TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

New Report: Women Apply to Fewer Jobs Than Men, But Are More Likely to Get Hired

pride4eva93

January 28, 2022
763 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.linkedin.com/business/talent/blog/talent-acquisition/how-women-find-jobs-gender-report
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title New Report: Women Apply to Fewer Jobs Than Men, But Are More Likely to Get Hired
Author

pride4eva93

Upvotes 763
Comments 103
Date January 28, 2022 5:03 AM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/seiqxk/new_report_women_apply_to_fewer_jobs_than_men_but/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/new-report-women-apply-to-fewer-jobs-than-men-but.1099310
https://theredarchive.com/post/1099310
Top posts by pride4eva93

Men made up 95% of marijuana arrests in NYC, even though men and women smoke marijuana at nearly equal rates

2535 upvotes
June 18, 2021
/r/MensRights

A few years ago, Australia tried 'blind hiring' so women wouldn't be discriminated against. Turns out, less women were hired after trying this, so they scrapped the program

1758 upvotes
February 19, 2022
/r/MensRights

Why is men getting hit in the groin comedic and socially acceptable?

1633 upvotes
June 13, 2021
/r/MensRights

The 'I'm allowed to distrust/hate men because of my personal experience with a man' narrative is bigoted

1550 upvotes
January 3, 2022
/r/MensRights

Hitting a man in the groin should be seen as sexual assault (in a non self defense situation)

1542 upvotes
December 14, 2021
/r/MensRights

"6 out of 10 college freshman are women, so there are more and more scholarship programs and grants available that cater exclusively to women needing funding for college." Um, aren't demographic based scholarships/grants supposed to help the underrepresented demographic group?

1448 upvotes
February 1, 2022
/r/MensRights

If companies could get away with paying women lower wages than men, they wouldn't hire men at all.

1179 upvotes
February 16, 2022
/r/MensRights

Female violence against males is normalized

1048 upvotes
March 13, 2022
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]TendieDinner777 179 points180 points181 points 4 years ago* (53 children) | Copy Link

At this point, being a woman, especially if you’re not white, is an advantage in being hired. Every company is itching to be more diverse.

It’s literally socially acceptable for the President to announce that he will discriminate against anyone who isn’t a black woman to be the Supreme Court Justice nominee, and before that, he announced the same criteria for his future running mate.

I had a coworker who used to tout how she uses her gender-neutral nickname to trick people into interviewing her. The funniest part is, our boss only interviewed her because we “needed” a woman to balance out our staff.

[–]human-potato_hybrid 36 points37 points38 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I graduated engineering school with a Hispanic woman who had like a 2.5 GPA and she got hired QUICK (within a couple months) into I think a managerial role actually. Whereas I graduated cum laude and it took me 6+ months to get a relevant-ish job.

[–]TendieDinner777 20 points21 points22 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s the new move; if they don’t have to be the people doing the technical work, they can skate by being authoritative in a managerial role.

[–]Throwawayingaccount 25 points26 points27 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s literally socially acceptable for the President to announce that he will discriminate against anyone who isn’t a black woman to be the Supreme Court Justice nominee

Not just that...

But also make the justices LESS racially representative of America.

14% of Americans are black.

11% of SCOTUS justices are black.

If another is added, that's 22%.

11% is closer to 14% than 22% is to 14%.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

More to the point, the frontrunners for the nomination come from wealthy black families, which defeats the purpose of bringing in a different viewpoint which is the stated reason for pushing for diversity.

[–]LebronJaims 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol reminds me of the linkedin and indeed commercials. They’ll show like 10 people in the commercial looking for jobs. Maybe 2 of them will be men, and maybe 1 will be white

[–]TendieDinner777 17 points18 points19 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Representation, you know? 12% = 50% apparently…

[–]T_Rash 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

At this point, being a woman, especially if you’re not white, is an advantage in being hired.

Especially if you want to be on the Supreme Court

[–]TendieDinner777 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who cares about that position though? Am I right? It’s more important to have people who were born the right way on the court.

