# Colorblindness and genderblindness? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorblindness-and-genderblindness/804207 "2017-12-11T16:09:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorblindness-and-genderblindness/804207/21 "2017-12-11T20:29:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Here is an example of gender blindness being useful. When symphony orchestras started to audition musicians behind a curtain, the number of women getting into orchestras rose. > This obviously can’t be done everywhere, but I wonder if there have been studies about percentage of resumes getting interviews with gender neutral names - like the studies done with race neutral names. This is one of those oft quoted studies that looks a lot different if you actually read the study: > [@](#): > > The relative success > of female candidates appears worse for blind > than for not-blind auditions and this finding also > holds for each round of the audition process. In other words, going to a blind audition actually reduced the likelihood of a given woman advancing in the selection round and ultimately being hired. Here is their conclusion: > [@](#): > > Our analysis of the audition and roster data > indicates that it can, although we mention various > caveats before we summarize the reasons. > Even though our sample size is large, we identify > the coefficients of interest from a much > smaller sample. Some of our coefficients of > interest, therefore, do not pass standard tests of > statistical significance and there is, in addition, > one persistent result that goes in the opposite > direction. The weight of the evidence, however, > is what we find most persuasive and what we > have emphasized. The point estimates, moreover, > are almost all economically significant. [http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.90.4.715](http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.90.4.715) Effectively they discarded a bunch of conflicting data to draw statistically insignificant conclusions. They say it was the weight of the evidence that led them to do that, but it looks awfully like they manipulated the data to get the conclusion they wanted. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorblindness-and-genderblindness/804207/22 "2017-12-11T22:35:58Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > I would advise anyone in those circumstances to be open to the idea that they were letting implicit bias affect hiring decisions. For example, in my life I’ve seen several examples of teachers hired because they looked like the person they replaced. I don’t mean the same race/gender–I mean, they were physically similar in terms of face/body type/style of dress. I really think people get an idea in their heads of what a good [whatever] looks like, and they respond to it. I probably do it. If everyone on the hiring committee is convinced this is an insulting claim–they “know” they just see talent and they “know” they know talent when they see it, and to suggest otherwise is insulting–then I think that’s a problem. > > ETA: One type of implicit bias I see a lot: women and minorities, and especially women minorities, just do not get the benefit of the doubt. If a woman is a stellar candidate and the man is so-so, she get the job. If both candidates are so-so, there’s a real tendency to assume that the man will be able to figure it out/grow into the role and a real anxiety that the woman/minority won’t. So it’s not hard to justify not hiring/promoting them–they weren’t qualified. But it’s harder to justify why you did hire the white dude. I think women and minorities really internalize this, which is part of the reason they don’t apply for internal promotions as much: they look at the job requirements and see they don’t have them, and experience shows them that they are unlikely to be promoted and then trained. Men have confidence that that option is on the table, so they go ahead and apply. This is the kind of think hiring committees need to be aware of. There could be implicit bias, but that just shows that it’s not all black and white. It could be that we’re very friendly to Latinos and Caribbean blacks, but not African-Americans or women of any color. In my own opinion, I don’t see any bias based on race, we simply haven’t had African-American applicants. But we have had females and for whatever reason the all-female management doesn’t hire them. Weird. And of course bias is possible against your own group. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2017, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorblindness-and-genderblindness/804207/23 "2017-12-11T22:37:45Z")
Not only is it impossible for people of different genders to be perceived the same, but even the most ardent feminists and MRAs don’t \*want \*people of different genders to be perceived the same. To do so would actually undermine a lot of feminist/MRA causes/goals. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2017, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorblindness-and-genderblindness/804207/24 "2017-12-11T22:40:05Z")
Depends on the strain of feminism. There are actually some women who want to be treated like one of the guys. But most don’t, and it’s hard for a man to be sure of what the rules are. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2017, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorblindness-and-genderblindness/804207/25 "2017-12-12T04:07:26Z")
Seems to me that the very idea that colorblindness or gender-blindness are desirable goals may be well-intentioned but is certainly misguided. What it says is that we are unable to separate stereotyping from our perceptions of someone’s ethnicity or gender, so the only way to eliminate stereotyping is to somehow not see ethnicity/gender. As another Doper said, ethnicity and gender are important parts of our identities. I think it’s foolish and maybe dehumanizing to ignore them. I think, too, that “I don’t see color”/“I don’t see gender” are sometimes used as covers for discrimination. I had a principal who claimed he didn’t even notice gender. He claimed this after he replaced all female department heads with men. As far as what to do about a school/company whose employees are primarily white and female (or male), I once asked a civil rights attorney about this. He suggested employers look at their pool of applicants: bias in interview questions may not matter much if you’re only attracting white applicants. Sometimes it’s a matter of establishing more of a presence in different communities or college campuses. As far as gender in teaching goes, a little less than half of all secondary school teachers are male. In elementary grades, it’s only18%. I think that’s because teaching is still regarded as “women’s work.” ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2017, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorblindness-and-genderblindness/804207/26 "2017-12-12T12:58:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Depends on the strain of feminism. There are actually some women who want to be treated like one of the guys. But most don’t, and it’s hard for a man to be sure of what the rules are. You asked for guidelines about recognizing implicit gender bias, right? Being treated as “one of the guys” is sexist. Try thinking of treating everyone as a friend, or as a contributing teammate. I believe that has a similar meaning without reference to the gender of the person. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorblindness-and-genderblindness/804207/27 "2017-12-19T17:11:11Z")
Wouldn’t simple consistent courtesy be the best approach to someone until you know them a bit better and can customize your responses accordingly? ---
**Author:** ![NineLineMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9e8a1a/32.png) [@NineLineMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineLineMan)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorblindness-and-genderblindness/804207/28 "2017-12-23T09:14:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Here is an example of gender blindness being useful. When symphony orchestras started to audition musicians behind a curtain, the number of women getting into orchestras rose. > This obviously can’t be done everywhere, but I wonder if there have been studies about percentage of resumes getting interviews with gender neutral names - like the studies done with race neutral names. Gender blind recruitment was trialed in Australia, but was halted when it benefited men. > **[Blind recruitment trial to boost gender equality failing: study](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888)** > > Originally seen as an alternative to gender quotas, blind recruitment was touted as having a major positive impact on diversity — but a major study finds the trial may actually be having a negative impact on gender equality in the workplace. Male names: -3.2% chance of getting an interview. Female names: +2.9% chance of getting an interview. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorblindness-and-genderblindness/804207.md?page=1)