7 ms·

> What's even sadder is that there's no obvious or easy way to fix it. There is no easy way to fix it, but there is a way to fix it. I won't go so far as to sa

by bitops 13y ago

> What's even sadder is that there's no obvious or easy way to fix it. There is no easy way to fix it, but there is a way to fix it. I won't go so far as to say that it's obvious to many people. The way to do it? Work to change men's attitudes and biases towards women. It can definitely be done, but it takes hard work and cultural change. I would recommend the book "The Macho Paradox" by Jackson Katz for anyone interested in the topic of gender discrimination. Jackson writes well, he's a man, and he brings a mans perspective to the issues. There is no demonization or undue blame assigned to men in the book. It's a powerful read.

thenomad 13y ago
Thanks, I've been looking for reading on this topic. (Self-Made Man by Norah Vincent is also excellent - one woman's experiences disguised as a man. Sounds potentially lightweight or biased, is neither.)
takluyver 13y ago
However, those biases come in part from our experience. People subconsciously assume that a woman won't make a good engineer (for example), because when they picture the engineers that they've met, the overwhelming majority are male. So to change those attitudes, one of the things you need is to make the numbers more balanced.
speeder 13y ago
Why you need to change MEN attitudes? Most HR departments are staffed by women for example, they would be the ones that saw a "Mr." in the resume.
- nmcfarl 13y ago
  Of course you need men to change their attitudes - the majority of people at the top of the food chain are male, and they’re the ones that make the hiring decisions. But you are right - it’s not an exclusively male problem, and woman are perfectly capable of discriminating against other women, and do, frequently, and often unconsciously. In the end society as a whole needs to change how it views women, and how it acts upon those views.
  - speeder 13y ago
    When you got your resume thrown out because you have a female sounding name, it has NOTHING to do with higher ups, whoever threw the resume out was HR, and thus very probably a woman. A problem might exist, but targeting the wrong target won't fix it, stop blaming the "higher ups" for decisions (conscious or not) taken by the ones that took those decisions. I very much doubt there is a company where the CEO made a explicit rule for the HR don't hire any women.
    - anon808 13y ago
      Or the resume wasn't thrown out by the HR person. It was passed along to the department hiring manager, which is what actually happens 100% of the times where the resume fits the job description, and it was the department hiring manager who then threw it out. But I can see your point, let's just assume it was the HR person that threw out the resume. And since we're in assumption land, let's assume the HR person was a woman.
- king_jester 13y ago
  > Why you need to change MEN attitudes? Because men vastly outnumber women in executive and management positions in business, esp. in the highest levels of business/corporate hierarchy. Of course, combating misogyny and patriarchy doesn't mean only men will have attitudes changed, but let's not pretend about the numbers of the situation.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >men vastly outnumber women in executive and management positions in business This is the problem, not (only) men's attitudes. The most screwed up part is that this inequality often holds even in female dominated professions, like librarians and teachers. I'm into forcing companies to do things rather than waiting for the attitudes of millions to change, esp. when the effect of that attitude only increases the income and options of the people whose attitudes you are trying to change. Institute quotas and penalize companies if they don't make them. In the beginning, companies may have to hire women that are less talented than the men that are available to them, but if the positions are there, women in general will up their games to compete with each other for them. It's basic economics.
    - gohrt 13y ago
      I have a better idea. Instead of forcing companies to change using an incompeteny bureaucracy, invest in operations that commit to gender-blind hiring practices, and get rich when those companies hire better people and are vastly more successful.
- racl101 13y ago
  So true. Sometimes women don't realize they are their own enemy. A worked in an office where it was the women reinforcing the stereotypes about other women and they where the majority of the HR department. This was like 5 years ago. I found it perplexing that as intern the HR women thought me (a male) more competent and knowledgeable about their organization than some other female interns with more experience. I hate to say it, but I took advantage of the biases but I also kinda felt bad about it too in hindsight.
- bitops 13y ago
  > Most HR departments are staffed by women for example Do you see the irony in this statement?
  - Peroni 13y ago
    He's stating fact. The HR industry is absolutely dominated by females. That's not a matter of opinion.
    - danilocampos 13y ago
      woosh
      - douglasisshiny 13y ago
        I'm going to leave this here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf
        drcube 13y ago
        Human Resources Managers 72.7% women Human Resources Workers 71.8% women Human Resources Assistants 82.7% women
        clarkmoody 13y ago
        Relevant data, for those not reading, though I suggest it. Role % Women ================================ ======= Human Resource Managers 72.7 Human Resource Workers 71.8 Human resources assistants [...] 82.7
      - mehrzad 13y ago
        If one notes that a joke is fact, it does not imply they didn't understand the joke.
        saraid216 13y ago
- dgabriel 13y ago
  We have to change everyone's attitudes, sure. Internalized sexism is a real thing.
- swengw 13y ago
  It doesn't address the real gender discrimination issues, but having gender-balanced HR departments could have helped Kim O'Grady. Currently, if you include your photo in your resume, being a beautiful (rather than average-looking) woman seems to lower your chance of getting an interview [1]. [1] http://www.economist.com/node/21551535 http://www.economist.com/node/21551535
  - notahacker 13y ago