[–]mykole84 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cap!!! White women are the most privileged group in America but other women are close behind. Women as as whole are more privileged than men especially in this society. The least privileged is black men. Being a man regardless of color sucks though all men in America have it bad unless they’re extremely rich(most men aren’t rich) the only advantage white men have over black men is the breakdown in family hasn’t been as extensive but the government is working on it, so if that happen I see white men being in the same predicament as black men

[+]FatGimp -21 points-20 points-19 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I think it's great he has done that considering the two staunch conservatives that got put on for a Justice.

[–]TendieDinner777 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Don’t broadcast it though, just pick who you want.

How would you feel knowing that you could have been EXACTLY the same in your qualifications, skill, and philosophy, but you would not have been chosen if you weren’t a black woman?

[+]FatGimp -19 points-18 points-17 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ok step back from the emotion and stop being hysterical for a moment. We've already had one male Justice make a fool of himself.

Honestly those positions are all politically motivated and don't earn too much more from what they were on.

I'd be more upset if it was full of women and no man got a look in. But we're talking about the SC.

[–]TendieDinner777 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That’s the thing about principles, they aren’t impacted by tempting scenarios.

If it’s literally all the same, flip coins.

[+]FatGimp -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The US just had a President that would sell out his principles to gain him more money.

[+]EnvironmentalWar4627 -67 points-66 points-65 points 4 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

Every company is itching to be more diverse because they are underrepresented when it comes to women. If women are so underrepresented in companies, is it really an advantage to be a woman? If women had an advantage wouldn't they be equal in companies at least?

[–]alclarkey 59 points60 points61 points 4 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

because they are underrepresented when it comes to women.

Maybe if you can show me the case where qualified women are being turned down for positions simply because they are women, then I can care about this. But since you do, maybe you can start solving the problem, by seeing to it that women become qualified for the positions they're not getting.

Simply shoehorning women into positions they are not qualified for with these diversity agendas is not the way.

[+]EnvironmentalWar4627 -38 points-37 points-36 points 4 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

No one is obligated to hire someone that is unqualified.

[–]Kinexity 42 points43 points44 points 4 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

When they have to meet the quota but there is no qualified women they have to either pay the penalty or hire an unqualified women.

[+]EnvironmentalWar4627 -37 points-36 points-35 points 4 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Do employers often run into situations where there are no qualified women? That would be a very small fraction of employers that would have to deal with that. Women are 66 percent of graduates. Their qualifications are as good as mens in most scenarios

[–]Kinexity 34 points35 points36 points 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

"Qualified" and "educated" are not equal. Also women choose less useful studies. Try filling your quota in STEM fields. It's either impossible or you get women who got got admitted into stem field studies by pussy pass.

[+]EnvironmentalWar4627 -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Right but is there evidence of that? Or have you just decided women in stem are less qualified because that's what you decided was true?

Women in stem being less qualified is a bold accusation. Can you defend it? Or is it just you don't like women and you FEEL they aren't qualified?

[–]Kinexity 23 points24 points25 points 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that they don't go for STEM. Eg. If uni has a 50/50 quota and there is 60% men applicants then it should be expected that with the same talent distributions women admitted will be less talented on average. Anecdotal evidence: I study physics in individual program and out of ~30 students only 2 are women (admission rules are equal for everyone). Women just aren't interested in physics and same can be said about other STEM fields. There is only high number of women in some biology related programs.

[–]EnvironmentalWar4627 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Women make up 66 percent of university applicants. So by your logic, men aren't as capable as women because you're pulling from a smaller talent pool.

Are you comfortable saying men are less capable in the majority of university graduate fields?

Or is it only women yiu feel that way about?

[–]zach010 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But the qualified women are not applying to many jobs. Only very specific jobs. That's what the article is claiming.

[–]Mode1961 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Please define under-represented. Your statement makes me think you believe that women SHOULD be exactly 51% of all employees at a company, talk about entitlement.

[–]bluechair01 28 points29 points30 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Oh dear, EnvironmentalWar is back again

[–]googitygig 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think they ever leave this sub.

