Women Using Less Feminine Terms in Cover Letters Are Less Likely to Get Hired(journals.aom.org)
journals.aom.org
Women Using Less Feminine Terms in Cover Letters Are Less Likely to Get Hired
https://journals.aom.org/doi/full/10.5465/amj.2018.1280.summary
121 comments
> What I mean by this is that when you try to join a company where the culture is geared towards white men in their twenties, you have to fit that culture.
On the contrary, the study says the opposite (for women). If there is a cover letter by a fictive person, which appears to be a woman, which is trying "to fit in to that culture" by using more assertive terms, it will result in less callbacks. For fictive men, it is the reverse.
As the person is fictive, the actual supposed qualities of that person are irrelevant.
On the contrary, the study says the opposite (for women). If there is a cover letter by a fictive person, which appears to be a woman, which is trying "to fit in to that culture" by using more assertive terms, it will result in less callbacks. For fictive men, it is the reverse.
As the person is fictive, the actual supposed qualities of that person are irrelevant.
I think we are sharing a very similar viewpoint.
What I meant by this is that you have to "fit" that culture and that by not "being" part of it you won't get hired even if you're trying your best.
What I meant by this is that you have to "fit" that culture and that by not "being" part of it you won't get hired even if you're trying your best.
I'm afraid that comes across in an unfortunate way. So women can't fit that culture by trying their best to be part of it by sounding like white men, but only by being part of it - by being white men? I'm not going to go off the rails here, I understand you're trying to offer constructive advice and this conclusion wasn't what you intended.
Nevertheless I think it's clear the onus needs to be on employers to try to identify and remediate biases in their hiring practices.
Nevertheless I think it's clear the onus needs to be on employers to try to identify and remediate biases in their hiring practices.
I agree that's it's far from perfect. Those companies with very narrow cultures should be more open to diversity and I strongly believe they would benefit from it.
That being said, as a woman, that's a company I'd skip instead of lying my way in and then hating my daily life.
I've worked in a company with such a culture before and hated my years there. I thought my presence would change things - it didn't.
That being said, as a woman, that's a company I'd skip instead of lying my way in and then hating my daily life.
I've worked in a company with such a culture before and hated my years there. I thought my presence would change things - it didn't.
> What I mean by this is that when you try to join a company where the culture is geared towards white men in their twenties, you have to fit that culture.
That's the core of the problem isn't it? The source of gender discrimination and racial discrimination and religious discrimination and age discrimination is that there are a whole lot of teams at a whole lot of tech companies that are white men int their 20s, and have no interest in hiring anyone who isn't a while man in their 20s.
It's the reason 'culture' should be entirely removed from any sort of interview criteria - more specifically, interviewers should be warned that measuring a candidate based on 'culture' is an open door to discrimination.
More broadly. it's something that needs to be pointed out whenever discussions drag out about "why aren't there more of <X>?" and "Why do <X> make less?" It's because our entire industry does it's best to keep <X> out. It's not brain chemicals, it's not negative role models, it's not any other excuse that likes to get thrown up. It's deliberate, at least as deliberate as it can be.
That's the core of the problem isn't it? The source of gender discrimination and racial discrimination and religious discrimination and age discrimination is that there are a whole lot of teams at a whole lot of tech companies that are white men int their 20s, and have no interest in hiring anyone who isn't a while man in their 20s.
It's the reason 'culture' should be entirely removed from any sort of interview criteria - more specifically, interviewers should be warned that measuring a candidate based on 'culture' is an open door to discrimination.
More broadly. it's something that needs to be pointed out whenever discussions drag out about "why aren't there more of <X>?" and "Why do <X> make less?" It's because our entire industry does it's best to keep <X> out. It's not brain chemicals, it's not negative role models, it's not any other excuse that likes to get thrown up. It's deliberate, at least as deliberate as it can be.
I'd never even consider to assign feminine or masculine traits to any of those words. Is this an "English as a first language"-thing?
Like you, I can see how some of those words could be more or less assertive, but I'd go as far as to argue that anyone connecting gender with assertiveness is outright sexist. :)
Like you, I can see how some of those words could be more or less assertive, but I'd go as far as to argue that anyone connecting gender with assertiveness is outright sexist. :)
The words themselves aren't, but the traits are based in gender stereotypes.
Being less assertive is considered a feminine quality. Being too assertive earns someone a label of "difficult to work with" "bossy" or cruder, "bitchy".
Being less assertive is considered a feminine quality. Being too assertive earns someone a label of "difficult to work with" "bossy" or cruder, "bitchy".
I personally don't like working with people that are too assertive, male or female. There is an intense energy and forced viewpoint that I don't enjoy the experienced of being pushed down my throat. Being more loud and more confident in what you're saying does not make you more right.
Same here. I really think it depends who is reading the cover letter and what they're looking for, doesn't it? I know if I'm reading a cover letter, and it's someone being "assertive" by telling me how awesome they are and how they like to assert control over others every sentence, I'm going to put it at the bottom of the pile, male or female.
Native English speaker here and I agree with you completely. When I saw the article I thought "What is feminine term?" until I got to the assertive stereotype.
[deleted]
"The authors suggested several strategies for making the hiring process more gender neutral:
- Anonymous résumés, in which names are removed from cover letters and applications."
The Australian public service tried this a couple of years back. It too backfired.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tri...
The Australian public service tried this a couple of years back. It too backfired.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tri...
I don't understand the article. First it says "thousands of public servants have been told to pick recruits who have had all mention of their gender and ethnic background stripped from their CVs." But then it says "adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door." I feel like I'm missing something. Is there a link to a full study? Did someone manage to reproduce this study elsewhere?
