Haha, that really flips the script. But it's also true... one can get away with many incorrect or inappropriate behaviors if they are attractive (or especially charismatic).
ITT: the effects of conservative propaganda, which conflates "natural" with "necessary, unavoidable, and acceptable," particularly in matters of sexual instinct
The foundation of human society is subjugating (evolved animal) instinct, to evolved cultural expectations and behavioral norms.
It is fundamental in functional societies that instinct is not "denied," it is recognized as exactly that thing which society erects constructs and behavioral expectations around to manage.
Instinct may in most cases be unavoidable and inevitable.
Healthy participation in a healthy society means asserting will and cultivating habits which correct for, guard against, and render unproblematic, these things.
NB I say "propaganda" because there is a relentless subtext (now, often overtly stated and championed, especially among shills for toxic masculinity) that "men are unable to control themselves, and it is not just inappropriate but immoral to expect them to." Ask any seventh grade boy you know about Tate and his ilk... then educate and push back.
At one company I worked at, most of our tech/finance staff was male. When we interviewed for a junior data science position, we had one female candidate who many would consider to be very attractive. Most or all of the other interviewees were male.
That became a matter of some consideration, because there were arguments that she would be too disruptive within the office because of her age, appearance, and gender.
What's fascinating is that the "right" answer was not clear here. Should we consider those factors, effectively making her personal characteristics a negative, or should we continue with the knowledge that she would likely get too much attention (some of which she might find uncomfortable)?
In the end, we chose a male candidate who seemed to be a better fit based on skills and academic focus. But had it been an equal match based on background alone, I think we still would have chosen the man.
FWIW, I was providing only analysis of the candidates based on their in-person interview performance primarily related to general problem solving, so I did not affect the selection based on those personal factors.
> What's fascinating is that the "right" answer was not clear here.
I think you've misidentified the problem. The issue has nothing to do with the applicant, and everything to do with a team culture that would find it 'disruptive' to have a member who was young/female/attractive.
The right answer is to work on fixing that culture.
> The right answer is to work on fixing that culture.
Why? What if the company is OK with their monoculture?
Or what if they're OK with dealing with the higher cost of cultural transition later once they are more profitable? Kind of like ignoring tech debt - ignoring cultural debt. Or maybe they're OK with staying a smaller size and have no need for more inclusive culture?
Just spitballing, looking at a company like Riot Games or Blizzard who are now dealing with the cultural fallout (lawsuits etc) after years of ignoring "cultural debt". But what if they hadn't ignored it? Would they be as successful as they are today?
Maybe they succeeded in part because of their now "toxic" culture and they are paying their debts that they ignored, or maybe they succeeded in spite of their "toxic" culture.
Diversity has a cost associated with it - namely that people need to be more empathetic and need to be much better communicators. Also people have trouble interviewing and picking out good candidates from different cultural backgrounds by default. A lot of people who are not used to diverse environments need training - training that they don't want to receive. Would be be better for society if people were able to deal with diversity? Yea, but maybe not for a startup or small company who would need to pay for it, especially in early stages
>Why? What if the company is OK with their monoculture?
Because it's illegally discriminatory. I guess not all of us want to live in a better society, but those of us that do have voted for representatives that have made sexual discrimination illegal.
Maybe. Fixing the culture in that way is not obviously the company's biggest priority. We can agree that it's an ideal, but it also takes resources away from other things and may involve other tradeoffs (even firing some people) that could be worse for the business and employees overall. It's not the kind of decision that can just be made in a vacuum.
It might not be a short term priority, but it should definitely be a long term one.
Currently, the company is restricted to only a subset of potential applicants (male, mid-to-late career, ugly-to-average) for any future hiring needs; that's quite limiting. There's also the possibility of lawsuits for various kinds of discrimination in the future.
It's not on me to report, but if the interviewee in question saw this, she'd have a slam-dunk case. It's a full on admission that they did not hire because of her sex. They clearly have no problems hiring an attractive male, so the fact that they wont hire attractive females is prima facie sexual discrimination. On top of the general context where they are basically not hiring women because they are afraid the men in the office can't behave themselves (fucking disgusting perspective IMO).
yeah you report it to ppl in the company who might flip on the company and contact the interviewer (I’ve been this prior interviewer before who was told I was discriminated against, paunched an EEOC case and got financial settlements with the company)
You can also get a hungry lawyer to launch ads and try to find prior interviewers
> The right answer is to work on fixing that culture.
