Why does the media value more the gender and race of a person than their skills and qualifications?

[Deleted User]

I see a lot that the media praises when a woman gets hired for whatever job or an African person gets the job, my point is, as a kid I was taught that people should be judged by their skills, qualifications and experience rather than what sex they have between their legs or their race.

I know that companies hire Africans, Asians and etc based on diversity hire which diminishes them as they probably worked hard to get there and then the only thing the employer notices is their ethnicity/race, making everything they studied for kinda pointless.

Britain had a female Prime Minister, but she was just as incompetent as her male counterparts so why be glad it's a woman? I reckon, most people would want someone stable and competent to run a country than be concerned if it's a he/she or the race (European / African / Asian / etc).

You know, Mr. Martin Luther King said it perfectly himself. Why did so many forget his wise words?

 

[CORE]

*DIVISION*

The whole system is a WWE Play Piece.

 

[The Catboy]

Have you ever consider that they are hiring people based on skills and qualifications and those people just happen to a different race and gender? Do you have anything to back up the idea that companies hire based on a gender/race/etc. over skills?

 

[Captain_N]

Most of them are attention whores. It reality, they are just more squirrels trying to take my chick-a-fil fries right out of my hand and bitching after i ate the last one.

 

[Esjay131]

Most of them are attention whores. It reality, they are just more squirrels trying to take my chick-a-fil fries right out of my hand and bitching after i ate the last one.

What? That makes no sense and have obviously never hung out with a minority when it comes to STEM. Being a woman, with a portfolio dating back 12 years, I've been overlooked for a guy without a proper portfolio/resume and was barely qualified.

 

[FAST6191]

Have you ever consider that they are hiring people based on skills and qualifications and those people just happen to a different race and gender? Do you have anything to back up the idea that companies hire based on a gender/race/etc. over skills?

California did sign it into law
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/201...ge-to-californias-board-gender-diversity-law/
There are problems with US universities/colleges, indeed ones taking public money (most of the weirdo religious ones get around it by calling themselves private), going on the basis of things other than academics (though they call it personality at times).
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-many-sins-of-college-admissions though I believe the supreme court has since given them a dodge.
I was watching the US senate fail to take that facebook guy to task and one of them was someone trying to get the facebook guy to commit to hiring black board members, and it goes back further (articles from 2017 or so in a search just now).
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/355162-facebook-commits-to-hiring-a-black-director

Beyond that we move more into the realm of anecdotes, though plausible ones there are not exactly lacking, (what we make of that Damore guy in Google I don't know right now but I don't see it being entirely unfounded). If we are going back to education what is the drop out rate and resultant scores on the qualifications (and while I have some doubt as to the merit of masters and phds then what do we see there?), much less among those that might not have scored as highly on some of the entry tests? Some of the fun and games with starbucks over the years, especially those leaked training videos (albeit that is less hiring but still does not speak to the whole idea (ideal?) of being colour blind being a guiding principle). We could go a bit further and see where those people that would say if you have two potential employees and all else is equal but if one is a minority (what that might be having a somewhat nebulous definition or one maybe not entirely aligning with what statistics would say, to say nothing of the minority score card problem if "intersectionality" is to be a thing you concern yourself with) that you should hire the minority, and a thousand guides from notable enough publications that seem to be out there saying if there are only a few women in the candidates pool or how to increase your diversity as though it is a thing that matters.

So that is law (at least in California, though it is a reasonably populous state with serious industry), high level politics, education, low grade employment, possibly high level employment in international companies all with at very best serious question marks over their methods, practices and notions seemingly underpinning their approach to the world.

 

[notimp]

They dont. They value whats 'hot' (brings in viewers). Mostly. In reporting there absolutely is no explicit guideline to push race (whats a race?) or sexuality(/gender) issues in mainstream media.

(In Hollywood it might be seen as a 'youth trend' execs try to catch to get new audiences into the fold (going to the cinema). Thats different.)

But we could talk about reasons to push gender equality if you really, really need it and have to make it an issue.

Getting women more integrated on the decision level is seen (by some) as an economic driver. Basically developed countries are always looking for ways to increase productivity. First giant push was - getting more than half the population to work (only possibly - if food gathering, attending to children, ... can be outsourced). Second big push was equal rights and equal education. Thats done.

And if you now have biases, that prevent 'best' people to get into decision roles - that is something you could try to minimize as well. This would be an economic reason to push gender, or race equality.

But in regards to your argument its more interesting to look at what creates/constitutes a conservative position.

Conservatives see 'good societal values' as basically inherited. So people having worth because of what they are and what their societal roles 'hold' for them. Not so much in - eh - f*ck it, lets try something different. And values will form during what we create.

