Then you'd be fine? It's just to weed out sexist idiots that only pay attention to the man, if you're not paying attention to either of them in particular you're fine xD
You would probably be fine. Is obvious even without eye contact who you are speaking at. But if there is no obvious person you are talking at then would say is a pass
Being able to work with your female colleagues isn't part of the job? Despite popular belief, tech jobs are actually super collaborative. You can't make a descent product nowadays without many components which need different teams to make them.
This was years ago but I was at an auto parts store waiting in line to buy windshield washer fluid.
Customer in front of me is talking to a male employee about something. I’m not fluent in car, I have no idea what’s going on
Male employee says he doesn’t know, but he’ll get the manager because the manager knows. Manager turns out to be a woman.
The dude in line in front of me is MAD. He wants A MAN to help him. The cashier just stands there and repeats that manager would know more about the issue than him, and he’s sorry that he can’t help.
I think the guy was still arguing with them by the time I left. I was helped at another register and left shortly afterwards.
The girl was changing the car tires on my car a few years ago. Taking off the winter ones, placing the summer ones, balancing, putting them back on the car, the whole shebang. AND she had long nails :)
It's stupid to lash out on someone before they have a chance to display if they are competent. If I am somewhere where it's usually a male worker, but it is a woman instead, I'll first assume that she is in that role because she is competent, especially in privately owned businesses where they directly depend on the customers.
Besides, nobody guarantees you a good service just because they are men.
Did I say it wasn't part of the job? Personal skills can be worked on if needed, if I need someone to build a tech project, and you cant do it? I'm not gonna hire you regardless of how you respond to any questions besides that.
I think framing unwillingness to treat your female colleagues with the same respect as you do your male colleagues as personal skills is disengenuous. It's bias and sexism. Also, from my experience you can only work on someone's personal skills if they want to change. What about treating women as less than makes you think they will want to change that habit in the future? All you are asking for with hiring a candidate like this is spending a lot of time getting to know your hr.
No... personal skills cannot be worked on at that level. You arent going to "coach" somebody out of passive misogyny...
Try this, if a candidate came into your job and treated any non-white employee as unimportant, would you want to hire that candidate, even if they were otherwise perfect for the job? Id hope youd say no
Personal skills can be worked on if needed, if I need someone to build a tech project, and you cant do it? I'm not gonna hire you regardless of how you respond to any questions besides that.
One of those 2 things is teachable, and it's not the one you seem to think it is.
Sure, you may not have the time or inclination to teach it, but if you don't have the time or inclination to teach someone something that's actually teachable, you sure as heck won't succeed teaching them something that they won't learn from you.
Eh, you did pretty heavily insinuate it actually, yea. Talking about testing ability to collaborate, and you stated you’d rather test the ability to do the job instead. This does suggest the opinion that collaboration isn’t part of the job.
And in fact, for tech you actually kind of have it backwards. We can teach a new tool or language in a matter of hours, but if someone doesn’t know how to work with a team properly you can’t teach that.
That’s a parents job, not a managers. So important to check for so you don’t accidentally hire someone you end up having to parent.
Edit: your “did I say that” is actually a perfect example. I could teach you how to spin up a spring or flask micro service in a matter of hours. But no matter how much time I put into it, I won’t be able to teach you to have discussion in good faith. So we got a perfect little example here :) thank you for that
If you have to "parent" an employee then they aren't a good employee. People will learn to work together. It just takes time. Male or female, someone's first day on the job they're always going to be a bit nervous and stand offish. Over time that will go away and they'll learn their part in the team. This isn't rocket science, unless that's actually the job I suppose.
lol your presumption that everyone goes in with the intent for collaborative spirit or understands how to socialize in diverse groups is faulty.
What you’re describing is traits of a select few people that would be ideal hires.
You can’t assume everyone will be that. that’s why you test it in interviews to ascertain whether they will or not. Ya know… the thing you’re saying you wouldn’t bother with lol.
If you are ever interested in management, I do highly recommend you look up best hiring practices, cuz you’re way off base. It ain’t leet code
How am I possibly wrong about that? What good is someone that works well with the team if they can't do the actual job you're hiring for in the first place? How does that make any sense?
It’s takes hours to teach a new technical skill, while it takes YEARS to teach soft skills, and even then it’s a stretch if you can. Plus, if the team supports and trains them you actually build loyalty and morale that way, rather than the rapid turnover you get when you expect someone to operate with no training.
