The trial, which was an effort to push more women in senior position jobs, revealed that removing the gender from a candidate’s application does not help boost gender equality in hiring. The trial also revealed that adding a male name to a candidate’s application made them 3.2 percent less likely to get the job while adding a female name made it 2.9 percent more likely that the candidate would be hired.It's not a surprise. Or, at least, it shouldn't be. Women get hired for a variety of reasons. Men only get hired if they are objectively superior to every possible woman and minority available.
Researchers assumed that removing gender identifiers from an application would make it easier for women to obtain employment in senior positions that have traditionally been dominated by men.
“We anticipated this would have a positive impact on diversity — making it more likely that female candidates and those from ethnic minorities are selected for the shortlist,” said Professor Michael Hiscox, a Harvard academic. “We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist.”
So as anyone in the real world knows, it is less likely, not more likely these days that a man will get hired if his gender is known.
Sunday, July 9, 2017
Sex-blind hiring favors men
Dr. Helen comments on the incongruous discovery:
21 comments:
We're the resumes reviewed by men or women?
For quite some time, Ohio State University has set up regular faculty positions that only women and minorities may apply for. Men, especially White men, are explicitly excluded from consideration.
This is the real white, male privilege. A lifetime of having to be superior to get anything or anywhere, a lack of excuses made for you and the sure and certain knowledge that no one is coming to help your pasty ass produces a better product than the reverse.
It's pretty fucking galling to see underqualified women get promoted, which is pretty much all of them at my company.
Men only get hired if they are objectively superior to every possible woman and minority available.
Also if they aren't weird, or ugly, or unfashionable, and the HR floozy is not an ideological feminist (not just a trendy feminist).
There are a few things women are objectively* better at: organization, memory, empathy, and verbal fluency. This makes them exceedingly useful as secretaries, dispatch operators, nurses, servers, and teachers- basically, the professions traditionally dominated by women.
*On the average. At the extremes of these traits men will dominate due to higher standard deviations.
How wealthy is our society, that so much waste can be tolerated in the service of placating whiners and parasites.
What's that? The vig has become too large? We're over our credit limit in our zeal to award every player their trophy?
Trees don't grow to the sky, no matter how much a chart of GOOGL, AAPL, NFLX, AMZN or FB may make it seem so. A forecast delayed is not a forecast denied.
“We anticipated this would have a positive impact on diversity — making it more likely that female candidates and those from ethnic minorities are selected for the shortlist,” said Professor Michael Hiscox, a Harvard academic.
I'm confused the most about this initial hypothesis. Did Professor Hiscock think Tameqquaa or De'ShaunteeNickelodeon would impart a negative first reaction to a potential hirer?
Ooohh, now that's an interesting idea. Troll SJWs into implementing blind hiring policy. I.E. resumes with no names only.
Phone interviews and no personal questions.
I wonder if it's possible. Basically force them into this, thinking they'll get more "diversity" when in reality they'll get less.
The "low status", even average (which is not good enough), White male is America's nIgger.
They LAUGH at our pain brothers, they really hate you. Everybody, every group, needs an out group, somebody to hate. They openly admit they see it is our turn to be hated and we have no right to complain, and, as we see, many White men, "cucks", progressive nu males, take up this cross, often publicly, on social media, they proudly wear their little crown of thorns.
The women are whores. The "Sexual Revolution" was about the right for women to be whores. Make no mistake that's what it came down to. Open as can be. And for women to cut off your balls as they strip your wallet and laugh in your face.
We see this time and time again. Liberals conduct experiments to prove that there's rampant discrimination against women and minorities, and what they find is the total opposite- discrimination in favor of women and minorities, and against white men.
And no matter how many studies are done illustrating this pro-female, anti-male, anti-white discrimination, it always shocks the liberals who do these studies, as if it's something totally new and not part of a pattern that's been recorded since the 60s or so.
Envy.
Humiliation.
Everyone "hates" white men because on a level playing field we dominate all others. The 1st World is largely a project of men whose ancestors spent most of the last 1000 years in NW Europe, England or lowland Scotland.
Everyone else, even the girls, hate us for it. Joe Sobran was right.
Hating the goose but loving the golden eggs the goose lays. That's our age's cognitive dissonance in a nutshell.
Very rare to see a study by sociologist or psychologists
that does not validate what they expected to find.
You can bet that the results of this study will soon be flushed down the memory hole ...
"Men only get hired if they are objectively superior to every possible woman and minority available."
---------
And even then only if the ones doing the hiring perceive that they can get away with it.
@toadbile
Worth looking into Putnam and his diversity study.
Sat on the results a few years before releasing. Because the results were not what the good liberal wanted
I guess they looked at the "blind orchestra audition" results, which resulted in more women being hired, and wondered if it would apply to any other field.
dc.sunsets, btw, just shooting the sh*t here, I don't hate you people for taking credit for your ancestor's awesome achievements. It's perfectly natural and healthy. A lot of this envy and anger, it is instilled in silly youthful minds and kindled by your own North European cocksucker countrymen and distant pale kin on the old continent, and of course the Gems, can't forget the Chosen, god bless their hearts. Throughout our lives through the schools and entertainment (((pop culture))) and (corporate media))). We shouldn't forget the power of ideas, of culture, for as part Spagehetti NIgger EuroMutt of lesser grand achieving peoples (We Wuz Caesar n sheit. Or slaves, some of them.) I came to greatly admire and respect northern ice monkeys and this country my Med and Iberian ancestors came to multiple generations ago and fought for and helped build. Or at least not act as parasites. Now I am a White guilty of all White Man Sins as far as the brown and black fecal colored masses coming from 93% (and rapidly increasing stock) of this psycho ape species of ours are concerned.
@ Thanks, J,
I guess you missed who was All In for Hart-Celler.
As for "taking credit for ancestors' accomplishments," what do you prefer as an alternative, simply robbing heirs and stuffing your pockets?
d.c. sunsets, you deleted the other post. First thought best thought. Don't self censor.
d.c. sunsets, judging by today's standards I'd guess SWIPPLE pale cracker ice monkey's parents and grandparents. But we know (((who))) really pushed it with their outsized wealth and resources and that the establishment, still largely WASP, supported it. Oh and Ted Kennedy. I like potato nIggers. But blame the southern European proles.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.