Study: Women Less Likely To Be Shown Ads For High-paid Jobs On Google 233
An anonymous reader writes: A team of researchers from Carnegie Mellon University has found that women seeking jobs are less likely to be shown ads on Google for high-paying jobs than men. The researchers created more than 17,000 fake profiles, which were shown roughly 600,000 ads on career-finding websites (abstract). All of the profiles shared the same browsing behavior. "One experiment showed that Google displayed adverts for a career coaching service for '$200k+' executive jobs 1,852 times to the male group and only 318 times to the female group." The article notes, "Google allows users to opt out of behavioral advertising and provides a system to see why users were shown ads and to customize their ad settings. But the study suggests that there is a transparency and overt discrimination issue in the wider advertising landscape."
Im just here for the comments. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can use "-gate" ironically though.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically the Social Justice community are being denied all jobs except for warrior.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a true fact. Emperical evidence seems to point that way, I'll agree, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a true fact as it has not been proven.
Algorithm (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps women are 6 times less likely to click an ad for $200k+ executive jobs. If the algorithm prioritizes ads based on past behavior of other persons, given all identifiable traits of each person, then this is very well to be expected.
And would go to show that stereotyping is not always evil, but sometimes it comes from innocently putting together past information to be more efficient today.
Re:Algorithm (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly, great point. Why would someone who is intelligent click on such an ad? I don't make $200k+, but I always assumed that clicking that link is a path to a Nigerian Prince promising that salary.
Why does Carnegie Mellon imply that women should be shown stupider ads than the present algorithm identifies?
Re:Algorithm (Score:5, Funny)
Why does Carnegie Mellon imply that women should be shown stupider ads than the present algorithm identifies?
Because patriarchy.
Re:Algorithm (Score:4, Funny)
"Earn $200K a year by doing nothing!" Is it a scam, or an ad from the back of the Economist?
Re:Algorithm (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably even simpler: There are more ads specifically targeting women (shoes, makeup, etc) than for men making their ad pool larger and thus automatically diminishing the opportunity for ads for of high paying google to be shown.
But of course that won't stop someone with a spreadsheet & a mission from finding a correlation & implying a sinister causation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Algorithm (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps advertisers look at the revenue of those ads and act accordingly.
...it's not a good thing.
Why is it not a good thing? You mean, ads follow market forces which is made up of individuals that act on their own accord and interests? How in the hell is that not a good thing? individuals may act against their own interests... but are you going to be the good dictator and ensure that everybody does what is best for them?
Re:Algorithm (Score:4, Insightful)
But of course that won't stop someone with a spreadsheet & a mission from finding a correlation & implying a sinister causation.
This is what happens when you let sociology/psychology students think they're engaged in "science." I don't think people attracted to social fields have the capability to investigate and analyze things with dispassionate rationality.
The Geek Algorithm (Score:2)
Probably even simpler: There are more ads specifically targeting women (shoes, makeup, etc) than for men making their ad pool larger and thus automatically diminishing the opportunity for ads for of high paying google to be shown.
Interesting argument. Do you have any proof that it is true?
When it comes to gender issues in tech the geek also seems to have a mission, but sterotypes rule, facts and analysis are optional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's to be expected if the point is to maximize ad clicks.
The purpose of Google's advertisement system is not to better mankind in some way, it's to make money.
Re: (Score:2)
"But of course that won't stop someone with a spreadsheet & a mission from finding a correlation & implying a sinister causation."
You didn't even need a spreadsheet.
Re: (Score:2)
I wan't the one confusing correlation & causation.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not only based on search profile, it is based on your entire profile, and information it has gathered about other people with similar profiles. So yes, it is stereotyping based on every single piece of data you give it.
Re:Algorithm (Score:5, Informative)
The ads that Google shows you are based on your search terms most of the time.
Except when it's not. Which in this case clearly indicates there's a profile that's made up of more than just search terms.
The search terms were identical for all profiles, male or female. The authors of the paper admit in the abstract that they don't know who is responsible for the different results, but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.
Right, confirming that it's not just search terms. So we agree, there's a profile involved, not just search terms.
