I’ll be generous, and assume that the OP doesn’t want to place such sensitive work details all over the public internet. She likely knows that it is a bad idea to publicize the details of employment decisions in this way.
This raises, of course, the question of why she started this discussion in the first place, but that can’t be helped.
I wouldn’t say there’s “vitriol” about it. I’d say it’s simply “fucking annoying”. I don’t deal well with whiners, which I find 90% of civilians to be.
This is a perfect example of why sexism is a difficult thing to pin down. First of all, it’s not like there are multiple sexes out there. Secondly, they’re pretty evenly split- if anything, men are the minority. And thirdly, there are real, true differences between men and women and that’s not going to change…ever.
We’re forced to make assumptions about people we encounter on a daily basis. One of those assumptions is that women feel uncomfortable with crude sexual humor. Another (less relevant to the thread) is that women are more emotional.
So the question arises - when does “warranted assumption” become “sexism”? If the guys knew to watch their crude humor when this woman was around, would that be sexist of them, or is it a warranted assumption that women, including the female coworker, don’t like that language? If the guys found a lean cuisine container left on the counter, is it sexist to assume it belongs to a woman or is that warranted?
My point is this: Racism and sexism are two entirely different things. It’s a lot easier to see when something is racist than when it’s sexist.
On the contrary, since it was a group, introducing gender is more of a challenge than avoiding it. Choices which avoided gender include: the technicians, the team, the team members, the techs, the analysts, the tech group.
I expect candidates in an interview to use best practices in verbal and non-verbal communications. That includes using gender neutral language where possible.
As i noted, the problems have gotten much less over the years. I am aware that part of the sex differences in pay are directly related to traditional child-rearing roles and similar phenomena and I am not making any claim that the life of women in the workplace is hell. I am simply noting that sexism still occurs, so observations that it is relegated to histry surprise me.
While I certainly agree with your major point in the OP that a co-worker who obsesses for days about a single remark in an interview analysis has a problem, (and further agree that there are a remarkable number of such people in the world), I am not sure that I can support the idea that any verbal communication that is not ruthlessly gender neutral says anything more than that a person happens to have come from an environment where gender neutrality was not a hallmark of routine speech.
I worked for a guy for 19 years whose language was pretty much never gender neutral, but who always put the right person on the right task, (either technical or managerial), regardless of sex, and paid his people strictly on merit, regardless of sex.
The language thing doesn’t make me think the candidate is likely to actually make choices based on stereotype. It is relevant because it is not conforming to best business communication practices. I found it grating, and so it might others. It stuck out to me much as would use of a swear. I am not offended by casual use of strong language, but would make a note of the use of a swear by a candidate.
I found the other bit more telling, the contrast in manner of response to questions asked by me against the manner of response to questions asked by the male interviewer.
I mentioned both things as minor notes in my summary of my impression of the candidate among several other mostly positive notes. Despite these being minor notes, my co-worker has repeatedly brought them up. I wasn’t dwelling on it; he was.
In the discussion of this in days since the interview, I brought up various bits of bias (in response to his questions) that I have observed or personally faced, and he has seized on each trying to dismiss it in one way or another. He has repeatedly tried to get me to admit that sexism is no longer a issue in the US. I find it fascinating the contortions he goes through to try to justify or deny each and everyone, even those that are as flatly biased as the email mentioned by nolonger lurking. He is normally a logical person, and quite capable of agreeing to disagree, but not on this.
Hmmm…
Nothing special to add about bias, but in my experience people that use a sentence like
“he used a gendered term to refer to a group of people” rather than just saying what he said are really a barrel of laughs to be around and don’t make me at all paranoid about what might possibly be construed from the niggardly way I use my language skills.
Seriously? I’m more likely to think less positively of someone in a job interview (or anywhere else, actually) trying to use “gender-neutral” language, since they’re clearly touchy-feely/politically correct/Lefty/other things I hate.
I’m still amazed how often we get customers at work brushing off the female staff and asking “If there’s a man they can talk to” in relation to… well, pretty much anything even slightly technical. And funnily enough, when that happens, it usually coincides with the male staff being very busy with other customers and therefore unable to help… Odd that. 
