Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Nov 8, 2015 12:44:05 GMT -5
I always hear "hire the best qualified" blah, blah. As if there there is a CLEAR difference between candidates. Part of my job on the School Board is to be involved in hiring. And, there are many excellent candidates with varied experiences. One isn't necessarily "better" than the other. We try to hire the one who we think is the best fit based on a lot of different things. But, in reality, any number of those candidates would be an excellent fit. Yes, there are some duds along the way and you can weed those out. But, it isn't some simple "oh just hire the best qualified" because that is not easily defined. There are many variables that go into hiring a good candidate.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Nov 8, 2015 12:53:30 GMT -5
My husband is a white male, and he absolutely understands that he has advantages that others don't. It's kind of nice for me that he is working in tech in CA at this particular company, because most of the people he works with aren't white males. (Males, though with a female CEO, there's a good amount of women as well, but not white males.) Still, I have actually said (to my husband only) that I'm very glad my son looks white. I'm glad that he could "pass", because it gives him an advantage. I feel pretty shitty about the sentiment, but more than anything I want life to be easier for my kid. (OK, more than anything, I want it not to MATTER what he looks like, but since I have to live in the real world, I'm glad he looks white. ) Ugh.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Nov 8, 2015 12:59:33 GMT -5
Also, isn't it fucked up that someone felt the need to ask why he appointed 50/50 men and women?
Unless members of one group were particularly unqualified, why would you need to ask? There is something wrong with a world in which "why hire women?" is a fucking question.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 8, 2015 13:11:42 GMT -5
My husband is a white male, and he absolutely understands that he has advantages that others don't. It's kind of nice for me that he is working in tech in CA at this particular company, because most of the people he works with aren't white males. (Males, though with a female CEO, there's a good amount of women as well, but not white males.) Still, I have actually said (to my husband only) that I'm very glad my son looks white. I'm glad that he could "pass", because it gives him an advantage. I feel pretty shitty about the sentiment, but more than anything I want life to be easier for my kid. (OK, more than anything, I want it not to MATTER what he looks like, but since I have to live in the real world, I'm glad he looks white. ) Ugh. My son is mixed black and white, but if I'm not around I have no doubt he'd pass for some kind of ethnic white - Arab, Hebrew/Jewish, etc. I hope that that will help him overcome the prejudices that black males have had to (and still have to) overcome.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 8, 2015 13:12:25 GMT -5
I guess "not have to encounter" is a better phrase than "overcome".
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 8, 2015 13:14:51 GMT -5
I oppose the quota system. All it does is encourage compliance with the regulations, not diversity. Furthermore, in many fields, there just isn't a representative sample of minorities/women with that particular profession. Take nursing for example. Are 50% of practicing nurses male? I don't believe so, so a employer would have a hard time filling the roles Or take my field, health physics. Yes, there are women in those fields, but it's inherently "lop sided." In addition, my particular job requires a lot of travel. I think you'd be hard pressed to find 50% women to do it. Regarding promotions, women generally prefer to prioritize family over career, as compared to men. Women work fewer hours than men. In addition, women are far more likely to take time off to have/raise kids. If you're a manager at a company, and you have a new management position available, are you going to give it to a woman who works fewer hours than her male counterparts, and took an extended leave of absence to have/raise kids, or a man who didn't do those things? I'm not saying women should be "punished" for these behaviors, but in the business world, you give the top jobs and the raises to your higher performing employees. If women want to prioritize family time over career, they should be free to do so. The same idea goes for men, too. Obviously, I'm generalizing here. I know there are many women dedicated to their careers, and they should be rewarded. I believe that people should be hired/promoted on their merit and character, not what color their skin is or what's in their pants. And I'd be extremely opposed to any system of government that required a certain percentage of elected officials to be women and/or minorities. That would be directly in violation of the founding principles of our country, that the people are free to elect their own representatives. And THAT'S why, up here, we have extended familial leave of one year for either parent. More and more men are taking advantage of it, so the wives can have their careers uninterrupted. It shouldn't always fall on the woman. It's ludicrous to have women propagating the human race, AND to be punished in the workforce.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 9, 2015 1:06:06 GMT -5
