November 18, 2017, 11:51:02 PM

Author Topic: Women Experience Privilege in Australian Job Market  (Read 1119 times)

Online eggieguffer

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3254
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women Experience Privilege in Australian Job Market
« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2017, 02:50:54 PM »
So basically they thought the blind recruitment would be more advantageous for minority groups (assuming all their hiring staff were inherently racist/sexist I guess) and it turned out blind hiring was fairer, but not in the way they wanted, being too meritocratic. So they're now warning against it. Pretty funny really.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 02:55:57 PM by eggieguffer »

Offline jddavis7

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 413
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women Experience Privilege in Australian Job Market
« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2017, 03:07:49 PM »
So basically they thought the blind recruitment would be more advantageous for minority groups (assuming all their hiring staff were inherently racist/sexist I guess) and it turned out blind hiring was fairer, but not in the way they wanted, being too meritocratic. So they're now warning against it. Pretty funny really.

No, blind recruitment is more advantageous. You're talking about the part of the study were they put gendered names on the CVs. That's were the biases were. The blind recruitment =/= gendered CV

Offline StillInKorea

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
Re: Women Experience Privilege in Australian Job Market
« Reply #22 on: July 06, 2017, 03:44:30 PM »
So basically they thought the blind recruitment would be more advantageous for minority groups (assuming all their hiring staff were inherently racist/sexist I guess) and it turned out blind hiring was fairer, but not in the way they wanted, being too meritocratic. So they're now warning against it. Pretty funny really.

No, blind recruitment is more advantageous. You're talking about the part of the study were they put gendered names on the CVs. That's were the biases were. The blind recruitment =/= gendered CV

Yes, blind recruitment is fairer.

However, as Eggieguffer said, the authors of the study advised against it because they desire recruiting practices that are biased in favour of women.

"Overall, the results indicate the need for caution when moving towards ’blind’ recruitment processes in the APS, as de-identification may frustrate efforts aimed at promoting diversity."

The whole issue here is that it suggests female privilege, which government officials are promoting as desirable. They began a policy to eradicate privilege they believed to benefit males, but when they realised that privilege applied to females instead, completely backtracked.


Online eggieguffer

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3254
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women Experience Privilege in Australian Job Market
« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2017, 03:53:08 PM »
So basically they thought the blind recruitment would be more advantageous for minority groups (assuming all their hiring staff were inherently racist/sexist I guess) and it turned out blind hiring was fairer, but not in the way they wanted, being too meritocratic. So they're now warning against it. Pretty funny really.

No, blind recruitment is more advantageous. You're talking about the part of the study were they put gendered names on the CVs. That's were the biases were. The blind recruitment =/= gendered CV

Quote
We found that public servants engaged in positive (not negative) discrimination towards women and minority candidates

Ie when they guessed they were women/black they were more likely to hire them. So blind recruitment was less advantageous for minority groups, as StillinKorea says
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 03:55:17 PM by eggieguffer »