Again without specifics of the sentence, I can’t form an opinion about which choice would constitute a more awkward or tortured construction. Certainly all of the examples you offer above seem quite reasonable, but you still offer them devoid of the context of a complete sentence.
I don’t share your view that using gender neutral language where possible is a high priority for persons primarily intended to be solving IT or other technical issues, at least at the interview stage, and I’d be curious to learn if this priority arises from specific interview guidance from your employer, or if you, ever-alert to gender issues in society, have imputed it into your interview process.
That’s OK – long ago, I knew a guy who subtly sought to discover what football teams an interview candidate supported. He was fine if the candidate wasn’t a football follower, and fine with a majority of teams, but woe betide to the candidate who admitted being a Dolphins fan. It was foolish, of course, and undoubtedly caused him to lose out on good talent, but to him, some things were more important than the actual work to be accomplished.
And my suspicion is that the same thing can be said of you.
What is even considered gender neutral language when speaking about unknown individuals? Like I said upthread, if refering to a group of techs you said, “those guys do great work…” would that constitute gender specific language? Doesn’t the term “guys” typically just mean a group of people, regardless of gender, or am I way out of touch? And in referring to an individual, should you always say something like, “if one were to apply blah blah blah…” instead of “if he were to apply blah blah blah?” In writing papers, I’ve been told to not do the old he/she or to constantly use “one” when referring to an individual. Rather, always use “he” or alternate “he” and “she” in different topics/chapters whatever.
Given lee’s interest in issues of gender politics, combined with the coy refusal to actually disclose the offense, I am strongly leaning towards it being just what you describe: “Those guys did great work,” or “When I worked with those guys…”
I suspect lee sought the validation of the group for the issue of “Other not agreeing with accusations of bias,” but didn’get into the specific language knowing that there would be much less sympathy for the claim of bias if the specifics were known.
Of course, that’s merely speculation, and it could be completely in error.
Some of this thread is just screaming for some remedial 80’s film lessons…
One reason I have not specified any more details is that specifics are irrelevant here. I made an observation of a difference in a candidate’s response to a male vs a female interviewer and related that observation in my notes on the interview. I am not asking whether in anyone else’s opinion the difference means anything. This thread is about how some people cannot let stand any observation of bias and will go to lengths to trivialize and deny it. I think that this thread well demonstrates the phenomena.
You are taking it for granted that you really observed bias. I would not necessarily assume that this is true.
Regards,
Shodan
Frankly the OP could be spot on or could be hypersensitive. I can’t tell and won’t presume. That seems to be the position of others here.
I won’t back her up or run her down without more information - and if she is unwilling to provide that she won’t find any support from me for her position. I can’t judge unless I know what was said.
To the contrary, the validation of bias requires that the commentators agree that your observations constitute evidence of bias. You are, in effect, asserting that your observation meant something, and asking for agreement for the proposition that others will readily discount it.
My point is that others will more readily discount an observation of bias that’s phony, one poorly-grounded in fact. So the validity of your complaint rests, to a great extent, on the validity of the underlying observation.
But you are trivializing and denying *his observation *that there was no bias.
It’s also your OP, you are being unnessarily coy. The only reason I can suppose for this is the suggestion Bricker gives.
Lee, you are displaying the same type of magical thinking people use when talking about. Whether something is “immoral” or not–you are elevationg your lowly humble oipinion to the status of a statement of objective truth. You are treating your “observation of bias” as some act that must be respected by all. All you did was state your opinion. Your opinion doesn’t create a duty for others to do anything or deserve any greater respect than anyone else’s opinion.
The obvious answer to your query, which is what has been well demonstrated here, is that an observation of bias may not have been observed by the other party. Bias is perception.
On both sides. The number of times someone has whined over political correctness is probably quite balanced by the number of times someone has whined over the casual use of a term that is innocently sexist (e.g. gals, I hate gals. But I’m not going to whine about how sexist gals is. ok, maybe just a little…but its more annoying than sexist.) and vice versa.