have a qualification line, and above that line, pick the most historically
disadvantaged. If you're still not getting any diversity, examine your
qualification line (have I only considered people who went to private
universities?) or market your interest, as this blog does well:)

------
kevinthew
Consider advertising your jobs at less male-dominated college campuses? RIT is
one of the worst offenders in this regard. I think that'd be a start.

~~~
driverdan
How do you figure? RIT admits more than 50% women. Yes, they're generally not
in technical majors but as a whole you can't single the school out.

------
Jun8
Rather than such heavy-handed techniques trying to solve the surface problem,
ask yourself these two questions: (i) what is the reason I want a female
employee for this position? Just citing the gender imbalance in the company is
not enough and is a weak argument, you have to explain that the _additional_
effort in hiring a woman for this position is well-spent. This is the easy
part, since this questions has been debated to death on HN and other forums.

The more important question is: (ii) Why is it hard to get a female interface
designer (I have no clue but am assuming it is so) and what can _you_ do to
solve this problem? Trying to hire female programmers/designers is good but is
an indirect method. Why don't you take your cool gear to your local middle
schools, high schools, etc. and meet with future female programmers, to
motivate them into this field.

------
brudgers
I am reluctant to use a reference to sports, but the NFL has a good model in
regard to coaching and race. Using their protocol teams identify and interview
African-American candidates. The protocol does not require hiring them. The
Football League in the UK is talking about something similar.

The problem the NFL model solves is the networking problem. The process of
interviewing is recognized as valuable because it expands the industry's
knowledge of the talent pool and provides a basic opportunity for less well
connected candidates to present their credentials.

This means that even if a candidate doesn't get this job, they are on the
radar screen for other jobs. Hiring decisions are still based on merit while
the known talent pool diversifies over the long run.

------
sodomizer
If you're hiring someone because of their gender, race, etc., that's
discriminatory.

However, you're also going to be judged by the statistics, which is to say, if
you don't discriminate, you're going to be seen as discriminatory.

Someone write Congress and have them fix this please :)

As far as solutions, recognize that there's a reason most businesses like to
hire people they know. They already know the people are capable and will fit
in with the team, rather than "rolling the dice" with an unknown who might be
perfectly competent but impossible to work with.

What that means is that you have a networking problem. You need to meet enough
people so that if you decide to hire someone for a position, you immediately
know some candidates. This means that some of them will be women.

I recommend going to the professors, campus organizations, or other authority
figures that people already trust. This enables you to meet people without the
somewhat creepy idea of showing up and trying to "recruit women" with some
weird geek stunt.

Even better, consider your existing network: your employees. Have a dinner or
drinks session where you encourage every employee to bring a friend "who might
someday want to come on board."

I can't help you with the inherent paradox of being discriminatory in order to
avoid being seen as discriminatory. But with more people on your mental
rolodex, you'll have a better choice of finding someone who's a fit, and more
of those will be women and other protected groups.

------
mikestew
My response to the title is "duh". Setting out to hire a woman _is_ , by the
very definition of the word, discriminatory. For the moment, drop the legal
aspects of the word "discrimination". Think more along the lines of hiring a
designer versus a dev. That's discriminatory, too, but in a perfectly legal
sense. In the end, though, one has made a distinction between those that
design and those that write code. But if one needs a designer and not a dev,
that discrimination needs to be made. Discriminating by gender, however, is
not only of questionable legality, it can also make for a bad hire if one
discriminates for gender above all else.

Looping back to the topic of hiring women, it was good that he sought the
feedback of his wife and his employee. Despite his noble goals, it sure struck
_me_ as creepy. "Do you have a vagina? Come work for us!" I read the article,
but maybe I missed the part where he asked himself how the workforce got out
of balance to begin with. I'm going to guess (given the attitude that he
conveys) that he didn't set out to create a boy's club of brogrammers.
Advertising in the wrong places? Maybe something in the interview process was
more discriminatory than he thought? Something in the company that subtly
doesn't appeal to women? An industry predominantly populated by those with
penises? Look to identify problems like that, rather than running around where
the girls hang out and blatantly recruit for chicks.

------
hvs
Find out where tech women are hanging out and make your job opportunities
known there. If you are only going to where tech men are, then you are only
going to get tech men applying.

------
pdeuchler
Nobody screamed discrimination when Michael Bay cast Megan Fox in
_Transformers_. After all, what man could provide her sex appeal?

I see your problem, and agree with your viewpoint that this PC culture we've
developed might have gone a little overboard, however I don't think this is a
case of that. You need to focus less on the gender, and what the gender
provides.

"WANTED: Graphical Designer, has work consistent with a feminine point of view
and can provide alternative perspective to a predominantly male industry"

IANAL, but I feel like that gives you enough legal ass-covering to say any
male didn't qualify. Could probably be worded better though.

e: formatting

------
fitzpasd
The correct way to go about this is to advertise to the entire population, but
make a conscious move to have it geared towards women more (e.g. advertised
more heavily in women-dominated areas).

Then you hope the best candidate is a women.

------
darkchasma
I always see these arguments as very very myopic. If I need a developer, then
I hire a developer. I am very much discriminating against accountants, because
they don't fit the qualifications that I am looking for. But no intelligent
person would ever frame it that way. If you're a 10 to 1 ratio, then you need
to diversify, and you would discriminate against men the same way you
discriminate against accountants. The enlightened individual realizes very
quickly that diversity is the goal because it works better.

