Not invited for a job interview, because I'm female

[Monique]

I have come across several research groups that rather not hire females. Now I've been told that I don't need to bother coming over for an interview, because they'd rather not hire a female

I can't believe it, they justify the policy with the reason that there are already many women employed in the group, so they'd rather have a male. Which I find stupid, how can you put people in boxes like that? The majority of students in the biology major are female, so you'd expect more females to be present on the workfloor. Another group that I've applied to is also mostly female, and so is the current group that I work in. I wouldn't be able to hold another job if this continues

Is the reason that they give even legal? I'd suspect not, but I'm not sure.

 

[Evo]

I have come across several research groups that rather not hire females. Now I've been told that I don't need to bother coming over for an interview, because they'd rather not hire a female

I can't believe it, they justify the policy with the reason that there are already many women employed in the group, so they'd rather have a male. Which I find stupid, how can you put people in boxes like that? The majority of students in the biology major are female, so you'd expect more females to be present on the workfloor. Another group that I've applied to is also mostly female, and so is the current group that I work in. I wouldn't be able to hold another job if this continues

Is the reason that they give even legal? I'd suspect not, but I'm not sure.

It wouldn't be legal in the US, not sure about the laws in your country.

What's ridiculous is that it's illegal for them to ADMIT hiring bias, but they can refuse to hire anyone, they just can't be openly honest that they had a bias.

 

[Lacy33]

I'm guessing you're not in the US?

 

[FlexGunship]

Affirmative action, hiring quotas, and anti-gender-bias laws work both ways. In the same way that I have a hard time getting interviews for jobs because they "need more women," you're experiencing the opposite.

 

[Monique]

It wouldn't be legal in the US, not sure about the laws in your country.

The US has some exceptions where it can be legal to positively discriminate based on gender, that's why I ask. If it is even illegal in the US, I'm sure it would be illegal in NL.

The scenario would then be that the male gets a preference over a female, in order to maintain a certain sex ratio. But if that were the case, I think that can only be done in the case of equal opportunity of both applicants?.

 

[Andre]

http://wetboek.net/lexicon/discriminatie.html and a bl... shame for our 'tolerant' country.

 

[Monique]

Affirmative action, hiring quotas, and anti-gender-bias laws work both ways. In the same way that I have a hard time getting interviews for jobs because they "need more women," you're experiencing the opposite.

Exactly, but that only applies when two applicants have the same potential right? Only then you can give a preference to a certain gender, based on distributions?

 

[FlexGunship]

Exactly, but that only applies when two applicants have the same potential right? Only then you can give a preference to a certain gender, based on distributions?

Maybe. It's a pretty raw deal no matter what. The most qualified applicant should get the position. I can't wait until we get non-gender-biased bra test groups and erectile dysfunction test groups. Political correctness is always well-intentioned, but it never really ends that way.

All good roads to Rome were paved with intentions... and what have you.

 

[Evo]

The US has some exceptions where it can be legal to positively discriminate based on gender,

The only time an employer can legally specify gender as a job requirement is if the job meets the legal requirements of Bona fide occupational qualification

Bona fide occupational qualification.
Under the law against discrimination, there is an exception to the rule that an employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person may not discriminate on the basis of protected status; that is if a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) applies. The commission believes that the BFOQ exception should be applied narrowly to jobs for which a particular quality of protected status will be essential to or will contribute to the accomplishment of the purposes of the job. The following examples illustrate how the commission applies BFOQs:

(1) Where it is necessary for the purpose of authenticity or genuineness (e.g., model, actor, actress) or maintaining conventional standards of sexual privacy (e.g., locker room attendant, intimate apparel fitter) the commission will consider protected status to be a BFOQ.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=162-16-240

Any other discrimination based on gender is illegal in the US.

 

[George Jones]

To some extent, this type of affirmative action seems like it is being applied to admissions at Canadian med schools,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/failing-boys/part-5-is-affirmative-action-for-men-the-answer-to-enrolment-woes/article1766432/page2/,

and maybe more generally to various programs at North American universities.