Also, there's this fragment: "Last year, the Australia Bureau of Statistics doubled its proportion of female bosses by using blind recruitment. Professor Hiscox said he discussed the trial with the ABS and did not consider it a rigorous or randomised control trial." Isn't it too harsh? Does that mean all of the real-world case studies should go to the bin because the organizations didn't have randomized control trials at every step of their operations?
Also, there's this fragment: "Last year, the Australia Bureau of Statistics doubled its proportion of female bosses by using blind recruitment. Professor Hiscox said he discussed the trial with the ABS and did not consider it a rigorous or randomised control trial." Isn't it too harsh? Does that mean all of the real-world case studies should go to the bin because the organizations didn't have randomized control trials at every step of their operations?
Just want to mention that, as a hiring manager for over ten years now, I haven't looked at a cover letter once in that entire time.
You should really start reading them. Many contain valuable information about the candidate and would help you do you job more effectively. I also work as a hiring manager and would probably have discounted more than one really good hire if I'd not read the cover letter and gained context that didn't fit into their CV.
Not the OP but I've also never read a cover letter. It's not that I wouldn't read one if offered, but I've never received a cover letter in 20+ years of interviewing people. Either nobody writes one or HR filters them out.
Second this. Flat resumes with bulleted features are so incomplete. They don’t show personality or character. They don’t have emphasis. Just a bland list of tasks done.
can you expand on this a bit? I usually try to go for the joel hiring criteria, "smart, gets stuff done". from this perspective, it's kind of hard for me to see what valuable information could be in a cover letter that shouldn't already be in the resume itself. I just want to see if they've done anything similar already and how it turned out.
That's...your loss?
Why brag about ignoring a valuable indicator that applicants spend considerable time writing?
Why brag about ignoring a valuable indicator that applicants spend considerable time writing?
I didn’t see it as a brag. The idea is that the cover letter influences the hire in undesirable ways more than it provides relevant information. Think systemically removed from the hiring packet rather than gleefully deleted.
We do use the hiring letter, because the ability to write is important to us, but I understand why it might not be considered.
We do use the hiring letter, because the ability to write is important to us, but I understand why it might not be considered.
This is very much counter to my experience as a hiring manager. The only time a cover letter has contributed to a negative response, the candidate stated they didn't care about the company and just wanted the money. That was also pretty much what they said in the phone screen, so yeah, not impressed. Other than that, we made some really good hires because the cover letter gave valuable context to an otherwise bland CV.
I understand. As I said, we value the cover letter and use it. In this case, though, the reasoning is that the cover letter provides unwanted signals about the demographics of the candidate, and avoiding influence from those signals is considered worth not knowing the kind of valuable context you mentioned.
It does not seem to me valuable indicator for technical position. Maybe if you are looking to fill position in marketing.
Even if you want to test communication skills, cover letter is completely unlike normal on the job communication for most of us. Cover letter shows how great you are at selling yourself. Technical person communication skills are more about clarity, ability to express complicated ideas, ability to simplify complex things for management, negotiation about deadlines etc.
Even if you want to test communication skills, cover letter is completely unlike normal on the job communication for most of us. Cover letter shows how great you are at selling yourself. Technical person communication skills are more about clarity, ability to express complicated ideas, ability to simplify complex things for management, negotiation about deadlines etc.
[deleted]
I fill probably 10 positions a year. I never ask for a cover letter, but if someone sends one I'll pretty much always look at it. I will say that I don't place much weight on the cover letter content unless it specifically highlights something relevant to the position not sufficiently covered by the resume. Usually I just look at the cover letter as a secondary confirmation that the person can write reasonably well and knows what the position is about.
However, I pretty much never read thank you/follow-up emails after an interview and don't care if candidates send them or not.
However, I pretty much never read thank you/follow-up emails after an interview and don't care if candidates send them or not.
To me a cover letter tells me if the candidate can write & organize their thoughts effectively.
It also tells me if they really did any research into their prospective employer. Especially useful when they forget to swap employers and accidentally leave in the name of another place they're applying to.
It also tells me if they really did any research into their prospective employer. Especially useful when they forget to swap employers and accidentally leave in the name of another place they're applying to.
So I suppose that is also part of the culture. At companies like Basecamp or Twist, the cover letter matters way more than the CV.
I think this is very good and should be done more. Unless you're hiring someone to write cover letters, they're a distraction that measures an irrelevant skill and is mostly useful as a way to introduce an incredible amount of biases into the hiring process early.
See also: attaching pictures, "hobbies" section and other irrelevant personal details.
See also: attaching pictures, "hobbies" section and other irrelevant personal details.
So "culture" and team cooperation and coordination are not things you place any stock in?
Team cooperation is not something a cover letter can tell you. "Culture fit" is nothing but an incredibly transparent and convienient post-hoc justification for when you know you're only excluding someone for not looking or behaving enough like you but have to find some way to word it that doesn't make you sound bad.
Doesn't everyone expect their coworkers to behave somewhat like them? I suspect you'd be pretty unhappy if your company hired someone who went around making crass jokes all the time - I certainly would be.
In that case the problem is that you've hired someone that lacks the emotional awareness or worse doesn't care that they're making people uncomfortable with the jokes, not "bad culture fit".
Whether someone cares about how their behaviour affects others definitely sounds like something that should affect a hiring decision.