~~~
borplk
That's not how it works.

An accountant will not have the qualification to get the job done and that's
why you are not considering them, it's not discrimination.

Discrimination is when you ignore someone or treat them differently based on
an attribute that is seemingly non-relevant to what is required to get the job
done.

Gender, race, religion is often one of those attributes.

There may be cases where one of the above attributes is so crucial to the job
that it is not discriminatory to consider them. For example a church will not
accept an 'atheist bishop' and in that case that is not discrimination.

But if you apply for a fastfood job and get rejected because you are an
atheist, then that is discrimination.

In the case of the author, it would be wrong to treat female applicants
differently or only look for females or ignore the male applicants. In my
opinion the right approach would be to do the things that results in getting
more female applicants so that there will be a higher chance of the best
applicant to be a female.

~~~
darkchasma
The job the person is applying for is an engineer and workplace diversify-er.
How does the white male accomplish the second criteria?

------
evan_
The plan is to go to a college campus with a toy helicopter equipped with a
camera and fly it over a field where a bunch of young women are sunbathing in
various states of undress. If someone comes to tell him to stop it, he's going
to launch into a rehearsed speech about how he wants to hire a woman for a
made-up-sounding job.

The absolute _best_ outcome here is that someone breaks his helicopter and he
goes home. It's probably more likely that someone calls campus security or the
cops and he spends the night in jail.

This is the stupidest, most socially-myopic plan I've seen on Hacker News
since... well, since last night's "Very Short Response Expected" post.

edit- looks like this post got flagged off the front page, which is not
surprising, but while I'm disappointed that fewer people will see how stupid
you are at least it might save you from an EEOC discrimination charge.

------
moron4hire
Back when I was dating, I had a really hard time meeting "qualified
candidates" (i.e. interesting people not enamored with the TV show "The Jersey
Shore"), say nothing about ones who were single and interested in dating me. I
signed up on a bunch of dating websites, I filled out all of the profiles with
minute detail (thinking it proved I wasn't some shallow person interested in a
quick hookup), paid very close attention to the content of the profiles I
read, and had a process for interviewing people all designed to show I was
truly interested in them, and to whittle down to the perfect candidate.

After reading your article, I realized it is exactly the same way we try to
hire people. We go out on job websites, fill out the job profiles, crawl
through resumes and try to interview the perfect candidate. Dice.com,
Monster.com, LinkedIn.com, they're the same exact thing as Match.com,
eHarmony.com, and OkCupid.com.

And shock and horror, it doesn't fucking work in either case. I've had the
same exact experience in hiring.

There were three things I learned through this process, in both spheres: 1)
One got just as good of results from random selection as from HR-based,
profile-based, direct-effort candidate searches. Actually, the random
selection was better because it didn't take anywhere near as much effort. 2)
Boiling people down into numbers and rankings and trying to figure out which
one was "better" than the others made me physically ill. 3) The only way to
find "the one" was to know them already. I quit trying, I expanded my circle
of friends, I completely and successfully changed from an introvert to an
extrovert, and eventually the stars aligned.

Now, that sounds like a system you can't count on, "stars aligning". But
really, I think it is a system you can count on more often than anything else.
For one thing, you know the "stars" will eventually "align". "Luck is what
happens when preparation meets opportunity" -- Seneca. Opportunities are
presented to you on a daily basis, you just aren't prepared for it.

I bet, with near certainty, you've met an amazing female designer/engineer
already. You have probably met several. And you have probably met several that
are interested in working for a company like yours. You just didn't know it,
because you weren't engaging people in conversations AS people. You were
trying to hire them.

You were trying to turn them into Human Resources.