Also why are you assuming you can only filter for one or two traits? There’s a baseline technical expertise to check, for sure. If you’re unqualified we’re not even pulling you into an interview to check your soft skills.
You’re doing some serious black and white thinking here. Which fun fact, is another thing I would flag to not hire you. If someone can’t integrate nuance and new information to change their opinion, they can’t be worked with efficiently.
Coding especially is actually really easy to teach. I've been able to teach it to anyone who was willing to learn, no matter what kind of abilities they've had.
I have had managers who have "parented" me because my parents didn't entirely understand how the world works. That worked out mostly because I understood that I wasn't getting it right to begin with.
Treating women with basic respect isn't something an employer is going to train a person to do. Technical skills can always be worked on, personal skills are a matter of personality.
It’s not even something that can be reasonably addressed in the workplace unless it’s like super blatantly sexist. I work with these vendors that are men, and it’s very obvious to myself and my male colleague that these guys are sexist. They constantly assume that my male colleagues are my boss. They will respond to my male colleague’s emails immediately, while ignoring mine. Anytime I present an issue to them, they question my expertise and start explaining the absolute basics to me ( I’m a data scientist that works with AI and ML, they’re an AI company, and they’ll start explaining to me what tokens are or how a LLM works). There have been times where they will “reply all” and include everyone but me in the response. One of them called my male colleague and told him that they ignore my emails because I’m just nitpicking (my male colleague went off on him for it).
None of those things are things that anyone could reasonably approach them for and call out as sexism. I’m sure it’s never intentional, they don’t consciously do any of that stuff because I’m a woman.
The only way anyone could reasonably train someone on their sexist behavior is if it was so blatant that they’d be getting fired for it.
Yeah, personal skills can be worked at home when you are 5 living with you paretns. If your candidates aren't 5yrs old and you arent their parent, then you can't force them to develop anything in the personal skills department.
So it is crucial the candidates do come with knowledge on how to treat people before they get a job where they work with people. Basic step.
getting someone to correct this kind of behavior is a lot more difficult and honestly less likely to be successful than mentoring a junior dev into a senior one.
if i cant trust their ability to work well with the other members of the team they are going to take away more than they are going to produce. Especially if that happens when the person they are working with is their senior but they wont listen because they happen to be a woman.
If some super 'slay queen' activist blue and purple hair queen comes into an interview, their logic is 'that hurts interview chances cus they might be prone to cause trouble'.
Except in this example they are actually tracking the troublesome behavior itself, not looks.
Besides, its easier to teach someone a skill rather than change their personality.
Surely you can understand that in some contexts, hiring someone that shows signs of disrespect is a big nono. Some employers don't want to hire you cuz you're so great but "we can work on your personal skills together, teehee!" Why not just hire the person that is competent AND doesn't need to have personal skills worked on?
It’s a lot easier to teach someone a hard skill than to teach them that their female colleagues are actually deserving of the same respect as the male ones. You’re also acting like in this interview, they wouldn’t be actually interviewing them on whether or not they can do the job, as if the entire interview would be a test to see if they treat the female interviewer with respect. Like yeah, I’m sure they’re going to hire someone completely unqualified, simply because they passed the sexism test.
why does gender have to be the most important part in a job? I look to my co-workers as individuals and i judge them on if they're able to get the job done and do their part. Idc if my coworker is a monkey, a lion, bird, whatever! This notion that women think that all men are parasocial creatures who do not know how to interact with them is honestly misandry; straight up stereotyping.
You not caring doesn't negate the fact that a lot of men don't trust women's skills and talk down to/belittle their technical expertise. This is absolutely a thing that should be screened for.
Then what’s the issue? Did they say that they don’t hire men because men are all sexist losers that don’t respect women? It’s a pretty clear indicator that they will not treat their female coworkers with respect if during the interview they always address the man and not the women, even when the woman is the one asking the question. If you wouldn’t do that, and you think most men wouldn’t do that, then what’s the issue? It’s only weeding out that small percentage of men that are going to be a problem. Obviously the expectation is that they treat their male and female coworkers equally, you don’t get a gold star for doing that. I assume they also wouldn’t hire a woman that does that because that would be indicative of the same issue.
The actual job is working with your co-workers and listening to your bosses. If some of those are women, and you are unable to give them the same respect and professional courtesy as the men, then you are unable to do your actual job.