[–]Mode1961 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think they are a part of a group of trolls here; you see specific usernames come and go and then come back.

[–]Beautiful_Milk8838 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or the same person on alts. It's clearly a throwaway just for trolling this sub, they don't respond to anything else or maintain the signals on the account that would indicate it's a real person.

My money is on the same bitter FDS cult member keeping a bunch of accounts going because it makes them feel important and special, like they're doing something, "sticking it to the patriarchy" by being an asshole or something.

[–]XenoX101 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If women are so underrepresented in companies, is it really an advantage to be a woman

Yes because the reason they are "underrepresented" is because they don't apply, or don't have the requisite STEM degree they need, or opted for fewer working hours than men (disregard the misleading clickbait title) and therefore lack the experience to be considered for more senior roles. Yet despite this, they are preferentially chosen by employers who need to fill their diversity quota more often than men are. It doesn't mean the effect is massive, otherwise there wouldn't be any so-called underrepresentation, but it is sufficient to be verifiable, as evidenced by this article.

[–]Huffers1010 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem with this is showing that women (or any other group) really are underrepresented.

I don't know what sort of evidence you're basing this on - please tell us - but this sort of reasoning very often derives from the assumption that every role should have 50% representation of men and women. That's long since been shown to be a goal that simply doesn't represent the desires of the population (the Google search to run for this is "nordic paradox").

(Yes, this shows that men and women, on average, don't have the same desires, though it's always important to emphasise that this is not code for trying to keep either gender out of certain jobs. If you want, you can argue that this differentiation in preference is at least in part because of social conditioning, and I might agree, although at this point we are making second-order claims about what we want people to want to do, which is an ideology, not a data-driven policy objective.)

The problem is that because the 50-percent goal is such a popular and commonplace assumption, not that much research is often done into what sort of distribution of men and women we would expect. That would have to be done on a per-job basis and while it probably has been done in specific instances it's certainly nothing we dare generalise about; this is one good argument for pursuing a strict equality of opportunity approach.

But as I say, this depends very heavily on what you mean by "equal in companies." The definition of "equal" in that case would almost certainly depend on the specifics of the job and it's very hard to sum up.

[–]LondonDude123 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If women are so underrepresented in companies, is it really an advantage to be a woman?

You have eyes right? Like you live in the world, and have eyes dont you...

You see all this push for diversity and equality and all that? You see the whole quotas that companies need to make now? You see this...

So all these companies, that currently have no Women working for them, suddenly need Women working for them. Doesnt matter if the Woman cant do the job, or isnt qualified, or whatever. Just HAS to be a Woman.

And you're asking if being a Woman is an advantage, at a time where companies are being forced to hire exclusively Women (regardless of how competent they are)?

I know you're this subs resident troll, but theres still a limit!

[+]belon94 -30 points-29 points-28 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

LOL, maybe in USA but in Europe, if you are not white, you will have a hard chance to be hired. In Europe, diversity is more about men and women rather than the color of your skin or your nationality.

[–]ThatOneCrusader1 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's almost like we're talking about the USA. Also isn't your black population like 6%? I hardly think that should be a comparison when white population is over 90%

[+]gtr0y -12 points-11 points-10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think whites are >80% in the US so it doesn't seem like that big of a difference.

[–]accidental_me 118 points119 points120 points 4 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

I skimmed it through, and the narrative goes something like this: Women want to fit the job description perfectly before they apply while men don't. Nevertheless, recruiters respond less often to female applicants. But when they do, they are more likely to recruit women than men.

The goal of the article is to help women by telling them and recruiters how to apply for jobs more efficiently. So, it feels very much like a feminist article. That, of course, is a warning sign: are the figures they are using real or rigged?

[–]Svenskbtch 35 points36 points37 points 4 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

The figures fit with my personal experience. It applies the most to senior positions that require relocation and travel. We have an organisation-wide mandate to maintain parity at all levels, but, say, for a senior hardship position in a conflict zone we are lucky to receive even one qualified woman. Men are much more likely to accept such a stint if it helps them climb the ladder than women (even for positions where for obvious reasons family members are not allowed to join).