But Milee, this isn't a "preconceived" or "erroneous" bias, it's born out by research and data. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/"In spite of its narrowing, the gender pay gap persists. Why is this? In our survey, women were more likely to say they had taken career interruptions to care for their family. And research has shown that these types of interruptions can have an impact on long-term earnings. Roughly four-in-ten mothers say they have taken a significant amount of time off from work (39%) or reduced their work hours (42%) to care for a child or other family member. Roughly a quarter (27%) say they have quit work altogether to take care of these familial responsibilities. (Fewer men say the same. For example, just 24% of fathers say they have taken a significant amount of time off to care for a child or other family member.)" Here's some additional statistics from the bureau of labor statistics. www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htmIn total, women, on average, work almost 1 hour less per day than men in the workforce. 8.1 hours vs. 7.3 I'm sorry you faced gender discrimination. It's awful, but I'm speaking on a macro scale here. On average, women work fewer hours and take more interruptions for their career. But the thinking seems to be this shouldn't matter, that women should be unilaterally equal to men in managerial positions. The point I'm trying to make is, women want equal pay for equal work, but on a macro level, women are putting in fewer hours and taking more interruptions for their career. So it stands to reason that men will get more promotions and bigger raises. As a percent of the population more black people are in prison than white people. It's a fact. Does that fact mean that we can conclude that all black people are criminals and should not be hired or promoted?
As a percent of the population many more men than women commit violent crimes and are in prison. It's a fact. Does that fact mean that we can conclude that men are dangerous and should not be hired or promoted?
And if you haven't gotten the point yet - you cannot generalize characteristics across an entire group, even if significant portions of that group exhibit similarities. That's the heart of bias and discrimination. What you are expressing is biased and discriminatory, even if there are facts that imply that your assumptions are correct for some of the group you're discriminating against.
In aggregate, differences in averages become significant. For example, given the numbers in Phoenix84's data (I found similar data here), if a company chooses to hire a man over a woman, there's an average gain of 4.9 workhours per week, with a standard deviation of ~3 workhours, hence still a reasonable chance (around 28%) that a woman hired would put in more hours than a man hired. But suppose a company chooses to hire ten men over ten women. Here there's an average gain of 49 workhours per week, with a standard deviation of ~9 workhours. That yields a < 0.01% chance that hiring the women would produce more workhours, and a 98% chance that hiring the men would produce at least 20 workhours more per week than the women. If you're a big company, those 50 or 20 workhours (representing a 14.3% and 5.7% productivity increase, respectively) aren't just something you can blow off. If you've busted your butt working extra-long hours, put it on your resume, because the law of large numbers works against you. By the time a company is looking at hiring, say, 30 employees, the average very quickly becomes the reality. In a group of 100, say, for every woman working her butt off there's going to be one that barely works at all. Think of it like a tug-of-war between kids in grade 3 and kids in grade 4. If it was just one on one, because of natural variability, there's still a decent chance a kid in grade 3 would beat a kid in grade 4. But if you pit 30 kids in grade 3 versus 30 kids in grade 4, the grade 4 side is going to win with virtual certainty. No business wants to be on the losing team, so all other things being equal, the averages are important.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 9, 2015 1:11:56 GMT -5
Also, isn't it fucked up that someone felt the need to ask why he appointed 50/50 men and women? Unless members of one group were particularly unqualified, why would you need to ask? There is something wrong with a world in which "why hire women?" is a fucking question. The question was "Why hire 50% women?" There was a specific quota to fill. That virtually precludes the possibility of hiring the exact team most qualified by professional merit, since the likelihood of such a team comprising exactly 50% men and 50% women is marginal.
