4 ms·

The problem with sexless-ness is that it only addresses what we're conscious of, when we know that there's lots of unconscious or systemic biases that still exi

The problem with sexless-ness is that it only addresses what we're conscious of, when we know that there's lots of unconscious or systemic biases that still exist. One famous example was a study that involved submitting resumes to various jobs with names removed and then randomly reassigned (to avoid any actual correlation between the name's perceived gender and the quality of the resume). Resumes with female names received half the callbacks than if they had male names. You can't practice sexless-ness when you're not aware that you're discriminating.

scotty79 9y ago
How do you know people who responded to resumes weren't aware that they were discriminating?
belorn 9y ago
Thats not studies on sexless-ness, but rather plain discrimination. There are many such studies, some which favor men and some which favor women, but all falls within typical gender roles and expectations. Sexless-ness and gender roles are opposites. Lets bring in other similar studies. Physiologist that work for the juridical system and makes decisions about the mental status of accused criminals. Identical submitted profiles with female names received twice the number of judgments on being criminal insane than men, resulting in more lenient punishment and more time in medical care. Physiologist outside of the juridical system has also got similar studies where identical profiles of clinical depressed people, and women are twice as likely to be correctly diagnosed. A female name is more likely to get social support while being homeless, and similarly if you test judges who decide over family disputes you see a clear bias. Neither of those involve a society which practice sexless-ness. All dictate that professionals (including those in government) treat both women and men equally. Culturally we do not practice sexless-ness and we are nowhere near in abolishing gender roles. What the studies do prove is that gender roles has still a major impact on people in professional positions and rules of equality do not trump peoples expectations when the only clue to a gender is a name.
- fatbird 9y ago
  There are many, many studies of the justice system in the U.S. showing very biased outcomes depending on factors like gender or race. Practicing sexless-ness is, as you observe, what's supposed to be done already ("All dictate that professionals... treat both women and men equally"). Do you think we believe that we're practicing sexless-ness and then not doing so in practice? Or that there are unconscious or systemic effects at play as well that conscious dedication to sexless-ness isn't affecting?
  - belorn 9y ago
    I do not think anyone is practicing sexless-ness at all. While the law says that they should treat both women and men equally, people still perceive women as women and men as men. That in turn carries with a huge number of cultural expectations and values. Race has a similar problem, through here it seems to be a proxy for social economical status (class), which then leads to the cultural expectations and values. In both cases it seems very conscious behavior, and when it comes to diversity work its explicitly so. Few are still preaching that you should not see gender or race, and those that do are generally attacked for doing so. Gender roles are emphasized and highlighted in practically all form of news and cultural media, occasionally reversed for the shock or comedy effect. Its very explicit and conscious.
    - fatbird 9y ago
      You're conflating an intent to practice sexless-ness with the actuality of it. You're right that we're not practicing it--everywhere we look we see inequity that's obvious tied to gender (or race, or disability...). But we think we are, or at least that we're trying. We've spent a century disassembling laws and customs that treat women differently, and yet the inequities remain. Why are you so hostile to the idea that we're not all that conscious of our lack of sexless-ness in application? That the inequities of sexism are at least partly systemic and not a conscious choice to be discriminatory?
LyndsySimon 9y ago
> Resumes with female names received half the callbacks than if they had male names. I'm a man named Lyndsy. I've experienced the opposite bias - companies that were initially very enthusiastic about my interviewing with them, right up to the moment where they realized I was male. Obviously, I have no way of knowing whether I received fewer callbacks as a result of my name - but I do know with a very high degree of confidence that I have landed at least one interview based on my name. It seems to me that actively "working against" this unconscious bias merely replaces it with another.
- fatbird 9y ago
  It's probably true that a person trying to self-correct for bias will tend to over-correct, to no one's benefit. But the sort of things you do to correct for widespread unconscious bias are different. For instance, the New York Symphony Orchestra found that female applicants were making it through the tape screening round more often when their tapes were blinded, replacing identifying information with a serial number. Women were still being rejected at the audition stage in higher numbers than men, so they started having the applicants play from behind a screen so the judges couldn't see the gender of the audition, and once again, the number of women making it through that round increased[1]. This was all at a time when the NYSO was consciously trying to practice sexless-ness, if not actively increase the number of women in the orchestra. Several years ago, GoGaRuCo brought in blind judging of their talk applicants pool after ensuring the pool was seeded with half women. Suddenly their roster was half women too, on judging the talks purely on the merits of the proposal. We constantly see that when we successfully block stimuli to unconscious bias, the bias is disarmed. [1] Interestingly, they didn't significantly increase until they made auditions walk on stage in their socks, because the sound of their formal-wear shoes were obviously different.