[+]vaginaxx -29 points-28 points-27 points 4 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

As a woman, I was shocked when I found out that men apply for jobs even if they don’t meet all the requirements. Maybe it’s a socialization thing, but as a woman, I assume my worth will not be maximized if I don’t meet most, if not all, the job requirements. I was amazed to know men didn’t feel insecurity or inadequacy at applying for a job like that. I think this speaks to male privilege, rather than any kind of female privilege, like the OP seemed to be searching for.

[–]SkullAngel001 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I was amazed to know men didn’t feel insecurity or inadequacy at applying for a job like that. I think this speaks to male privilege, rather than any kind of female privilege,

We men still apply because we know that if we meet at least meet 50-60% of the job, some employers will meet halfway and train us on the rest. No candidate is ever going to be 100% qualified for any job, regardless of gender.

Men also know we have the burden of performance and obligation to provide for our families so we don't have the luxury of being super selective when it comes to job searching.

If you want to talk about privilege, I work in Marketing and you have no idea how many interviews I've gone to where the hiring manager (e.g. Marketing Director or Marketing Manager) is a woman and is not only underqualified, but she got the job and didn't even have a Marketing background. And yet she's the one scrutinizing my Photoshop skills when she doesn't know how to use it.

[–]bfte2 23 points24 points25 points 4 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

... Applying for a job that you don't think you're qualified for... is male privilege?...

That's just hilarious because most job posts made by HR (which is 99% female) more often than not ask for a candidate that does 4 jobs for a price of 1.

[–]Svenskbtch 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The kernel of truth is that mens higher inclination to take risks and endure hardship for status and financial reward creates privilege for those who succeed, but at a price.

If that is male privilege, then I would have no problem sharing it with women. In fact, while I find plenty at junior level with excellent degrees, I am desperately looking for them at senior levels for positions in developing countries. Privilege, ladies, please, have some.

[+]vaginaxx -11 points-10 points-9 points 4 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

The fact that men don’t feel that shame, don’t feel that hesitation that they could possibly be wasting someone’s time in that scenario, is very icky, privileged behavior. It’s the same discrimination people with obviously BIPOC or Muslim-sounding names deal with. And that’s across all genders.

[–]bfte2 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You should apply to some HR position, where you can waste men's time all you want by posting bogus job applications. You'd be late to the party, but at least you'll put your brains to some use. That'll show em!

[–]vaginaxx -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Nah, I already did HR work for my organization last summer, and it was really depressing. I saw all of the terminations happening because of COVID. I’m happy with my role that affects policy so I can make actual change. Nothing that you do here affects change lol.

[–]bfte2 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Hahah HR is nothing more but a company's scapegoat. "Affects change", spare me....

[–]vaginaxx -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Lol HR isn’t my actual role, again, I helped out their team because of COVID. My real job directly involves policy making at a state level. What do you do?

[–]bfte2 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I make money.

[–]CaptSnap 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Im sorry for some of the flippant half ass responses.

But I think youre overstating male privilege here.

Its not that men dont feel inadequate or feel shame or ever feel "icky"....its that other demands on them force them to take that up regardless. Women make men feel icky just for existing all the time. Thats just part of the male experience. Theres almost no scenario where your presence is wanted or celebrated so its not unusual for you to have to get over that initial "ickyness" everyone feels about you because of your gender and work your way up from there. You have to put yourself out there anyway. Women dont. Thats male privilege right there.

Id wager women probably never feel that and so they are averse to situations that might make them feel unwanted. Amazingly, thats also male privilege.

Because see women have the oppression of nothing being their fault or privilege. Thats all on men.

Like you probably have never applied for a job that didnt specifically say they really want women to apply to it. Like please god can we just get some colored vaginas in here to really help us! Id find it ridiculously patronizing and bigoted but women apparently eat it up. Well its the opposite for a man. Ive never, not ever, applied to anything that really wanted me because of my skin color or gender. I know if they hired me its because I was leagues ahead of everyone else such that they didnt have a choice. I know when I get hired on that someone in HR had to choke on my white male privilege and that some hiring manager isnt getting their bonus for diversity. Thats my privilege.

