Gender Blind Recruitment Study finds that Applications with Male Names are 6.1% Less Likely to be Given an Interview Compared to Female Names.

HeForeverBleeds · 2017-07-02T16:15:43+00:00

Funny how they say it "makes things worse." Because of course hiring people for their professional merit is "worse" than hiring people simply because they're female (AKA sexism)

Jos_Metadi · 2017-07-02T16:27:58+00:00

If the results were reversed, you can bet they would be demanding gender blind recruitment be made into law.

McFeely_Smackup · 2017-07-03T04:25:38+00:00

I've worked in IT for 20 years, and it's been policy in almost every company I've worked for that female applicants for tech jobs get phone screened at a minimum, and if we don't refer them for in person interview, HR wants to know why.

Meanwhile 100 male resumes go in the trash because they only include 9 out of 10 of the "keywords" identified for the job listing.

So in my industry at least, this is 100% bullshit. Because a Female applicant is probably 20 times (so about 2000%) more likely to get at least a preliminary interview than any male applicant.

typhonblue · 2017-07-02T22:39:12+00:00

"This project shows the status quo at the moment is to be supportive of hiring more women in the public service."

Fucking stop blaming men for "patriarchy" plxkthx.

Iappreci8thegr8r8m8 · 2017-07-03T03:12:01+00:00

Brought his up as an interesting topic with my GF and she claimed that while this study showed women were more likely to be interviewed, they were not more likely to be hired and that in competing studies where women and men names were assigned to hypothetical resumes and given to hiring authorities: male named resumes received higher "offering salaries" to the hypothetical candidate. I didn't have any retort to that one because I'd never heard of that study. I simply responded that HR was drastically female dominated so it isn't men deciding to pay women less. Anyone here heard of that study and have a good refuting argument for it?

manicmonkeys · 2017-07-02T22:37:09+00:00

Any moment now, CNN will use this as evidence that there isn't systemic/institutional sexism in the hiring process....any....moment.......now..............

MagicTampon · 2017-07-03T05:30:58+00:00

Full report here.

Disgusting bigots.

https://pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/BETA-report-going-blind-to-see-more%20clearly.pdf

Bonphire · 2017-07-03T04:21:40+00:00

I've worked a few service jobs and it's definitely true, my full fist name is very masculine sounding, but on job applications I use the shorter version for the androgynous sound, and have gotten more call backs versus the full version.

PokePj · 2017-07-02T23:17:27+00:00

6.1% thats pretty low, couldnt it just be margin of error?

bumbuff · 2017-07-03T07:11:45+00:00

Eh. AS A GUY with a predominately woman's name....i got call backs when I was younger and applying at high turn over places like grocery stores. They'd think I was a woman and wanted to be a cashier.

As I got older and moved on to professional jobs I got less calls if I didn't show up in person to show them I'm a guy

Title	Gender Blind Recruitment Study finds that Applications with Male Names are 6.1% Less Likely to be Given an Interview Compared to Female Names.
Author	GingerJack76
Upvotes	343
Comments	18
Date	July 2, 2017 4:04 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6ktzbz/gender_blind_recruitment_study_finds_that/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/gender-blind-recruitment-study-finds-that.919033 https://theredarchive.com/post/919033

Comments