The key insight you're missing is that the concepts of emotional awareness and comfort are themselves "culture fit" standards. Different cultural groups have wildly different perspectives on how emotional awareness is properly expressed or which kinds of comfort people are entitled to. To pick a hopefully non-controversial example, there are some people who are most comfortable when they're allowed to have pink hair, and others who feel that showing up to work in pink hair reflects a lack of emotional awareness.
Thanks for this key insight, but I don't see how it's relevant.
The point, which I'm very far from the first person to bring up, is that the actual purpose of vague concepts like "culture fit" is to be a wildcard you can use to exclude anyone without having to critically examine or provide an actual reason. How you personally justify having pink hair not being a "culture fit" to yourself doesn't change anything about that. What it does change however is that you now no longer have to explain that you're not hiring someone for their hair color.
There's no need to invent hypotheticals, by the way. The people I've heard asking how they can stop getting denied for "culture fit" in interviews have one thing in common and it's being >40 years old or a woman.
The point, which I'm very far from the first person to bring up, is that the actual purpose of vague concepts like "culture fit" is to be a wildcard you can use to exclude anyone without having to critically examine or provide an actual reason. How you personally justify having pink hair not being a "culture fit" to yourself doesn't change anything about that. What it does change however is that you now no longer have to explain that you're not hiring someone for their hair color.
There's no need to invent hypotheticals, by the way. The people I've heard asking how they can stop getting denied for "culture fit" in interviews have one thing in common and it's being >40 years old or a woman.
I agree with the first part of what you're saying. The purpose of concepts like "culture fit" is to encode the idea that human interaction can't be easily reduced to numbers and checkboxes, so people can be a bad fit for a team even if there's no specific job requirement they don't fulfil. You can go too far and end up with an exclusionary team only accepting carbon-copies of each other, certainly, but the idea that the entire concept of fitting in is fake seems too far in the opposite direction.
That sounds like you're depriving yourself of information that could indicate emotional intelligence, communication skills, intent in applying, etc. I think you're only hurting yourself and your team (admittedly by an amount that is difficult to quantify). Why don't you read cover letters?
Just want to mention that, as a hiring manager for over ten years now, I haven't looked at a cover letter once in that entire time.
Same, don’t look at blogs or Github either.
The CV/resume is the “sales brochure” to get a phone interview, I don’t look at that either once the candidate advances to in-person.
Same, don’t look at blogs or Github either.
The CV/resume is the “sales brochure” to get a phone interview, I don’t look at that either once the candidate advances to in-person.
I find that surprising.
I've at least read the cover letters of those I'm about to interview, feels rude not to.
I've at least read the cover letters of those I'm about to interview, feels rude not to.
I barely even skim the resume. I don't believe there is reliable information on anything that can be prepared in advance. I'm sure I've had false negatives, but in 10+ years of hiring I've never recommended someone be hired who wound up being bad.
I am curious – do you also usually look more for technology-focused experience rather than a more general view of what the candidate's skills look like?
In my view, hiring manager that ignore cover letters usually also have very strong go/no-go criteria like “We won't hire anyone who doesn't have prior Java experience”, etc.
[As a candidate, I like filtering out such employers; so I'm wondering if I should play with including some kind of tracking link in my cover letter that would track if the employer had clicked on it; and filter out employers that didn't.]
In my view, hiring manager that ignore cover letters usually also have very strong go/no-go criteria like “We won't hire anyone who doesn't have prior Java experience”, etc.
[As a candidate, I like filtering out such employers; so I'm wondering if I should play with including some kind of tracking link in my cover letter that would track if the employer had clicked on it; and filter out employers that didn't.]
Why as a hiring manager would you overlook the datapoints in the cover letter?
I always found it helpful to have a writing sample for evaluation, especially if the position requires effective written communication skills.
Like a teacher who assigns homework but doesn't grade it, a lover who receives a letter and doesn't return one, or a politician who runs on an issue she don't enact -- you're a hypocrite, an unprofessional one, and if karma hasn't already paid you a visit, you are due for one soon.
Cover letter is completely useless and a waste of both parties time IMO.
Look at experience. Look at skills. Do they fit the position.
If yes, interview. If no, do not interview.
The fluff around everything else is just fluff.
Look at experience. Look at skills. Do they fit the position.
If yes, interview. If no, do not interview.
The fluff around everything else is just fluff.
It tells you if the person can't communicate beyond bullet points in a resume. It's easy to hype up achievements in previous positions. An interview will help there, but if a cover letter demonstrates difficulty communicating, that is a signal you can use to effectively filter those candidates and not waste time on an interview.
> It tells you if the person can't communicate beyond bullet points in a resume.
I guess it depends a lot on the industry. Most of the cover letters I've seen when hiring are following a template or pattern gleaned from a website or book telling you how to write a cover letter.
Also, you're never 100% sure that a job seeker didn't get someone to help them write the cover letter or if it's copypasta.
Admittedly, if I was looking for a job, I'd provide a cover letter just to satisfy arbitrary expectations, but I hate writing them. All I do these days is regurgitate the list of the advertised requirements and for each item, indicate if I meet, have comparables or don't meet it. It beats having to come up with a bunch of made up platitudes about why they should hire me.
In the same vein as cover letters though, I don't put much weight on post-interview thank-you letters.
I guess it depends a lot on the industry. Most of the cover letters I've seen when hiring are following a template or pattern gleaned from a website or book telling you how to write a cover letter.
Also, you're never 100% sure that a job seeker didn't get someone to help them write the cover letter or if it's copypasta.
Admittedly, if I was looking for a job, I'd provide a cover letter just to satisfy arbitrary expectations, but I hate writing them. All I do these days is regurgitate the list of the advertised requirements and for each item, indicate if I meet, have comparables or don't meet it. It beats having to come up with a bunch of made up platitudes about why they should hire me.
