> It's hard to even find women to interview, let alone hire.
from my perspective this is a subtle admission of active positive discrimination on your part, frankly if i was a woman maybe i would find it a little off putting that a bunch of old guys were real keen to get me under their supervision
if there is a movement to get men into nursing, it's not nearly as vocal (and why would there be?)
Ok, you still have zero experience in our industry, per your own words. And it shows.
> I don't consider the gender or race of people applying (aka not racist/sexist)
So you're ok with reinforcing any existing sexism and racism in the pipeline.
I'll give you a concrete example. We have to choose a speaker for our tech conference. All else being equal the tie-breaker will be to choose the person with the most speaking experience. Can you see how you've possibly and probably just reinforced existing sexism? I would guess you cannot see it.
> a subtle admission of active positive discrimination on your part
Nah. I usually don't have a say about who gets into the hiring pipeline. And when I have had a say I've always talked to recruiters about qualifications not gender or race. So you got that wrong.
> frankly if i was a woman maybe i would find it a little off putting that a bunch of old guys were real keen to get me under their supervision
You should speak to some actual women so you can correct your bad guesses.
A bunch of old guys? What makes you think they are guys or old?
Keen to get someone under their supervision? You sound creepy.
Quote me where I said it does.
> yea nope you are right I agree you are sexist for insisting on doing the tie breaker on the basis of gender.
I never said to make the tie breaker based on gender. You're wrong again. You get a lot wrong.
Noted that you avoided most of my questions.