Women Are Penalized For Having High GPAs

[Anonymous 6]

Women (but not men) with high GPAs are less likely to get job offers

Basically a feminist professor created fake job applicants and sent them to real employers. Essentially she “found” that women are punished for having high GPAs. But these weren’t actual people, so how can the results be valid? Plus the numbers that she used were VERY low, how do we know that it’s representative? Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt, how do we know it wasn’t a fluke? In the end who cares?

By the way, maybe employers know something that she doesn’t. Oh of course not, the employers just hate women!

[MarketWatcherParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

fake job applicants and sent them to real employers.

HR is very good about weeding out fakes. This is a bulls~~~ study.

[Anonymous 6]

MarketWatcher wrote:

Travis3000 wrote:

fake job applicants and sent them to real employers.

HR is very good about weeding out fakes. This is a bulls~~~ study.

I them problimization glasses.

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

actually, they is grade inflation to help women. a “A” is equal to a “B” man.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[SolidParticipant 7520]

Funny how feminism trying to make science just result in a bunch of bulls~~~.
The study has no structure neither focus on something REAL.
The “study” is just an excuse to “prove” a point, this is what is killing the science, people don’t care in the data, the fact, they just want to prove what they think that is right.

This is the kind of people that cherrypick studies that has been disproved 100 years ago and try to prove their point.
They try to bend all facts to work with their narrative.
This is feminism, just a lie creating more lies.

Feminism is a f~~~ing cancer.

[CarnageParticipant 22113]

Who cares?

I don’t care if black, white, chinese, women are discriminated.

I don’t care if kids are forced into slavery.

I must increase my no f~~~ given to a level that I don’t even give a f~~~ about it.

To those following me, be careful, I just farted. Men those beans are killers.

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

If I were a hiring manager, and I saw a female applicant with anything indicating outstanding performance, my first thought would be, “Did she earn it? Or was this given to her to prevent some bulls~~~ #metoo charge of discrimination for not giving it to her?”. If I saw the same thing on a man’s application, I could much more safely assume that he didn’t Geta damn thing handed to him because of his gender.

And if I was like most hiring managers, who have had the experience of hiring bitchy women who then f~~~ up the whole social structure of my department, and make everyone miserable, my first thought on hiring a woman would not be, “How likely is she to perform well at her job?”. A department can survive one mediocre performer. My first thought would be, “Is she likable? Or is she another bitch who will p~~~ everyone off and inspire my best performers to dump my company and go to work for my competition?”.

In particular, if I was being pressured to hire more women regardless of wether they were qualified, as many hiring managers are, I would assume that the pressure to hire them was necessary because they didn’t have the value to get hired in equal numbers on their own merits.

But assuming none of the above is at play in any of the companies and hiring managers targeted in the study, how the hell is “likable” going to be assessed only from a (fake) job application? Did the author of the study try to make the applications of the female applicants more “likable” than those of the male applicants? Did she try to make any of the fake applicants she created seem more likable? If so, did she do it equally, or was she biased, and did the bias backfire? If she did not try to make any of the fake applicants “likable”, then how did she measure the “likability” of any of them? How realistic did she make those fake profiles? How realistic could she have made them? How many were detected as fakes?

And finally: how many of the targeted hiring managers were women? We all know women are jealous and have a tendency to despise any other woman who has more money, better hair, better boyfriends, better kids, better clothes… Why would a female hiring manager not be biased against another woman with better grades?

Unless you isolate your data from these sources of error, you’re not practicing science. You’re just fertilizing weeds…

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[JustAnotherGuyParticipant]

The sample size is under 30. It’s not even worth talking about.

Cupcakes are Cold. MGTOW is Absolute Zero.
“Let us wait a little; when your enemy is executing a false movement, never interrupt him” –Napoleon Bonaparte, 1805

[The Wall®Participant 655]

H.R. departments are smart enough to realize that women get high GPAs simply because they take easy, bulls~~~ courses such as Social Justice studies, Bongo Drumming 101, etc. Those add no value to the serious work that has to be done in actual workplaces.

Dr. Veritas' Red Pill dosage recommendation: Once a day or more as needed.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

Woman with high GPA’s are most effected by feminist professors and Universities. Their entitled mindset coupled with a burning need to prove themselves by taking everybody they encounter to HR, or making fake data (like this bias research), might show through in the interview..

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[Handsome VicParticipant 1613]

Well, with women earning university degrees at a 2:1 ratio to men, it is unsurprising that a higher proportion of the men with comparable GPAs would be hired.

I'm going my own way. Maybe I'll see you there.

[Anonymous 38]

It’s not evidence of sexism but evidence that most hiring managers know men are better. And less risky in the metoo era. Simples.

[CuckSniperParticipant 449]

Study has too many flaws.

A big flaw I noticed right away is the “names” used on a resume.

Employers are much more likely to hire someone with a normal sounding name like “Jessica” vs “Mishogeshin”.

Then there is the issue of where the resumes were sent. If they were sent to health care vs construction.

I didn’t actually read the article lol

Not wasting my time on a study made by a C~~~.

[KevinStylesParticipant 2580]

Here’s a thought. lets just say, what if….. the most QUALIFIED person for the job got the job. Doesn’t matter what sex they are, what age they are or what skin color they have.

I think all Interviews should be conducted over some kind of chat app, where hiring managers can not see the applicants, they don’t even get to know the persons name they just get an ID # to reference until the person is chosen and shows up to sign an employment agreement.

[Author]

Posts