Turn on thread page Beta

Twitter beats its 2016 diversity goals but its workforce is still predominantly white watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    And who says diversity necessarily leads to hiring less capable applicants?

    What if a more diverse team is actually the better team, even if on an individual level some are slightly less capable?

    You whole "all that matters is meritocracy" bunch are hilarious to read.
    I don't think it should rely on diversity alone. I think you should look at all their CV's and choose who you think is more suited for the job and if you end up with a team then that is the team. Its not racist to not hire someone who doesn't meet criteria.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    You're full of ****.

    You do it because you like the yummy feeling you get in your tummy when you show the world just how compassionate you are.
    lmao.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viffer)
    Absolutely

    Roughly translated.....

    "If you hire the disabled lesbian from a minority ethnic background so you can tick a diversity quota box the competing firm down the road will hire the white bloke who REALLY knows wtf he is doing"

    About right?
    Well, I mean, it's problematic and racist. But apart from that. 😎
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LisaNikita)
    I don't think it should rely on diversity alone. I think you should look at all their CV's and choose who you think is more suited for the job and if you end up with a team then that is the team. Its not racist to not hire someone who doesn't meet criteria.
    My team 2.5 years ago was a single female. Now there are 6, after we "hired for diversity". We actively targeted and grew the number of women, which has gone up drastically. Based on what you lot are saying, we should now have a less talented team, because obviously we hired the women just to fulfill quotas, right? What a joke.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    My team 2.5 years ago was a single female. Now there are 6, after we "hired for diversity". We actively targeted and grew the number of women, which has gone up drastically. Based on what you lot are saying, we should now have a less talented team, because obviously we hired the women just to fulfill quotas, right? What a joke.
    The point you seem to be missing is that it might be even more talented if you had not restricted the appointments to just females to achieve diversity.

    Your objective was primarily a different gender mix, not necessarily excellence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    My team 2.5 years ago was a single female. Now there are 6, after we "hired for diversity". We actively targeted and grew the number of women, which has gone up drastically. Based on what you lot are saying, we should now have a less talented team, because obviously we hired the women just to fulfill quotas, right? What a joke.
    clearly not what i said. But you did say "actively targeted" which basically means you are excluding other groups for your "diverse" team.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)

    Based on the fact that men aren't taking action but women are.
    But it's the companies who are "taking action". Twitter is actively trying to recruit more minorities and women. What do you mean by "men aren't taking action but women are". What action are women taking? It's the companies taking the "action", not the women who are applying.

    Using your logic, the NHS should "hire for diversity", and specifically hire more male nurses. Would I support that? No, it is sexist.

    And why should I care about "diversity"? As long as the best applicants are getting hired, that's all that matters.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    might as well just replace the word white with evil. because thats how the media wants us to be represented.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viffer)
    The point you seem to be missing is that it might be even more talented if you had not restricted the appointments to just females to achieve diversity.

    Your objective was primarily a different gender mix, not necessarily excellence.
    Might have been better.

    Might have ended up worse, too.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    But it's the companies who are "taking action". Twitter is actively trying to recruit more minorities and women. What do you mean by "men aren't taking action but women are". What action are women taking? It's the companies taking the "action", not the women who are applying.

    Using your logic, the NHS should "hire for diversity", and specifically hire more male nurses. Would I support that? No, it is sexist.

    And why should I care about "diversity"? As long as the best applicants are getting hired, that's all that matters.
    Maybe they are trying to overcome cognitive biases that assume whites and men are the better candidates?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Let me just fire all these nice people, who earned their jobs, through education and hardship, (well most of them anyways) and when they claim unfair dismissal, I'll just claim they they were white and therefore entitled. Sounds stupid, doesn't it. Threads like this, where people complain about something without reading into it, all because they have a vendetta towards white, Caucasian males. I'm not saying that this thread is like that, but some are. Crying "OH NO there are more white people than any other race, in a company that was founded in a predominantly white country." They've met their diversity goals, you should be happy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Might have been better.

    Might have ended up worse, too.
    May very well have done BUT your approach was based on an absolute definitive strategy to recruit more women simply because they were women.

    My point highlights the potential flaw in your approach because you would not necessarily have ended up with the best employees.

    Another company might which you and your narrow-minded blinkered cohorts seem to overlook, or worse, choose to deliberately ignore.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Maybe they are trying to overcome cognitive biases that assume whites and men are the better candidates?
    So maybe hospitals should do the same to overcome cognitive biases that assume women are better nurses?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Women are generally better nurses, because there is a biological difference between men and women. E.g. women are more empathetie, and care more about children and the vulnerable.

    Mmmmm.

    So, men make better firemen,soldiers, policemen etc. because they're stronger and less emotional than women?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Women are generally better nurses, because there is a biological difference between men and women. E.g. women are more empathetie, and care more about children and the vulnerable.
    Making a similar statement about men and technology careers would be viewed as sexist.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viffer)
    May very well have done BUT your approach was based on an absolute definitive strategy to recruit more women simply because they were women.

    My point highlights the potential flaw in your approach because you would not necessarily have ended up with the best employees.

    Another company might which you and your narrow-minded blinkered cohorts seem to overlook, or worse, choose to deliberately ignore.
    You are assuming men are better than women.

    Also, you have no clue how recruiting works, do you?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    So maybe hospitals should do the same to overcome cognitive biases that assume women are better nurses?
    Why are you incapable of viewing a women's issue without bringing up a man's issue?

    Should all women's issues be ignored, because there are also men's issues?

    This is you: "We should not help group x, until someone helps group y".

    It's pathetic.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Making a similar statement about men and technology careers would be viewed as sexist.
    Because there is evidence to support that men are innately better at tech than women?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    You are assuming men are better than women.

    Also, you have no clue how recruiting works, do you?
    Am I? Don't I?

    While not really surprised having read your naive comments I don't know how you could reach either conclusion from anything I have said.

    FWIW, I have been directly and indirectly involved in the recruitment of 100s of people. ie employed them myself or brokered for others. Never have I thought it necessary or appropriate to employ or recommend less able/competent candidates because of their X/Y chromosome mix.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Why are you incapable of viewing a women's issue without bringing up a man's issue?

    Should all women's issues be ignored, because there are also men's issues?

    This is you: "We should not help group x, until someone helps group y".

    It's pathetic.
    I'm pointing out a double standard, held by hypocrites. I couldn't care less about men in nursing. I'm not trying to help men or women.

    What evidence is there that women make better nurses?
 
 
 

2,825

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.