Irstuff: [/i]...Current studies continue to show a latent bias against minorities, even without anything visual, i.e., only names that connote black or Latino roots are discriminated in favor of more traditional WASP names, even when using identical resumes with only the names being different.[/i]
It only takes one or two vituperative bigots in those "soft science" studies to skew the average.
OTOH,
I used to work for a guy who actually did say, out loud, "then they get pregnant a year after you hire them"
It's not an averaging thing; it's a sizable percentage of all tested participants, and has been repeated many times in the past decade with similar results.
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
faq731-376 forum1529
from "new scientist " magazine ( UK):
Schools have an important role to play in breaking these damaging stereotypes, says Sullivan. When she and her colleagues assessed data from 17,000 individuals born in the 1950s and 70s, they found that girls in single-sex schools were more likely to study science and maths than those in coed ones. This finding has been replicated in recent research by the Institute of Physics, which found that girls at single-sex schools were almost two-and-a-half times more likely to study A-level physics than those at mixed schools. The same report found that almost half of the UK’s state schools sent no girls on to physics A-levels in 2011.
“It seems that at single-sex schools, there is less pressure to perform in a gender-stereotyped way,” says Sullivan. “Schools should explicitly challenge these stereotypes: they should present evidence that girls are as good at maths and science as boys, and better inform girls of the career impacts of their early subject choices, and the huge pay premium for STEM subjects, for example.”
"In this bright future, you can't forget your past..." Bob Marley
I wonder what the ratio is for boys? I suspect boys at single-sex schools are more likely to study A-level physics than those at mixed schools. But by what factor?
I went to both mixed and single-sex schools in my childhood. The single-sex school had Oxbridge numbers as its performance metric. The mixed school filled the local dockyard.
I didn't buy into much into needing role models on challenging stereotypes until I had my daughter. She is three now and will flat out tell you if something is only for boys or girls. She watches Doc McStuffins ,a cartoon with a dark skinned female doctor, a a lot and yeah that doesn't sound like a big deal but at least with my daughter I see certain thinking imprinted pretty young.
As an engineer I would never ignore statistics, and I would never doubt that many women have experienced job discrimination, but as a female engineer I can't say I have ever faced any kind of professional discrimination in work or at university and have (to my knowledge) never been hired/declined a job, given a certain grade, invited to join teams etc. purely because of my gender. I have, however, experienced social differences. There's a happy medium between refusing to swear in front of me because I'm a lady and explicitly telling me how other women in the office rank in terms of attractiveness, and although most people find it, there are a few who struggle.
I find it's easier to take these kinds of things with a pinch of salt. This may be the 100th or so time you have experienced any type of discrimination, but this may be the first time that the discriminator has registered that what they are doing isn't exactly PC. I'm not suggesting we should ignore things that make us feel uncomfortable, I'm just suggesting we be professional when others might have an unprofessional attitude.
As I said, I can't comment on job discrimination since I have not personally experienced it but that bothers me significantly more than any social issue, since it's much more difficult to change.
I think the main issue for me isn't what "they" say or don't, but rather it's the fact that they've not thought at all about what they say. Stereotypes aren't necessarily all bad, but people need to be aware of what stereotype they're promulgating, and whether those stereotypes hinder their targets in any way. To some degree, "sticks and stones, etc." but on the other hand, am I to be reduced to "slant eyes," or "Chink," or "gook?" What message does someone convey when they say in my presence, "No tickee, no washee?" Is that the way they see me, or do they think of me as "white?" Being nearsighted and a know-it-all as a kid, there were the additional taunts of "4-eye" and "nerd." I actually liked being compared to Mr. Peabody, since he could time travel, so that was kind of cool.
However, there are places I've paid money to get in, and almost immediately turned around and walked out, just because it was made clear to me that "Chinks" weren't welcome. In general, Asians get the benefit of the doubt, out stereotype is that we're high achievers and smart, but there's always an undercurrent of resentment for things that we achieve, as those are considered to be "oppressions" of the people that don't achieve. A white, female, junior-high classmate actually sued our school district because she didn't get into the magnet high school, and somehow, she won, resulting in a reverse-discrimination where Asians were then required to have a half-point higher GPA to get into that high school, compared to any other race.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
So, many localities have banned questioning an applicant about criminal history in the application form to try and minimize discrimination. Apparently, the end result was even worse discrimination, for blacks; HR folks simply don't bother interviewing people with black-sounding names, thus discriminating not only against black ex-convicts, but also anyone with a black-sounding name. Of course, that allows white ex-convicts to make it through the first gate...
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
It reminds me of when I was in college (the late 60's) when companies were still asking people to check a 'box' indicating their racial heritage. The federal government finally got around to banning that practice, I assume as a consequence of some ruling that resulted from the '1964 Civil Rights Act' but companies immediately started asking for a B&W photo to be attached to the application. I was aware of this because I was running a 'photo service' out of my apartment at the time and while there was always a decent demand for passport photos, senior pictures, etc, for about a year there I did a brisk business in 'job application photos' until of course that blatant 'loophole' was closed, again by the feds.
This also brings up the question of whether something similar is happening with gender identity. It's been over 35 years since I've filled out a job application so I don't know if they're allowed to ask if an applicant is male or female. I ask because I have granddaughters with names that could be confusing. Our oldest is named 'Tyler' and #3 is named 'Ryan' (the other three have more feminine names, Sydney, Lynsey and Paloma, but speaking of strange names, our #2 son has two step-sons named Cosmo and Pirate).
I suspect that learning role playing at an early age is imprinted into our genes, as it likely had a survival aspect to it . Prior to 1900, it was not uncommon for mothers to die at childbirth, and it was important for someone to care for the remaining surviving children, thus the role playing necessity. It is often easy to forget that we have evolved our bodies and minds over 1 million yrs of living in the wild , and have remnants of survival methods that are out of place in modern society.
IRstuff is correct that some companies had established the practice of never interviewing applicants that have black-sounding names. Apparently the company can only be sued for discrimination if the company (a) accepts the resume plus(b) interviews the applicant then (c) does not offer the person the job if they are a racial minority and the company has a low faction of minorities. By skipping part (b), they cannot be sued.
"In this bright future, you can't forget your past..." Bob Marley
Would some of this be solved by asking if the applicant can pass a background check, and drug test, As both of these are required for most engineering jobs?
One thing that might compromise progress in equality is the shift in the US to a more religious mentality, particularly in the service industries. One wonders if that won't spill over into not hiring women because "the Bible says..."
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
If this was the pub, I'd say IRstuff has had a few too many.
There are dozens of countries where women make up a larger share of the STEM workforce.
It also seems to be going down in the USA, too, so to answer your question, not for much longer.
OK, so a tattered oasis. It might have something to do with one of the few things that Democratic Socialism and other egalitarian movements got right, while our refusal and denial of even the most minor advances of socialism continues to stymie us.
I was struck today by the meeting of the new British PM Teresa May and Angela Merkel. Regardless of anything else, both these countries and a number of other ones have, or had, women in charge of their governments already, while the US still has not, and if we don't get one this election, it'll be because we'll have elected a self-aggrandizing buffoon instead. Even a country like India, with rampant sexual discrimination, or even Pakistan, beat us to that punch.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
Not saying there's an advantage, but there's certainly no disadvantage; the fact is that while there's a majority female population in the US, only 20% of the Congress are female. Assuming equal competence and equal desire, then there's something missing there.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
![[hairpull3]](/data/assets/smilies/hairpull3.gif "[hairpull3] [hairpull3]")
