Sticks and Stones

Language software for recruitment technology helps businesses to hire the right people. The right software will know which words to use in the recruitment process to get targeted results.

First of all, what the hell am I talking about? You know when you've been looking for a job for the last three months and your life savings is running out and you're really thinking what it would be like to wake up in your car and shower at the YMCA and how it might not be "as bad as they make it out to be" and then you see a job opening that you're qualified for and you're like, nah, too much hidden hostility in my semantic analysis of this job posting?

Me neither. But if you're the kind of person who already has a great job making lots of money and a huge difference in the way people live in the world together and you're trying to propel your future even further, then this is for you:

We might not realize it, but the terminology used in job descriptions turns some people off, subconsciously or not. And if you're trying to be a good business, you need to get everybody on board, not just the typical Mr. Obvious, or Ms. Obvious as the case may be.

Women don't like 'coding ninja' as it represents hostility in the workplace. 'Stakeholders' means non-white people need not apply. 'Competitive' and 'leader' are discouraging terms for females, according to one textmaster recruiter optimizer, whereas 'support' and 'interpersonal' are inviting to female candidates.

Businesses care because the more balanced your workforce, the more profitable your work. This would explain why there are so many of these text-analysis for job-posting services out there, and enough for me to find an article on it in the national news.

Here's an example of why we need to think more about inclusionary language in our tech-driven, text-based world:
Man is to computer scientist what woman is to homemaker

Notes:
Why some job adverts put women off applying
July 2018, BBC News

Post Script:
Since we're getting all semantimaniacal here, can I just point out that the word 'inclusionary' shows up as a misspell on my autocorrect, with 'exclusionary' the suggested replacement. Just saying. (And no, semantimaniac isn't in there either...).