|
|
bobosensei
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:32:49 GMT -5
Posts: 1,561
|
Post by bobosensei on Nov 9, 2015 4:04:21 GMT -5
The higher up you move the bigger the divide. And this kind of bias towards women is still acceptable. I have seen it time and time again when men and women compete for promotions. The woman is judged on past performance and the man for his potential. A man that is doing a cruddy job at the lower level will be excused because "he needs more of a challenge" and the woman who is performing wonderfully and at a higher level than the man will be dismissed because they don't think she can handle more. I know so many wonderful women trying to get ahead and they can't. And no, it isn't because they work 1 hour less than all the men each day.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 9, 2015 5:18:20 GMT -5
I'm sure we all have encountered lazy men and lazy women in the work force, no matter what the excuse was. Being the field I worked in , I encountered more lazy men. Of the three guys I worked with, two were lazy and one was not. I fired one lazy man in DH's company. The other worked his tail off and did the work of three people. We all have preconceived notions of discrimination and bias, either for or against us. Usually against of course. I was kept, in my working career, from transfers and promotions always by women. Should I say ALL women bosses are bad? I was hired for my first real job after college by a black male. Should I say all black males make good HR people? Facts are we are going to encounter these things in real life. How we manage it says more about us than those who do it to us. Does it make it right? No. But it does exist. We are all guilty of it. I read and hear Walmart bashing from everyone. Or the evil Bank of America. The fact that I've never encountered issues with either gives me a different perspective. The fact that I encountered sabotage from upper level women makes me have a different perspective too.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 9, 2015 6:42:27 GMT -5
As a percent of the population more black people are in prison than white people. It's a fact. Does that fact mean that we can conclude that all black people are criminals and should not be hired or promoted?
As a percent of the population many more men than women commit violent crimes and are in prison. It's a fact. Does that fact mean that we can conclude that men are dangerous and should not be hired or promoted?
And if you haven't gotten the point yet - you cannot generalize characteristics across an entire group, even if significant portions of that group exhibit similarities. That's the heart of bias and discrimination. What you are expressing is biased and discriminatory, even if there are facts that imply that your assumptions are correct for some of the group you're discriminating against.
In aggregate, differences in averages become significant. For example, given the numbers in Phoenix84's data (I found similar data here), if a company chooses to hire a man over a woman, there's an average gain of 4.9 workhours per week, with a standard deviation of ~3 workhours, hence still a reasonable chance (around 28%) that a woman hired would put in more hours than a man hired. But suppose a company chooses to hire ten men over ten women. Here there's an average gain of 49 workhours per week, with a standard deviation of ~9 workhours. That yields a < 0.01% chance that hiring the women would produce more workhours, and a 98% chance that hiring the men would produce at least 20 workhours more per week than the women. If you're a big company, those 50 or 20 workhours (representing a 14.3% and 5.7% productivity increase, respectively) aren't just something you can blow off. If you've busted your butt working extra-long hours, put it on your resume, because the law of large numbers works against you. By the time a company is looking at hiring, say, 30 employees, the average very quickly becomes the reality. In a group of 100, say, for every woman working her butt off there's going to be one that barely works at all. Think of it like a tug-of-war between kids in grade 3 and kids in grade 4. If it was just one on one, because of natural variability, there's still a decent chance a kid in grade 3 would beat a kid in grade 4. But if you pit 30 kids in grade 3 versus 30 kids in grade 4, the grade 4 side is going to win with virtual certainty. No business wants to be on the losing team, so all other things being equal, the averages are important. You are not addressing the question asked in the OP, though, which is about quotas in hiring - a prospective decision. As a business owner myself, I would never state that a business should accept lesser performance from an employee once that person has been hired, but that is an issue to be addressed after the employee is hired and is a management issue. This thread and my discussion is about the fact that it is not acceptable to make prospective decisions and discriminate against an entire group - by not hiring them - because certain members of that group have certain characteristics. You cannot generalize and cut off opportunities for all members of a group based on actions of some of the group.
