Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Tech Companies Post Men-Only Job Listings, Report Finds (theverge.com)

Major Chinese tech companies like Huawei, Alibaba, and Tencent discriminate against women in their online job listings, a new report from Human Rights Watch found today. Some job postings directly state they are for men only, while others specify that women must have attractive appearances and even be a certain height. The Verge reports: The Human Rights Watch report reveals gender discrimination amongst major tech companies, as in the rest of Chinese society, is common and widespread. Search engine Baidu listed a job for content reviewers in March 2017 stating that applicants had to be men with the "strong ability to work under pressure, able to work on weekends, holidays and night shifts." The conglomerate Tencent, which owns WeChat, the massive game Honor of Kings, and a majority stake in League of Legends, was found to have posted an ad for a sports content editor in March 2017, stating it was looking for "strong men who are able to work nightshifts."

And Alibaba, despite Jack Ma touting the company's inclusiveness, merited an entire case study from the Human Rights Watch report. The report noted the e-commerce giant came under fire in 2015 for posting a job ad on its site for a "computer programmer's motivator" seeking women applicants with physical characteristics like Japanese adult film star Sola Aoi. Alibaba removed the reference to Sola Aoi after media reported on it, but kept the ad on the site. As recently as January this year, Alibaba still mentioned "men preferred" in job listings for "restaurant operations support specialist" positions. Tech companies also often tout the attractive women they've hired as incentives for more men to come on board, according to the HRW report. Both Tencent and Baidu were noted to have posted to their social media accounts interviews with male employees who cited having beautiful women around them as an incentive for working there.

19 of 438 comments (clear)

  1. Alternate headline by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Other cultures are actually different, Euro and Euro derived cultures are shocked to discover!

    "This isn't the diversity we had in mind", activists quoted as saying ...

    1. Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And it might be because China recognizes that men and women are physically different and can do different jobs that's letting them absolutely kick our ass in the world economy.

      Some day people will realize that all this stupid "diversity" BS is what's destroying our countries and making them weak. There's a reason China is on the rise, and part of it is that they aren't infested with idiots who think being touchy-feely is the solution to all the world's problems.

    2. Re:Alternate headline by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Other cultures are actually different, Euro and Euro derived cultures are shocked to discover!

      "This isn't the diversity we had in mind", activists quoted as saying ...

      I had a discussion with our diversity counselor about this very subject. She was promoting "cherishing" other cultures. My question was "Should we cherish all cultures?

      She said "Of course - all cultures are valid and must be cherished"

      My next question was "What about Saudi Arabia, where you wouldn't even be allowed t drive, much less have many other rights? Where your dress today might get you stoned?"

      She replied "Next Question - someone else?"

      I think it is massively wrong to have "men only" jobs. But do we abandon the dictates of diversity and attempt to impose our cultures dictates on the very cultures we have been told to cherish?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, China HAD regressed. During the "100% communist" era, men and women WERE considered equal, and basically did the same work. It was kinda cult-ish, but the State had free day care for everyone with kids, so there wasn't really much excuse/reason to not go out and work. (Refrain at the time: "The State will take care of your kid, comrade! No need to spend time doing it yourself!") Once they privatized most things, though, the free day care went away. And employers went back to discriminating against women if they hadn't had kids yet. Nobody wanted to give out paid maternity leaves even though they were required to do so by law.

      Now, given that "tech is for nerds" stereotype still persists, even in China, companies are now trying to hire women specifically so they can be "marriage prospects" for the lonely, single guys.

    4. Re:Alternate headline by orlanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, but your Diversity Counselor was ill-prepared on the topic or just didn't care for your question. Your question is very common and asked all the time. She should have faced that question in almost ALL her sessions. Its not an invalid question, nor one without a simple answer. A co-worker asked a similar question and got a pretty good response.

      "Of course - all cultures are valid and must be cherished"
      "What about ...?"

      Just because we say all cultures should be cherished doesn't mean we must accept all aspects of their cultures. The statement appears extreme because the alternative is more dangerous. With the statement, there is an attempt to understand the other culture. With the goal, one culture can more effectively compare & assess their own practices/norms. This leads to an evolution where we incorporate the highlights of the other culture. Eventually, with open doors, both cultures benefit by influencing the other with the best of what they have and removing their worst practices.