The difference between those two examples, and why one is a problem, is hopefully obvious.
It's really not obvious. Are you suggesting that advertisers shouldn't be allowed to target ads? Are you suggesting freedom to engage in advertising should be modified by rules? You're implying that. On what basis do you justify telling corporations how to spend their ad money?
Re:Algorithm (Score:4, Interesting)
The ads that Google shows you are based on your search terms most of the time.
Except when it's not. Which in this case clearly indicates there's a profile that's made up of more than just search terms.
The search terms were identical for all profiles, male or female. The authors of the paper admit in the abstract that they don't know who is responsible for the different results, but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.
Right, confirming that it's not just search terms. So we agree, there's a profile involved, not just search terms.
The difference between those two examples, and why one is a problem, is hopefully obvious.
It's really not obvious. Are you suggesting that advertisers shouldn't be allowed to target ads? Are you suggesting freedom to engage in advertising should be modified by rules? You're implying that. On what basis do you justify telling corporations how to spend their ad money?
Google generally shows ads that they think you want to see. They learn from feedback- which links you click and which you scroll by immediately. They aggregate that data, then slice it and dice it into different personas (or profiles). I am sure they have categories which all people fall into 2 broad categories, and they have a separate profile for every user. All their data mining and AI research result in a weird reflection of humanity. If that results in women not seeing certain ads, I can only conclude that that is because women generally don't want to see them, or prefer to see other types of ads instead. Perhaps the majority of women prefer to see ads for jobs with more schedule flexibility. That would be a reasonable conclusion since only women can carry fetuses to term, and doing so requires some amount of schedule flexibility. More than 50% of women have children, and determining who does and does not want children is probably not easy- even people with very strong opinions on the matter (like myself 10 years ago) do change their mind suddenly, for a variety of reasons which may defy profiling.
Re: (Score:2)
No lies, no misleading claims
Which I'm fine with, as fraud is a legitimate crime.
, no adverts for tobacco products, no adverts for toys in the breaks between children's programmes based on them etc.
None of which I agree with.
there is certainly precedent for not allowing behaviour that is deemed harmful to society in general.
"Deemed harmful" deemed harmful. Minutes spent watching TV is an order of magnitude more important than the ads one sees. You're just taking a position where you feel comfortable outlawing behavior. There's absolutely nothing objective about it.
It's possible that without a good reason (e.g. advertising for products that can only be used by one gender) the advertisers may not be allowed to discriminate in this way.
Yes, that's a great idea. Let's have government make those kinds of decisions for us, because we can't trust people to decide for themselves.
I get that you have a right to these viewp
Re: (Score:3)
"Deemed harmful" deemed harmful. Minutes spent watching TV is an order of magnitude more important than the ads one sees. You're just taking a position where you feel comfortable outlawing behavior. There's absolutely nothing objective about it.
You are confusing me with society and the laws it creates through its elected government and judiciary. For example, society considers stabbing people harmful, so it is illegal in most cases. If you want more of a grey area, dumping industrial waste is harmful to society in general, so it is illegal. Exceeding the speed limit, even if you don't harm anyone directly, is deemed harmful by society and is also illegal/discouraged.
Like it or not, society makes these kinds of judgements and enforces them, even if
Re: (Score:3)
You are confusing me with society and the laws it creates through its elected government and judiciary.
I don't think so. I did happily give my opinions on those laws, but in my criticism I'm directly addressing this statement you made:
The authors of the paper admit in the abstract that they don't know who is responsible for the different results, but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.
The difference between those two examples, and why one is a problem, is hopefully obvious.
Nowhere do you establish that one of those cases is a problem, nor its obviousness.
First, you have to establish that there are laws on the books in the jurisdiction of the study (USA) to say it's a "problem" on a quantitative level. You only claim it "might" be a problem in Europe. Nothing obvious here.
Second is methodology - you don't know why this is happening. If an automate
Re: (Score:2)
but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.
As someone else mentioned, it is conceivable that women have a much larger pool of ads being targeted to them than males, something this study should have been able to discern, but the article is all "NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT THEREFORE SEXISM!!". If women have an ad pool that is 10 times larger, such profiles would expect to see any specific ad significantly less often than men. There is nothing nefarious in that case, and it certainly seems plausible.