If you have hired a certain person and that individual is not performing adequately, you address it with that individual. That does not give you license to discriminate against all other individuals in that group.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Nov 9, 2015 6:53:20 GMT -5
I oppose the quota system. All it does is encourage compliance with the regulations, not diversity. Furthermore, in many fields, there just isn't a representative sample of minorities/women with that particular profession. Take nursing for example. Are 50% of practicing nurses male? I don't believe so, so a employer would have a hard time filling the roles Or take my field, health physics. Yes, there are women in those fields, but it's inherently "lop sided." In addition, my particular job requires a lot of travel. I think you'd be hard pressed to find 50% women to do it. Regarding promotions, women generally prefer to prioritize family over career, as compared to men. Women work fewer hours than men. In addition, women are far more likely to take time off to have/raise kids. If you're a manager at a company, and you have a new management position available, are you going to give it to a woman who works fewer hours than her male counterparts, and took an extended leave of absence to have/raise kids, or a man who didn't do those things? I'm not saying women should be "punished" for these behaviors, but in the business world, you give the top jobs and the raises to your higher performing employees. If women want to prioritize family time over career, they should be free to do so. The same idea goes for men, too. Obviously, I'm generalizing here. I know there are many women dedicated to their careers, and they should be rewarded. I believe that people should be hired/promoted on their merit and character, not what color their skin is or what's in their pants. And I'd be extremely opposed to any system of government that required a certain percentage of elected officials to be women and/or minorities. That would be directly in violation of the founding principles of our country, that the people are free to elect their own representatives. And THAT'S why, up here, we have extended familial leave of one year for either parent. More and more men are taking advantage of it, so the wives can have their careers uninterrupted. It shouldn't always fall on the woman. It's ludicrous to have women propagating the human race, AND to be punished in the workforce. Except that women actually DO propagate the human race. There are biological differences. And, yes, women bear children. However, if you spend your life working, is it really that big of a deal miss 12 weeks for maternity leave over the course of a lifetime of employment?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Nov 9, 2015 7:01:52 GMT -5
As for quotas, do they actually work? Where would it end? If you have 10 black females and only 1 black male, is that ok? What 90% of the people have a BMI under 25? Are they discriminating against the obese? How many people with disabilities is enough? And, on and on and on. It is never going to be "equal" whatever that means because is there really anyway to define that? I would hope that employers would be happy to hire qualified applicants and that those things are not an issue.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,976
|
Post by cronewitch on Nov 9, 2015 7:45:08 GMT -5
Woman might be working fewer hours because they are paid less. When I started working I made half what my husband made so if we needed one of us to miss a day of work it was reasonable it be me. We decided not to be reasonable and I have worked many 70 hour weeks and seldom ever taken a vacation and never given birth or adopted, yet I should be paid less because other women work an hour less on average.
Give the women who are driven the jobs requiring driven people and they will do them. Pay them enough to hire nannies or have the fathers be SAHD and they won't take off for every kid with the sniffles.
I don't like quotas but give some of the good jobs to woman and minorities and see if they aren't equal if they are well educated and driven. We can have woman in congress and on the supreme court and I don't think you will see them working shorter hours than the males, if we elect a woman as president who has small children she will have staff and spouse and may not spend more time with them than male presidents with small children. She won't be cooking and cleaning or doing laundry either.
Once we see what woman can do they are treated equally. When I was young doctors, lawyers, pharmacist and CPAs were almost 100% male now not so much, I am not even surprised when I get a new doctor that is a minority and female or disappointed but I never had a single doctor who wasn't a white male before 1994 and haven't had one that once except once since then.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 9, 2015 8:04:13 GMT -5
This thread and my discussion is about the fact that it is not acceptable to make prospective decisions and discriminate against an entire group - by not hiring them - because certain members of that group have certain characteristics. That depends on what's meant by "acceptable". On what basis are we making the acceptability judgment? Morality? Legality? Practicality? Different bases lead to different conclusions. Secondly, what is the scope of our conclusion. Does it extend to other groups? Other characteristics? Consider that in our society we typically let only the smartest (or wealthiest, in some cases) individuals into our universities, and give strong preference to those from renowned primary schools; only men with good height and exceptional dexterity will ever make it onto a team in the NBA; unattractive people are rarely ever hired as models; a deaf individual would never be hired to play in a symphonic orchestra; some business hire only ex-cons or parolees to give them a second chance; some businesses hire only people with autism because of their exceptional attention to detail; some hire only veterans. Many minorities prefer to hire employees of similar culture and ethnicity, for obvious reasons. Other professions are overwhelmingly dominated by one gender due to inherent differences in the sexes, such as firefighters and soldiers (where male bulk is a major asset) or teachers and nurses (where studies have shown that students/patients find women more relatable). Other fields depend on characteristics that may be heavily correlated with ethnicity, nationality, age, or gender. You have to bear in mind here that you're not making the argument "It's unacceptable to never hire members of an entire group.", you're arguing that broad characteristics shouldn't even factor in to a hiring determination. But the examples above and hundreds more besides show where society has embraced broad characteristics for sake of practicality when hiring. It's not that individuals outside the preferred classes/groups categorically can't obtain positions in these fields. There are always exceptional individuals that stand out. But in the end certain fields are dominated by groups based on group characteristics. Hiring is based on that. This flies in the face of your quoted argument. Hence I reiterate my second question: what groups and what characteristics do you extend your rule on acceptability to, and on what basis? Is it acceptable for a QA firm to hire mainly/only autistic individuals because, as a group, they have exceptional attention to detail? Is it acceptable for a firehouse to choose John Doe over Jane Doe by default if their applications/interviews are comparable? Is it acceptable for a laundromat employer to hire mainly Japanese employees because the employer prefers speaking Japanese? Is it acceptable for a massage clinic to prefer hiring female massage therapists because most customers express feeling more comfortable with women massaging them? These examples and more show how "Just don't discriminate against any group." isn't a sensible argument. Group characteristics matter, as I say.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 9, 2015 8:06:44 GMT -5
Which reminds me of the women sho shunned the guy mammogram dude. Yikes, glad I didn't get hm either. Bad enough experience without some guy being witness to it. Btw, I only see women doctors if at all possible so I definitely discriminate .