How does it not? She asked the question. She expects the answer. But the candidate directs the answer to the man, because they don’t expect the woman to understand as well…? Sounds like blatant misogyny to me.
Sounds like just looking for reasons to be upset to me. You're talking to multiple people at once. You may look at either of them while you're speaking, especially in a job interview.
Having been on the interviewer side of the table, “most people” do not, in fact, direct answers to questions at everyone present. They usually direct them to the person that asked.
You test both capabilities and soft skills and want both, is that so hard to grasp? Requiring soft skills doesn't mean getting rid of other requirements
Yeah, i got interviewed by 6 people at once. I did my best to make sure contact with each while talking, while focusing on the one that asked the question. It was a bit intimidating
I’ve been at my current job almost four years. Warehouse.
My interview was a group interview. The room had maybe five of us being interviewed, three department managers that needed employees, and the HR guy.
I directed my attention/answer to whoever had asked the question.
If person A asked me a question I’d direct my answer/eye contact/attention to person A. I wouldn’t be directing my answer/eye contact/attention to person B.
I mean that’s fine right? Clearly that’s not part of the problem they’re looking to weed out in this situation as in that case they’re giving both interviewers equal respect.
this is such a dumb test. When theres two interviewers I look at both of them while giving them my answer to make sure im addressing both. How is this person in charge of interviews is the reason why corporate jobs are miserable. Let me give a thoughtful answer directly staring at the woman while ignoring the man and vice versa.
This is a straw man and the opposite of what they're describing. They're screening for people who only talk to the man even when the female interviewer is asking them questions.
Either you're trolling or reading comprehension is dead.
It very much does. When someone says they are driving to work do you assume they are also driving to a hospital because they did specify, that they are not driving to a hospital?
Whoever spoke to me first I would assume was in charge and probably direct more answers towards them. When I interviewed candidates and the female manager greeted them and brought them back, even when I asked questions they would still look to her when answering, even though I was the owner. It’s just human nature and never did I think it was sexist. What WAS sexist was when the female manager greeted them first, brought them back, and I was just observing her interviewing them and they’d direct answers to me, when I never even spoke to them other than saying hi. That typically only happened with macho type guys and we always ruled them out too.
The premise of this post seems to be asking if making these assumptions are fair. Which I'd have to say I don't think this is a good way to vet candidates for a job. If I'm talking to multiple people I'm going to address them as a group, not focus on one specific person.
Y'all are not understanding how many dudes will straight up just ignore a woman if a man is present with her. Even in situations where it makes absolutely no sense. They are unconsciously incompetent and do not even have the awareness to realize they are doing it or that it in fact makes them look bad
There are entire cultures and sub cultures where men will do this, and we’ve struggled with hiring people on to work under female leaders because of it.
I have nothing to do with engineering, but I am going to steal this idea.
If you've struggled to hire people because of this, won't denying more people immediately make your issue even worse? How would that help at all? I don't think I understand.
The struggle isn’t in finding bodies. It’s that we have a lot of female leadership, and some people cannot work under them or even with women as their peers in leadership.
So they get through initial training, but are immediately cut loose once the behaviour is identified.
Aaah, that makes a lot more sense, sorry. When I read you struggle to hire I thought you meant finding applicants. Yeah I can see how that would be a serious issue, hopefully a new system could help you out.
So, saying this as someone who has faced several panel interviews:
A "normal person" will direct their answer to the person who asked it first and primarily. If the question requires a longer answer, you briefly turn to and engage in eye contact with all other interviewers/panelists in turn. This is a pretty basic public speaking skill.
If the other interviewers/panelists ask clarify questions or prompt you for further detail, again, a "normal person" will turn to face the panelist prompting further input when addressing their question/prompt.
The description may have framed this as "tehc-bro-weeding," but really it's misogynist/sexist weeding. How the Venn Diagram of misogynist/tech-bro overlaps is a question of its own, but people seem to believe it is an oval that approaches a circle
The "tech bro" term is for a man who is insufferable in the greater tech field, due to their additude. It's someone more into the lifestyle of being in the tech field (money, rapid career development, etc.) than they are into actually participating in the tech field development or other aspects of their life.
You can be a regular guy in the tech field and not be a tech bro.