Indeed, but that is something that will still take many years to change (assuming it will ever change). And in the given moment, we must do our best within the current scenario.
Also, it can be difficult to fix a culture when cultural norms vary quite significantly from region to region. It's not even one particular gender who is resistant to change depending on the region or the norm.
Define "normally". Up until a few hundred years ago it was completely normal for the victors to rape and pillage(and still is, in many parts of the world). We see the same behavior in the animal kingdom.
I would argue acting decent(civilized) is the abnormal behavior, a recent phenomena.
Are you genuinely asking if it's normal to rape? If you have this much trouble determining what "normal" behavior in today's society is (hint, rape is explicitly unlawful) then you aren't even pretending to be remotely reasonable in any way that's worth engaging with.
This would make sense if we were lizards, but it turns out we're humans with agency. The way that you describe it, the only way men can control primal instincts of having orgies on the streets is to make everyone wear a burka.
Everyone likes looking attractive. Just because a guy works out doesn't means that he's ready for quickie in the bathroom.
We definitely are humans with agency. I use mine to mostly avoid women at work.
Women use theirs to accent colors in their hair, brighten their lips, make their smell travels several feet around them, color their nails, and wear tight clothing that accents their body.
>"Women use theirs to accent colors in their hair, brighten their lips, make their smell travels several feet around them, color their nails, and wear tight clothing that accents their body."
Weird how this is the only thing you seem to point to women doing, and then you project all this back onto them as it being the only thing they care about. Wooooooof.
In my experience, the women I work with primarily do their jobs. Some of them, incredibly well.
That's up to you. I personally find it fun to meet people and I prefer being near nice smells. It doesn't mean that a rose perfume makes me uncontrollable.
Most perfumes aren't even naturally sexy smells. It's not like people are pumping pheromones in the air.
1) no one is perfect. That's why there are locks on executive doors and drawers, even though companies 'trust' their employees.
2) even men acting 'decent' can be a problem. What if the men are so decent, so often, that it makes the woman uncomfortable. I help my male coworkers once in a while. A beautiful young girl I might help much more often. Multiply that by every male employee and this woman will be drowning in 'decent' attention.
1) you avoid hiring thieves. Companies do this everyday through background checks. Similar to how this company avoided hiring an extra hot woman. Since you can't not hire men, you have to resort to removing the problem from the other side.
1) So according to you, the entire gender is the issue. That's facially gender discrimination. I'm not sure what's so difficult about this for you to understand.
2) No. You are the problem. You have a backwards perspective that barely grants women agency, let alone treats them as equals. And you are incredibly hung up over the fact that some women ARE attractive. For most normal people, that doesn't get in the way of us working. Not sure why it's a problem for you.
You seem to have trouble with words or basic logic.
Almost every post on this thread here talks about many women making choices to sexualize the workplace. I did not say I have a problem with people with breasts. I have a problem with someone accenting their breasts, and showing the top portion of them, at work. This isn't a gender issue, it's an actions issue.
2) I do think women have agency. You're the one acting like they are soulless blobs that can't make proper decision on how to look in the work place. And I have zero problems with women, but there are all types in a company and you shouldn't ignore that.
For example, I don't steal. But I wouldn't leave a laptop on the passenger seat of a parked car. This has nothing to do with my own personal actions.
You are projecting, again. You view women’s appearance as sexualizing the workplace. And everyone else views it as them… showing up to work. The problem is in your perspective and your assessment of your female colleagues, which so far you’ve only described as being capable of focusing on their tits, their asses, and other sexual displays in the work place. It speaks to your focus and not reality. I work with women all the time and don’t have literally ANY of the problems you describe (and, not coincidentally, I also do not have your troubled view as to what women actually spend their time thinking about and doing)..
I’m not acting like women are soulless blobs. You have determined what you think is an appropriate way for women to dress (weird) and then get angry when women don’t comply with it! Not sure what that has to do with me at all, let alone my view of women, to be perfectly honest.
That is a ridiculous response to what I wrote; it's not in any way an injustice to be required not to sexually harass other people.
Both women and men are very capable of interacting normally and forming productive working relationships with members of the opposite sex, regardless of how attractive they are.
