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

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/06/30...n-process/

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.
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.”
Hiscox warned governments and companies to consider the real possibility that gender-blind hiring processes may actually lessen equality in the workplace. “We should hit pause and be very cautious about introducing this as a way of improving diversity, as it can have the opposite effect,” Professor Hiscox claimed.


Heh.
Heh.
Heh.

I wonder if it was still possible to gauge the sex of the applicants by what was written?
I can imagine female applications were far more self-centered, self-involved etc.
"My job this" / "My goals that".

Whereas, I would not be surprised if the male candidates had more content pertaining to the actual industry.
Or more content related to the department / corporation & what those male candidates could offer said department / corporation.

Women write differently.

Women don't like to boast about their accomplishments.

Women are too nice.

Women sell themselves short.

Women don't offer much.

Example:

Rockstar female student with perfect GPA but has done shit all aside from working retail in some soap store in the mall.

Vs.

A scrappy Male applicant with a lesser GPA but with more knowledge of the company, the job, and what he would be expected to do. More curious in the industry and more eager to learn, shows authentic interest to the industry.

^
Yep.
It may have simply been a matter that the men had more applicable skills to the given field.

Your race or sex doesn't matter. If you can do the job, you should be hired.

If you can't do the job, too bad and fuck your feelings. Using identity politics to make up for inadequacies is pathetic.

Why Diversity Programs Fail

https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail

It shouldn’t be surprising that most diversity programs aren’t increasing diversity. Despite a few new bells and whistles, courtesy of big data, companies are basically doubling down on the same approaches they’ve used since the 1960s—which often make things worse, not better. Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers. Those tools are designed to preempt lawsuits by policing managers’ thoughts and actions. Yet laboratory studies show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out. As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y, or Z, and I’ll do the opposite just to prove that I’m my own person.

We know that society always prefers women.

Everyone who was not educated by a cultural marxist gulag would know this.

I wish they would not include male racial minorities with white woman when they say "diversity", we are not the same.

(Yesterday 07:43 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Why Diversity Programs Fail

https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail

It shouldn’t be surprising that most diversity programs aren’t increasing diversity. Despite a few new bells and whistles, courtesy of big data, companies are basically doubling down on the same approaches they’ve used since the 1960s—which often make things worse, not better. Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers. Those tools are designed to preempt lawsuits by policing managers’ thoughts and actions. Yet laboratory studies show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out. As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y, or Z, and I’ll do the opposite just to prove that I’m my own person.

When I was a kid, I was essentially "colorblind." I had friends and classmates of all different ethnic backgrounds, and it hardly even occurred to me that I was interacting with someone of another race. I just didn't think of people in those terms.

Fast forward through a couple decades of unrelenting pro-diversity propaganda, and now I actually feel incredibly on edge when interacting with black, Latino, or Muslim individuals, for fear of accidentally saying something that could be (mis)interpreted as "racist." I'm now keenly aware of everyone's race with whom I come into contact, because I know I have to walk on eggshells with unfamiliar members of said minority groups. It's frankly exhausting and lessens my desire to form new friendships with those individuals.

Just another way in which diversity programs are poisoning people's minds.

^
Well, the name of the game & the plan always was - divide & conquer.

(Yesterday 10:36 AM)Delta Wrote:  

(Yesterday 07:43 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Why Diversity Programs Fail

https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail

It shouldn’t be surprising that most diversity programs aren’t increasing diversity. Despite a few new bells and whistles, courtesy of big data, companies are basically doubling down on the same approaches they’ve used since the 1960s—which often make things worse, not better. Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers. Those tools are designed to preempt lawsuits by policing managers’ thoughts and actions. Yet laboratory studies show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out. As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y, or Z, and I’ll do the opposite just to prove that I’m my own person.

When I was a kid, I was essentially "colorblind." I had friends and classmates of all different ethnic backgrounds, and it hardly even occurred to me that I was interacting with someone of another race. I just didn't think of people in those terms.

Fast forward through a couple decades of unrelenting pro-diversity propaganda, and now I actually feel incredibly on edge when interacting with black, Latino, or Muslim individuals, for fear of accidentally saying something that could be (mis)interpreted as "racist." I'm now keenly aware of everyone's race with whom I come into contact, because I know I have to walk on eggshells with unfamiliar members of said minority groups. It's frankly exhausting and lessens my desire to form new friendships with those individuals.

Just another way in which diversity programs are poisoning people's minds.

Heh - I was literally the same way.

