Mental gymnastics

>mental gymnastics
The simple fact that you're not willing to concede that there might be a reasonable response (that you just don't know) shows that you're not willing to engage in a honest debate

Other urls found in this thread:

izajoels.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-9012-1-5
scp.nl/Nieuws/Hoger_opleidingsniveau_migranten_leidt_amper_tot_betere_arbeidsmarktpositie
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>8% more likely

It is fucking nothing.

What could possibly be a reasonable explanation in the face of such evidence

What fucking evidence?

You know what this evidence shows? That women as a whole are fucking worthless and literally not competent to hold the jobs they apply for. There's your fucking evidence, what do you have to say for it?

Literally the employer's decision.

>a sexist comment is evidence that sexism doesn't exist
Perhaps also try a racist comment to prove racism doesn't exist?

>racism

want to go down that evidence route as well?

>the truth, i don't want to hear it waaah waaah here are my alternative facts waaah waah

This is you.

>send resume
>get rejected
>send identical resume without name
>get invited
Literally textbook racism

Say this is true. Even in an indoctrinated utopia like Sweden, where it's almost the total opposite (pro female favoritism), at least on the surface, there is an underlying bias from hiring managers favoring men.

This would indicate that people prefer male employees over female employees, subconsciously. Real life tangible experience has led them to favor a male applicant in general.

If anything it proves that you can't legislate and indoctrinate reality out of everything.

You got it wrong, it's actually:

>white send resume
>get rejected
>nigger sends worse resume
>get affirmative action hired

Literally institutional racism by the most explicit definition possible.

There are very few occupations in which females are not completely useless.

What? Please come back when you've read the link in OP since you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. What did I expect from a burger.

>implying the people who are in charge of hiring are men
At my current job, both people I interviewed with were women.

I guess this research just shows that even women know that women are more likely to cause problems down the line.

>It should be noted, however, that statistical uncertainty prevents the analysis from drawing firm conclusions on a possible backlash for the non-western group at the interview stage.

Wow such great conclusions. They also mention it didn't do shit for minorites, only for women. Even then, the difference is insignificant.

>8%

had to stick the "over" on to make it sound HUGE right?

Let me know when you actually have niggers in your country, then you can come back and talk to me about niggers, and the reasons for why they, or are not hired

Globalist stooge being led by the neck to fight problems that don't even exist, leas of all for you

>at the interview stage
We're talking about being invited to the interview in the first place

They're not really racist or sexist then. The difference in people being given an interview is insignificant, and the second step shows no sign of preference towards gender or ethnicity.

As another user pointed out, more women are in charge of hiring process. You'd have to ask women why they dislike being around other women in the workplace, if the evidence actually hinted at that.

this. Reads more like a statistical anomaly do to a methodological questionable comparison. Nothing more then marketing directed at the wrong segment. I wonder when businesses check that their decline in quality and profit has nothing to do with a disfunctional educational system or muahh patriarchy but deslusional hiring methods developped by 68er, being one part nepotism and one part diversity quotas to appeal to a segment with working morality or loyalty, which reads NIGGER and Woymen.

Do you really want to know?
>Sample size
>Inadequate randomization
Are possible confounders

Also, this gem:
>Two of the local government administrations implemented anonymous job applications procedures to select applicants for interviews in 2004–2006, while the third administration chose not to apply this system of application procedures in their recruitment process

So not even a crossover trial, PLUS it's for a government position, with the stated goal of, and I quote:
>The main reason for the trial period of this system in Gothenburg was to increase migrant workers’ recruitment chances for municipal jobs

With that being said, I'm 100% in favor of anonymization, as long as there's no affirmative action of any kind

Don't be tricked by this fucking bullshit feminist garbage. They want you to believe this is somehow average jobs or even STEM/important jobs, but the first study is done on public sector jobs, and almost all of them are teachers and nurses. In fact, 80% of all applicants in the study are female. I haven't looked through the second study, but I bet it's more of the same bullshit. They use some fancy statistical methods but I don't quite have the time and expertise to verify the quality of the work or whether it's a result of p-hacking. Given the political nature of the study and the low quality of the language in the paper it would not surprise me though.

No mental gymnastics required. Women are simply not as good as men at men's jobs, that's all. Why employ them if you don't have to?

It's not a statistical anomaly. The findings have been reproduces often, e.g. izajoels.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-9012-1-5
The last link contains many links to sources with comparable research. There is also an article that proved the unemployment rate of foreigners had no relation to their level of education (in Dutch: scp.nl/Nieuws/Hoger_opleidingsniveau_migranten_leidt_amper_tot_betere_arbeidsmarktpositie )

Isn't it possible that women and foreigners are less likely to find jobs due to bias in interviewers?

>Isn't it possible that women and foreigners are less likely to find jobs due to bias in interviewers?
It's possible, I'm not the one denying possibilities.

Your second paragraph is non-sequitur, lumping together women and refugees is dishonesty, the problem with hiring refugees or not are much bigger than accreditation (language barrier and validity of degrees obtained abroad, to mention only 2)

>reasonable explanation.

Buddy do you know where you fucking are?

user may not be absolutely correct, but is directionally correct.

While there are competent women, I find they are less competent than their male counterparts in a given company.

Women are heaped with praise for merely doing their fucking job. Just meeting the goddamn job requirements. Whereas men are looked at with an attitude of, "barely pulling his weight, average".

For a man to receive the same praise as a woman in a given job, he needs to go way the fuck above and beyond.

We're playing with a handicap. If you don't see that you're naive.

I work harder, stay later and generally do more shit than my female coworkers. I've done what takes them a month to do in a couple days.

More than that, women bosses tend to judge you not just as a professional but as a man -- they won't respect you unless you're clearly far and away above average, which is stupid for any job paying less than 6 figures.

This isn't a fucking tenable situation as more women gain more and more senior roles.

nigger, like all bitches and mudskins, you are incapable of understanding language because you're fucking stupid

systemic

SY STEM IC

"relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part."

Employment decisions are made by individual employers, NOT by any overriding process.

So there is no system in hiring, or wages for that matter. There are just individuals, who may very well still be biased, because they are older and successful, sometimes known as "holdouts."

The idea of creating a system to fix a unique problem is inherent to the failed ideology and mental illness known as liberalism, and is so stupid that it reveals you for exactly what you are, which is absolutely fucking retarded.