Message from @DecadeUK
Discord ID: 476012254962122755
OUT OUT OUT
Hmm?
how does one refute the blind resume arguement?
I understand there are many different variables when this theory is applied in the real world, but that doesn't account for when these experiments are conducted in a vacuum
What is the Blind resume argument?
the idea that two identical resumes are submitted to an employer, but the one with the male name gets preferential treatment
the one with the female name is more often discarded in favour of the male name
i've not read the statistics myself, but it appears to be a study that sjws love to quote
Sjws also like the wage gap and the 1/5 "study"
Wouldn't the results be entirely dependent on external factors you can't account for without an extraordinarily large sample size of companies in various fields?
Males are more likely to spend more hours at work. Being a male indicates to the employer that they will work harder than their Female counterpart even if they have identical qualifications. Also women tend to be mothers so that may take them away from their work. @DecadeUK
Does this refute it?
I think so
I'm not statistician, or a person with any actual experience btw
Yes, Asian is right too
Men work more hours, take less holidays
Most women tend to require paid maternity leave, and work less hours
The Blind resume argument falls apart because GENDER IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEOPLE.
Isn't that a point for the SJWs though? We're always arguing for each case to be judged on an individual basis instead of on the merits of the group.
But we are arguing on the basis that no external factors matter
not at all. Individuals are different biologically due to their genders
Over a factor of 12 why do I have more God Daughters than God Sons?
Not because REEEEE WOMEN
And the test is simply a male and a female with zero qualification difference
But because they lacked the skills
@DecadeUK males and females are different on average, theres no way to get around that
Its a biological fact that being a male indicates to an employer that they are more likely to work harder than their female counterpart on average
Its not discrimination, the employer is just making a logical inference on what is best for business
If you apply to a position and know half of the required skills, just don't apply
Does that clear things up? @DecadeUK
Fine, I'm not disputing the average results, but the key words in how you've phrased it are 'more likely'. It disregards any merit an individual female may have in relation to overcoming the average. Is that not the arguement we're always fighting against?
The collective?
And how the fuck does affirmative action take the interview into account
If there is no other difference between the candidates, how is the employer meant to make his decision rather than on what already happens in his company
People with dicks work harder on average
I guess you guys have also worked with annoying females
If the female did truly have merit than why is her CV identical to that of the male?
She has nothing on the guy