      The alternative is to easily dismiss the entire culture based on a few known horrible practices. This is very natural for humans. But it results in siloed societies where each thinks they are the best there is and the rest are barbarians. There is no will nor reason to objectively assess each other and themselves. This results in misunderstandings, and conflicts that only hurt the standard of living of all involved.

      For Saudi Arabia, its a cultural norm to wash your hands before eating (even at restaurants). Families are very important and very big. Their country really puts their citizenry first and well in front of all others. Of course they have a ton of bad practices, but those don't devalue the good. Some of which we can use in the US.

    5. Re:Alternate headline by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because we say all cultures should be cherished doesn't mean we must accept all aspects of their cultures.

      If we don't accept all aspects of their cultures, then we don't cherish them. Cherish means "protect and care for (someone) lovingly", "hold (something) dear", or "keep (a hope or ambition) in one's mind". If you want to change it, you're not protecting and caring for it in its current state. If you hold it dear, you don't want to change it. If it's your hope or ambition, you don't want to change it — you want to implement it.

      We should not cherish cultures which are abusive. And we should cherish our fucking dictionaries so that we can have meaningful conversations.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Alternate headline by orlanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dictionary.com: Cherish
      -to hold or treat as dear; feel love for
      -to care for tenderly; nurture
      -to cling fondly or inveterately to

      Note there isn't anything about "all" or "everything" or anything synonymous to that. Cherish doesn't mean blind love of all good and bad. That would be idiotic.

      An example: A mother can cherish her children, but that doesn't mean she condones, nor approves their drug addiction or gang membership.

    7. Re: Alternate headline by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So my "invented" quote

      Putting scare quotes around invented doesn't change the fact you're making shit up. The fact you opened with an alternaitve "fact", then doubled down with an intentional isreading means you are not arguing in good faith. There's therefore no point trying to have an actual conversation, so I'll simply highlight your lies for the benefit of other people.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re: Alternate headline by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So my "invented" quote

      Putting scare quotes around invented doesn't change the fact you're making shit up. The fact you opened with an alternaitve "fact", then doubled down with an intentional isreading means you are not arguing in good faith. There's therefore no point trying to have an actual conversation, so I'll simply highlight your lies for the benefit of other people.

      I thought it was bleeding obvious that I was making a pointed joke. It never even occurred to me that someone might think it was an actual quote.

      Why am I even bothering to explain this?

  2. Re:Communist party reeducation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.

    You seem to imply that this is a bad thing. Those vary same things allow for all manner of other ideologies, advocacy groups, or people with other points of view to exist as well, many of which have little or no overlap with SJWs in terms of belifs. It's those same protections that allow you to post about it on the internet without anyone from the government kicking down your door and dragging you off to one of those reeducation camps. I would think that having to listen to some idiots whinge on the internet (where you're just as free to dispute them) is a tiny price to pay for those freedoms.

    You're the one who seems to be missing the point, the poster was talking about how so many SJWs are ironically ignorant in how they rage against some of the very rights and protections that allow them to exist in the first place.

  3. Re:Communist party reeducation by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.

    You seem to imply that this is a bad thing.

    You misunderstood my point. What I said is that SJW couldn't exist without certain set of values in the society, and SJWs are against some of these values.

    That is, SJW when taken to a logical conclusion would change society in a way that would make SJW impossible.

  4. Re:Communist party reeducation by alvinrod · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't think that's necessarily true. An authoritarian state can have just about any kind of party line it wants to and I don't believe there is anything that prevents an authoritarian state from enshrining social justice values as the law of the land and persecuting anyone who goes against them. You can look at North Korea, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Chile under Pinochet as examples of highly authoritarian states that had some very different value sets.

    What you probably meant is that those authoritarian states tend to prohibit counter cultures from emerging and taking hold because they're so good at crushing them before they gain any momentum.

  5. Re:SJWs should welcome this by arth1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Women are not aggressive and competitive? Are you kidding? They may be more subtle, but if you want to see backstabbing that could teach George R. R. Martin a few things even he didn't imagine possible, watch a few women try to outdo each other for a high level position.