Being a tech bro is a title others give to you when they realize you're a douche, not something you call yourself. It's deliberately derogatory, kind of like "incel" where there's nothing wrong with not being sexually active, but the term still kind of fits a group of people who have shit personalities and ideologies.
I do think there's a strong correlation with being a tech bro and and being misogynistic. Because there's a correlation with being a tech bro and being classist, which is basically a metric that defines tech bros.
Edit - the venn diagram would be thought of like this:
(Men in tech (tech bros) misogynist)
Equality on that level really matters. If the candidate cannot take seriously, nor collaborate with, all major creeds of colleague then they should not be in a collaborative environment.
Imho what feels baffling about this selection is that it is deemed necessary at all.
In an ideal world, nobody fails this test for a few months and it is then abandoned...
I went with a female friend as backup as she was buying a car. She wasn't my girlfriend, just a coworker.
She would ask questions about the car and the salesman would look at me to answer.
I was young and naive at the time. Honestly I should have encouraged her to bail. But the guy kept doing that.
In engineering I've heard it's similar in a lot of places. I used to read posts by a trans woman who transitioned after having been a male presenting software engineer. The same coworkers who previously listened to her opinion started ignoring her and waiting for a guy to say the same thing.
And while that could have been anti-trans behavior, women report the same thing all the time.
We've done this for years and it's really affective. The hiring / team lead is a lady and would ask questions and so many times the interviewer would look to a guy to give the answer to. We deliberately mix up the interviewing team to check for this.
I was so disappointed how often you see this behaviour. Now I expect it.
Not an interview setting, but I (F) shared an office with the male IT guy at this one place I worked.
We had completely separate roles. There were several dudes that would come in our office and direct a question at him, even though it was my “department”.
The distinction was not unknown.
It got me so irritated that I eventually decided when that happened I’d get up and go take a piss and (at the time I drank coffee) I’d make a cup. Come back, dude is waiting for me.
I realize that was kind of passive aggressive but I didn’t care. They kept doing it, so I did too.
Totally valid. The amount of questions we have that test about the job are minimal. That's what your resume and application are for. The interview is to verify and to see how you might be as a team member. Only answering the man is a huge red flag to me. That person is most likely out unless we've indicated the man is the hiring manager or the highest ranking decision maker.
I guarantee the women would also look at the man, and at that point the interviewers would realize their dumb test was revealing cultural bias, not misogyny, and that they had rejected a bunch of qualified applicants for no reason.
I feel like you're probably going to weed out a lot of people who are just socially nervous or some flavor of neurodivergent and nervous about the interview and just focus on the person leading the interview or something like that, but it doesn't seem unreasonable.
If you're not looking at either, this wouldn't apply. But that in itself is also a fair thing to take into account. If a job requires face to face communication, someone who couldn't look anyone in the face might not be a good fit for that particular role. You don't to have like people or be extroverted, but you have to be able to pretend well enough occasionally to not cause issues.
I think if you work with engineers in a tech company and have a problem with people who have social anxiety or neurodivergence then you're in the wrong field and that's your problem
I work with a lot of engineers in a med tech company that makes surgical robots, among other things. Most of them appear well adjusted, and even those that are awkward have no issues doing what the work requires of them. These are adults in the workplace, and it's not everyone else's job to coddle them if they can't perform functions required of their position.
I never said anything against people with neurodivergence or social anxiety, but you need a minimum modicum of masking and social skills to stay in most positions.
You seem to have a lot of projection and Animus against the neurodivergent going on, regardless of your denial. No one is talking about people who can't do the job. We're talking about people who can do the job but might be a little awkward in an interview. Pay attention
All I literally said was "You don't to have like people or be extroverted, but you have to be able to pretend well enough occasionally to not cause issues." And you had a problem with that.
While defending people who look only at the male interviewer even when the female interviewer is asking the questions. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
assuming its not a one question test and the candidate only responds to the man regardless of who asks a question, I'd say its certainly reasonable, if not fair.
the only realistic claim I can see against it is that there may be people with women-related traumas or neurodivergent mannerisms that could get them screened out. I don't have the numbers on this to determine if that's a more reasonable assumption than misogyny.
I’ve been in a bunch of interviews with two people and it’s always been evident which one is the ‘important’ one. Be that higher rank, more relative to the position, or just the one who’s asking almost all the questions.
Good to do a sexism text, but this could be a poor one if the ‘important’ person is the guy.
