I interviewed a woman with classic 'problem glasses' about 4 months ago for a single technical job in a operations labor group of 26, typically made up 100% men. I always let the candidate know in the interview, when female, that it is pretty much all males so they are informed, as some females might be uncomfortable with that. No other motivation than I always try and let any candidate know the playing field so they are best informed and I don't shine them on.
So in the middle of my standard carefully and politely phrased diatribe she pops in with a look and haughty tenor and says "will that be a problem?!?". And I quickly responded without even thinking "not if I hire well". You could see the buttcheeks clench and as far as I was concerned, the interview was over.
Yeah, that was the point of "not if I hire well". I was just surprised I responded so quickly with that. Probably because I'm well aware of subtle warning signs and I felt the interview was leading toward something like that.
And in hindsight, though it was a reflexive response at the time and I didn't map it out to be HR proof, it still is. Although I meant it specifically for her position at the moment I would easily explain to HR that I was implying not as long as I continue to hire well as I have done with all employees. Those darned white males can be problematic, amirite, Director of HR Karen?
Problem Glasses are not a medical condition, they're a choice. There's like 20 major style categories of glasses, you need to go out of your way to find Problem Glasses.
If someone shows up with a tattoo of a banner saying "I hate [company name]" on their forehead, that is in fact LESS choice than wearing problem glasses, since tattoos are semi-permanent and can't just be removed even if your lifestyle or outlook changes. If you'd judge the second one, to be honest and fair you'd need to judge the first even more harshly.
I interviewed a woman with classic 'problem glasses' about 4 months ago for a single technical job in a operations labor group of 26, typically made up 100% men. I always let the candidate know in the interview, when female, that it is pretty much all males so they are informed, as some females might be uncomfortable with that. No other motivation than I always try and let any candidate know the playing field so they are best informed and I don't shine them on.
So in the middle of my standard carefully and politely phrased diatribe she pops in with a look and haughty tenor and says "will that be a problem?!?". And I quickly responded without even thinking "not if I hire well". You could see the buttcheeks clench and as far as I was concerned, the interview was over.
seems you avoided any future issues with this woman that seem to be the type to FIND issues that arent there.
Yeah, that was the point of "not if I hire well". I was just surprised I responded so quickly with that. Probably because I'm well aware of subtle warning signs and I felt the interview was leading toward something like that.
And in hindsight, though it was a reflexive response at the time and I didn't map it out to be HR proof, it still is. Although I meant it specifically for her position at the moment I would easily explain to HR that I was implying not as long as I continue to hire well as I have done with all employees. Those darned white males can be problematic, amirite, Director of HR Karen?
Problem Glasses are not a medical condition, they're a choice. There's like 20 major style categories of glasses, you need to go out of your way to find Problem Glasses.
If someone shows up with a tattoo of a banner saying "I hate [company name]" on their forehead, that is in fact LESS choice than wearing problem glasses, since tattoos are semi-permanent and can't just be removed even if your lifestyle or outlook changes. If you'd judge the second one, to be honest and fair you'd need to judge the first even more harshly.