Flawed study finds women judged against more criteria, when hiring, than men

 

A new study has been published which suggests men are evaluated on their competence to do a job but women are evaluated way more stringently and are also evaluated against their morality and sociability too.

The feminists of reddit seize on this, add their own lived experiences, and before you know it we have yet more proof that the patriachy bogeyman is holding women back.

"Not to make this political, but look at how Kamala was judged. She was a DEI despite having a fairly illustrious career in politics and being an Attorney’s General among other positions while Trump was a felon with a terrible first presidential term and no political experience outside of that first term.

Our country is literally in shambles because of misogyny."

I do wonder how many of those feminists even click on the link to read the actual study, which can be found here. If you, take the time to read it, you can find it's fairly flawed and nothing like as clear cut as the title would suggest.

The actual title of the study is "Men should be competend, women should have it all: Multiple criteria in the evaluation of of female job candidates". Pretty clear cut right ? If you dive into the study itself though you can see what they actually did. 68 reports, from professionals, were analysed to see what dimensions were used to analyse candidates: competency, morality and sociability. After this was done the report asked Italian STUDENTS to rate how important these competences were when evaluating male and female candidates. These are students, people who don't work in industry, who are not making hiring decisions and who are not designing hiring processes. Students.

Personally, I read a lot about space and have a view as to what it may be like to be in space. If you want to actually know what being in space is like you are best off asking an Astronaut, not somebody who has never actually done it before....even if they have watched a lot of YouTube videos on it.

The conclusions from the study, itself, are extremely vague and watered down, despite the title the study gives itself.

"findings suggest that women are evaluated against multiple criteria and might therefore be asked to meet more requirements than men to be selected and make a career."

It's a far cry from the title that suggests this is proven fact. I guess the title "We asked a bunch of people, who have no experience of actually doing something, what they thought doing it was like" despite being more realistic is actually far less sensational and likely to be promulgated.

In almost every case you look at, in detail, feminism studies almost always fall down and you find the substance behind claims to be extremely light.

Conclusion

The patriachy holds women back. By giving women an out, something to blame, it removes the necessity for women to evaluate themselves and look at what went wrong so they can improve for next time. If a guy doesn't get a job he can look at it "Was it my qualifications ? Was it how I presented ? Was it what I said ?" he is able to look at it critically, adjust what he did, so that next time he has an increased chance of success. A woman on the other hand "Well, it's patriachy, it's just stacked against me" does less relfection, less introspection and so is more likely to make the same mistakes the next time.

When you have a gender running with ideas such as "You are a queen, don't change anything, you are perfect the way you are" then that is going to significantly hold them back in the job market. Giving them a patriachal bogey man, to continue to blame, does women more damage than good. It robs them of the chance to reflect on what failed, change their approach, so that next time their odds of success are higher.