    The ideal team size for women seems to be two.
    Wherever there are three women, two of them often gang up on and eventually backstab the third.
    If more than three, the fights to establish the pecking order can become fierce. It's behavior evolved to increase the chances that they capture hearts of the best providers and the sperm of the men other women are most attracted to.

    Men have their own natures that don't align well with workplaces, of course, including a natural desire to copulate with any fertile female they can get away with. But their drive to become the stable and successful top dog that women want to have a fling with is aligned with business interests at least some of the time.

    How to design workplaces so they both align with our ideals, including equality and full respect for each other no matter what gender, and also takes into account that we humans have inclinations that will affect behavior on a larger scale than individuals... I have no idea. But I don't think denying the underlying problems are going to make them go away.

  6. Re:SJWs should welcome this by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Women are not aggressive and competitive? Are you kidding? They may be more subtle, but if you want to see backstabbing that could teach George R. R. Martin a few things even he didn't imagine possible, watch a few women try to outdo each other for a high level position.

    While the fickle finger of blame has always been pointed at men and the patriarchy, my experience and my wife's experience have been very different. The rumor mills, the jealousy, and the general hatred of women toward other people has been breathtaking. Since I'd be accused of mansplaining for my own experiences, I'll talk for my wife.

    She rose to the number two position in her company, and was the highest paid employee there. She had teams of mostly men working for her. There were of course women in her workplace. While there are always personnel issues, the only people that had a problem with her were the women. "Oh, she must be fucking the owner to have got her position. "I wonder if Doggy style is the position she used to get her position?" And on and on. Pleasant to her face, but active undermining the second they walked away. and an unhealthy obsession with sex. Outside of the sexual innuendo, she is tall and slender. So if people think fat shaming is bad, you ought to see the shit women sling at other women if they think a woman is not fat enough.

    The men overwhelmingly just loved her.

    Meanwhile, here was a place trying to get things done in the construction and home design industry, and had some troublesome employees that were not hard to identify. In a bit of irony, my wife became very reluctant to hire women because of all of the workplace drama.

    Her view is that as long as every problem is considered to be the fault of men, the problem will never be fixed. Women need to take some responsibility. Because what they are doing now is a crab bucket. pulling each other down.

    I saw this in my own workplace as well, but since I'm a guy, no one would listen to my description.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  7. Gender hypocrisy from the Ministry of Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The news over the last few days has reported on a women-only co-working space in the Bay Area called "The Coven." Women-only and themed after witchcraft.

    If men created a men-only workspace and called it "The Monastery," it would be hated on 24-7 by the self-appointed intelligentsia. Hypocrisy abounds.

  8. Re:Nobody complains about all-women companies by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This article is about Samantha Brick, so it's more likely that it was just her personality that ruined it. She wrote an article titled "There are Downsides to Looking This Pretty': Why Women Hate Me for Being Beautiful" so you shouldn't be surprised that she was clueless.

    The fact that the story is in the Daily Mail should ring alarm bells too. Sure enough, they failed to mention any of this and decided to depict the whole thing as "bitches, right?"

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Re:SJWs should welcome this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The ideal team size for women seems to be two.
    Wherever there are three women, two of them often gang up on and eventually backstab the third.

    Wow. I've seem some misogynist trolling on Slashdot, but it's far worse when you try to come over all reasonable and matter of fact about it.

    People keep telling me we are all equal now and we don't need feminism any more, but then comments like this get modded as "insightful". Lewis' Law still stands.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Re:SJWs should welcome this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let capitalism determine if it's a good idea.

    When has that ever been a good idea?

    Capitalism thinks dumping toxic waste in the river is a good idea. Capitalism thinks working people to death, discarding their corpse and replacing them with another commodity labourer is a good idea

    That's why every capitalist country has rules to protect people from capitalism. Why should we protect the environment, and employees, and animals, and property from harm but when it comes to women and the disable just leave them to suffer at the invisible hand of the market?

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  11. Re:SJWs should welcome this by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > When has that ever been a good idea?

    Most of the time.

    Leave regulated non discrimination to governments and monopolies. Let normal people have freedom of association.