Even now I see the person first regardless of race or background. I literally had to train myself to be careful around some people, though I had a good perception of people before as well.

And I still see more or less all women the same way and separate them in 2 main categories - WB or WNB - pretty much "colorblind" in that respect. WB pretty much anything - bring me a green hot alien and I will bang it.

Though I have become aware of the diversity pushing and differences of races, but that is more from an academic viewpoint that has little to no bearing when I meet a person. I have only become careful about Muslims. (And even then I instantly like them when they are secular, loving, highly spiritual or reformers.)

Well, looky looky. Turns out systemic prejudice is bolstering the supposed victims of said prejudice, while blind meritocracy creates problematic results.

Anything other than patriarchy is a delusion sustained by burning up the wealth created by previous generations.

I would love to see some trailblazing academic do a real study on the concept of "blind auditions," both musically and otherwise. This is one of the big myths about feminism in the workplace, and yet there's no actual evidence that blind auditions are actually blind. Playing behind a curtain doesn't actually validate that the hiring process isn't cognizant of the sex of the applicant.
What are the real chances that this process is actually gender neutral? In my eyes, quite low. There is far too much at stake for the feminist ideologues in the hiring process to play it straight and honestly.

(Yesterday 10:36 AM)Delta Wrote:  When I was a kid, I was essentially "colorblind."

You were exercising White Privilege!

Funny how we're never "genderblind". You can't forget the gender of someone you've met. You can't even talk about them in English without making reference to it. Well, you couldn't before transgender ZE, etc.

Symphony orchestra have being doing blind auditions for decades. (The judges can't see the candidates.) It turns out that women were in fact being discriminated against based on the gender, majorly. Who could have guessed that men prefer working with men?

(Yesterday 05:39 PM)demolition Wrote:  I would love to see some trailblazing academic do a real study on the concept of "blind auditions," both musically and otherwise. This is one of the big myths about feminism in the workplace, and yet there's no actual evidence that blind auditions are actually blind. Playing behind a curtain doesn't actually validate that the hiring process isn't cognizant of the sex of the applicant.

UPDATE: Demolition, just saw your post. Supposedly both women and men remove their footwear to avoid having that give them away. To me the result is believable but you could be on to something, given the stakes.

I didn't start taking race and gender into account until the left upped the ante of identity politics. I used to just see people for their actions. Now, race and gender are at the forefront.

Despite the angst thrown at stereotypes & 'problematic' jokes.

End of the day, there's an element of truth to stereotypes & a good joke will also have an element of truth to it.

(Yesterday 06:42 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  UPDATE: Demolition, just saw your post. Supposedly both women and men remove their footwear to avoid having that give them away. To me the result is believable but you could be on to something, given the stakes.

Auditions themselves might be blind (although there are almost certainly methodological issues to address), but it's one factor in a larger process which is not blind at all.

(Yesterday 10:34 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  I wish they would not include male racial minorities with white woman when they say "diversity", we are not the same.

I totally agree. I fucking hate it when they add LGBT bullshit into the mix as well.

White Women...The New Face of Diversity

Quote:For some small minded folks, hearing the word diversity automatically equates to affirmative action and minorities taking jobs away from qualified white men. For others, it simply implies race or ethnicity. Then there's those who believe it is about age. But if you tune your ears to the right frequency and pay close attention you will notice that it is now all about women---specifically white women.

Gender diversity seems to be the only part of the diversity movement that has seen gains. Companies across multiple industries are making progress with hiring more women and promoting them to higher roles or positions where there is underrepresentation, but the overwhelming majority of these women are white.

Historically, whenever there has been an equality movement or anti-discrmintaory initiative, white women have always been the greatest beneficiaries. Why? Simply because white men let them. That is not intended to be a sexist or misogynistic statement, but to point to the typical case of damsel in distress, empathy by association, or nepotism from afar mindset that can creep in when white men choose to help (white) women. The "diversity movement" is no different.

Intel and Slack recently released their transparency employment reports and both companies are clear leaders with their diversity initiatives, yet their efforts in terms of bridging the ethnicity gap in tech employment pales in caparison to their growth with gender diversity.

It is great that companies like Intel and Slack are seeing percentage growth of women employees at around 40%, but when you only have white women reaping the benefits, is that truly progress? For example---Slack hired 74 white people, 62 of them were women and only 3 were black. Is that not a problem?

This isn't an attack on Intel or Slack, but more importantly an entire industry and society that refuses to embrace inclusion to its fullest.

