Most HR departments are staffed by women for example, they would be the ones that saw a "Mr." in the resume.
But while looking, I instead found research that slightly contradicted my current understanding of the subject. They[1,2] claimed that there is no difference between female and male management in how they discriminate. They say that both genders are equally bad in creating equality in the work space (deciding hiring or pay rate).
So I still stand by that we need to change people rather than men, but thanks for pushing me to look for sources.
[1]: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109#aff-...
[2]: http://www.ifau.se/Upload/pdf/se/2011/r-11-26-Paverkar-chefe... (Swedish)
But you are right - it’s not an exclusively male problem, and woman are perfectly capable of discriminating against other women, and do, frequently, and often unconsciously.
In the end society as a whole needs to change how it views women, and how it acts upon those views.
A problem might exist, but targeting the wrong target won't fix it, stop blaming the "higher ups" for decisions (conscious or not) taken by the ones that took those decisions.
I very much doubt there is a company where the CEO made a explicit rule for the HR don't hire any women.
But I can see your point, let's just assume it was the HR person that threw out the resume. And since we're in assumption land, let's assume the HR person was a woman.
Because men vastly outnumber women in executive and management positions in business, esp. in the highest levels of business/corporate hierarchy.
Of course, combating misogyny and patriarchy doesn't mean only men will have attitudes changed, but let's not pretend about the numbers of the situation.
This is the problem, not (only) men's attitudes. The most screwed up part is that this inequality often holds even in female dominated professions, like librarians and teachers. I'm into forcing companies to do things rather than waiting for the attitudes of millions to change, esp. when the effect of that attitude only increases the income and options of the people whose attitudes you are trying to change.
Institute quotas and penalize companies if they don't make them. In the beginning, companies may have to hire women that are less talented than the men that are available to them, but if the positions are there, women in general will up their games to compete with each other for them. It's basic economics.
Do you see the irony in this statement?
This was true even when I managed hiring at a company of 50 people or so. At companies smaller than that, I've usually been the one to have a first look at resumes for my team.
HR tends to be the first line of defence between a job seeker and a hiring manager. The majority also conduct the phone interview and occasionally the first face to face interview.
Finally, who do you think hires other HR staff? So, yes. Human resource people are hiring managers. More so than most.
HR tends to be the first line of defence between a job seeker and a hiring manager
From my experience (longer than tptacek's) there are BFE (big freaking enterprises) that use HR to screen, but in every one of those, if an external applicant could find a hiring manager, HR reduced to a pro-forma deal.
Even at the executive hiring level, if HR is meaningfully involved, it is with a specialist hired to do nothing but that.
As a "first line of defence" they are the opposite of qualified. External candidates and internal hiring managers find ways around them if they are at all involved. Otherwise, the result is not filled with qualified folks.
We have HR. They don't screen.
I might suggest ratcheting back "incredibly uninformed".
The vast majority of established organisations with 100+ staff have a HR department and in Europe, the HR department usually screens CV's and are regularly involved in phone screening and/or first stage interviews.
Role % Women
================================ =======
Human Resource Managers 72.7
Human Resource Workers 71.8
Human resources assistants [...] 82.7Human Resources Workers 71.8% women
Human Resources Assistants 82.7% women
It does not mean that the implication is true.
Either way, HR didn't hate him because he was beautiful, and there are conceivable reasons why even a gender balanced HR department might screen out candidates posting their "beautiful" photos along with an applicatiom that don't involve petty jealously.
If photos are relatively rare in a culture receiving applications or the photos used are glamorous model applications, one could even argue that it's a reasonable alarm about a person's willingness to nakedly milk their looks. Even if that isn't the case, a non-partisan observer might [over]correct a perceived (and often real) tendency for beautiful people to receive more favourable treatment in some environments. Maybe they could apply the same criteria to tall men too...
Are you suggesting that as a hobby, a career, or?
Who has the time or inclination to do that?
"It can definitely be done"
As a practical matter I would personally worry more about other things than spending time reversing established thought process and bias.
Now of course if someone wants to start a movement or a non-profit toward this cause (and somehow be able to earn a living from that) that's fine. Or if they decide this is a cause they believe in and instead of spending leisure time on something else that's fine as well.
For example, many people on HN care about privacy and government intrusion. They don't need to be convinced as to why it's important to speak up about the NSA and the US treatment of Edward Snowden. People who care feel it's a personal imperative, so they do something about it.
I personally have the time and the inclination. Because it's something I care about. Maybe you don't care about it, that's your personal feeling, so you won't take the time. But I'm sure that there are other things in your life that you care about, and you do invest time in those things.
It's absolutely fine not to care about every social cause out there. I don't think we can expect everyone to care about everything. Just pick those things which matter most to you and work to do something about them.
As for a movement, there are a few out there that I'm aware of - in particular I am a big fan of the work of Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP).
I'm impressed with your reply and the way it is phrased. Not typical for HN (and other places) where you can and do get jumped on because people feel differently or feel you have to care about what they care about or what a crowd thinks is important. Very well put.
"But I'm sure that there are other things in your life"
This really is one of my core problems with people judging. They don't know the complete picture and focus on one vary small thing and make their judgement from that.
For example maybe someone doesn't like recyling (and never recycles) but is free with their time and help in another area that has much greater personal and societal benefits.
People spend a lot of time communicating. Mutual teaching (gossip, storytelling, etc) is the core of human society.
I will try to find the citation.
my anegdotal evidence is most women I knew found female peers a pain in the ass and explicitely admitted they in general prefer to work with men.
(Self-Made Man by Norah Vincent is also excellent - one woman's experiences disguised as a man. Sounds potentially lightweight or biased, is neither.)
The first step is to get the candidates CV and work history, and then re-enter that information into a generic form. Only crucial information should be entered in this step, leave out the candidates gender, marital status, age, the name of their school(s), the names of previous employers, etc. The second step is to pass this "sanitized" information on to someone else to make the actual decision as to whether or not the candidate should be interviewed.
The two step process is repeated in the interview process. Only objective information is taken down by the interviewer, and again this is passed on to someone else, who can make a value judgement about the candidate without their judgement being colored by the candidates gender, race, looks, height, perfume or whatever else is considered to be extraneous information.
There is no easy way to fix it, but there is a way to fix it. I won't go so far as to say that it's obvious to many people.
The way to do it? Work to change men's attitudes and biases towards women. It can definitely be done, but it takes hard work and cultural change.
I would recommend the book "The Macho Paradox" by Jackson Katz for anyone interested in the topic of gender discrimination. Jackson writes well, he's a man, and he brings a mans perspective to the issues. There is no demonization or undue blame assigned to men in the book. It's a powerful read.