While I agree that certain ads probably shouldn't be allowe
Re: (Score:2)
Advertising basically can't exist without stereotyping based on demographics. Sure it's not fair, it sucks, the whole advertising industry is evil, but that's how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm perfectly OK with this to continue because if I have ads, I at least want them to be relevant to me. Anything else is a waste of my time and bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that there needs to be some sort of legislation enacted, some sort of rule, saying that if you are advertising for jobs then you must target men and women equally? If you're not suggesting a legislative solution to this perceived problem, then what are you suggesting?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh goody! Does this mean there's nothing wrong with targeting African Americans with watermelon and fried chicken ads?
Do you see a problem with that? Do you think that we need a law saying that if you are advertising watermelons then you are required to target all races equally, or do you think that you're searching for a problem that doesn't exist and that such a thing is a stupid place to waste anyone's time legislating?
Another example would be vacant apartment advertisements targeted towards white. Not much different than placing an ad in Craigslist with a "whites preferred" disclaimer.
Actually there's quite a bit of difference. If you are running an apartment complex, and you notice that 85% of your residents are single white males between the ages of 20 and 29 making less than $40,0
Re:Algorithm (Score:5, Insightful)
Then prove him wrong. Show us *why* it's dumb... you cared enough to reply, now let's see your reasoning.
His theory has solid reasoning when one considers that the vast majority of advertising in other media is geared toward women, because women do the most purchasing (one count shows it at ~80% [azcentral.com] ) .
So what's your rebuttal?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Algorithm (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't offer you anything more than an anecdote, but i work for an apparel brand and generally women buy far more than men. I'd even guess that women buy more men's clothes than men.
In targeting ads it's generally a good strategy for us to buy ads that just target female buyers because the roi is significantly better. Not sure if that factors into other decisions, but I expect that might have some impact on it.
Re: (Score:2)
"dumbest reasoning ever" seems to imply his reasoning is incorrect. i'd like to see him pointing out where.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, in rebuttal, I point to yahoo comments for millions of examples of dumber reasoning.
Re:Algorithm (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a dude, on a Mac, using plugins to control JavaScript and social networking. My advertisements are 90% for some Mac cleansing product that is 10% worse than paying for a virus.
So not only am I not being targeted by high paying jobs, I'm being profiled as an idiot. I'm tempted to burn my digital jock strap.
Re:Algorithm (Score:5, Insightful)
Women purchase the vast majority of consumer products [google.com], including half of "traditional male" products. So, it would make sense that the majority of ads would also be targeted at women. If the majority of ads are targeted at women, then the chance of any one woman seeing a particular ad is reduced compared to the chance that a man would see the same ad (assuming, of course, that the ad in question targets both men and women).
Also, I'm not sure what "LMOL" means, but your reply was one of the dumbest ever. If you don't have anything intelligent to add, just keep your mouth shut instead of letting everyone know that you have nothing intelligent to say.
Re: (Score:3)
"LMOL" == Laugh My Out Loud?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Licking My Own Leg. On the internet nobody knows you are a dog.
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't mean he's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Women clicking on ads for shoes and not on ads for high paid jobs is driving the advertisers' behaviour.
Who are you blaming again?
Re: (Score:2)
Never fear, Ultranova is here to denounce all the isms in the world!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Except it's not. Women not getting high-paid jobs is one thing, but not receiving a Google Ad for a scam is totally different.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had to see to the overall health and well being of my family, I would not click on a link for a $200K+ job either. I know that such jobs are not conducive to work/life balance and that I will have to depend on my spouse to provide that care.
Is the algorithm broken, or is it highlighting an existing preference? My understanding of our culture suggests the algorithm is doing exactly what it was written to do: serve ads to people based on their likelihood of wanting to click them. Men are still expected t
Re: (Score:2)
However it happened, the end effect is the same. First Google called black people gorillas, [twitter.com] now they discriminate against women.