Looking at the leading "Women In Tech" conferences, you rarely, if ever, see a black woman (or any woman of color) headlining or involved in panel discussions. You will likely see more white men speaking out about change at these conferences. I have attended several women diversity forums and there was no variety of women, just white women discussing diversity and the most disturbing part is that none of them ever mentioned racial or ethnic disparities.

I am torn because while I recognize the importance of more women in tech and other industries, I can't help but notice how very little progress is being made with people of color. These companies are comprised of some of the smartest people in the world that can develop self driving cars, platforms that globally connect people, and microprocessors smaller than a coin that power the worlds fastest computers, but they can't figure out how to effectively build more inclusive companies?

It is inevitable that someone will comment and say, "Diversity is about ALL people regardless of their race! It is colorless!" While this statement is ideal, it is not realistic and the numbers speak to the truth. Yes, diversity is getting better, but only for one group, white women. People of color, both men and women, are still waiting in line for their piece of the equality pie.

There is a correlation between white male leaders focusing on diversity, but unconsciously (or consciously) hiring majority white women. That is progress, but not change. You have white women diversity advocates focusing on gender equality, but never promote racial equality. Again progress, but not change. When it comes to diversity, company leaders can't see the forest for the trees---then again maybe it's the opposite.

Do not take my writing as anti-women or anti-white women because that is the furthest from the truth. I am challenging you to look at this problem deeper. We can't have diversity for some and not for all. We have to come up with creative solutions that go beyond diversity recruitment and focus on the the deeper issue's at play. I am optimistic that we are approaching much needed change, but for now diversity is all about white women, so I'll just wait.

A couple of months ago at my company all hands meeting, the head of recruiting said that we were short of women in upper management, so 3 new female directors/VPs here hired - now what race do you guys think they were?

< Judging from the proceedings going on in South Africa - they first offered affirmative action for non-Whites and White women.

Then after 20 years they reneged on that as well and they are discriminating against White women as well.

Since the globalists have certainly an anti-White bias, then they will one day throw out the white women out of the mix as well.

In my opinion no affirmative action should exist at all anymore. Pure meritocracy should reign with men being naturally preferred for all kinds of important or high-level employment situations.

There was a headlining article recently about discrimination and sexual harassment of female startup founders in venture capital.

Now, some of these guys have been caught on the Jumbotron guilty of terrible game and making unwelcome advances. But, this article completely ignored the not-infrequent behavior of white collar businesswomen.

These female founders know that they'll get more attention from (((male))) investors if they show some skin, doll themselves up, and flirt over after-dinner drinks. It's the high-end equivalent of the female bartender.

However, men are expected to remain professional to a T, even if they're being enticed with prime cantaloupes to the face over a "business dinner." Enjoy the tease show, write the million-dollar check, call to offer advise some time.

Where's the coverage for the other side of this story?

In my personal opinion there should be no affirmative action in hiring with private companies, affirmative action should be limited to universities. I only want equality of opportunity not equality of outcome, just give brothers the education to compete we will handle the rest. We black men understand that if we do not bring value we should not be at the private company, just don't lump us in with white women-white women want a hand out, not a hand up.

Leftism literally fails at anything they claim once put to scientific test.

Can anyone show an example of leftist dogma ever being proved in any kind of scientific setting?

When a leftist does an experiment on babies and their choice of toys (male vs female, cars vs dolls) and these 2 year olds still choose according to gender, they refuse to accept the results, instead claiming socialisation must happen even earlier. Eventually they will come up with a theory that gender-bias happens in the womb already.

(Today 01:42 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  In my personal opinion there should be no affirmative action in hiring with private companies, affirmative action should be limited to universities. I only want equality of opportunity not equality of outcome, just give brothers the education to compete we will handle the rest. We black men understand that if we do not bring value we should not be at the private company, just don't lump us in with white women-white women want a hand out, not a hand up.

Do you believe poor whites from Appalachia who may be 30 minutes of windy, one-lane, crumbling roads from their extremeley underfuned school and three hours from the nearest "Ivy League Pipeline" private school deserve preferential treatment in college admissions? I ask because I am not categorically opposed to some levels of affirmative action, provided it can be proved that the individual is exceptional and could excel further when given the resources that were available to his "competition."

For instance, if a white or Asian (or any ethnicity not deemed white/oppressed) pulls themselves from poverty and a violent, drug-filled home and has identical test scores of a black son of a surgeon and hedge fund manager, should the black kid be viewed as the oppressed by comparison?