scotty79 9y ago

How do you know people who responded to resumes weren't aware that they were discriminating?

belorn 9y ago

Thats not studies on sexless-ness, but rather plain discrimination. There are many such studies, some which favor men and some which favor women, but all falls within typical gender roles and expectations. Sexless-ness and gender roles are opposites. Lets bring in other similar studies. Physiologist that work for the juridical system and makes decisions about the mental status of accused criminals. Identical submitted profiles with female names received twice the number of judgments on being criminal insane than men, resulting in more lenient punishment and more time in medical care. Physiologist outside of the juridical system has also got similar studies where identical profiles of clinical depressed people, and women are twice as likely to be correctly diagnosed. A female name is more likely to get social support while being homeless, and similarly if you test judges who decide over family disputes you see a clear bias. Neither of those involve a society which practice sexless-ness. All dictate that professionals (including those in government) treat both women and men equally. Culturally we do not practice sexless-ness and we are nowhere near in abolishing gender roles. What the studies do prove is that gender roles has still a major impact on people in professional positions and rules of equality do not trump peoples expectations when the only clue to a gender is a name.

fatbird 9y ago
There are many, many studies of the justice system in the U.S. showing very biased outcomes depending on factors like gender or race. Practicing sexless-ness is, as you observe, what's supposed to be done already ("All dictate that professionals... treat both women and men equally"). Do you think we believe that we're practicing sexless-ness and then not doing so in practice? Or that there are unconscious or systemic effects at play as well that conscious dedication to sexless-ness isn't affecting?
- belorn 9y ago
  I do not think anyone is practicing sexless-ness at all. While the law says that they should treat both women and men equally, people still perceive women as women and men as men. That in turn carries with a huge number of cultural expectations and values. Race has a similar problem, through here it seems to be a proxy for social economical status (class), which then leads to the cultural expectations and values. In both cases it seems very conscious behavior, and when it comes to diversity work its explicitly so. Few are still preaching that you should not see gender or race, and those that do are generally attacked for doing so. Gender roles are emphasized and highlighted in practically all form of news and cultural media, occasionally reversed for the shock or comedy effect. Its very explicit and conscious.
  - fatbird 9y ago
    You're conflating an intent to practice sexless-ness with the actuality of it. You're right that we're not practicing it--everywhere we look we see inequity that's obvious tied to gender (or race, or disability...). But we think we are, or at least that we're trying. We've spent a century disassembling laws and customs that treat women differently, and yet the inequities remain. Why are you so hostile to the idea that we're not all that conscious of our lack of sexless-ness in application? That the inequities of sexism are at least partly systemic and not a conscious choice to be discriminatory?

LyndsySimon 9y ago

> Resumes with female names received half the callbacks than if they had male names. I'm a man named Lyndsy. I've experienced the opposite bias - companies that were initially very enthusiastic about my interviewing with them, right up to the moment where they realized I was male. Obviously, I have no way of knowing whether I received fewer callbacks as a result of my name - but I do know with a very high degree of confidence that I have landed at least one interview based on my name. It seems to me that actively "working against" this unconscious bias merely replaces it with another.

fatbird 9y ago
It's probably true that a person trying to self-correct for bias will tend to over-correct, to no one's benefit. But the sort of things you do to correct for widespread unconscious bias are different. For instance, the New York Symphony Orchestra found that female applicants were making it through the tape screening round more often when their tapes were blinded, replacing identifying information with a serial number. Women were still being rejected at the audition stage in higher numbers than men, so they started having the applicants play from behind a screen so the judges couldn't see the gender of the audition, and once again, the number of women making it through that round increased[1]. This was all at a time when the NYSO was consciously trying to practice sexless-ness, if not actively increase the number of women in the orchestra. Several years ago, GoGaRuCo brought in blind judging of their talk applicants pool after ensuring the pool was seeded with half women. Suddenly their roster was half women too, on judging the talks purely on the merits of the proposal. We constantly see that when we successfully block stimuli to unconscious bias, the bias is disarmed. [1] Interestingly, they didn't significantly increase until they made auditions walk on stage in their socks, because the sound of their formal-wear shoes were obviously different.