In the same vein as cover letters though, I don't put much weight on post-interview thank-you letters.
That's why I phrased is as "can't communicate". Because a positive signal could be false, but a negative signal can probably be trusted.
And yes, I couldn't care less if the candidate gave a post-interview thank you. That's not going to influence my decision.
And yes, I couldn't care less if the candidate gave a post-interview thank you. That's not going to influence my decision.
The journal paper - COVERING IN COVER LETTERS: GENDER AND SELF-PRESENTATION IN JOB APPLICATIONS
https://journals.aom.org/doi/pdf/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.275
How gendered language was measured:
> We used a computerized text analysis tool, Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC; Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007) to compute a measure of gendered language for each job application material (Gaucher et al., 2011).
How women self-reported downplaying their gender:
> Job seekers downplayed gender incongruence by: removing gender-incongruent hobbies or extracurriculars; describing themselves with less gender-incongruent language; altering their name; or removing gender-incongruent job experiences.
How gendered language was measured:
> We used a computerized text analysis tool, Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC; Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007) to compute a measure of gendered language for each job application material (Gaucher et al., 2011).
How women self-reported downplaying their gender:
> Job seekers downplayed gender incongruence by: removing gender-incongruent hobbies or extracurriculars; describing themselves with less gender-incongruent language; altering their name; or removing gender-incongruent job experiences.
If the study had shown that women using less feminine terms were more likely to get hired we would have an article discussing how sexist the hiring process is. Now the data is showing that using less feminine terms makes women less likely to be hired and we have an article discussing how sexist the hiring process is.
The big takeaway from the study is that the language used impact success rate for women but does not have any effect for men, which makes the conclusion a bit odd. If women are punished for violating normative gender expectations, why are not men who use feminine terms punished? Gender norms are generally enforced for both women and men (as is often reported by transgender people). The article does not seem to put much thought on that question.
The big takeaway from the study is that the language used impact success rate for women but does not have any effect for men, which makes the conclusion a bit odd. If women are punished for violating normative gender expectations, why are not men who use feminine terms punished? Gender norms are generally enforced for both women and men (as is often reported by transgender people). The article does not seem to put much thought on that question.
>The cover letters were then evaluated by 360 managers who make hiring decisions. They perceived that women who used more feminine language are more hirable than women who used less feminine terms. There was no difference for men. As for likeability, the managers perceived that women who used less feminine language were significantly less likeable than woman who used more feminine terms. Men who used more feminine language also were perceived as more likeable than men who did not.
It seems we might infer that "likeability" is considered important in "hireability" for women but not men. What I like is that there should be other ways to test this hypothesis that don't involve cover letters.
It seems we might infer that "likeability" is considered important in "hireability" for women but not men. What I like is that there should be other ways to test this hypothesis that don't involve cover letters.
> Masculine terms include:
entrepreneurial
confident
aggressive
challenging
outspoken
strong
Feminine language is communal, reflecting a commitment to working with others. Feminine terms include:
considerate
committed
supportive
understanding
What makes these words m/f? Is it studies of how people perceive them? If that’s the case the authors seem to be missing the picture. In an equal world these words are gender neutral. And personally I don’t view them as having that division, but I guess others do and that seems to be the real issue.
What makes these words m/f? Is it studies of how people perceive them? If that’s the case the authors seem to be missing the picture. In an equal world these words are gender neutral. And personally I don’t view them as having that division, but I guess others do and that seems to be the real issue.
While you are correct (IMHO) to question the use of masculine and feminine to characterize these sets of words, in the end that is not actually relevant to the result. That is, if the authors had called the sets "cooperative words" and "aggressive words" instead, the result would still be interesting.
I suspect the authors chose masc/fem to describe the words because that makes for a more click-baity headline for the paper. Not so that it would peg the irony meter of people who notice that they are using gender stereotypes to characterize words in a paper ostensibly written to help reduce sexism.
I suspect the authors chose masc/fem to describe the words because that makes for a more click-baity headline for the paper. Not so that it would peg the irony meter of people who notice that they are using gender stereotypes to characterize words in a paper ostensibly written to help reduce sexism.
I'm thinking I've heard it said that the benefit of hiring women is that they bring a special something that men lack — a unique perspective, and all that — but now I'm hearing I'm supposed to be concerned that women who, on the face of it, seem to lack that special something are passed over? Which is it?
Of course this begs the question: What about job performance?
Instead of trying to fix the "problem" they've identified, why not take the study further to see if there exists any correlation between use of feminine language in the cover letters (for men and women) and career outcomes (educational outcomes for the MBA students)?
Instead of trying to fix the "problem" they've identified, why not take the study further to see if there exists any correlation between use of feminine language in the cover letters (for men and women) and career outcomes (educational outcomes for the MBA students)?
I read this as “when women/men rely less on their natural talents or put less forward their true natures, they sound weak and indecisive. Like they are still figuring themselves out.
I don’t understand this whole gender stereotype. It seems misplaced when one gender tries to portray themselves as different than who they are.
I don’t understand this whole gender stereotype. It seems misplaced when one gender tries to portray themselves as different than who they are.
“While we found that women are negatively impacted by this strategy, we found that men are less likely to cover because they are less likely to anticipate discrimination."
I can believe they somehow measured that "men are less likely to cover" (by some measure), but how do they know the reason is that they are "less likely to anticipate discrimination"?