What is it going to take before you no longer feel compelled to make excuses for them? Do they have to go skynet on everyone before you think that *maybe* they should be a little more careful with their AI algorithms? Or is it simpler than that? Maybe they just have to negatively impact a few white male programmers for you to get upset about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, your logical fallacies are:
False Cause [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
Appeal to Emotion [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
Slippery Slope [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are very relevant.
False Cause: the base assumption that because Google's systems produce a particular result, Google must be actively discriminating both against black people and against women
Appeal to Emotion: instead of an actual argument, you are attempting to instill fear that bad things are going to happen unless we act
Slippery Slope: assumption that algorithmic discrimination in advertising will lead to Skynet
Without these, you really didn't say anything. So yeah, I'd say those links
Re: (Score:2)
And would go to show that stereotyping is not always evil, but sometimes it comes from innocently putting together past information to be more efficient today.
The issue is applying the stereotypes to individuals, rather than how well they fit a population.
If a woman loses out on an employment opportunity because the social norm is for women to place family before work, that fits into the categories of prejudice and discrimination. It fails to take the individual into account, which is a problem since any given woman may be more than happy to place a higher priority on her career. If a woman loses out on an employment opportunity because she openly admits that h
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is applying the stereotypes to individuals, rather than how well they fit a population.
The study only specified gender in the original profiles. How can we expect Google to take individuality into account when the input data didn't?
If Google's algorithms ignored gender and other such demographic data, then it would be ignoring the individual even more than if it takes that information into account. The fact that it doesn't ignore that data leads us to conclude that it is attempting to factor in individual preferences where possible.
It could be better, no doubt, but to be perfect it would ne
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring advertising in general, and looking at the advertising of jobs in particular, it is best to avoid some demographic data like the plague. That doesn't mean that you have to avoid demographic data in general. It doesn't mean that you have to avoid demographic data that may skew towards one gender, because there is precious little that you can do about preexisting social biases.
To give you examples of what I mean: advertising employment based upon gender or to groups that are based upon gender is di
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how ads are locking anyone out.
It's a bit like not eating until you see an ad for food. That's ridiculous, obviously if you want food, you look for food.
If you want a job, search for the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Applying stereotypes to individuals is pretty much the definition of targeted advertising.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see how what you've quoted makes any difference to the GP's point. The ad targeting has been demonstrated to be discriminatory (in the non-perjorative sense) and GP was suggesting why.
Women and men are different. Company takes advantage of this bleedin' obvious fact to make more money from its advertisers. Film at 11!
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I read that. Still came to the same conclusion.
Prior data classified people with "M" gender as having six times greater chance of clicking the "$200k+ job" ad than people with the "F" gender, so the system pushes that ad six times more often to people who have the "M" gender.
Sorry if it doesn't fit some narrative you feel compelled to believe in.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "certain narrative"?
There is a jump from the admitted lack of causal evidence to building a case based on causal evidence.
"We found absolutely no reason to believe that eating salad causes people to die. Nevertheless, we believe salads are bad so we should begin deeper investigation into regulating salad."
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. But that doesn't mean "The Man" at Google is programming the ad algorithm to keep high paying jobs from women. It just means the algorithm is programmed to maximize ad clicks. Women are much less likely to click on those ads, so it provides to women the ads they are more likely to click.
It's the same reason I (as a male) don't get many ads for tampons.
Re:Algorithm (Score:5, Insightful)
So, my career potential should be limited because people of my gender weren't sufficiently interested in high-paying jobs?
No, your career potential is limited because you are relying on Google to advertise a job to you instead of searching for it yourself.
"Advertisement"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this an article or an advertisement? The icon says "Ad", but it's listed as submitted by an "anonymous reader" and gives the appearance of being a news article.
Is Slashdot trying to destroy itself?
Newest Study: (Score:5, Insightful)
In an obvious policy of sexism, female's browsers were less likely to be sent openings or training for plumbing, roofing and landscape services.
No explanation was given by press time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do roofers and landscapers really make $200k+ in the US? Sounds like a great job, landscaping stuff for $200k/year.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, it's literally a shitty job, in the sense that there is actual shit involved.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A job can still pay well and otherwise be shitty. A person can make even more working on an oil rig in unbearable conditions, but most aren't going to rate the job satisfaction as highly as being a park ranger, being a vet tech, or any other number of jobs.