And knowing when I walk in that Im starting a few steps behind because most of them are going to feel icky and I have to work to overcome that? Thats just icing privilege on the icing cake. At least they know Im fucking competent though because if there was anyone else of any gender or skin color that wasnt a complete fucking idiot I wouldnt be there. Thank you affirmative action for that at least.

[–]TextDependent6779 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The fact that men don’t feel that shame, don’t feel that hesitation that they could possibly be wasting someone’s time in that scenario

you're assuming a lot here

[+]vaginaxx -22 points-21 points-20 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

No no, i don’t apply to jobs I don’t think I’m qualified for, because I’m a woman and honestly believe that I would be wasting my time and the workplace’s time with my application.

Men on the other hand, feel that they can apply to a job THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED FOR, and then get mad when women WHO ARE QUALIFIED get the job instead. Then the MRA’s come here to whine about it and talk about their entitlement to said job that they were not qualified for….THAT is male privilege.

[–]human-potato_hybrid 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

talk about their entitlement to said job that they were not qualified for….THAT is male privilege.

What?? I could succeed in probably 2/3 of the jobs I apply for yet I am hired to less than 1%.

Even at my CURRENT JOB I have only about 80% of the experience "needed" in the job description. Why not apply to everything you think you could succeed at, regardless of the qualifications that HR vomits into the job description? I have never talked to HR people (male or female) that actually understand how to do the jobs they post, hence a lot of what they post is nonsense.

[–]SharqPhinFtw 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Your arguments are literally anti-union. We cannot be assertive and we must listen to what the employer wants strictly and do it for the exact amount they offer and not question it.

If the world were led by people like you then we'd be praising slavery for how humane it was compared to the alternative.

[+]vaginaxx -11 points-10 points-9 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Bro, I’m not saying don’t apply for jobs you don’t meet the requirements for, I’m just saying don’t complain that women have privilege because of studies like this.

That. Is. Male. Privilege.

[–]human-potato_hybrid 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

don’t complain that women have privilege because of studies like this.

That. Is. Male. Privilege.

Complaining about women complaining is male privilege?

[–]Catmantas 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Male privilege is when... shuffles cards ...you apply for jobs.

[–]vaginaxx -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Male privilege is a lot. It’s the respect you get simply for being a man. When I buzzed my hair, I would experience your world for brief glimpses. The “hello sir, what can I get for you” was 1000x more respectful than the “hi, what can I get for you” I normally got wherever I went.

Your every waking moment is filled with this male privilege. People listen when you speak, simply because you’re a man. People move out of the way for you, because you’re a man. People pick up your job application first, because you’re a man.

I’m sorry that you all have convinced yourselves that you have it so hard because other men are beating you down and women are “forcing you” into marriages. But that shit has existed 10-fold for women for all of human history.

[–]human-potato_hybrid 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

hello sir

Can't remember the last time someone said this to me honestly

People move out of the way for you, because you’re a man.

Actually people move out of my way because I'm tall and walk fast but sure...

People pick up your job application first, because you’re a man.

You really think that people are sorting them by sex or some shit? Plus HR is a woman-dominant field so what's your point?

that shit has existed 10-fold for women for all of human history.

So are we focused on avenging what has already happened, or making an equality-based society today?

[–]bfte2 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

You're paranoid. As crazy as the world is right now, good thing we haven't gotten to the point where it revolves around your head.

[–]vaginaxx -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Lol, pointing out male privilege is paranoia, okay. But men coming onto this study saying that THIS IS CLEAR FAVORITISM/FEMALE PRIVILEGE when the data clearly shows the opposite…isn’t somehow paranoia.

[–]bfte2 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

What "data"? That's why you're a paranoiac. Do you check your closet for an MRA before you go to sleep?

[–]vaginaxx 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The data in the study you are replying to? I know reading is hard, but it clearly states that women apply to fewer jobs because they wait until they find ones that they match most, if not 100% of the requirements for, whereas men apply for as many jobs as possible, even if they only meet 60% of the criteria.

