In the department next to mine, they hired 5 women and 0 men. That made me wonder if there is discrimination against men in job hiring. I found some studies about the discrimination of men in job hiring.
Abstract:
Gender discrimination is often regarded as an important driver of women’s disadvantage in the labour market, yet earlier studies show mixed results. However, because different studies employ different research designs, the estimates of discrimination cannot be compared across countries. By utilizing data from the first harmonized comparative field experiment on gender discrimination in hiring in six countries, we can directly compare employers’ callbacks to fictitious male and female applicants. The countries included vary in a number of key institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions, yet we found no sign of discrimination against women. This cross-national finding constitutes an important and robust piece of evidence. Second, we found discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK, and no discrimination against men in Norway and the United States. However, in the pooled data the gender gradient hardly differs across countries. Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere.
Gunn Elisabeth Birkelund and others, Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Evidence from a Cross-National Harmonized Field Experiment, European Sociological Review, Volume 38, Issue 3, June 2022, Pages 337–354, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcab043
Abstract:
Audits of tenure-track hiring reveal faculty prefer to hire female applicants over males. However, audit data do not control for applicant quality, allowing some to argue women are hired at higher rates because they are more qualified. To test this, Williams and Ceci (2015) conducted an experiment demonstrating a preference for hiring women over identically-qualified men. While their findings are consistent with audits, they raise the specter that faculty may prefer women over even more-qualified men, a claim made recently. We evaluated this claim in the present study: 158 faculty ranked two men and one woman for a tenure-track-assistant professorship, and 94 faculty ranked two women and one man. In the former condition, the female applicant was slightly weaker than her two male competitors, although still strong; in the other condition the male applicant was slightly weaker than his two female competitors, although still strong. Faculty of both genders and in all fields preferred the more-qualified men over the slightly-less-qualified women, and they also preferred the stronger women over the slightly-less-qualified man. This suggests that preference for women among identically-qualified applicants found in experimental studies and in audits does not extend to women whose credentials are even slightly weaker than male counterparts. Thus these data give no support to the twin claims that weaker males are chosen over stronger females or weaker females are hired over stronger males.
Abstract:
Scholars have documented ethnic and gender discrimination across labour markets since the 1970s by using field experiments (correspondence tests) in which pairs of equally qualified applications are sent to employers with job openings. In these experiments, discrimination is measured by documenting group differences in callbacks. However, the gendered nature of ethnic discrimination has been neglected thus far in this literature. Drawing on the results of a correspondence test, this study presents evidence of extensive ethnic discrimination in the Swedish labour market against applicants with Arabic and North African names but no evidence of discrimination against women. However, the findings also reveal gendered ethnic employer preferences: employers in male-dominated occupations practice gender overcompensation favouring female-named applicants, whereas employers in female-dominated occupations practice both ethnic and gender overcompensation, favouring foreign-named men in particular.
Moa Bursell, The Multiple Burdens of Foreign-Named Men—Evidence from a Field Experiment on Gendered Ethnic Hiring Discrimination in Sweden, European Sociological Review, Volume 30, Issue 3, June 2014, Pages 399–409, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu047
while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere.
This seems rather strange, looking at statistics of physical demanding jobs. But that is explained in the paper:
“We decided to exclude jobs in the public sector, which often have their own recruitment organizations. This implies that many female dominated occupations, such as nurses and teachers, are not included in our data, since they are mostly found in the public sector. We also decided to avoid occupations that often rely on informal recruitment of workers. This implies that many male-dominated occupations, such as mechanics or plumbers, are not included in our data, since they seem to rely on informal networks when they recruit new workers.”
I would say that is a rather big flaw in that study.
There are a lot of studies which I didn’t post here. Some studies say gay men are discriminated more.
Do we just take your word for it that they exist and aren’t as deeply flawed as that one?
If this community wants to avoid being taken over by far-right extremists that are clearly more interested in hurting women than helping men, it’s going to need to do better than this.
None of the studies I posted here are flawed. Go do your own research.
Of course, some people want the sub to be taken over by far right extremists.
Pointless personal attack? Why?
I was thinking the same thing. I’m all for highlighting discrimination against men, but it seems they left out the industries that most often discriminate against women. The resultsand data feel cherry-picked.