From the second page of the above article:

The notion of a stealth policy of affirmative action for men is not new. It first surfaced south of the border in 2006. That year, the dean of Kenyon College wrote an op-ed in The New York Times lamenting that she had to pass over “glorious stacks of girls” in favour of less qualified boys in order to keep some semblance of a gender balance at the school.

 

[Monique]

Thanks Andre for the links. I've sent an e-mail to an organization that is able to judge whether it is illegal or not, I'm curious about the answer.

 

[humanino]

I know a case in the US where a (n at the time) pregnant woman was not chosen against an obviously much less qualified male researcher (physics). I found the situation outraging enough to ask people around me. Turns out, it is quite easy to dismiss whomever they (university) want : they merely have to claim that the "personality" does not fit with (at least some of) the other members. This is so subjective, not much can be done against those practices. I will also be interested to know how things turn out in your case.

 

[dacruick]

Affirmative action, hiring quotas, and anti-gender-bias laws work both ways. In the same way that I have a hard time getting interviews for jobs because they "need more women," you're experiencing the opposite.

I live in Canada and a lot of government jobs are reserved for certain minorities. I think this is good in promoting equality. I am currently a student at the University of Waterloo and I know women in engineering get scooped up really quickly for co-op jobs because there are less of them.

You're definitely getting the butt-end of this, and I assume I will too. There aren't exactly a lot of female in my physics program.

Edit: Maybe the era of it being advantageous to be a white male is waning down.

 

[Topher925]

Affirmative action, hiring quotas, and anti-gender-bias laws work both ways. In the same way that I have a hard time getting interviews for jobs because they "need more women," you're experiencing the opposite.

Exactly. I've been discriminated against countless times for job interviews for being male and its perfectly legal for companies to do so. Not much you can do but just move on.

 

[Evo]

Exactly. I've been discriminated against countless times for job interviews for being male and its perfectly legal for companies to do so. Not much you can do but just move on.

It's not legal if they told you that was the reason.

 

[dacruick]

It's not legal if they told you that was the reason.

It is if its the law that prevents them from hiring you in the first place.

 

[Danger]

I don't know anything about your local laws, Monique, but I can say as a rational human that this whole thing absolutely sucks. It would be illegal here, and in most of the US as Evo mentioned. Should the fact that you are probably better qualified than those who are allowed to compete not count for something?
On the other hand, Amsterdam is a great place to hook up with expert, discrete, and inexpensive assassins, so there might be a neat way to carve your path...

 

[Evo]

It is if its the law that prevents them from hiring you in the first place.

But that's not the case.

 

[Andre]

This is the first amendment of the Dutch equavalent of the bill of rights, to which I linked in my previous post:

Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.

and this is the translation that google provides:

All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination because of religion, belief, political opinion, race, gender or any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.

 

[Danger]

This is the first amendment of the Dutch equavalent of the bill of rights, to which I linked in my previous post:



and this is the translation that google provides:

That is nicely phrased. Thanks, Andre.

 

[Monique]

I've already received a reply and preselection based on gender is indeed against the law. I thought so, because I found the concept already ridiculous. If I see it happen again, I'll be able to act on it.

Even in the case that two applicants have been interviewed and have equal ability, it cannot be stated that preference is given to a male in order to get a more balanced male/female ratio (or whatever other reason).

Luckily I've already secured myself a job: the other group has expressed that they'd be happy when I join the team

 

[G037H3]

Or, just go with people who actually want you, instead of fighting those who don't want you.

A fight would be rational if you had no other option, but obviously you have options.

 

[Monique]

Or, just go with people who actually want you, instead of fighting those who don't want you.

A fight would be rational if you had no other option, but obviously you have options.

I wasn't planning to fight it with the intent to have them hire me. If someone believes that gender ratios is a legitimate reason for selection, it is now clear that I can tell them that they are wrong. I believe in justice and can't turn a blind eye when someone is knowingly discriminating, but hard evidence would be needed, which I don't have at this point. I view it as that they missed the opportunity to talk to me, which is their loss

 

[radou]

Even in the case that two applicants have been interviewed and have equal ability, it cannot be stated that preference is given to a male in order to get a more balanced male/female ratio (or whatever other reason).