It’s not paranoia, this is data that I’ve seen now from Indeed and Monster.

[–]bfte2 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Right, I don't want to be wasting my time on you more than necessary....

The "article " states the following:

"To answer that, we dug into LinkedIn data and analyzed billions of interactions between professionals, companies, and recruiters. We looked at how open women and men are to new opportunities, how they browse and apply to jobs, how they interact with recruiters, and how likely they are to get hired after applying."

This is not a source. Go read an actual peer-reviewed scientific article which reference their source. That is something you can use as a source, not a blog post. By the way wymyn, if we go by your dogma then the fact that this article was written by a wymyn, who's most likely a feminist... 2 + 2 = ?

My question to you had nothing to do with what OP was saying. You said "As a woman, I was shocked when I found out that men apply for jobs even if they don’t meet all the requirements. Maybe it’s a socialization thing, but as a woman, I assume my worth will not be maximized if I don’t meet most, if not all, the job requirements. I was amazed to know men didn’t feel insecurity or inadequacy at applying for a job like that. I think this speaks to male privilege, rather than any kind of female privilege, like the OP seemed to be searching for."

Applying for a job that you don't think you're absolutely qualified for is not a sign of "male privilege". You know what is privilege though? Getting less of a prison sentence for the same exact crime, just because you're a wymyn.

[–]Svenskbtch 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am not sure working in a field position in South Sudan is all that much of a privilege, or working the long hours and travelling needed to reach a senior position is. Being successful is what makes men attractive for reproduction; whereas female success is more neutral on that point - so men simply have more incentives to try and take risks.

I must add, though, that what I have seen is not by far as stark a picture as you paint. I get plenty of silly applications from women, too - but for the cushy positions in Vienna or New York. But if I would have to make a rough estimate: more men typically apply, but whereas I would consider about 5% of them qualified for shortlisting, I might consider 10% of women (the preferential hiring principles for women take effect only after the shortlisting). Something like that. Still, most of them clearly do not meet the listed criteria based on their CVs.

[+][deleted] 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Sperm40mmSprintChamp 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Funny thing too, I am looking for a new job currently. I have spoken to about 15 recruiters, all but one have been female.

[+]Diesel-66 -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

But if women are only applying to jobs they fully fit, it makes sense why they are more likely to be hired

[–]kireol 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No. Just because men apply to more jobs, doesnt mean they arent applying to the jobs women apply to, or are any more and worse fit for.

From the article

However, after recruiters review a candidate’s profile, they find women to be as qualified as men and reach out to both genders at a similar rate.

companies are simply hiring more women than men

[–]Diesel-66 -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No. Just because men apply to more jobs, doesnt mean they arent applying to the jobs women apply to, or are any more and worse fit for.

The article states that men apply for jobs they fit only 60% of the bullet points

[–]kireol 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You are completing ignoring men that apply that fit 100% of bullet points. it does NOT say that men ONLY apply when they are 60% fit.

read what I quoted

they find women to be as qualified as men

[+]Diesel-66 -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are completing ignoring men that apply that fit 100% of bullet points. it does NOT say that men ONLY apply when they are 60% fit.

That's not ignoring anything. Some men fit them all, some don't. Women are more likely to be a better fit because they screen themselves. Men try to sell themselves

read what I quoted

they find women to be as qualified as men

[–]kireol 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Read your first post I replied to. I think you are confusing youself

[–]vaginaxx -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

“Women feel the need to meet 100% of the criteria while men meet 60%” this sentence alone shows why female applicants are more qualified than their male counterparts in SOME instances (I know y’all are gonna jump on me and call me a troll, so allow me to clarify that right away)

[–]GodBirb 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That feels like such a made up stat. How can anyone realistically measure how much either gender ‘feels the need to meet 100% of the requirements’?

I don’t mean to take away from your point because maybe you’re right, but imagine this was the other way around (I.e. like it has been historically), would it be reasonable to say ‘women clearly aren’t trying as hard to be good candidates’ as opposed to looking at a ‘proper’ reason? Maybe it’s because men now only make up ~40% of higher education places etc etc.