    Having a culture in which it was normal to post resumes with photographs would also have benefited Kim O Grady... Either way, HR didn't hate him because he was beautiful, and there are conceivable reasons why even a gender balanced HR department might screen out candidates posting their "beautiful" photos along with an applicatiom that don't involve petty jealously. If photos are relatively rare in a culture receiving applications or the photos used are glamorous model applications, one could even argue that it's a reasonable alarm about a person's willingness to nakedly milk their looks. Even if that isn't the case, a non-partisan observer might [over]correct a perceived (and often real) tendency for beautiful people to receive more favourable treatment in some environments. Maybe they could apply the same criteria to tall men too...
    - Tycho 13y ago
      photos aren't terribly relevant now, since you can just google the person's name and find a pic of them in most cases
- belorn 13y ago
  Female bosses discriminate worse against women than male bosses. The causes to this is debated, through if we want a change, we do indeed need to change people rather than men.
  - gcr 13y ago
    That sounds interesting. Have any sources? I'd like to read up about this.
    - belorn 13y ago
      I could not find the source, nor the original news article that I read. But while looking, I instead found research that slightly contradicted my current understanding of the subject. They[1,2] claimed that there is no difference between female and male management in how they discriminate. They say that both genders are equally bad in creating equality in the work space (deciding hiring or pay rate). So I still stand by that we need to change people rather than men, but thanks for pushing me to look for sources. [1]: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109#aff-1 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109#aff-... [2]: http://www.ifau.se/Upload/pdf/se/2011/r-11-26-Paverkar-chefens-kon-arbetstagarens-lon.pdf http://www.ifau.se/Upload/pdf/se/2011/r-11-26-Paverkar-chefe... (Swedish)
- jrarredondo 13y ago
  There is an implicit big assumption there, that HR actually determines who is screened in and/or hired. It's typically the hiring manager who does.
larrys 13y ago
"The way to do it? Work to change men's attitudes and biases towards women. It can definitely be done" Are you suggesting that as a hobby, a career, or? Who has the time or inclination to do that? "It can definitely be done" As a practical matter I would personally worry more about other things than spending time reversing established thought process and bias. Now of course if someone wants to start a movement or a non-profit toward this cause (and somehow be able to earn a living from that) that's fine. Or if they decide this is a cause they believe in and instead of spending leisure time on something else that's fine as well.
- bitops 13y ago
  I'm suggesting that it be a focus in life - if it's one of your core values and you care about it, you'll naturally take the time and energy to work against it. For example, many people on HN care about privacy and government intrusion. They don't need to be convinced as to why it's important to speak up about the NSA and the US treatment of Edward Snowden. People who care feel it's a personal imperative, so they do something about it. I personally have the time and the inclination. Because it's something I care about. Maybe you don't care about it, that's your personal feeling, so you won't take the time. But I'm sure that there are other things in your life that you care about, and you do invest time in those things. It's absolutely fine not to care about every social cause out there. I don't think we can expect everyone to care about everything. Just pick those things which matter most to you and work to do something about them. As for a movement, there are a few out there that I'm aware of - in particular I am a big fan of the work of Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP).
  - larrys 13y ago
    "It's absolutely fine not to care about every social cause out there." I'm impressed with your reply and the way it is phrased. Not typical for HN (and other places) where you can and do get jumped on because people feel differently or feel you have to care about what they care about or what a crowd thinks is important. Very well put. "But I'm sure that there are other things in your life" This really is one of my core problems with people judging. They don't know the complete picture and focus on one vary small thing and make their judgement from that. For example maybe someone doesn't like recyling (and never recycles) but is free with their time and help in another area that has much greater personal and societal benefits.
skaevola 13y ago
One of the things which stuck with me from my social psychology class in college was a comparison of gender discrimination in hiring practices comparing male interviewers with female interviewers. The take away was that female interviewers were more likely than male interviewers to end up with sexist hiring results. Their were a number of possible justifications given, such as that the women interviewers felt threatened by having another women take their job (they felt like a "token" member of a team), a sort of stereotype threat where the female interviewer held female interviewers to a higher standard (they didn't want to "confirm" negative stereotypes about women), ect. I will try to find the citation.
- zalew 13y ago
  > women interviewers felt threatened by having another women take their job my anegdotal evidence is most women I knew found female peers a pain in the ass and explicitely admitted they in general prefer to work with men.
leohutson 13y ago
A more immediate fix for HR departments might involve a two step process for selecting candidates. The first step is to get the candidates CV and work history, and then re-enter that information into a generic form. Only crucial information should be entered in this step, leave out the candidates gender, marital status, age, the name of their school(s), the names of previous employers, etc. The second step is to pass this "sanitized" information on to someone else to make the actual decision as to whether or not the candidate should be interviewed. The two step process is repeated in the interview process. Only objective information is taken down by the interviewer, and again this is passed on to someone else, who can make a value judgement about the candidate without their judgement being colored by the candidates gender, race, looks, height, perfume or whatever else is considered to be extraneous information.