If you take 'gay marriage' as an example, it can be argued, that marriage, societally really just was a vehicle to foster procreation. And that all forms of 'sexual drive fulfillment', are 'empty spending' as far as society is concerned, if they dont result in procreation. So why then bring those forms of relationships up to the same level? Answer - because humans never think that rationally, and 'some relationships being seen as second class' was one of the main societal molds, then gay (as in not LGBTQ yet) activists successfully fought against.

And that sort of incremental change is always part of society. if you as a conservative always just look at societal values as 'fixed' you get into problems like publically asking "Momy, why is a black man kissing a white women on TV"?

Lets take all moral judgments around those statements away for a while - and just look at them structurally.

Conservative ethos is about 'maintaining 'inherited' value systems' progressives ethos is about pushing them.

Psychologically those two types of people make very different value judgments. But both of them working together ('don't make change too fast' or into arguably a wrong direction (SJWs)), makes it work.

 

[Taleweaver]

So...is this thread about the media or about corporations' hiring policy? They're different topics, but the thread title goes with one and the OP with another.



Regarding hiring quota's: I'm against them. Sure, the argument "a diverse group sees things from many angles, and is therefore less prone to blindsight" has some merit but is at best overestimated (meaning: "what's the point of hiring a woman/black person/<insert minority> in a top position if you hire them for their ability to think in the same lines as the rest of the board?").

And yeah...as a white male, I perceive this mostly as a tool for minority groups to grab power they wouldn't be able to get otherwise. Because those quotas are always about leadership positions. Just last weekend I attended a school play. At the end the director called all the teachers on stage: herself and a little over 20 teachers were all woman. The lone male teacher kind of stood out (oh, right: and zero non-whites. But in their defence I don't think they would've found a black teacher within a 20 mile radius). But ey...when it's about raising our children, it's not important to balance out genders.

Britain had a female Prime Minister, but she was just as incompetent as her male counterparts so why be glad it's a woman?

I beg to disagree with this. Britain had two pretty darn competent female prime ministers (that I know of). Unfortunately, one of them (Thatcher) followed a political agenda I detest and the other (May) had all the cards stacked against her.

 

[Viri]

Because they want to divide us. People should be hired based on their skills, qualifications, experience alone in like 99% of jobs. The only time I can see gender mattering for a job, is for like a women's support group, or a doctor. Like if a hospital lacks female/male doctors, and need some more. If a women prefers a female doctor, because she's more comfortable around a female examining and touching her, that's fine. Like wise if a guy prefers a male doctor to inspect him, that's fine.

 

[notimp]

Because they want to divide us. People should be hired based on their skills, qualifications, experience alone in like 99% of jobs. The only time I can see gender mattering for a job, is for like a women's support group, or a doctor. Like if a hospital lacks female/male doctors, and need some more. If a women prefers a female doctor, because she's more comfortable around a female examining and touching her, that's fine. Like wise if a guy prefers a male doctor to inspect him, that's fine.

Yeah, not how the world works.

Percentage of women in managerial committees (higher management) in big companies is around 10% - and thats not because of qualification. (Women are a majority in universities.) Thats because of social structures.

In terms of equal pay - statistics might already be slightly better than we intuitively feel, because women correct their reported income down to appease the social role of their male partners ('wants to be seen as a provider'). But thats just a few percent. Generally speaking you can look at those statistics as well.

The bigger point here is, that you have to look at them not in absolute terms, but relative to work hours/qualification levels - to blame companies, because companies dont care so much about societal change. Relative to work hours differences arent so huge anymore - but to get the social standard (male provider, female caring mother) changed, women pushing for that need to get into those top jobs. So new role models, and networks become available.

What Viri posted is insane nonsense.

Who is we, who are they?

Thats typical of a person stuck in the psychological trap of "ingroup good - outgroup bad" that never made any sense. If you then end up with an ingroup "us = men" you either are a 12 year old who finds women icky, or you are a human being with bigger psychological issues (as deemed by the norm, so) that society at large doesnt care about.

Quotas are only relevant in job classes that have an abundance of available candidates, and dont depend on the 'best networked' individual to get the job. So quotas only go so far... (Quotas are about trying to change societal defaults, not to promote excellency - but as a result, they will promote excellency. So one generation 'buuh quotas be bad!' all further generations, ey - better qualified people in the company! (on average ))

If networking is still mostly done in old boys clubs - you still end up with 10% of women in higher management. There is no real downside in trying to change that.

Social conservatives be reacting ultra harshly to societal rolemodels being changed. No one else does, though.

 

[notimp]

Here are the statistics I talked about (pay gap).

src: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/08/01/are-women-paid-less-than-men-for-the-same-work

Oh, and if you try to change social roles, you do so using 'tha media'. So in that sense...

 

[SG854]

Yeah, not how the world works.