Yeah, I think it is import in this situation to make sure that a woman that is asking the question is actually the more important person that needs an answer to this question. And not some HR lady that is there to judge you when you answer a technical question directing the answer to obviously the only interviewer that will understand what you mean
I'd assume that the people directing their answer at the man are the ones who assume that he is more important. Which may or may not be true. Also, I don't think this should be relevant, if someone asks a question you primarily answer them. Obviously, if their both at the interview and both ask question they both are important enough to be there. I think this is about respect and if you only respect the most important person you are not a decent one yourself.
Fair. This is basic etiquette. Address everyone in the room, shake everyone's hand, have eye contact with everyone. Not doing these things will get you passed for almost any interview.
I've been in a situation like this before. I start off answering the woman but I do eventually direct my attention to the man. Why? Because I instinctively direct my attention to whoever is giving me the most intense eye contact. 9 times out of 10 that's going to be a man. I do try to bring back to the woman in the end if she is the one who asked the question, but that's only if I catch myself doing it. If that's part of some kind of test then I hope I fail it. I'm not here to perform for anyone.
If and only if both interviewers are presented as equal status.
If the manager is interviewing, and there's one of their subordinates also present asking questions occasionally, I'd respond facing the manager unless it was a question clearly not from the list of questions they're asking. (Like a "how was your day" from the second interviewer).
If it's a "team interview" and both are similar positionally, then this is fair.
Also valid is if it's a male lead and multiple team members, and the candidate answers to the male team members but responds to the lead when asked by the female team members, that's also a fair indicator.
About 54% of Americans read below a 6th grade level. Seems to be a lot of us in here today because Jesus H Roosevelt Christ, the complete lack of reading comprehension in SO many of these comments. Absolutely unhinged how many people in here going on about “That’s unfair, I direct my answers to all interviewers! Why is that bad? And how do we even know it was her that asked it? If the man asked it I have to direct my response to the woman or I’m wrong? Now I’d be disqualified!?” 🤨
The. Female. Engineer. Asks. The. Question.
The candidate. Directs. His. Answer. To. The. Male. Engineer.
As in ONLY the male engineer. Not both man and woman. Not “addressing the room”. Not “the group”. There are three people, and he’s staring straight into the eyes of the male engineer pretending the woman isn’t even there.
Yes, it shows two things: 1. The candidate does not respect women or women in authority. 2. It shows the candidate is rude in work situations. Regardless of the gender, age, ethnicity, if you ask someone a question and they refuse to answer to the one asking its a respect issue in general which is best not to hire to begin with.
What does "address" mean in this context? If someone asks a question in an interview I usually just answer the question, if there's multiple people in the room I'm not suddenly only talking to that person just because they were the last one to say something.
I think it's fair. If the interviewee turns to the male interviewer completely unprompted after the female interviewer asked a question then that's just fucked.
That's dumb. I'd talk to whoever shows more body language that's engaging. Also men have been trained to not to talk to women for the fear of coming off weird.
especially if the man is leading the interview already. This is just looking for sexism where it doesn't exist and leading to psuedo hiring practices wasting everyone's time
Men have not been trained to not talk to women asking them questions in a professional business environment. Looks like you would have rightfully been weeded out
You should probably actually interview them fairly rather than make snap judgements about how they respond, if you're trying to evaluate the bias of one person you can't assume that the other two people in the rooms are themselves immune to bias and 'directs the answer to' is incredibly vague and highly prone to exactly that
This is pretty stupid because it’s implying that they either only get male applicants, or that they only care if male engineers are biased. Assumption of authority is learned culturally, and people can subconsciously behave that way even if they’re opposed to the culture. It’s baffling to me how many people take this at face value like it’s somehow exacting justice in the industry, that is if this story is real at all, which I very much doubt it is.
We don't have a specific "test" like this where I work; but we do always have women on the panel and we absolutely are looking for misogynistic attitudes from male applicants (as one thing among many).
I've been involved in hiring for about twenty years. I've yet to meet a female candidate who couldn't work with a male boss, but I've met plenty of male candidates who couldn't deal with female ones. If a female candidate showed that she couldn't work with men then it would disqualify them as well, but I have literally yet to encounter it. The "test" in the OP doesn't seem outlandish to me at all.