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Nov 9, 2015 8:11:44 GMT -5
Which reminds me of the women sho shunned the guy mammogram dude. Yikes, glad I didn't get hm either. Bad enough experience without some guy being witness to it. Btw, I only see women doctors if at all possible so I definitely discriminate . I don't care if I have a male or female doctor or nurse or whatever. That doesn't bother me as I figure they are all professionals. But, some people do have a preference, so is that somehow wrong then? What if the consumer has preference? I mean, consumers of Hooters seem to prefer certain waitress types, etc. What industries are going to be exempt? Oh, it's OK for the NFL to only hire males but not for Hooters to hire females? Or, we need to have 50/50 sewer workers even though enough women don't even apply? It just becomes nonsensical.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Nov 9, 2015 8:17:25 GMT -5
The worst part about me posting this study that showed clear and across the board sexism in regards to hiring attitudes is that it is three years old and yet people still don't get it. PS before anyone goes on about how this link is a blog the actual abstract is linked in it. I just didn't feel like going through a paper that people aren't going to actually really consider the evidence.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 9, 2015 8:26:08 GMT -5
This thread and my discussion is about the fact that it is not acceptable to make prospective decisions and discriminate against an entire group - by not hiring them - because certain members of that group have certain characteristics. That depends on what's meant by "acceptable". On what basis are we making the acceptability judgment? Morality? Legality? Practicality? Different bases lead to different conclusions. Secondly, what is the scope of our conclusion. Does it extend to other groups? Other characteristics? Consider that in our society we typically let only the smartest (or wealthiest, in some cases) individuals into our universities, and give strong preference to those from renowned primary schools; only men with good height and exceptional dexterity will ever make it onto a team in the NBA; unattractive people are rarely ever hired as models; a deaf individual would never be hired to play in a symphonic orchestra; some business hire only ex-cons or parolees to give them a second chance; some businesses hire only people with autism because of their exceptional attention to detail; some hire only veterans. Many minorities prefer to hire employees of similar culture and ethnicity, for obvious reasons. Other professions are overwhelmingly dominated by one gender due to inherent differences in the sexes, such as firefighters and soldiers (where male bulk is a major asset) or teachers and nurses (where studies have shown that students/patients find women more relatable). Other fields depend on characteristics that may be heavily correlated with ethnicity, nationality, age, or gender. You have to bear in mind here that you're not making the argument "It's unacceptable to never hire members of an entire group.", you're arguing that broad characteristics shouldn't even factor in to a hiring determination. But the examples above and hundreds more besides show where society has embraced broad characteristics for sake of practicality when hiring. It's not that individuals outside the preferred classes/groups categorically can't obtain positions in these fields. There are always exceptional individuals that stand out. But in the end certain fields are dominated by groups based on group characteristics. Hiring is based on that. This flies in the face of your quoted argument. Hence I reiterate my second question: what groups and what characteristics do you extend your rule on acceptability to, and on what basis? Is it acceptable for a QA firm to hire mainly/only autistic individuals because, as a group, they have exceptional attention to detail? Is it acceptable for a firehouse to choose John Doe over Jane Doe by default if their applications/interviews are comparable? Is it acceptable for a laundromat employer to hire mainly Japanese employees because the employer prefers speaking Japanese? Is it acceptable for a massage clinic to prefer hiring female massage therapists because most customers express feeling more comfortable with women massaging them? These examples and more show how "Just don't discriminate against any group." isn't a sensible argument. Group characteristics matter, as I say. Once again, when you're called out on your mistake - not addressing the issue of prospective discrimination - you dance around to misdirect. Sad.