I think it is a huge problem with such papers that they mix data with their personal beliefs and interpretation. It seems to be typical for feminist papers. They collect some data, then, in the summary, they claim "the reason we see this data is because of ongoing discrimination". Many people seem unable to distinguish the different parts of such papers or "studies".
There is one part to assert authority, "see we are doing the science thing", and then they use that to push their agendas.
I think since the media has destroyed its authority completely, this is the next frontier of politics to watch out for. We had to learn not to trust journalists, now we have to learn not to trust scientists. (Everybody can claim to be a scientist).
I can believe they somehow measured that "men are less likely to cover" (by some measure), but how do they know the reason is that they are "less likely to anticipate discrimination"?
I think it is a huge problem with such papers that they mix data with their personal beliefs and interpretation. It seems to be typical for feminist papers. They collect some data, then, in the summary, they claim "the reason we see this data is because of ongoing discrimination". Many people seem unable to distinguish the different parts of such papers or "studies".
There is one part to assert authority, "see we are doing the science thing", and then they use that to push their agendas.
I think since the media has destroyed its authority completely, this is the next frontier of politics to watch out for. We had to learn not to trust journalists, now we have to learn not to trust scientists. (Everybody can claim to be a scientist).
[deleted]
I'd be quite concerned with anyone that uses those so called "masculine terms".
I don't want an aggressive, confident, challenging, outspoken and strong coworker. I want a team player.
I don't want an aggressive, confident, challenging, outspoken and strong coworker. I want a team player.
May depend on the job. What about an actress or a model ? Of even an interpreter.
Most regular jobs are just about building, "moving fast and breaking things" in a competitive environment. This is usually deemed "masculine" so no wonder using "feminine" terms is less rewarded.
Maybe the problem is that too many people think that women (including women themselves) cant be as "competitive" or "masculine" or whatever the term than men. There are plenty of examples in real life that show the contrary.
Most regular jobs are just about building, "moving fast and breaking things" in a competitive environment. This is usually deemed "masculine" so no wonder using "feminine" terms is less rewarded.
Maybe the problem is that too many people think that women (including women themselves) cant be as "competitive" or "masculine" or whatever the term than men. There are plenty of examples in real life that show the contrary.
Worth stating that actresses and models have agents who do the applications for them.
I suppose we should really look at recruiters in tech and see if using one gets better results.
I suppose we should really look at recruiters in tech and see if using one gets better results.
Are people not fed up with the "equality" propaganda produced by those who neither properly studied math at school, nor understand the fundamentals of statistics like the difference between correlation and causation?
One of the authors is Sonia Kang, https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=AYjR5XIAAAAJ&hl=..., who has a couple of thousand citations of her academic papers. If she was getting the math wrong or making fundamental statistical errors I don't think people would be quite so keen to build on her research.
I think your ad hominem attack is a bit unjustified. You can disagree with the research without suggesting the author is incapable of making a cogent argument.
I think your ad hominem attack is a bit unjustified. You can disagree with the research without suggesting the author is incapable of making a cogent argument.
In general citation count is not a useful metric to determine research quality (separate from whether it applies here)
e.g. Brian Wansink's citation count is 33,969 and h-index is 85 [0]. Over a dozen of his papers were retracted after finding statistical anomalies:
"These problems included conclusions not supported by the data presented, data and figures duplicated across papers, questionable data including impossible values, incorrect and inappropriate statistical analyses, and "p-hacking". As of 2020 Wansink has had 18 of his research papers retracted (one twice), seven others have received an expression of concern, and 15 others have been corrected. On September 20, 2018, Cornell determined that Wansink had committed scientific misconduct and removed him from research and teaching activities; he resigned effective June 30, 2019."
[0] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ME4wxCUAAAAJ&hl=en...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wansink
e.g. Brian Wansink's citation count is 33,969 and h-index is 85 [0]. Over a dozen of his papers were retracted after finding statistical anomalies:
"These problems included conclusions not supported by the data presented, data and figures duplicated across papers, questionable data including impossible values, incorrect and inappropriate statistical analyses, and "p-hacking". As of 2020 Wansink has had 18 of his research papers retracted (one twice), seven others have received an expression of concern, and 15 others have been corrected. On September 20, 2018, Cornell determined that Wansink had committed scientific misconduct and removed him from research and teaching activities; he resigned effective June 30, 2019."
[0] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ME4wxCUAAAAJ&hl=en...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wansink
It's good to be skeptical, but I'm not sure that means you should assume everyone in academia is conning their peers like Wansink did.
arkitaip(1)
There is plenty of work by those who have properly studied math and correctly apply statistics and repeatedly find that unequal hiring and compensation practices reward things other than merit.
Not really. There is a huge replication crisis. Even the famous "anonymous orchestra auditions" have been debunked afaik.
[deleted]
RIMR(1)
Do you have any examples of "'equality' propaganda"?
The "wage gap" is the one I see most often. It's presented in a way that makes it seem like women get paid significantly less than men, but in reality there's almost no gap when you account for the same position and experience level.
It's rather specious reasoning at it's surface, as adding additional controls that reduces variance in the model doesn't discount that there is discrimination within the labour market. That is to say, the discrimination happens elsewhere in the chain, possibly at at the education level (women pushed out of higher income degree streams), the on the job mentor discrimination (women are less likely to be 'picked' to be mentored), or due to the lack of a comprehensive childcare support system pushes women to lower income jobs or do not have the ability to rise in those jobs.
There are no simple answers as "hey, when we control for x, y, z the wage gap disappears", as these are almost inscrutably complex systems.
There are no simple answers as "hey, when we control for x, y, z the wage gap disappears", as these are almost inscrutably complex systems.