Instead of men not trying hard enough that is.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For the downvoted you're receiving, it's true there's a selection bias.

You see the same issue with colleges and the simpsons paradox. People use what amounts to a statistical artifact to contruct a narrative of discrimination.

[–]Rachel794 54 points55 points56 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And yet feminists love playing the card of women getting so mistreated at work. Oh woe is me

[–]vaginaxx -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A study showing that women are getting hired does not tell us anything about the discrimination they may face once they are on the job.

[–]redramsfan123 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It does tell us that they are not being rejected from getting a job because they are women nearly as often as feminists like to claim.

[–]AndyBrown65 31 points32 points33 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Confirmation that there is an anti male bias. She says that men and women are “equally qualified” but women have a higher chance of getting recruited. Could it be that the feminist HR Manager has confirmation bias?

[–]FastFourierTerraform 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not what the article says. On average men take the shotgun approach and apply to a lot of hail Mary positions that they stand almost no chance of getting an interview. Women are more selective and more conservative, in average. So of course the individual success rate for an application from a woman is going to be higher.

If you've ever hired for a technical position you know exactly what I'm talking about. I'll get male dog walkers, frisbee coaches, and felons applying for a job that requires a graduate degree and a clearance. Not as many women apply, but they've all at least got degrees and some relevant experience, generally.

[–]Tomaskraven 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. This is a classic example of stats being used in a way that they "show" something meaningful when in reality its just an obvious result. Like tinder, men go for the spray and pray and women go for sniping.

[–]AndyBrown65 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

“Women are more likely to get hired – once they apply”

[–]boundarychimps 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is "how likely to apply" and "how likely to be accepted" really the right way to look at it?

I'd think it's "number of jobs investigated" which is about the same, and "number of applications needed to get hired" which is lower for women (it's just another way of framing that same 16-20% from the chance of applying or being accepted).

I suppose there's also number of offers before accepting one which would be the gap between "number of offers looked at" and "how likely to apply" vs "how likely to be accepted", but it looks like that's roughly even.

.

It'd also be interesting to see a histogram of how many applications it takes to get hired or stop looking rather than just averages. Like, is there a difference at the median, or do incompetent women give up trying faster than incompetent men do? But, that'd require more individual-level tracking than they probably want to admit to.

[–]redpills1 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The reason for that is that there is a much higher pressure on men to be successful and be better provider since society and women in particular made them believe that their whole value depends on them being useful providers and protectors for the woman. Men will get more desperate for a better job while a woman have more choices and can choose to work in an easier job and let the man to be her provider without losing her independency.

This is also why there are more men in high paying jobs and more male students in subjects that are associated with high salaries like engineering and computers, despite the fact that most university students are women.

[–]CrunchyJeans 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So as a guy should I just put “I decline to identify” in the box?

[–]mrmensplights 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women play life on easy mode. Elementary school, high school, college/university, the justice system, family courts, and tribunals all skew to their advantage.

Corporate America is no different. Companies get investment via DEI initiatives. Affirmative action programs, diversity quotas, and other equity initiatives give women huge advantages in the job market. Especially in high paying white collar jobs. It makes sense they'd have to do less work to get a job.

[–]Daman_1985 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is a privilege, right?

Or is not because doesn't affect men?

[+]vaginaxx -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wrong, it’s a statistical phenomenon based on the fact that women devalue themselves so much more than men that they wait until they meet most, but usually 100% of the job requirements. Since men feel like they can apply to a job that they only meet 60% of the requirements for, that speaks to male privilege, not the other way around.

“Give me this job because I’m a MAN! I’ll figure out that 40% of the stuff I’m not qualified for on the job because I’m a man! It’s not like that will waste any company money or anything…”

And when women are being paid LESS than men…of course it’s a steal for a company to hire them instead of the expensive, less qualified dude.

