A very good article here about sexual discrimination (which is often totally unconscious rather than deliberate) and how a fair, simple solution changed the make-up of American orchestras.
They seem to have taken great care in setting the whole thing up to ensure it was only the clothing that would alter perception. And then they failed to do the most obvious test - trying exactly the same experiment with four men. I would have thought this demonstrated stereotyping rather than discrimination. This isn't to say that women are not discriminated against and that can be seen far too often but I don't think this experiment proves it. The article is on the "Bad Science" website after all.
Ah sorry, just read the comments and a lot make these same points.
Agreed, I too would love to have seen the experiment repeated with men.
The bit of the article I found most interesting was the change in gender breakdown of the orchestra since they introduced the screen for auditions. (though it could also be a result of more women applying in the first place)
Yes, I agree that is interesting and, as you say, may be due to a number of other factors but still worth noting. An experiment in this could be useful and would be fairly easy to set up I would think. But as one of the comments said, it is easier to interview in this way for an orchestra as speaking and body language are less relevant (or should be less relevant of course). Somehow, disguising gender in an interview for CEO of BP might be more tricky!
Firstly, these musical experts rated the same recording higher and lower, so basically they aren't able to rate and appreciate music.
Secondly, you probably would employ someone dresses in the correct uniform as it shows an understanding of the workplace and a willingness to make an effort. I wear a suit to an interview even if it isn't a job that requires a suit. I wear a shirt and tie at work as it's the uniform although my trousers have migrated to smart black jeans.
I agree the test ought to be done with men in various outfits. Actually, as their is a significant gender difference in clothing, the test should include women in a male dress suits with the men in cocktail dresses, just to be really scientific.
One of the many reasons I often wear uniforms to conventions (though not usually to Eastercon) is that in addition to being comfortable costumes, people (including hotel staff) react to the uniform and take me as a person of authority (which helps when you actually are a person of authority and need things done quickly).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Ah sorry, just read the comments and a lot make these same points.
no subject
The bit of the article I found most interesting was the change in gender breakdown of the orchestra since they introduced the screen for auditions. (though it could also be a result of more women applying in the first place)
no subject
no subject
no subject
Firstly, these musical experts rated the same recording higher and lower, so basically they aren't able to rate and appreciate music.
Secondly, you probably would employ someone dresses in the correct uniform as it shows an understanding of the workplace and a willingness to make an effort. I wear a suit to an interview even if it isn't a job that requires a suit. I wear a shirt and tie at work as it's the uniform although my trousers have migrated to smart black jeans.
I agree the test ought to be done with men in various outfits. Actually, as their is a significant gender difference in clothing, the test should include women in a male dress suits with the men in cocktail dresses, just to be really scientific.
no subject
One of the many reasons I often wear uniforms to conventions (though not usually to Eastercon) is that in addition to being comfortable costumes, people (including hotel staff) react to the uniform and take me as a person of authority (which helps when you actually are a person of authority and need things done quickly).