Women do get paid significantly less than men though. The statistic doesn't lie. We've decided to pay less for the jobs that women typically take. And they are less likely to get the same positions as men and are also therefore denied the same experience.
- not women, but mothers get significantly less payed on average than the rest of people, in fact, young women are paid more than young men.
- women on average prefer to work with people and men - with things. Working with things scales well (like IT), working with people - doesnt scale well (nurse, teacher, doctor).
- women on average prefer to work with people and men - with things. Working with things scales well (like IT), working with people - doesnt scale well (nurse, teacher, doctor).
You're missing the forest fort the trees.
* Mothers are paid significantly less on average but fathers aren't and there are deep cultural dynamics that perpetuate this. There isn't a fundamental reason this should be the case.
* Women (and men obviously too but we're talking about women) are conditioned constantly from birth to have those preferences and have to deal with pressure from everyone in their lives to not deviate from what's expected from them. (Same with men too -- try being a manly man who wants to bake wedding cakes or go into fashion.) And then when women try to be mold breakers and go into "masculine fields" they're pushed away and become lower status.
* Mothers are paid significantly less on average but fathers aren't and there are deep cultural dynamics that perpetuate this. There isn't a fundamental reason this should be the case.
* Women (and men obviously too but we're talking about women) are conditioned constantly from birth to have those preferences and have to deal with pressure from everyone in their lives to not deviate from what's expected from them. (Same with men too -- try being a manly man who wants to bake wedding cakes or go into fashion.) And then when women try to be mold breakers and go into "masculine fields" they're pushed away and become lower status.
i'm not interested to argue about the first point.
Re the 2nd - I can come up with an argument supporting my theory that it is not only a social construct as you imply, but I will invite you first to prove your theory that this is ONLY a social conditioning of a woman that makes her make these choices, and there is no biology involved into that (Or very little).
To shade a shadow on your theory (as i assume this is a social construct theory) i recall some info that female orangutans were more interested in dolls and males - in more male toys similar to humans.
Also, in Scandinavian countries that ran out their way to make their societies egalitarian, even more women were choosing "traditional female" jobs than what the "social constructionists" were trying to achieve by their "gender equality" agenda.
But i will not argue about all of this as it is all well known and documented and people just need to make a 3h research on the internet.
Re the 2nd - I can come up with an argument supporting my theory that it is not only a social construct as you imply, but I will invite you first to prove your theory that this is ONLY a social conditioning of a woman that makes her make these choices, and there is no biology involved into that (Or very little).
To shade a shadow on your theory (as i assume this is a social construct theory) i recall some info that female orangutans were more interested in dolls and males - in more male toys similar to humans.
Also, in Scandinavian countries that ran out their way to make their societies egalitarian, even more women were choosing "traditional female" jobs than what the "social constructionists" were trying to achieve by their "gender equality" agenda.
But i will not argue about all of this as it is all well known and documented and people just need to make a 3h research on the internet.
It seems to be a bit silly to say that the wage gap "doesn't exist" when you're talking about something completely different that what is meant by the wage gap in the first place.
Women as a class of people make around 30% less than men. If you don't think this is surprising you should. There's nothing inherent to men and women that would lead you to predict this. And, in fact, looking at the data you might actually expect that women as as class would make more than men because women have higher college graduation rates, and "go further" in higher education on average.
All of the things that "explain" the gap are literally the problems. Just because we have strong evidence that we know what some of the factors that lead to the gap are doesn't mean you throw up your hands and say, "that's just how men and women are I guess."
Women as a class of people make around 30% less than men. If you don't think this is surprising you should. There's nothing inherent to men and women that would lead you to predict this. And, in fact, looking at the data you might actually expect that women as as class would make more than men because women have higher college graduation rates, and "go further" in higher education on average.
All of the things that "explain" the gap are literally the problems. Just because we have strong evidence that we know what some of the factors that lead to the gap are doesn't mean you throw up your hands and say, "that's just how men and women are I guess."
> women have higher college graduation rates, and "go further" in higher education on average.
Isn't this also a problem? There's nothing inherent to men and women that would lead you to predict this.
Isn't this also a problem? There's nothing inherent to men and women that would lead you to predict this.
Yes! Of course! I could rant forever about how schools do a disservice to boys leading to fewer of them to go to college and its not like the the problems magically disappear in college.
My point is that this imbalance with wages is that much more surprising because of this other imbalance that seems like it would favor women in skilled fields.
My point is that this imbalance with wages is that much more surprising because of this other imbalance that seems like it would favor women in skilled fields.
> We've decided to pay less for the jobs that women typically take.
Correlation is not causation.
Maybe men are more likely to pursue stressful, higher paying jobs because of social pressure to be breadwinners.
Not many women want to marry a house-husband.
Correlation is not causation.
Maybe men are more likely to pursue stressful, higher paying jobs because of social pressure to be breadwinners.
Not many women want to marry a house-husband.
Why is there a gap in position and experience level?
Maternity is probably the greatest factor. I know several women who wanted to stay home after having a kid. Suppose they return to work in 5-10 years, they're less experienced than others of the same age, and have stale professional contacts.
The problem is that you would expect that over billions of people maternity and paternity would average out but it doesn't because of societal pressure. Men who stay at home are "low status" and women who don't are bad mothers. The problem is the social dynamic that creates these "preferences."
Instead of societal pressure try billions of years of evolution and the fact that women physically carry the child for 9 months before their body is utterly changed by giving birth. Societal pressures... For crying out loud. Sometimes things are as obvious as they seem.