Definitely they are capable. Proof is obviously the fact that the world goes on and pretty girls have successful careers and jobs. But it's not without its risks. Even Bill Gates can't keep his hands off employees or young girls he met through Epstein (the Russian bridge player that came out a few days ago)
Wait - you think this is all a reason why you can behave the way you described? There is something deeply troubled with you. I'm sorry that I'm so rude, but it's obviously true. And for what it's worth, as rude as this post might seem, it pales in comparison to the estimations of the entire female sex that you have expressed in this thread.
That speaks more to you, than it does to me. What does it matter that Bill Gates does things with Jeffery Epstein that does or does not involve women? It has no bearing on your or your behavior AT ALL.
We are on a tech forum, talking on a thread where a tech company decided not to hire a hot woman because they cause distractions and problems.
So, I mentioned that even Bill Gates, basically the most popular tech person in the world, married his coworker, and then cheated on her because he couldn't control himself. Aka, even elite tech people with everything to lose, can't turn down a pretty young girl. Thus, I understand why OPs company did what they did.
You can keep talking in circles about what you think the world should be like. I'm talking about what it's actually like.
But Bill Gates' behavior isn't excused. You keep bringing up people's bad behavior as if it should be tolerated. It isn't. You might, but as I've pointed repeatedly, you are actually rather toxic and don't seem to represent the norm at all.
OP admitted to a prima facie legally actionable sexual discrimination case. You are here defending them as it being the way things are. It isn't. That's why it's agains the law. You seem to not have gotten the memo. I'm here to remind you, apparently.
You are. You are saying that an attractive woman invites sexual harassment. That hasn’t been the case in my office. You are saying it’s okay to discriminate against attractive women because men can’t control their behavior. I’ve already explained to you (like 6 times now), that is A) illegal sexual discrimination, and B) obviously fucking foolish logic. Men can control their behavior and must be expected to. Your argument is akin to saying that the greatest % of thieves are latino, so that it’s okay not to hire latinos because they might be thieves. That’s just facial discrimination and it doesn’t matter how many times you try to logically invert the situation.
It’s also amusing that in this logic, you are like “hey, we already hired the rapists, they can’t control themselves, let’s not hire any women to be around them!” And you don’t see a problem with that. Deeply seated in your logic and worldview is a view of women that is incredibly incredibly fucked up. You have not come up with a single scenario in this thread where women spend any time putting in any efforts (at work or otherwise) to do anything besides be sexual objects for men, and you push this view into everything, as if it’s actually the case. I feel sorry for the women you know that must have to deal with your regressive bullshit, and I feel sorry for anyone that has to experience you sharing such ideas.
Women often wear clothes that accents their breasts and butts, which have strong sexual connections. The most similar example I could think of was a guy showing off his penis the way women show off their breasts.
Men demonstrate their sexual power differently: 1- confidence 2- intelligence 3- ambition,
4- sense of humor, etc. Physical appearance is just one among many attributes (attractive people are attracted to attractive people, other people may emphasize other attributes—just an observation).
Yes I do believe women would find it very distracting if mens penises were outlined closely at work. Mostly for negative reasons, because women find most average men unattractive in general.
Yes I think it would give attractive men with large penises a competitive advantage.
This is basically your #1 fault. You make a stupid claim. I tell you more details and ask you to adjust your worldview based on the info you've received. You then say "nope, not changing a thing!"
No, it's pretty spot-on and you are espousing many of the ideas. That you once allegedly gotten laid, or even a few times, doesn't really change that. You don't actually need to never have had sex to be an incel. It's a mindset. You can disagree with me all you want about that. I don't really care because you have not posted ONE reasonable point in this entire damn thread!
> To me, you are close to an incel type because lameness makes women disgusted.
It's not a surprise you think that. All your posts here are reactive nonsense, "flipping the script" almost literally sometimes in order to defend your regressive views that don't comport with today's society.
Or at least the use of packers. Oddly, enough we don't seem to see men utilizing these apparatuses too often. Given their supposed advantage, I wonder, why is this?
There is some historical evidence this is possible within societies. See Léon Cogniet's Louis Philippe I[1]. However, I don't exactly have any evidence that our society today, specifically in the workplace, that this holds true.
Why don't you subscribe to the more reasonable explanation that accenting male genitalia doesn't confer an advantage and instead seem to be advocating for a "it does, but it's illegal," stance which doesn't seem to be rooted in reality?
Based on your comments, what seems to be driving your position instead is an assumption that there is a grave social injustice aimed at men. Is it not?
My main point is that women are already so coddled, and allowed to use their sexuality in the work place so much, that OPs company not hiring one chick is basically irrelevant.
