Read on Twitter
God almighty, my kingdom to never have to have another conversation about gender quotas in hiring.
All these folk who reckon it should always just be the best person for the job don't seem to realise the sexist ideal they prop up with this statement.
All these folk who reckon it should always just be the best person for the job don't seem to realise the sexist ideal they prop up with this statement.
Studies have shown that when people are blinded to gender, the choices they make represent the actual spectrum of gender much more accurately. We see it in jobs, we see it in award nominations, etc.
Which means that something different is happening when panels aren't blinded.
Which means that something different is happening when panels aren't blinded.
So we've seen that panels are affected by unconscious bias, and end up hiring those who look like them, sound like them, etc. And we've seen that people who don't fit the already established "mold" get left out of this process.
Then what? We ask for unconscious bias training, we ask people to consider their hiring more carefully.
People mock the training, they protest against it, they do not change their hiring. Nothing improves.
And then we turn to quotas.
People mock the training, they protest against it, they do not change their hiring. Nothing improves.
And then we turn to quotas.
Why? Because you were asked nicely and you ignored it. You were given training about why, and you ignored it.
So now your hand has to be forced with quotas, because you won't do it voluntarily. You won't even try to shake the fog from your eyes.
So now your hand has to be forced with quotas, because you won't do it voluntarily. You won't even try to shake the fog from your eyes.
You won't even stop to consider that when you say it should be the best person for the job, I actually agree. But that's not what the status quo is, so you're propping up a myth, a status quo that isn't.
The status quo isn't hiring the best person, it's hiring the one you like.
The status quo isn't hiring the best person, it's hiring the one you like.
And very often, the one you like is the one you match. And when the hiring panel is all old white men, guess who matches them?
If, at the moment, the best person already always got the job, then why is there still such a lack of diversity in hiring? What is the reason?
If, at the moment, the best person already always got the job, then why is there still such a lack of diversity in hiring? What is the reason?
When you say "best person for the job" this is the unasked question which shows the problem with your statement.
If it's currently "the best person" then how come all of those best people are white men? For decades? Really, not a single other person was better?
Honestly?
If it's currently "the best person" then how come all of those best people are white men? For decades? Really, not a single other person was better?
Honestly?
Please, honestly, examine this thing that you are implicitly saying.
If you think that right now, we always hire the best person regardless of gender, then you are saying that the current gender representation everywhere is an accurate reflection of skill and qualification.
If you think that right now, we always hire the best person regardless of gender, then you are saying that the current gender representation everywhere is an accurate reflection of skill and qualification.
And if you don't understand why such a statement might cause me to raise my eyebrows, well you've got rather a lot of catching up to do.
Here is some research which supports what I have said above:
People with typically African-American names on their CVs do not get as many callbacks as people with "white" names: https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
People with typically African-American names on their CVs do not get as many callbacks as people with "white" names: https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
Blind hiring processes in orchestras increased the number of women who were eventually hired significantly:
https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians
https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians
This review both reaffirms that gender bias affects hiring and that interventions such as bias training have a positive effect: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554714/
Here, the Harvard Business Review established that if there is only one woman in your candidate pool, statistically there is no chance she will be hired: https://hbr.org/2016/04/if-theres-only-one-woman-in-your-candidate-pool-theres-statistically-no-chance-shell-be-hired
Multiple studies have shown that the way you look matters tremendously when it comes to hiring, with conventionally "attractive" people doing better. This study shows a bias against people with any facial disfigurement: https://news.rice.edu/2011/11/09/looks-do-matter-2/
There's truly, honestly, so many examples of this out there. Tropfest went from ~5% female directors to ~50% female directors nominated when they blinded their submission process. The orchestra thing has been repeated often.
This is very well trodden ground.
This is very well trodden ground.
Not to mention the impact outside of hiring. Here's examples of racial bias in house valuation - https://therealdeal.com/2020/08/26/black-homeowners-share-stories-of-discrimination-by-appraisers/
It is, therefore, absolutely bizarre to me that some people think that the only bias which exists is one which would cause someone to hire an incompetent woman over a man because "diversity" when a literal embarrassment of riches of evidence shows the very opposite.
Me: "bias exists"
Man: "yes, pro-women bias"
Me: "lol no"
Man: "no really, someone said once to me that they hire crap women just because they are women, men really have it hard."
Me: "not even close to correct, here's proof"
Man: *surprised pikachu face*
Man: "yes, pro-women bias"
Me: "lol no"
Man: "no really, someone said once to me that they hire crap women just because they are women, men really have it hard."
Me: "not even close to correct, here's proof"
Man: *surprised pikachu face*