Actually, in the instances I'm aware of it was the reverse: family and society pressured the women to return to work but they didn't want to. If a mother wants to stay home, why not just respect her preference without questioning her "real" motives?
I think you're confusing the preferences of a woman and the preferences of women. It should be perfectly normal for either mother or father to stay home with their kids if they want and that preference should be respected absolutely.
But then you have to zoom out a little bit and ask why you see so few men become stay at home fathers or househusbands compared to women and is the explanation a problem? Why don't men feel like they can be homemakers or take on the primary caregiver role for their kids? Why do so many women take on those roles? If the answer is really always voluntary preference then maybe it's not an issue but that's unfortunately not the case and the pressure and judgement imparted by society for people to conform to their "roles" creates this dynamic and is bad for everyone.
But then you have to zoom out a little bit and ask why you see so few men become stay at home fathers or househusbands compared to women and is the explanation a problem? Why don't men feel like they can be homemakers or take on the primary caregiver role for their kids? Why do so many women take on those roles? If the answer is really always voluntary preference then maybe it's not an issue but that's unfortunately not the case and the pressure and judgement imparted by society for people to conform to their "roles" creates this dynamic and is bad for everyone.
It is not the present social dynamic that creates these "preferences".
This set of characteristics has evolved over millions of years, beginning before humans had even branched off the evolutionary tree.
> In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likable. It would be tough to argue that the monkeys’ parents bought them sex-typed toys or that simian society encourages its male offspring to play more with trucks.
I'd urge anyone who's questioning this to read the overview of the science from Stanford's School of Medicine: https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-...
This set of characteristics has evolved over millions of years, beginning before humans had even branched off the evolutionary tree.
> In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likable. It would be tough to argue that the monkeys’ parents bought them sex-typed toys or that simian society encourages its male offspring to play more with trucks.
I'd urge anyone who's questioning this to read the overview of the science from Stanford's School of Medicine: https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-...
In fact, in instances where this has been examined, men have been underpaid: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-...
Note that this study was done only after women complained about being paid less.
Note that this study was done only after women complained about being paid less.
I wouldn't call it propaganda and I think the perception of the prevalence of gender discussion is just because these topics are clicked, which ensures the topic is further expanded. The discussions are interesting though because they are an elegant mix of the most alluring and repelling opinions.
But to the topic, this "propaganda" often feels misdirected in its ambition to lessen gender differences as in penalties on job markets and other forms of discrepancies while continuing to separate men and women as if they were complete distinct creatures.
The strategy seems strangely analogous to rubbing that mosquito bite in hope it will stop itching.
But to the topic, this "propaganda" often feels misdirected in its ambition to lessen gender differences as in penalties on job markets and other forms of discrepancies while continuing to separate men and women as if they were complete distinct creatures.
The strategy seems strangely analogous to rubbing that mosquito bite in hope it will stop itching.
Different groups have different issues that must be addressed. There are few 'one size fits all' solutions. People do want to be treated as peers and equals, but unfortunately there are intrinsic issues that inhibit that.
For example, a person with a black sounding name will, on average, will face more difficulty in getting a job compared to a person with a white sounding name, all else equal. It is not particularly productive to say 'if we treated everyone the same they wouldn't have this issue'.
For example, a person with a black sounding name will, on average, will face more difficulty in getting a job compared to a person with a white sounding name, all else equal. It is not particularly productive to say 'if we treated everyone the same they wouldn't have this issue'.
Yup!
RIMR(2)
I don't think this is a fair criticism, and as it's phrased so generally I doubt it's based on any actual evaluation of the article to see whether it's making any errors with respect to correlation or causation.
I do accept that the majority of the pay gap between men and women are attributable to factors within the control of employees. Choices about having children and taking career breaks, willingness to work long hours, unwillingness to take dangerous jobs. These are all reasons why in general a lot of women earn less than a lot of men.
This article isn't making general claims though. It's evaluating specific indicators of bias in specific circumstances, and on the face of it seems to have a compelling case. It does seem wrong that women using assertive terms should suffer a lower likelihood of getting an interview or role than men that use the same language.
The fact is that in some sectors for some roles there is good evidence of bias in selection. This is bad for applicants and bad for employers who are missing out on good candidates. The fact that some other industries may even have a pro-female bias doesn't excuse anything either. I can accept that and want to do something about it, while still being a Jordan Peterson fan and without being a neo-Marxist social justice warrior.
I do accept that the majority of the pay gap between men and women are attributable to factors within the control of employees. Choices about having children and taking career breaks, willingness to work long hours, unwillingness to take dangerous jobs. These are all reasons why in general a lot of women earn less than a lot of men.
This article isn't making general claims though. It's evaluating specific indicators of bias in specific circumstances, and on the face of it seems to have a compelling case. It does seem wrong that women using assertive terms should suffer a lower likelihood of getting an interview or role than men that use the same language.
The fact is that in some sectors for some roles there is good evidence of bias in selection. This is bad for applicants and bad for employers who are missing out on good candidates. The fact that some other industries may even have a pro-female bias doesn't excuse anything either. I can accept that and want to do something about it, while still being a Jordan Peterson fan and without being a neo-Marxist social justice warrior.
what makes these terms feminine? isn’t this perpetuating these stereotypes?
Let me Google that for you.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=femi...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=feminine+terms...
the trick here is Google Scholar it seems!
so, feminine in this case refers to Bakhtin & 'feminine dialogic'?
so, feminine in this case refers to Bakhtin & 'feminine dialogic'?