Even in this reply, you're confusing the idea of judging an individual's characteristics against the idea that it's OK to generalize based on a group's characteristics. Individuals are admitted to universities based on their personal scores and achievements; we don't conclude that because historically black students haven't graduated at the same rates or achieved the same grades that black students as a whole aren't qualified and shouldn't be considered - we decide on an individual basis.
And that's the problem with you and Phoenix assuming that an observed characteristic will hold true across all members of the same population. Just the fact that you assume that there are "broad characteristics" is part of the problem. Hiring should not be based on "broad characteristics", it should be based on the skills and attributes that each individual is bringing to the table.
The fact that you want to argue that it's acceptable in any form to discriminate prospectively against any group based on the characteristics shown by some members of that group is frankly distasteful and you should be embarrassed.
It's also hypocritical and I know how you hate hypocrisy so wanted to point that out. In several other threads you have decried the discrimination you perceive is levied against Christians, so it's hypocritical for you to defend the idea that discrimination is not only acceptable but desireable. Or is it just that it's acceptable against groups you are not a part of?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Nov 9, 2015 9:20:15 GMT -5
As a percent of the population more black people are in prison than white people. It's a fact. Does that fact mean that we can conclude that all black people are criminals and should not be hired or promoted?
As a percent of the population many more men than women commit violent crimes and are in prison. It's a fact. Does that fact mean that we can conclude that men are dangerous and should not be hired or promoted?
And if you haven't gotten the point yet - you cannot generalize characteristics across an entire group, even if significant portions of that group exhibit similarities. That's the heart of bias and discrimination. What you are expressing is biased and discriminatory, even if there are facts that imply that your assumptions are correct for some of the group you're discriminating against.
In aggregate, differences in averages become significant. For example, given the numbers in Phoenix84's data (I found similar data here), if a company chooses to hire a man over a woman, there's an average gain of 4.9 workhours per week, with a standard deviation of ~3 workhours, hence still a reasonable chance (around 28%) that a woman hired would put in more hours than a man hired. But suppose a company chooses to hire ten men over ten women. Here there's an average gain of 49 workhours per week, with a standard deviation of ~9 workhours. That yields a < 0.01% chance that hiring the women would produce more workhours, and a 98% chance that hiring the men would produce at least 20 workhours more per week than the women. If you're a big company, those 50 or 20 workhours (representing a 14.3% and 5.7% productivity increase, respectively) aren't just something you can blow off. If you've busted your butt working extra-long hours, put it on your resume, because the law of large numbers works against you. By the time a company is looking at hiring, say, 30 employees, the average very quickly becomes the reality. In a group of 100, say, for every woman working her butt off there's going to be one that barely works at all. Think of it like a tug-of-war between kids in grade 3 and kids in grade 4. If it was just one on one, because of natural variability, there's still a decent chance a kid in grade 3 would beat a kid in grade 4. But if you pit 30 kids in grade 3 versus 30 kids in grade 4, the grade 4 side is going to win with virtual certainty. No business wants to be on the losing team, so all other things being equal, the averages are important. Face time at the office does not equal productivity.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:39:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2015 9:29:13 GMT -5
Also, isn't it fucked up that someone felt the need to ask why he appointed 50/50 men and women? Unless members of one group were particularly unqualified, why would you need to ask? There is something wrong with a world in which "why hire women?" is a fucking question. The question was "Why hire 50% women?" There was a specific quota to fill. That virtually precludes the possibility of hiring the exact team most qualified by professional merit, since the likelihood of such a team comprising exactly 50% men and 50% women is marginal. You're right, there should probably be less men.