by bitops 13y ago

thenomad 13y ago

Thanks, I've been looking for reading on this topic. (Self-Made Man by Norah Vincent is also excellent - one woman's experiences disguised as a man. Sounds potentially lightweight or biased, is neither.)

takluyver 13y ago

However, those biases come in part from our experience. People subconsciously assume that a woman won't make a good engineer (for example), because when they picture the engineers that they've met, the overwhelming majority are male. So to change those attitudes, one of the things you need is to make the numbers more balanced.

speeder 13y ago

Why you need to change MEN attitudes? Most HR departments are staffed by women for example, they would be the ones that saw a "Mr." in the resume.

nmcfarl 13y ago
Of course you need men to change their attitudes - the majority of people at the top of the food chain are male, and they’re the ones that make the hiring decisions. But you are right - it’s not an exclusively male problem, and woman are perfectly capable of discriminating against other women, and do, frequently, and often unconsciously. In the end society as a whole needs to change how it views women, and how it acts upon those views.
- speeder 13y ago
  When you got your resume thrown out because you have a female sounding name, it has NOTHING to do with higher ups, whoever threw the resume out was HR, and thus very probably a woman. A problem might exist, but targeting the wrong target won't fix it, stop blaming the "higher ups" for decisions (conscious or not) taken by the ones that took those decisions. I very much doubt there is a company where the CEO made a explicit rule for the HR don't hire any women.
  - anon808 13y ago
    Or the resume wasn't thrown out by the HR person. It was passed along to the department hiring manager, which is what actually happens 100% of the times where the resume fits the job description, and it was the department hiring manager who then threw it out. But I can see your point, let's just assume it was the HR person that threw out the resume. And since we're in assumption land, let's assume the HR person was a woman.
king_jester 13y ago
> Why you need to change MEN attitudes? Because men vastly outnumber women in executive and management positions in business, esp. in the highest levels of business/corporate hierarchy. Of course, combating misogyny and patriarchy doesn't mean only men will have attitudes changed, but let's not pretend about the numbers of the situation.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >men vastly outnumber women in executive and management positions in business This is the problem, not (only) men's attitudes. The most screwed up part is that this inequality often holds even in female dominated professions, like librarians and teachers. I'm into forcing companies to do things rather than waiting for the attitudes of millions to change, esp. when the effect of that attitude only increases the income and options of the people whose attitudes you are trying to change. Institute quotas and penalize companies if they don't make them. In the beginning, companies may have to hire women that are less talented than the men that are available to them, but if the positions are there, women in general will up their games to compete with each other for them. It's basic economics.
  - gohrt 13y ago
    I have a better idea. Instead of forcing companies to change using an incompeteny bureaucracy, invest in operations that commit to gender-blind hiring practices, and get rich when those companies hire better people and are vastly more successful.
racl101 13y ago
So true. Sometimes women don't realize they are their own enemy. A worked in an office where it was the women reinforcing the stereotypes about other women and they where the majority of the HR department. This was like 5 years ago. I found it perplexing that as intern the HR women thought me (a male) more competent and knowledgeable about their organization than some other female interns with more experience. I hate to say it, but I took advantage of the biases but I also kinda felt bad about it too in hindsight.