Percentage of women in managerial committees (higher management) in big companies is around 10% - and thats not because of qualification. (Women are a majority in universities.) Thats because of social structures.

In terms of equal pay - statistics might already be slightly better than we intuitively feel, because women correct their reported income down to appease the social role of their male partners ('wants to be seen as a provider'). But thats just a few percent. Generally speaking you can look at those statistics as well.

The bigger point here is, that you have to look at them not in absolute terms, but relative to work hours - to blame companies, because companies dont care so much about societal change. Relative to work hours differences arent so huge anymore - but to get the social standard (male provider, female caring mother) changed, women pushing for that need to get into those top jobs. So new role models, and networks become available.

What Viri posted is insane nonsense.

Who is we, who are they?

Thats typical of a person stuck in the psychological trap of "ingroup good - outgroup bad" that never made any sense. If you then end up with an ingroup "us = men" you either are a 12 year old who finds women icky, or you are a human being with bigger psychological issues (as deemed by the norm, so) that society at large doesnt care about.

Quotas are only relevant in job classes that have an abundance of available candidates, and dont depend on the 'best networked' individual to get the job. So quotas only go so far... (Quotas are about trying to change societal defaults, not to promote excellency - but as a result, they will promote excellency. So one generation 'buuh quotas be bad!' all further generations, ey - better qualified people in the company! (on average ))

If networking is still mostly done in old boys clubs - you still end up with 10% of women in higher management. There is no real downside in trying to change that.

Social conservatives be reacting ultra harshly to societal rolemodels being changed. No one else does, though.

This is a really good break down why Women don't join high paid STEM jobs. It looks through whether or not it starts young in high school or sooner. And to see if biases are causes, like biases against women using computers. This read took me a few days when I read it way back when because lots of scientific research is linked. Its not the boys club that's causing this.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/

 

[notimp]

Also there are other factors that are not 'social/societal defaults' ('why quotas might not work as intended'), but lets not all end up at 'its genetics!' as a default position, please?

 

[FGFlann]

Public relations. It is the prevailing opinion that society should be diversified, thus it is being diversified. Whether it is foolish or not is up to the observer but it is not (mostly not) malicious.

 

[SG854]

Is it society that says math is a mans job? Then why are many women graduating college with math degrees. Which obviously shows society isn't holding women back in math.

The main theme is choices what women choose to do with a math degree. Women choose to be teachers while men choose stem.

Do women always choose lower paying jobs. No not really because there are positions within the medical field where women hold high prestigious jobs as outlined in the link. Internal Medicine mostly men occupied is a low paying job, while a gynecologist is a good lucrative job mostly female dominant. There are many variations like this within many different Jobs. And Many positions of field where women are dominant.

 

[notimp]

More than PR.

If you look at numbers, Boomers dind't get enough children. And not because of huge conspiracy - but mostly because of 'hey, more disposable income for us - and more free time, and... - yay - brith control', and they also didn't invest in research and development, so what to do with that.

If you are race (whats a race?) oriented, I have bad news for you. (Population trends.)

Thats one point.

The other point is, silicon valley driving big data based business models as the source of future growth. To have people part with their data freely (You went where yesterday!?), you cant have lynch mobs against minorities. Even the tinsiest ones.

I only mention that, because thats the people that run social media. They have a vested interest in everyone sharing their lives openly. Thats why you cant have 'good old' Don't ask, don't tell on the facebook/insta anymore. Even theoretically.

Now - humans have a flaw, where they react exaggerated to everything they don't understand, and thats new... And they have a flaw, where they think they understand and have to fight for their believes, even if their knowledge level is super poor. (That includes me, btw - but at least I tried once.. )

 

[FGFlann]

The question of replacement population is largely irrelevant to the topic as presented. Boesy has asked why do media companies select for minority candidates over equal or better skilled candidates of the dominant racial group. It would be logical to pick the better candidate in all circumstances for the success of your company, but this is not happening because the appearance of diversity has become its own motivating factor. We are welcoming, we are inclusive, we represent all peoples and all walks of life. We are the company of choice.

 

[notimp]

Excellency prevailing in media? What?

Agree on all your other points. (Maybe the 'diversified viewpoint' benefits should be mentioned as well (think 'Trumps black friend').

 

[FGFlann]

Excellency prevailing in media? What?

Agree on all your other points.

I don't understand the question. Do you not think media companies should strive for excellency or that the industry does not require excellent employees?

 

[notimp]

One more point:

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States

So most of minority media pundits have to be latino?
(I'm still looking for population figures with (self identified) race tag - in age brackets.)

I don't understand the question. Do you not think media companies should strive for excellency or that the industry does not require excellent employees?

No question, just commentary. I don't think that most media companies in america strive for structural excellency, yes. Diverse set of issues. 'Representation (/identification)' being one.