Is this unlike the idea that women's bodies are inherently sexual? The idea that women's sexuality has power over men (usually as described by men) comes up a lot in discussions about the sexualization of women's bodies. Is this something different than that?
Is the idea that women spend an absurd amount of money to look hot at work similar to the idea that womens bodies are sexual in the first place? I think women sexualize themselves for the most part. Obviously there are some conservative women, and some full on prostitutes with day jobs, so sure all types exist. But in general I think women use their sexuality too much at work.
I'd guess that for many of the folks reading this page, your focus on their sexual features is more curious than whether you're blaming anyone.
Even in the full knowledge of the purported origins of lipstick, it's interesting that you think a woman getting dressed for office in a traditional, largely expected fashion, is trying to "mimic sexual excitement".
I'm not sure how padded pushup bras, glossy lips, and tight fitting clothes became "largely expected". I don't think any father or husband pushes the women in their lives to do this, so I have to assume it's done by women for their own reasons.
I like to think of women as intelligent people so I assume they are aware of what they are doing.
No, that's an absurd characterization of your perspective, one in which the entirety of your dismissal of female agency and equivalence as individuals is minimized in order to treat them like walking sex objects whose primary function is to make you horny. It's called projecting.
Except - that’s not a winning point here. There is no expectation that people not be flawed - there is the expectation that you don’t drive drunk. That’s what the law requires. Similarly, the law doesn’t require you to be perfect and not have flaws in the office, the law requires you to not sexually harass people in the office. It’s pretty simple but you manage to repeatedly try and make it seem complicated by bringing in irrelevant factors like whether people are flawed or not - there was never any question as to whether or not people are flawed.
Parent is making a comment that male behavior is socially mediated in terms of which behaviors are socially acceptable and which ones aren't. This is because we're talking about changing the company culture. Company culture is partially a set of context-specific social norms and values.
No one is talking about moderating the cognitive experience of males which is where this confusion originates. Everyone else is talking about male behavior. The assumption I'm specifically tackling is the assumption that, "male cognition overrides social norms," which is patently false.
I guess OPs company just didn't want their employees to have to act like they they arent attracted to someone 2000 hours a year when they are.
Similar to how most tech company employees have trouble acting decent to a coworker wearing a trump hat at work. Ideally we could all be neutral cyborgs at work, but we just aren't.
Weird - do you have trouble walking down the street when an attractive woman is present. Do you have to talk to her? Howl like a wolf? Bark like a dog? I don't understand what exactly happens when an attractive woman is present that you suddenly cannot behave normally?
I behave perfectly normally. But this isn't a thread about me, it's about the employees at OPs company. The management team must have known that with the amount of men they have hired, atleast a few might be prone to getting weak for women. So they took action.
So if you can behave perfectly normally in the streets - why can't you behave perfectly normally in the office? You are the one saying that it's actually normal that men react this way, but I don't think so. My experiences don't match that at all. I work in an office with women, they don't get harassed and we've never not hired someone because they are or aren't attractive. So you can keep pointing to vague truisms that have nothing to do with anything (I don't steal but I know thieves exist). Yeah, I don't steal either, and when someone does, I call the cops. I don't live my life in fear of people stealing. I don't treat entire categories of people (you here perform the incredibly ridiculous task of equating the entire gender of women to 'thieves' because apparently all women think the same according to you...) based upon that notion, yet you do.
I'm tired of all your confused points.
Nowhere did I say I have trouble at work but not on the street.
Nowhere did anyone say anything about women in general not working at OPs company. It was clear this was an attractive woman by these guys standards, not some average woman.
My points aren't confused, buddy. You are. You are very confused about women and what they think about you, what they spend their time doing, and why they do it.
I don’t think it’s right for the hiring team to decide if an individual will “get too much attention”.
IME, women are all too familiar with the challenges of working in a male-dominated workplace, but ultimately just want to pursue a career they enjoy. The “right” decision is to respect that drive and not to infantilize them by making decisions on their behalf.
Well, in my company it worked different way. Being female, even average looking one was an instant advantage (with the exception for overweight/obese ones). Seven times of ten female would be hired over equally qualified male (which doesn't mean our company is predominately female, there's simply not that many women in the IT, so they are small minority of the candidates).
Simply put: it seems that our teams preferred to have at least one female member, just to keep things interesting.
.jpg){kind=link}
See also:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness_stereo...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_in_advertising
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirroring
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patter