bitops 13y ago
> Most HR departments are staffed by women for example Do you see the irony in this statement?
- Peroni 13y ago
  He's stating fact. The HR industry is absolutely dominated by females. That's not a matter of opinion.
  - danilocampos 13y ago
    woosh
    - douglasisshiny 13y ago
      I'm going to leave this here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf
      - drcube 13y ago
        Human Resources Managers 72.7% women Human Resources Workers 71.8% women Human Resources Assistants 82.7% women
      - clarkmoody 13y ago
        Relevant data, for those not reading, though I suggest it. Role % Women ================================ ======= Human Resource Managers 72.7 Human Resource Workers 71.8 Human resources assistants [...] 82.7
    - mehrzad 13y ago
      If one notes that a joke is fact, it does not imply they didn't understand the joke.
      - saraid216 13y ago
dgabriel 13y ago
We have to change everyone's attitudes, sure. Internalized sexism is a real thing.
swengw 13y ago
It doesn't address the real gender discrimination issues, but having gender-balanced HR departments could have helped Kim O'Grady. Currently, if you include your photo in your resume, being a beautiful (rather than average-looking) woman seems to lower your chance of getting an interview [1]. [1] http://www.economist.com/node/21551535 http://www.economist.com/node/21551535
- notahacker 13y ago
  Having a culture in which it was normal to post resumes with photographs would also have benefited Kim O Grady... Either way, HR didn't hate him because he was beautiful, and there are conceivable reasons why even a gender balanced HR department might screen out candidates posting their "beautiful" photos along with an applicatiom that don't involve petty jealously. If photos are relatively rare in a culture receiving applications or the photos used are glamorous model applications, one could even argue that it's a reasonable alarm about a person's willingness to nakedly milk their looks. Even if that isn't the case, a non-partisan observer might [over]correct a perceived (and often real) tendency for beautiful people to receive more favourable treatment in some environments. Maybe they could apply the same criteria to tall men too...
  - Tycho 13y ago
    photos aren't terribly relevant now, since you can just google the person's name and find a pic of them in most cases
belorn 13y ago
Female bosses discriminate worse against women than male bosses. The causes to this is debated, through if we want a change, we do indeed need to change people rather than men.
- gcr 13y ago
  That sounds interesting. Have any sources? I'd like to read up about this.
  - belorn 13y ago
    I could not find the source, nor the original news article that I read. But while looking, I instead found research that slightly contradicted my current understanding of the subject. They[1,2] claimed that there is no difference between female and male management in how they discriminate. They say that both genders are equally bad in creating equality in the work space (deciding hiring or pay rate). So I still stand by that we need to change people rather than men, but thanks for pushing me to look for sources. [1]: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109#aff-1 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109#aff-... [2]: http://www.ifau.se/Upload/pdf/se/2011/r-11-26-Paverkar-chefens-kon-arbetstagarens-lon.pdf http://www.ifau.se/Upload/pdf/se/2011/r-11-26-Paverkar-chefe... (Swedish)
jrarredondo 13y ago
There is an implicit big assumption there, that HR actually determines who is screened in and/or hired. It's typically the hiring manager who does.