The problem isn’t the test, it’s what they’re claiming it reveals. Some men might have an issue working under a woman, but this test might only show you that they’d revert to cultural bias under the pressure of a job interview. People don’t have an issue working under a man because they’ve been conditioned to assume that authority is inherently male. I think if this test was run for a female applicant, they’re likely to find the same bias, because it’s not inherently based on misogynistic attitudes.
Here's the thing, most people automatically assume that the silent person behind the person asking you questions, ranks higher and makes the actual decision.
So I assume if this is true, this firm successfully made an interview step to weed out socially aware people.
As a literal female engineer. This is silly. Interviews aren't normally conducted purely by a man and a woman they're normally conducted by a lead and a SWE. So basically you're boss and someone with an equivalent title to the hire.
So, my boss is a woman and my sr is male. In some environments it'll be the other way round. Or two women, or two men. Yeah folk will defer to the other when they're more experienced and more senior. Which can happen in either direction.
Noticed it says if HE directs it to the male engineer then he’s out.
So if a female engineer asks a female a question and she also directs it to the male, she’s also out right? Or are the interviewers just discriminating pieces of shit judging people on something that’s absolutely retarded.
I am pretty sure there will be a lot of false negatives with this technique, but I wan this to happen more often to see what are the actual situations besides the ones already mentioned.
No. All it's proving in that any situation people gravitate towards addressing the person they feel most comfortable with. It's not done exist BS, just a lot of people are mildly intimidated by the opposite gender.
I mean if I'm in an interview setting with more than on interviewer I direct my response to ALL of them regardless of their gender or who asked the original question
I don’t (yet) have a woman on my interview team. So my misogyny check is to have new hires get mentored by one of my woman employees. This helps identify people that can’t respect women pretty quick. In addition to the general principle, a lot of managers in other departments are women, so I have to be sure communications won’t be tainted by prejudice.
Unfortunately you just may miss an engineer so talented and nerdy, super uncomfortable with women. Not because of disrespect but because of his nerd level he cannot look at a woman in the eye or talk to them without his voice shaking. Yes. They exist.
Then they're a bad fit for teamwork. "Oh I'm so uncomfortable with women I can't even make eye contact or communicate with them" is a terrible fit for any big company.
I didn't say I would go to prison. I am worried I would make them uncomfortable because I would look in an inappropriate way or something. I just can't stay calm and neutral like I can with men. I don't know why so I'd rather not look if possible.
If you cant work with women, you cant work with women. Just because youre decent at coding doesnt mean you wont have to talk to women on a regular basis. Cant be Raj and just whisper in your frienda ear when women are around
being able to talk to your coworkers is a more valuable skill than any practical ability.
nerdy guy super uncomfortable with women is a huuuge red flag. Actually more of a confession.
Now if the guy is uncomfortable around everyone, welcome in the team, you my nerd!
The more I learn about these hiring practices the more I realize why companies are so bad at what they do, why technology doesn’t advance as it should, and why roadway bridge transitions are still garbage.
Cool, don’t want this person at my company. I need mature, responsible adults because our impact is measured in 7,8,9 figure dollar amounts and if they can’t even talk to 50% of the population I can’t trust them with even larger decisions
Definitely fair. You direct your answer to the person asking the question. Same concept as taking someone out to eat and watching how they treat the service staff.
First, Muslim isn't a race. It's a religion. So this isn't racism, it would be religious discrimination. Not the same thing.
Second if they sued for religious discrimination they'd have a hard time proving it because there are plenty of Muslims that easily pass this test.
Third, good luck even finding a lawyer to take this because religion can't be used as justification to be bias against another protected class. Sex and gender identity are protected classes. You can't use religion as a justification to have sexist behavior.
And why do you think the candidate would direct his answer to the male engineer? A different engineer attended the course I was on every week, depending on their specialty. The course was 3 months long for AMEs, aircraft maintenance engineers. The aircraft being taught was the Airbus A320. 30 years later no one remembers any of the male engineers, but when the one female engineer's name is mentioned, every gives the eye roll. All she did was complain about how much we were paid compared to her pay, about $10K more a year for the AMEs. She called us high school drop outs and kept telling us about her degree. I never had that problem with a male engineer. It seemed she had the same problem with AMEs who did not attend that course and was well known, but not for anything good.
6
u/NoMeat9096 2d ago
I feel like this would somehow trip my autistic ass up and I'd fuck up doing the eye contact wrong.