Plumbers make as much as they do precisely because few want to do it and it takes a reasonable bit of knowledge to do without mucking things up even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say anything about "rich". I just said that if you have a job that allows you to be on your own boat at 10am on a Wednesday morning, it's probably not a "shitty job".
Google doesn't target ads (Score:3)
Google isn't really "choosing" who gets served ads as much as advertisers do. They ask for specific demographics, and the Google engine matches users to those demographics. If you want to serve your ads to males between 35 and 50 with an estimated gross income above $150k. It's not detailed *how* they made sure the browsing was identical.
I'd be curious what the results would be if you set up the profiles and surfed, but had only female subjects running "male" profiles and visa versa.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Google doesn't target ads (Score:4, Interesting)
His point still stands.
Advertisers are buying ad impressions for certain demographics. The advertisers are buying more ads for these jobs that target males.
It isn't Google doing this - they're just offering the advertising tools. It's the purchasers of the ads that are causing this to happen.
This is not complex.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Advertisers are buying ad impressions for certain demographics. The advertisers are buying more ads for these jobs that target males.
Yes, that's the entire point of FTA and the study, thanks for repeating it. Neither TFA nor the study is blaming Google for this.
The issue is that the current gender imbalance appears to be creating a feedback loop that re-enforces it.
Re: (Score:3)
His point still stands.
Advertisers are buying ad impressions for certain demographics. The advertisers are buying more ads for these jobs that target males.
It isn't Google doing this - they're just offering the advertising tools. It's the purchasers of the ads that are causing this to happen.
This is not complex.
OTOH, Google is allowing advertisers to target males in their employment ads, which is illegal under the Civil Rights Act. It's no different than if someone said "I want you to show this employment ads, but only to whites." If you say, "sure, no problem," then you're culpable too.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they're not. The ads which were shown were for executive coaching services, not actual job advertisements. Other examples, which were not noted explicitly in the article, were identified as "not statistically significant."
Re: (Score:2)
I've done the same thing to Facebook (Score:2)
It seems insidious when Google is appearing to favor men over women for high priced jobs, so lets look at a different advertiser - Me.
A few years ago I was the music director for an all male chorus in a neighboring town. Every year we have a "guest night" where we invite people to come and join us, sing a couple a songs, and hope to get new men to audition and join our group. Advertising dollars are tight, so rather than ask Facebook to show our ad to everyone within 25 miles of our rehearsal spot, we asked
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The profiles they used were identical in all cases. They apparently tried using the privacy features to block some tracking, but then as soon as they set their gender to female in their account profile the disparity kicked in.
Most likely it is advertisers requesting more men get their ads. It's a problem because they see a male dominated industry and figure that they should advertise to their biggest audience first (best use of limited resources), but in doing so further reduce the probability of women ente
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is biased leftward (Score:2)
The (picture/job) algorithms disagree. I hate to see what crime algorithms come up with.
Focused advertising based on detected trends (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point the women told Google their gender. Why? What moron thinks Google needs to know their gender?
But once you give Google (or Facebook, or Yahoo, or basically anyone...) information like gender, then I guarantee you they will correlate it with other people.
What this means is that somewhere in Google's algorithm they have found that people that claim to be women (this is the internet after all), are less likely to click on ads for high paying jobs.
So Google wisely decides to show them less such ads.
Do not blame Google for basing their ads on what they know about you and ALSO what they know about people like you.
Do blame yourself for telling Google that much about you.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
What this means is that somewhere in Google's algorithm they have found that people that claim to be women (this is the internet after all), are less likely to click on ads for high paying jobs.
It's a chicken and egg situation. Do they advertise to women less because fewer women click ads for high paying jobs, or do fewer women click ads for high paying jobs because they advertise them to women less?