ETA - You, like Phoenix, are ignoring the unofficial quota that has existed for a long time to hire 100% men. Neither of you seem bothered by the idea that many less qualified men have been getting hired for all this time.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,976
|
Post by cronewitch on Nov 9, 2015 10:02:39 GMT -5
Some jobs are mostly women for not apparent reason like receptionist and bookkeeper. If a man applied he might be hired but nobody really thinks of them for the job and they don't usually consider the jobs. Some jobs when a man does them primarily are careers that support a family but when it becomes woman's work it become low paid. Take teaching before a couple hundred years ago teachers were men so it was pretty well paid then when we started letting women teach they used unmarried women who were expected to live very cheaply. Now young aged children are almost all taught by women so the job pays very poorly, daycare and preschool pay minimum wage but even grades 1-3 with a masters degree doesn't pay as much as grades men tend to teach. Is it really harder to teach 6th grade than 1st grade?
We may end up doing the same thing to other professions like accounting, it was all men and woman were bookkeepers now it is becoming more woman doing both, same with pharmacy and some other jobs that don't require man sized muscles. Pharmacy was a high paid profession but if too many women get in it will become $15-20 an hour even after college and internships.
People are used to woman not having the power to cause much pain so if you wanted to collect a debt you send a big guy with a deep voice but even a little old man would be hired to do collections in person over a woman with a higher pitched voice, we can cause just as much pain when we take your house or your car, we don't need to use muscle to hurt you, people need to fear us too.
If you were a landlord sending someone to collect the past due rent and tell the tenant you will be posting a 3 day notice would you send a man or a woman? Does race or ethnic background matter? They should be just as afraid no matter who you send but it seems like a large mean looking man would be sent.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 9, 2015 10:57:02 GMT -5
The worst part about me posting this study that showed clear and across the board sexism in regards to hiring attitudes is that it is three years old and yet people still don't get it. PS before anyone goes on about how this link is a blog the actual abstract is linked in it. I just didn't feel like going through a paper that people aren't going to actually really consider the evidence. this type of research has been replicated numerous times, I believe. And both women and men are prone to under-evaluate women's credentials. this stuff is ingrained in us from very early ages and I think it is tough for people to realize it in themselves and to alter their behavior going forward. I wonder if any have looked at generations differences? is it getting better with the younger crowds? It is amazing how slowly this is changing, if it is changing. Awareness is higher - at least with researchers and those who read original research, but not sure if that is improving the situation in the trenches? It is. There have been studies done that once you get past Gen X a lot of the biases start to disappear. The problem is the people WITH the biases are still the ones in charge of everything. Until they have all been replaced by the younger generations these issues will continue to exist. There was a study done involving NIH grants concerning the fact that women and minority PIs were not getting the same funding as white male PIs. What they proceeded to do was take names off the grant proposals and go with system where your grant is submitted under a numeral system. The discrepancy disappeared. There have been hundreds of studies done with resumes that are EXACTLY the same the only thing that changes is the name/gender of the applicant. White male resumes are ranked much higher and given more positive attributes than those that appear to be from women/minorities. Traits that are praised in white men such as assertiveness are taken as a negative in women. Women and minorities are offered a smaller salary even though the resumes are EXACTLY the same. When these studies start nobody admits to being sexist/racist, in fact they adamantely claim they are the opposite. Yet the numbers don't lie. It's an underlying bias that the majority of people are not aware of. Just the fact that people are even questioning the fact that Canada's cabinet has 50% women and assume there is so sort of hidden agenda to meet "quotas" rather than it just so happens these women are the most qualified for the position shows a deep seated unconcious bias towards having women in power. THAT is what we have to fight against. It's easy to point at college graduation rates and smugly announce that the struggle is over so quit your bitching women. If it was truly over then this thread should not even exist.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Nov 9, 2015 11:07:47 GMT -5