Website that wastes a third of the reading area to logo+menu is less likely to be read
[deleted]
I am the worst case of insensitive behavior, and I will admit that when I read a female resume with those words I think "oh man, she is going to come in a pantsuit and try to make me feel like I am not doing to dominate her". Which, I wouldn't, but the prospect of a conflict is enough for me to archive the email.
I worry that the implications here lean on the authors' use of frankly sexist stereotypes. If you don't filter the study through their perception that agentic language is masculine and communal language feminine, it becomes a lot less clear that these findings are relevant to the proportion of women in senior management.
>If you don't filter the study through their perception that agentic language is masculine and communal language feminine, it becomes a lot less clear that these findings are relevant to the proportion of women in senior management.
"If you ignore the premise, the conclusion makes no sense. Therefore the premise is flawed."
"If you ignore the premise, the conclusion makes no sense. Therefore the premise is flawed."
What I'm saying is that such stereotypical premises are inherently flawed. If someone produced a study categorizing a high speech volume as "Hispanic language" and saying that Latinos like me get hired less when we use "Hispanic language" in interviews, I'd be pretty mad.
> If someone produced a study categorizing a high speech volume as "Hispanic language" and saying that Latinos like me get hired less when we use "Hispanic language" in interviews, I'd be pretty mad.
Except there's a great deal of cultural, historical and linguistic evidence that assertive language is considered more masculine, and communal language is considered more feminine. There would be no such evidence supporting a cultural bias considering high speech volume as "Hispanic language" that I'm aware of.
It shouldn't be controversial to claim that, traditionally, "masculine" as an ideal is defined in terms of assertiveness, dominance and hierarchy (particularly in business) whereas "feminine" as an ideal is typically defined in terms of empathy, submissiveness and collaboration. While English is not an explicitly gendered language like Spanish or German, the ways that masculinity and femininity are expected to be expressed within Anglophone cultures inform the way language is used as expression within those norms[0,3].
You are correct that this is stereotypical, as most gender conventions are, but incorrect in asserting that this stereotype does not exist beyond the authors' personal bias, and therefore, is useless in studying gender dynamics. Indeed, the entire point of the linked article is to study the effects of that bias and those stereotypes on the hiring process. Seeking to ignore that aspect on the basis that referring to stereotypes is itself engaging in stereotyping would miss the point in the same way as ignoring race in a study of early American slavery on the basis that focusing on race would be racist.
Women are Warmer but No Less Assertive than Men: Gender and Language on Facebook[0]
[0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4881750/
Gender Differences in Communication Behaviors, Spatial Proximity Patterns, and Mobility Habits[1]
[1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305616148_Gender_Di...
What Is Feminine Style Rhetoric and Why Is It Important?[2]
[2]https://jenniferspoelma.com/blog-feed/feminine-style-rhetori...
Masculine-Feminine Difference: How We Talk[3]
[3]https://www.huffpost.com/entry/masculinefeminine-differe_b_5...
Except there's a great deal of cultural, historical and linguistic evidence that assertive language is considered more masculine, and communal language is considered more feminine. There would be no such evidence supporting a cultural bias considering high speech volume as "Hispanic language" that I'm aware of.
It shouldn't be controversial to claim that, traditionally, "masculine" as an ideal is defined in terms of assertiveness, dominance and hierarchy (particularly in business) whereas "feminine" as an ideal is typically defined in terms of empathy, submissiveness and collaboration. While English is not an explicitly gendered language like Spanish or German, the ways that masculinity and femininity are expected to be expressed within Anglophone cultures inform the way language is used as expression within those norms[0,3].
You are correct that this is stereotypical, as most gender conventions are, but incorrect in asserting that this stereotype does not exist beyond the authors' personal bias, and therefore, is useless in studying gender dynamics. Indeed, the entire point of the linked article is to study the effects of that bias and those stereotypes on the hiring process. Seeking to ignore that aspect on the basis that referring to stereotypes is itself engaging in stereotyping would miss the point in the same way as ignoring race in a study of early American slavery on the basis that focusing on race would be racist.
Women are Warmer but No Less Assertive than Men: Gender and Language on Facebook[0]
[0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4881750/
Gender Differences in Communication Behaviors, Spatial Proximity Patterns, and Mobility Habits[1]
[1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305616148_Gender_Di...
What Is Feminine Style Rhetoric and Why Is It Important?[2]
[2]https://jenniferspoelma.com/blog-feed/feminine-style-rhetori...
Masculine-Feminine Difference: How We Talk[3]
[3]https://www.huffpost.com/entry/masculinefeminine-differe_b_5...
This is one of those reasons I think that progressive social theory is so important. People are so quick to write people off as "SJWs" when they point out the small sexist or racist nuances that exist in the world, but those little things add up, and create vastly different life experiences for people based on their immutable characteristics.
This kind of bias is predictable, so there's no excuse for allowing it to have any affect over your hiring process. The people making hiring decisions either need to be trained in such a way that minimizes unfair or unlawful biases influencing their decisions, or they need to be given the bare minimum information as to avoid even having extra information that would influence their decision.
This kind of bias is predictable, so there's no excuse for allowing it to have any affect over your hiring process. The people making hiring decisions either need to be trained in such a way that minimizes unfair or unlawful biases influencing their decisions, or they need to be given the bare minimum information as to avoid even having extra information that would influence their decision.
Minimal information can also be discriminatory.
The paragraph in the article where they describe how minorities get more calls when they "whiten" their resume has me wonder if this theory couldn't be simplified.
What I mean by this is that when you try to join a company where the culture is geared towards white men in their twenties, you have to fit that culture. I'd also argue that they would find the same results for age if they looked for it.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/