I was going to hire a woman

but I had good candidate lined up

RIGGED

I haven't really made up my mind on the issue - in an office environment, it can certainly be a positive thing to have both men and women present, as long as they're not allowed to organize meetings or run any departments

at the same time, personally I count that under the word "diversity"

I _don't_ count that, I mean

What do you mean by run depts and organise meetings?

I mean wouldn't you guys normally classify that as diversity - because you are replacing male hires for women?

that article, yes, they are fuckwits who should be shot

Oh yea i wouldn't advocate for 50/50, but do you agree it shouldn't be 100/0?

not necessarily

I wanted a woman to balance the atmosphere in the dept, if there had not been a suitable woman I would have had to hire another dude.

Luckily I knew someone ideal

I It should be whatever a meritocratic approach leads to. @Emoished

Because there will inevitably be some women who are better at a typical quote on quote "man's" job, for lack of a better term, it will not be 100/0

And by "man's" job I mean jobs usually with a larger percentage of men than women working in them

Also she didn't have to say yes

Here is my problem - i will use schools for an example - entering into university the universities do not just want to look at your atainment grades, but also the circumstances that you had when you atained them; So people who go to private school should (in some cases) be turned down in favior of people who have had a much more difficult upbringing yet obtained similar or maybe slighly lower grades. I would say that universities should do this because this will be a better measure of "latent talent" - rather than raw performance.

ok, but I'm talking about gender

Granted I have not made the link between gender/ ethnic diversity and economic background here - I very much acknowledge this

Why do I care how rich someones Mummy and Daddy are? I'm hiring them

Because then you will get people who are less good at the job, but have just had better "preperation" for it

I'll decide if they are good at the job or not

It's my dept

who's to say what level of education decides talent?

How well you can do on a test for example is of course influenced by their education - but it does not speak for their motivation or struggle to reach that level of education

which is what an interview is for...

but why should I have to pick someone based of where they got their education?

that's mental

Not based on; a Factor to consider, there are many factors to consider, this should be one of them

so you think employers put CVs in the bin if the candidate comes from the wrong side of the tracks?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/20/german-city-bans-new-refugees-anti-migrant-mood-increases/

did you read what i wrote?? I said it is A FACTOR not the only consideration or something like that

?

why do you think it isn't already? you are fighting for something that already exists

I was using it as an example of why you can't just hire people based on how they are in the moment

+ I guess arguing for why it should exist as it does

Yes I can

can hire whoever I prefer tbh

i dont care about you as an individual

oh you want to make rules so I and everyone else have to hire who you want me to

your not gunna start a company