I oppose the quota system. All it does is encourage compliance with the regulations, not diversity. Furthermore, in many fields, there just isn't a representative sample of minorities/women with that particular profession. Take nursing for example. Are 50% of practicing nurses male? I don't believe so, so a employer would have a hard time filling the roles Or take my field, health physics. Yes, there are women in those fields, but it's inherently "lop sided." In addition, my particular job requires a lot of travel. I think you'd be hard pressed to find 50% women to do it. Regarding promotions, women generally prefer to prioritize family over career, as compared to men. Women work fewer hours than men. In addition, women are far more likely to take time off to have/raise kids. If you're a manager at a company, and you have a new management position available, are you going to give it to a woman who works fewer hours than her male counterparts, and took an extended leave of absence to have/raise kids, or a man who didn't do those things? I'm not saying women should be "punished" for these behaviors, but in the business world, you give the top jobs and the raises to your higher performing employees. If women want to prioritize family time over career, they should be free to do so. The same idea goes for men, too. Obviously, I'm generalizing here. I know there are many women dedicated to their careers, and they should be rewarded. I believe that people should be hired/promoted on their merit and character, not what color their skin is or what's in their pants. And I'd be extremely opposed to any system of government that required a certain percentage of elected officials to be women and/or minorities. That would be directly in violation of the founding principles of our country, that the people are free to elect their own representatives. Wow. What a load of horse shit.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 9, 2015 11:08:28 GMT -5
On my floor we have male admins. No one thinks less of them (they actually do better work than the female admins). Both are being trained for better paying positions. One of the female admins is very bitter about this. But consider this, if you are going to invest your time in training someone will you do it for a strong producer who doesn't take a bunch of unplanned days off, or would you invest the time in the person who has to be micro-managed, often has to re-do work, and takes off without notice during critical times?
It's not always about gender, but for some people that will be all they see.
My profession is about 50-50 gender wise, yet women make up less than 5% of the top ranks (it's actually closer to about 1%) in my specialty. Yea, if I'd been a dude I'd probably have been at my current level about 7-8 years earlier. BUT, unlike a lot of my female peers, I didn't take time off for family, go on a work-life balanced schedule, ask for a lightened work load, or even wait for the promotions to come. I went and asked for the difficult projects, the hard assignments and pushed way outside my comfort zone.
Women tend to be less aggressive then men, that also impacts how we get promoted. Is it businesses' fault if women don't sell themselves as aggressively, or take bigger risks to get that promotion? Honest question, I don't know the answer to. I do know that if I weren't as aggressive as I am, I would not have the position I have today.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Nov 9, 2015 11:09:54 GMT -5
Also, isn't it fucked up that someone felt the need to ask why he appointed 50/50 men and women? Unless members of one group were particularly unqualified, why would you need to ask? There is something wrong with a world in which "why hire women?" is a fucking question. Have you looked up the clip about what journalists ask female professional athletes vs males? It's hilarious!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:39:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2015 11:11:07 GMT -5
BUT, unlike a lot of my female peers, Why do you hate women?
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Nov 9, 2015 11:12:44 GMT -5
BUT, unlike a lot of my female peers, Why do you hate women? they don't work hard enough. ; )
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 9, 2015 11:16:17 GMT -5
So if it's all women not being aggressive enough and not speaking up enough then how exactly does that explain the studies done where testers are put into a room and handed a resume with a man's generic white sounding name on it. Then they are given another resume a few minutes later where the only difference is the name has been changed to either a female name or a more ethnic sounding name. Consistently the salary offer decreases for the second resume and traits that were positive during the first half of the experiment become negative traits in the second half. They never meet the "candidates" they do not exist. The resumes are word for word the same the only thing that changes is the name at the top. So where is the bias coming from now that we can't use the excuse the female candidate simply didn't try hard enough? journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Abstract/2009/10000/Interventions_That_Affect_Gender_Bias_in_Hiring__A.36.aspxlink.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018839203698
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Nov 9, 2015 11:20:58 GMT -5
So if it's all women not being aggressive enough and not speaking up enough then how exactly does that explain the studies done where testers are put into a room and handed a resume with a man's generic white sounding name on it. Then they are given another resume a few minutes later where the only difference is the name has been changed to either a female name or a more ethnic sounding name. Consistently the salary offer decreases for the second resume and traits that were positive during the first half of the experiment become negative traits in the second half. They never meet the "candidates" they do not exist. The resumes are word for word the same the only thing that changes is the name at the top. So where is the bias coming from now that we can't use the excuse the female candidate simply didn't try hard enough? Because we all know at least one lazy woman (just like we all seem to know one Coach-wearing SNAP recipient), so the stereotypes must be true!
|
|