[–]DigitalisEdible 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry but this is complete nonsense. There’s so much wrong here I’m wondering if you’re trolling. It’s a numbers game, this is ingrained in men, it’s the same with dating too. It’s not about men “feeling” they can apply to a job if they can’t meet requirements, it’s not privilege and in fact it’s the opposite. Men are hyper competitive with each other so we can’t afford to wait for that one perfect shot.

The more jobs you apply for the better chance you have of getting an interview and being hired, it’s really just simple logic. What’s the big deal? If you want a job then apply, if you’re not suitable then your resume goes in the trash. It’s pretty well accepted in recruitment that the candidates aren’t going to meet 100% of the requirements.

And wasting company money? What are you even talking about. Again, it’s up to the company to decide who gets an interview and who gets recruited. If they hire an under qualified guy then they clearly see potential. If not, that’s on them, not the man applying. You’re really talking compete shit from top to bottom here.

[–]GrinningPizza 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She is trolling. Look at her bio. No use interacting with her, your just giving her satisfaction.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One company I worked for, when we were recruiting, we'd get about 200 male resumes and maybe a dozen female for every position.

HR gave us a policy that EVERY female resume would get a phone screening at minimum. We had a special form to follow for their phone screening that included "recommend for in person interview Y/N". If we said no, you had to write a detailed justification why not. There's was no similar form for male phone screening.

What this did was automatically give a massive advantage to any female applicant, just by getting screened. Male resumes we'd sort though giving a few seconds to each one.

As a result every time I interviewed a female applicant, I found myself asking myself "would this person even be sitting here if she were male"?

[–]wdean8358 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The article is a bit weird. It says recruiters are more likely to click on a man's profile, but once they do click on a woman's profile, they are more likely to hire her. Seems like there is a bias on both genders lol. But I will say that women wanting to meet all the requirements before applying to a job is silly.

Also, I don't really get the idea of creating a gender diverse workforce. I mean shouldn't it be about creating a more efficient workforce, regardless of the gender?

[–]FatGimp 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not quite a bias. Women are more hesitant to apply for a job outside their skill set. Or not look at their skills as transferable.

Men on the other hand will give it a shot.

It's really funny because it's like what men and women are like in bars or clubs. Men will go around and try and flirt with everything. Where as women will be more hesitant and only really try when they know they can.

[–]vaginaxx -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, this plays into primacy and recency bias. Recruiter opens male applicant, because there’s a bias towards men being harder workers than women…recruiter sees this applicant only meets half of the requirements for the position…recruiter thinks, “okay, let’s go for the female whom I might have to pay maternal leave for popping out babies for…” recruiter is pleasantly surprised that the woman meets ALL the job requirements because she wouldn’t have applied for the job otherwise…and hire. Much sexism, very wow.

[–]Oz70NYC 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

File under: News that doesn't shock or surprise me in the least.

[+]bastiroid -11 points-10 points-9 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I dont see an issue here at all. After going through the numbers it looks like woman write applications only when they fit the requirements better. That improves hiring percentage. No comparison between jobs but applications vs hiring. Think of it this way, would you apply for a job that fits you only 60% but you are confident you could learn the rest on the job? Or do you only apply if you have a 80% or higher match?

[–]Mode1961 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The question is "How do they know that"

[+]bastiroid -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How do I know what? The numbers I stated? They are taken from the research quoted in the study. Come on guys, this subreddit is based on research and facts. And if the facts show that woman are more targeted when it come to how they are apply for jobs then that shouldn't be an issue.

[–]Mode1961 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, my question is How did they know that women who applied ONLY applied to targeted job ads.

[–]bastiroid 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah ok, they reference this study

[–]TryingToLearn_17382 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Jack Ma got rejected by KFC guys. He was the only one to not get accepted out of the people who requested the job. He was getting paid jack shit as a teacher. He then became one of the world's few billionaires. Stay strong, kings.

[+]dirty_birdy_feet -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Omg this sub is going to get me banned. Y’all are soooooo fragile and stupid.

[–]redramsfan123 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are not going to get banned for having a negative opinion about this sub. Down voted? For sure. Banned? Lol no. This is not a feminist sub

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter