It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study: More Men Hired in Gender-Blind Job Application Process

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
So removing gender from applications ends up with men getting more jobs. Playing games with hiring processes is a silly venture to be sure. Just hire the best. Stupid SJW's.


An initiative by the leaders of Australian Public Service to promote gender equality through blind recruitment efforts has failed, according to reports.

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.
www.breitbart.com...

So they wanted to have more females hired, why not just do it? Why must the left always play grab ass, just say you want to hire a women, even if a male is a better candidate.


“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.”




posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I'm sure people will be along shortly to say how this was sexist



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

As long as they weren't white men, I am sure the criticism won't be too harsh!




posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Zerodoublehero

And it also was sexist to take gender out of the application process if they thought it would increase female hires.

This is an obvious SJW's wet dream, and I am sure the thought that their little theory could be wrong never crossed their angry mind.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Well at least in the 1990's they had the nuts to tell you whites need not apply with Affirmative action and all.

I had the pleasure of sitting in on job opportunities where they actually asked the white people what they were doing there.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Zerodoublehero

And it also was sexist to take gender out of the application process if they thought it would increase female hires.

This is an obvious SJW's wet dream, and I am sure the thought that their little theory could be wrong never crossed their angry mind.


Don't worry I'm sure someone will prove how the trial in itself was sexist


Hire the best candidate, regardless of anything else. Pretty simple if you ask me



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Zerodoublehero


The funny thing is that when you hire an inferior candidate, you business will suffer. All this in the name of fairness is hog wash. Hire the best.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
How do they remove sex identification from the interview process?

I'm assuming an employer would want to interview an applicant before hiring him/her. That is, unless they're making hiring decisions based solely on information provided on the application, which would be totally retarded.

ETA: Ah. More male applicants make "the short list", not necessarily get hired.

Misleading headline from Breitbart. Here's my surprised face:


edit on 6/30/17 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Perhaps the name game was to get interviews?

I would not put hiring people site unseen past them.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

It appears to be addressing getting an interview, which would logically translate into males having a higher probability of getting hired.

The spin never stops.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I would assume that if they're just basing this off of resumes, that men were favored because many women damage their careers by having children. It drops them out of the workforce for a time, and results in fewer lower ranking positions.

I wonder what age the people in this study were.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: seasonal

It appears to be addressing getting an interview, which would logically translate into males having a higher probability of getting hired.

The spin never stops.


Pretty much.




originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: seasonal

I would assume that if they're just basing this off of resumes, that men were favored because many women damage their careers by having children. It drops them out of the workforce for a time, and results in fewer lower ranking positions.

I wonder what age the people in this study were.


Many women are holding off having children until later in life/ pretty late sometimes, as they are career focused these days. Birth rates are down in developed countries because of this despite hiring bosses having a tizzy over younger women due to preconceived notions they WILL have children though they are more likely to hold off having children.



In addition there are socio-economic factors that have led to women and couples delaying having children. Lack of affordable housing, flexible and part-time career posts for women and affordable and publicly funded (free) child care have contributed to the current low fertility/birth rates. Couples/women are delaying starting a family which has led to a true decline in their fertility levels due to ovarian ageing and related reasons leading to reduced chance of conception.


Source



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Why does this matter so much? If men are getting interviewed more, it could mean there're still gender indicators--even without names or gender on the application--biasing the results. Or since men have more privilege, even if there're no clear gender prejudices then it might be highlighting that. It's reasonable then to proceed and figure out what's what. They should make sure the applicants are equally qualified to weed prejudices. But concluding the men are chosen because they're better and should be left alone is bad science. The goal is to correct for male privilege and biases in the hiring process.

en.wikipedia.org - Male privilege...

It's a good idea to teach the children:
www.bbc.com - Australian students to be taught about 'male privilege'...

Because if you don't many grow up with stereotypes encouraging discrimination. Maybe like this:
en.wikipedia.org - Internalized sexism....

Or maybe it's related to this too--this is racial:
www.psychologytoday.com - Studies of Unconscious Bias: Racism Not Always by Racists...

Here:
www.surgeons.org - Unconscious sexism in surgery ...

And here:
www.fo rbes.com - No Man Is Above Unconscious Gender Bias In The Workplace - It's "Unconscious"...
edit on 7/1/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

.... well that didn't take long for the response we all knew was coming.



new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join