~~~
dennisgorelik
> One got just as good of results from random selection as from HR-based,
> profile-based, direct-effort candidate searches.

Do you mean that if you search job board for e.g. "java sql" you would get
about the same type of candidates that you can get by stopping people on the
street?

~~~
moron4hire
Yes, both for being surprised with how much a random person could do, and for
how little a so-called "qualified" candidate could.

------
DannoHung
And this is, in fact, why the arguments about making tech open and welcoming
to women and stowing the dudeism stuff is really important.

------
peterwwillis
I get that people like this have noble intentions. But this obsession with
hiring women... it's gotten out of hand. You see an imbalance of one sub-group
of people in your field and you want to fix it. But you don't understand what
the problem is.

The problem is that women aren't getting paid enough. The problem is that
women get treated with less respect, or are given busy-work, aren't given the
same opportunities. The problem is sexual harassment. The problem is a lack of
sensitivity. The problem is the boys' club. Etc, etc, etc.

NONE of those problems get solved because you hired a woman. Once they get the
job, they still face all of the same hurdles the rest of their career, because
you didn't do anything to fix the cultural disparity which is (one of the)
reasons why there aren't more women in the field to begin with.

I mean... do you seriously think that the only reason there aren't more women
in tech is because _nobody offered them the job?_ There is no secret nation-
wide cabal of hiring managers excluding women from positions. They're just not
applying. Dealing with the reasons for that would be a lot more productive
than wandering around college campuses with a quadrocopter looking for girls.

------
Ugh_seriously
This is awful and it's frustrating to see. You have a job to fill and that job
needs to be filled by a person. Gender imbalance in your work place isn't
something that's up to you to solve. As a company you judge candidates based
on merit, not gender! Be interested in hiring good employees, and if a woman
applies and she's the best fit for the position, then hire her, but don't give
her a leg up over a man because she's going to change some ratio.

If you hire a woman that is 50% as capable of another male candidate, that's
asinine and you're an idiot.

------
kefka
We (as a society) allow techniques like Affirmative Action, that encourage
[Insert whatever new name for Origination from Africa] to positions in
schools, jobs, government, and elsewhere.

Women are found severely lacking in the tech sector, due to "bro-tard" style
workplace and management. Not to mention, not many women graduate from the
heavy tech degrees from universities.

Is this not why affirmative action was created in the first place?

~~~
chrisrhoden
> Is this not why affirmative action was created in the first place?

No. Affirmative action was not created to allow for diverse workplaces. It was
created to correct for differences in opportunity and implicit associations,
etc...

~~~
kefka
So, if I can show (adverse) differences in opportunity, then affirmative
action for women would be accepted?

    
    
      http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/07/14/high-price-of-being-born-female/  - Covers many topics on lack of women's income.
      http://www.bls.gov/ore/abstract/ec/ec070130.htm - "White fat women need not apply. Where is the White Fat guy study?"
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherhood_penalty - Penalty any woman pays when they choose to have a child. Affects socioeconomic and educational basis negatively.
      http://blogs.wsj.com/juggle/2009/06/18/the-motherhood-penalty-the-pay-gap-between-working-moms-and-childless-women/ - How about from the WSJ, instead of Wikipedia?
      http://phys.org/news205501664.html - If you do have a child, or cannot get easy access to birth control, the poorer you are the worse your income disparity will be.
      http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents - Scroll down.. Really?
    

Well, hmm..

~~~
chrisrhoden
If you can show it to the legislature, yes. In some of these cases (like the
motherhood penalty), AA laws would likely not help but alternative legislation
has been considered.

I think we agree that something should be done. I was addressing your specific
comment which suggested that the problems faced by poor black americans are
the same as the problems faced by upper-middle-class white female americans.

