It’s funny the person who really believes all women want to kill all men is calling someone else naive. I’m not going around with you on this bull shit again. If you don’t want to hire someone you can come up with a reason that does not come down to their sex (well maybe you can’t). I personally don’t have a problem with all women and would most likely not find myself in that position since I would be hiring based on merit, personality, and run a company that is undeniably not woke with policies that make it clear you can’t publicly deride our customers.
The tragedy of TheImpossible1 is that he is rarely completely wrong. For example, if your org is 100% men and a woman sues you saying you discriminated against her in hiring, you're guaranteed to lose your suit unless she's beyond unqualified.
However, he takes it to the extreme and imputes motives onto all women, as if they're a hivemind. KiA2-minded women exist, and if anything, they are more hated by these HR types.
See further down the thread. I’m aware that optically that does t look good for your case but scale of organization matters 15 person company all men vs 300 person company chances are at some point a more qualified women has shown up for some interview at the 300 person company but once you get that large the ceo/president isn’t directly involved with all new hires
Yeah, I bowed out of reading the exchange. Everyone here gets into it with TheImpossible1 at some point. I agree with both of you on most points. The problem with arguing against him is you'll often find you're in agreement in general but disagreement in degree.
I'd argue that once you hit 5 employees you're reached critical mass for a lawsuit. Remember, it's not about truth, it's about perception. If the suit makes it to a jury, your organization will become a stand-in for all the "shitty" bosses the female jury members ever had.
“ your honor candidate A has a social media footprint constantly bashing consumers of my clients products, starting flame wars and would ultimately represent my clients company poorly in the public eye. She also has little to no experience for the job she applied for as shown in her resume and cover letter, candidate B, who got the job, has almost no social media footprint outside of family photos and friends bbqs and has 6+ years experience. It’s obvious the sex of the candidates played no role in the hiring process”
It’s funny the person who really believes all women want to kill all men is calling someone else naive. I’m not going around with you on this bull shit again. If you don’t want to hire someone you can come up with a reason that does not come down to their sex (well maybe you can’t). I personally don’t have a problem with all women and would most likely not find myself in that position since I would be hiring based on merit, personality, and run a company that is undeniably not woke with policies that make it clear you can’t publicly deride our customers.
The tragedy of TheImpossible1 is that he is rarely completely wrong. For example, if your org is 100% men and a woman sues you saying you discriminated against her in hiring, you're guaranteed to lose your suit unless she's beyond unqualified.
However, he takes it to the extreme and imputes motives onto all women, as if they're a hivemind. KiA2-minded women exist, and if anything, they are more hated by these HR types.
See further down the thread. I’m aware that optically that does t look good for your case but scale of organization matters 15 person company all men vs 300 person company chances are at some point a more qualified women has shown up for some interview at the 300 person company but once you get that large the ceo/president isn’t directly involved with all new hires
Yeah, I bowed out of reading the exchange. Everyone here gets into it with TheImpossible1 at some point. I agree with both of you on most points. The problem with arguing against him is you'll often find you're in agreement in general but disagreement in degree.
I'd argue that once you hit 5 employees you're reached critical mass for a lawsuit. Remember, it's not about truth, it's about perception. If the suit makes it to a jury, your organization will become a stand-in for all the "shitty" bosses the female jury members ever had.
“ your honor candidate A has a social media footprint constantly bashing consumers of my clients products, starting flame wars and would ultimately represent my clients company poorly in the public eye. She also has little to no experience for the job she applied for as shown in her resume and cover letter, candidate B, who got the job, has almost no social media footprint outside of family photos and friends bbqs and has 6+ years experience. It’s obvious the sex of the candidates played no role in the hiring process”
Whatever dude.