In such situations a coin toss would do the job.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I have come across several research groups that rather not hire females. Now I've been told that I don't need to bother coming over for an interview, because they'd rather not hire a female

I can't believe it, they justify the policy with the reason that there are already many women employed in the group, so they'd rather have a male. Which I find stupid, how can you put people in boxes like that? The majority of students in the biology major are female, so you'd expect more females to be present on the workfloor. Another group that I've applied to is also mostly female, and so is the current group that I work in. I wouldn't be able to hold another job if this continues

Is the reason that they give even legal? I'd suspect not, but I'm not sure.

I'm sorry to hear this. Making a career in science is hard enough without idiotic cr*p like this.

 

[Andre]

But congrats with your new job, Monique, I hope it's one that you like.

 

[Lisa!]

Congrats, Monique!

 

[Monique]

I'm sorry to hear this. Making a career in science is hard enough without idiotic cr*p like this.

Yeah, I know. Finding a lab that is a good fit is already hard enough and I was actually liking the work they did.

But congrats with your new job, Monique, I hope it's one that you like.

Congrats, Monique!

Thank you! It's definitely one I like, it's a great group of people. The project requires quite a bit of intellectual investment and is part of a large international framework, a real challenge

 

[Drakkith]

As much as I understand the reasons behind many laws deailng with things such as Affirmative action and such, I still think its extremely inappropriate. I see both sides of the issue though. For me it comes down to whether or not the laws help more people than they hinder. I had a friend that worked at a movie theatre who told me that they had a spot open for over a year simply because it HAD to be filled by a minority. The problem was that there weren't any people applying for jobs in that theatre that were a minority. So they simply had to suck it up and go a man short for over a year.

 

[Evo]

Thank you! It's definitely one I like, it's a great group of people. The project requires quite a bit of intellectual investment and is part of a large international framework, a real challenge

That sounds wonderful, so glad to hear it.

 

[Pythagorean]

somebody besides a white male is suffering from affirmative action?

 

[Drakkith]

somebody besides a white male is suffering from affirmative action?

Funny how almost no one thinks that descriminating against that group (which I am a member) is bad as long as any other group gets priority. Again, i completely understand the reasons, but it still doesn't make it right. But I guess it depends on what is "More right" or "Less Wrong" to people.

 

[Pythagorean]

Funny how almost no one thinks that descriminating against that group (which I am a member) is bad as long as any other group gets priority. Again, i completely understand the reasons, but it still doesn't make it right. But I guess it depends on what is "More right" or "Less Wrong" to people.

Fight racism/sexism with racism/sexism. That's the motto of affirmative action.

But yeah, I haven't come up with a better way, so I guess the cycle continues for now.

 

[CRGreathouse]

To some extent, this type of affirmative action seems like it is being applied to admissions at Canadian med schools,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/failing-boys/part-5-is-affirmative-action-for-men-the-answer-to-enrolment-woes/article1766432/page2/,

and maybe more generally to various programs at North American universities.

From the second page of the above article:

The notion of a stealth policy of affirmative action for men is not new. It first surfaced south of the border in 2006. That year, the dean of Kenyon College wrote an op-ed in The New York Times lamenting that she had to pass over “glorious stacks of girls” in favour of less qualified boys in order to keep some semblance of a gender balance at the school.

Yeah, how ridiculous. Is that even legal? It shouldn't be.

 

[Proton Soup]

Fight racism/sexism with racism/sexism. That's the motto of affirmative action.

But yeah, I haven't come up with a better way, so I guess the cycle continues for now.

meh, it's just that women are really good with the verbal part of their brain. it's like the reverse situation for engineering. i take it more as a sign that, on average, men and women are simply different and excel at different tasks. so we are never going to see a homogeneity among professions, nor should we expect to.