larrys 13y ago

"The way to do it? Work to change men's attitudes and biases towards women. It can definitely be done" Are you suggesting that as a hobby, a career, or? Who has the time or inclination to do that? "It can definitely be done" As a practical matter I would personally worry more about other things than spending time reversing established thought process and bias. Now of course if someone wants to start a movement or a non-profit toward this cause (and somehow be able to earn a living from that) that's fine. Or if they decide this is a cause they believe in and instead of spending leisure time on something else that's fine as well.

bitops 13y ago
I'm suggesting that it be a focus in life - if it's one of your core values and you care about it, you'll naturally take the time and energy to work against it. For example, many people on HN care about privacy and government intrusion. They don't need to be convinced as to why it's important to speak up about the NSA and the US treatment of Edward Snowden. People who care feel it's a personal imperative, so they do something about it. I personally have the time and the inclination. Because it's something I care about. Maybe you don't care about it, that's your personal feeling, so you won't take the time. But I'm sure that there are other things in your life that you care about, and you do invest time in those things. It's absolutely fine not to care about every social cause out there. I don't think we can expect everyone to care about everything. Just pick those things which matter most to you and work to do something about them. As for a movement, there are a few out there that I'm aware of - in particular I am a big fan of the work of Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP).
- larrys 13y ago
  "It's absolutely fine not to care about every social cause out there." I'm impressed with your reply and the way it is phrased. Not typical for HN (and other places) where you can and do get jumped on because people feel differently or feel you have to care about what they care about or what a crowd thinks is important. Very well put. "But I'm sure that there are other things in your life" This really is one of my core problems with people judging. They don't know the complete picture and focus on one vary small thing and make their judgement from that. For example maybe someone doesn't like recyling (and never recycles) but is free with their time and help in another area that has much greater personal and societal benefits.

skaevola 13y ago

One of the things which stuck with me from my social psychology class in college was a comparison of gender discrimination in hiring practices comparing male interviewers with female interviewers. The take away was that female interviewers were more likely than male interviewers to end up with sexist hiring results. Their were a number of possible justifications given, such as that the women interviewers felt threatened by having another women take their job (they felt like a "token" member of a team), a sort of stereotype threat where the female interviewer held female interviewers to a higher standard (they didn't want to "confirm" negative stereotypes about women), ect. I will try to find the citation.

zalew 13y ago
> women interviewers felt threatened by having another women take their job my anegdotal evidence is most women I knew found female peers a pain in the ass and explicitely admitted they in general prefer to work with men.

leohutson 13y ago

A more immediate fix for HR departments might involve a two step process for selecting candidates. The first step is to get the candidates CV and work history, and then re-enter that information into a generic form. Only crucial information should be entered in this step, leave out the candidates gender, marital status, age, the name of their school(s), the names of previous employers, etc. The second step is to pass this "sanitized" information on to someone else to make the actual decision as to whether or not the candidate should be interviewed. The two step process is repeated in the interview process. Only objective information is taken down by the interviewer, and again this is passed on to someone else, who can make a value judgement about the candidate without their judgement being colored by the candidates gender, race, looks, height, perfume or whatever else is considered to be extraneous information.