The point is valid, but this obviously puts organisations trying to recruit their first female employees in a bit of a pickle. For the benefit of the common good (getting more small businesses and startups to hire more women) it might be better to asses a business's desired trajectory rather than its current state... right?
I've definitely interviewed female candidates for a small startup where they decided not to proceed once they found out they'd be the first woman on the team. I certainly don't hold it against them, but it really does make increasing diversity a lot harder if nobody is willing to be the first one.
It's a great example of how hard it can be to change the trajectory of systems even when everyone earnestly works towards change.
Huh - I wonder if you could use that as leverage during pay negotiation.
"Oh, you don't have any other women on staff? You need to know that thats going to be sort of rough for me, in complicated gross ways. I'll still do it, but only if you pay me an extra 10% compensation pay on top of what you were otherwise going to pay me. (Which you can stop doing as soon as you hire another woman)."
As a man, this would make me extremely uncomfortable for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which because it implies to me that you think all men are scummy creeps and that you need extra money to deal with us.
That's a hell of a reach from what she said, to put it mildly. To justify your inference she would need to be asking for extra money for dealing with any men, ever.
