female only leadership plans

Ghandi's Flip Flops said:
Which evidence would that be? and what metrics were used?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of examples. The aforementioned orchestra auditions that resulted in 85% of positions being given to men, mysteriously disappearing when the recruiters had no information about the auditionee's gender. Multiple studies that have sent out identical CVs with local and foreign names on getting fewer interview offers for the foreign-named CVs.

Ghandi's Flip Flops said:
All it seems to me you are advocating is to manipulate the system to come out with pre-determined outcome.
Click to expand...
No, it's manipulating the system to remove unconscious biases that favour certain groups. If white-sounding names got over twice as many interview offers as Asian or African-sounding names on otherwise identical CVs, as was the case in a Harvard study into the topic (a result repeated in multiple studies in various countries), then it stands to reason that something needs to be done to redress that, because they're obviously not being denied interviews on merit. Removing all references to non-essential factors (race, gender, etc) is one possibility. Actively encouraging and having a deliberate policy of interviewing members of groups shown to be discriminated against is another. A study in Sweden found that deliberately shortlisting underrepresented groups resulted in an increase in women getting jobs, but didn't have much of an impact on non-white people, suggesting that there might not be a one size fits all solution.

Incidentally, the Australian study you mentioned resulted in men being 3.2% more likely to be offered a job and women 2.9% less likely. So yeah, it didn't achieve its aims, but it's hardly a massive difference. That sort of difference could likely be explained by the coincidental differences one year to the next, and I'd hardly call it evidence that blind selection causes more inequality between the sexes.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
There are plenty of examples. The aforementioned orchestra auditions that resulted in 85% of positions being given to men, mysteriously disappearing when the recruiters had no information about the auditionee's gender. Multiple studies that have sent out identical CVs with local and foreign names on getting fewer interview offers for the foreign-named CVs.


No, it's manipulating the system to remove unconscious biases that favour certain groups. If white-sounding names got over twice as many interview offers as Asian or African-sounding names on otherwise identical CVs, as was the case in a Harvard study into the topic (a result repeated in multiple studies in various countries), then it stands to reason that something needs to be done to redress that, because they're obviously not being denied interviews on merit. Removing all references to non-essential factors (race, gender, etc) is one possibility. Actively encouraging and having a deliberate policy of interviewing members of groups shown to be discriminated against is another. A study in Sweden found that deliberately shortlisting underrepresented groups resulted in an increase in women getting jobs, but didn't have much of an impact on non-white people, suggesting that there might not be a one size fits all solution.

Incidentally, the Australian study you mentioned resulted in men being 3.2% more likely to be offered a job and women 2.9% less likely. So yeah, it didn't achieve its aims, but it's hardly a massive difference. That sort of difference could likely be explained by the coincidental differences one year to the next, and I'd hardly call it evidence that blind selection causes more inequality between the sexes.
Click to expand...
Cite the actual studies please.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
A study in Sweden found that deliberately shortlisting underrepresented groups resulted in an increase in women getting jobs, but didn't have much of an impact on non-white people, suggesting that there might not be a one size fits all solution.
Click to expand...

Wow. what a surprise.
By interviewing more females & non-whites it meant that more women got employed.

I'm With Stupid said:
Incidentally, the Australian study you mentioned resulted in men being 3.2% more likely to be offered a job and women 2.9% less likely. So yeah, it didn't achieve its aims, but it's hardly a massive difference. That sort of difference could likely be explained by the coincidental differences one year to the next, and I'd hardly call it evidence that blind selection causes more inequality between the sexes.
Click to expand...

Firstly, it wasn't a study. It was a policy introduced with the basis that the best applicants would get the job, and with the expectation this would result in more women/minorities being employed. When the actual results didn't match what they wanted to as a pre-determined outcome it was discontinued. They basically abandoned a meritocracy based system because it didn't result in a proportional representational based system they wanted.
Dismissing it as possible coincidental year to year differences isn't really valid, otherwise why did they abandon it?
 
Gelsons Dad said:
Cite the actual studies please.
Click to expand...
Ah don't you love it when someone who's contributed nothing to the debate just appears and starts demanding proper academic citations of people who've been discussing something. How about you research the issue yourself mate and come back when you have something constructive to say on the subject? Then I'll cite the studies. ;)
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Ah don't you love it when someone who's contributed nothing to the debate just appears and starts demanding proper academic citations of people who've been discussing something. How about you research the issue yourself mate and come back when you have something constructive to say on the subject? Then I'll cite the studies. ;)
Click to expand...

you've been asked, the decent and sensible thing to do would be to go "yeah sure fella, here's my evidence".
 
Ghandi's Flip Flops said:
Wow. what a surprise.
By interviewing more females & non-whites it meant that more women got employed.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what point you're making here. That seems to back up what I was saying. If more interviews result in more women getting positions, that's surely proof that there were previously plenty of women capable of interviewing well who weren't being offered interviews?

Ghandi's Flip Flops said:
Firstly, it wasn't a study. It was a policy introduced with the basis that the best applicants would get the job, and with the expectation this would result in more women/minorities being employed. When the actual results didn't match what they wanted to as a pre-determined outcome it was discontinued. They basically abandoned a meritocracy based system because it didn't result in a proportional representational based system they wanted.
Dismissing it as possible coincidental year to year differences isn't really valid, otherwise why did they abandon it?
Click to expand...
They may have abandoned it because it was ineffective, or badly designed. I don't know. But as I said, it has worked in other contexts, so you can't cite a single isolated example and extrapolate that to all contexts and situations.
 
BJL_City said:
you've been asked, the decent and sensible thing to do would be to go "yeah sure fella, here's my evidence".
Click to expand...
Decent maybe. But not sensible. Sensible is to provide sources for people who are actually putting in the same effort as yourself to debate the issue. But someone who's obviously got no intention of debating it sensibly (look at his only post on the thread ffs), nope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.