We have yet to have a woman for a president. What's the reason for it? How is that different? OP seems to be dealing with a male dominated environment and is looking to break the pattern.

Agree with PP. I'm responsible for one level of the interview process and if a potential employee ever started in on what you've discussed here, you would no longer be considered a potential candidate. Way too much of a liability.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm not looking at this as playing the "card". I fully feel that I'm more than qualified for this position. I wanted to find a good way to remind the selecting panel that the position has been men dominated for a long time (the panel mostly consists of folks that have been with our organization for less than five years). I am a government employee and the position is overseas; I suppose this could be one of the reasons more men have pursued the job in the past. I have a family (and since the organization is pretty small, everyone knows this), plus I'm fairly young for the average government employee applying for this type of job (33), as it entails majority of time working independently while interacting with senior foreign and U.S. officials-- so even though all these markers are placed in government's employment process, things still operate on the "who you know" basis, at least where I'm at. I plan on going in deep detail as to why I deserve the job, but I thought by incorporating the given history and by bringing the lack of female leadership into play could potentially empower the current leadership to be more progressive. Pls forgive the typos, I got a four year old passed out on top of me. Maybe being a mom will get me further in this escapade.

What is your point here? You have no idea why the position has had only men in the role for a long time. To address this or to imply something is wrong with that - as your original and follow up posts have - is extremely inappropriate. It is illegal for employers to consider gender in hiring decisions. That means to discriminate against someone's gender OR in favor of (with the exception of BFOQs). To address anything other than your actual qualifications for the role - which do not include your gender - is unprofessional and would show me, as a hiring manager, that you are a liability to me, not an asset.

Being a mom was obviously a sarcastic comment. I would not file an eeo complaint as I would never want to work for someone who is forced to hire me after the fact. It's a man's world where I'm at, that's all. I get the point. Do "twats" have a better chance of getting jobs nowadays?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you aren't hired.

I'm a disapproving pp but I think this is a bit much. She is asking for a check on its appropriateness and we're giving it to her. Have you never in your life wondered where a social boundary is?

She's hinting at an EEO complaint. She's a twat and doesn't deserve the job.

OP you're not liking what you're hearing and that's fine. But reconsider mentioning your gender or "being a mom" as reasons they should choose YOU. Yikes.

OP here. I'm not looking at this as playing the "card". I fully feel that I'm more than qualified for this position. I wanted to find a good way to remind the selecting panel that the position has been men dominated for a long time (the panel mostly consists of folks that have been with our organization for less than five years). I am a government employee and the position is overseas; I suppose this could be one of the reasons more men have pursued the job in the past. I have a family (and since the organization is pretty small, everyone knows this), plus I'm fairly young for the average government employee applying for this type of job (33), as it entails majority of time working independently while interacting with senior foreign and U.S. officials-- so even though all these markers are placed in government's employment process, things still operate on the "who you know" basis, at least where I'm at. I plan on going in deep detail as to why I deserve the job, but I thought by incorporating the given history and by bringing the lack of female leadership into play could potentially empower the current leadership to be more progressive. Pls forgive the typos, I got a four year old passed out on top of me. Maybe being a mom will get me further in this escapade.

Of course not.

"I deserve the job because I'm black."
"I deserve the job because I'm disabled."
"I deserve the job because I'm female."
"I deserve the job because I'm gay."

None of those are reasons to deserve a job. You deserve a job based on your merits and qualifications. Stick to that only.

It is not a good argument for getting the job, but I used it before to get higher salary -I want to get paid as much as the big boys.

Please do not say this. Look at this way OP. Would you even consider bringing this up in an interview if you were a racial minority?

I am AA and I would NEVER "play the race card" in an interview. Here you would be playing the gender card. How would this grab you if you were interviewing a candidate? "I noticed that there are not a lot of Latinos in this company and it would be empowering for me to be a mentor/role model to other young Latinos" That may how you feel and it is legit, but is that WHY you think you are the best candidate?

Since I imagine the interviewer knows you are a woman, I don't see what information you are adding to the decision making process you state that fact aloud.

Anonymous wrote:OP:

Are you still in government? Or at a defense contractor? I don't know if PPs work in those areas. I currently work for one of the BIG contractors, and they are reallyreallyreally trying to put women into leadership positions. So my response to you would depend on where you are interviewing, who is interviewing you, etc.

Can you provide some more details? Not too many, obviously, but slightly more?

Even if the company is actively trying to hire/promote more women - she still shouldn't mention it!! They will notice her gender without any help.

OP:

Are you still in government? Or at a defense contractor? I don't know if PPs work in those areas. I currently work for one of the BIG contractors, and they are reallyreallyreally trying to put women into leadership positions. So my response to you would depend on where you are interviewing, who is interviewing you, etc.

Can you provide some more details? Not too many, obviously, but slightly more?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the responses to this are way out of line. I took OPs question as asking whether she should say something like - i've been at this company for a long time and I know it would have been very empowering for me to have a woman mentor/role model in this position, so I'm hoping to be able to provide that for other young women in the office. That would be a follow-on to a much more substantive answer. I think it totally depends on the office culture, but in an office like mine that answer would absolutely not be offensive.

OP here. I like this approach. I think this is something I would send in a form of a post-interview follow-up. Thank you

No, no, no.

Don't imply that the employer has fucked up and you are going to come in and be a magical Ms. Fixit. Huge mistake.

"Empowering" turns off a lot of people.

"Young women in the office" will piss off some people. You probably mean newer employees, not young.

Good luck.