CameronDev@programming.dev 1 year ago
I get that these people are probably desperate, but that seems like a very short sighted decision. The employers there are not there for men, so turning up there is just going to make you seem tone deaf at best, or an asshole at worst.
FunderPants@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
It’s stupid, I’ve been on hiring committees and we would never hire someone who did this. It’s a huge red flag.
just_change_it@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You just admitted to discriminating on the basis of sex in a hiring process, how is that ok?
Gender should not be part of the consideration of a hiring process. There should be equitable outcomes for all, not just the people we bias.
atx_aquarian@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I think this would be about their behavior. It’s not “we wouldn’t hire a man,” it’s “hey, showing up to an event that wasn’t intended for you is a bit of a red flag.”
5BC2E7@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Some of them could identify as women.
pixxelkick@lemmy.world 1 year ago
No they indicated they hired based on the behavior of the person. It’d be more like:
You are a hiring manager and interviewing a dude, and right before the interview you witness him try to go to the bathroom, see the men’s lineup is kinda long, so he just waltzed into the (very clearly marked) women’s bathroom to skip the lineup, and there were even women in the bathroom using it!
If this person was a woman, you wouldnt care that she used the women’s bathroom, because thats a non-event.
But what you witnessed was a dude who didn’t care for social norms and just skipped the line, not following directions, and not giving a fuck about protocol.
So you choose not to hire him, not because of his gender, but because of his behavior
5BC2E7@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You can’t tell if they identify as women.