It's a feedback loop, and other studies suggest that such loops are usually not a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Fewer women click ads for such jobs for reasons unrelated to the prevalence of such ads. Women are much less inclined to work long hours for more pay in preference to being with their family. $200K jobs are likely to be the type of job which requires prioritizing work over everything else, so women won't click on such ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go back and read it, paying particular attention to the stuff I bolded.
People bold things because they are the most important part. If you re-read my post, you can see that the most important part was yelling at idiots for telling Google their gender, then complaining about what Google did with that information. The article, unlike my post, failed to point out how stupid it is to tell Google your gender.
Re: (Score:2)
Screwing employers (Score:4, Interesting)
Employers typically pay for the number of profiles on a site, either directly or indirectly.
CMU is screwing with employers by creating 17k fake profiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, lawyers have actually helped me in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. From a client who didn't want to pay me what they owed me. It only took a letter, which was nice.
Job ads? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, I was curious about this too. I've seen the block of sponsored links when I'm searching for stuff but don't recall ever seeing an ad for a job.
[John]
It is just business (Score:2)
I am not chauvinist, however I see this as business as usual. All google ad's work of off statistical engines. If statistically there are fewer women in executive positions then ad's towards those positions and services should statistically match. I'm sure marketers see this story as simply business. That said it does not help equality.
Individualized pricing is coming down the pike too (Score:2)
Right now more people are willing to pay more to Google show advertizements for shoes and lipstick to women than similar masculine products to men. So women see more lipstic
In other news a study just concluded... (Score:2)
That men receive 75% fewer ads for women's fashion and makeup products while searching in Google.
Isn't it the advertisers? (Score:2)
I thought it's the advertisers who choose which target user profile their ads should be shown to?
And can you really blame them for trying to keep their advertising costs low by selecting a target profile as narrow as possible to keep "wasted" views, that have to be paid for, too, as low as possible?
I don't see Google at fault here.
Click Fraud (Score:2)
I doubt Google is the problem (Score:2)
Two issues I see:
Honestly, who gives a damn? (Score:2)
I'm being completely serious here, normally when it comes to "gender issues" I try to listen even though the outcome is almost invariably that I'm not a women so I can't possibly understand. But in this particular instance who the hell is the victim here? No one who is qualified for a $200K+ per year job finds it by clicking on banner advertisements, the only impact they have ever had on anyone who doesn't fall into the category of functionally retarded is possibly to remind them to update their LinkedIn pr
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want to know how the women who is making $200K a year got that kind of salary? The answer is simple: She didn't stop looking until she found it.
This may be the most sensible thing said in this entire thread.
You don't get a six-figure job without hustle. Hustle indicates that you were out for that job, you were looking for it, you knew where to find it, and you did your homework to be able to locate the job and then have the capability to do it when you got there.
The person that earns that kind of money a year wasn't discovered in a drugstore waiting in line to buy a bottle of aspirin. That person positioned themselves so that they could get that
Title wrong and misleading again (Score:2)
Enough with this specious statistical bullshit (Score:2)
First... fuck the stupid suggestion that a computer is sexist. I mean... that is the literal implication here. That the COMPUTER is sexist.
Second, if it is doing this then there are REASONS for it. Computers don't care if you have a vagina or a penis... they don't even know what that means. there's no subroutine checking for dick and then giving dick better jobs.
Third, once you've figured out the reasons... THAT is the actual story. The story likely will read something like this "people that click on these
Not the jobs - a COACHING Service (Score:2)
"career coaching service" ... maybe they have found that men are more likely to pay for these services?
I remember them from the days of paper want ads - services promising to land you the dream job, if you signed up and paid them a bucket of money
Re: (Score:2)
Woman here. Please don't presume to speak for me.
Guys make jokes. Women should learn how to handle them. I like to think I do, even though I realize that you're getting my own perspective on this.
Joke wasn't funny, but it wasn't particularly hostile, and I'm not running and screaming from my job because some dude on a website made a joke about maternity leave.
And if that's the thing that makes you want to quit...well, I guess my best advice for you is to not leave the house.
In fact, I'd say dave420 and A
Re: (Score:2)
Bot here.
What is this "joke" thing humans are so found of ?
And GP comment makes no sense. Why should bots leave when they are asking for maternity ? What is this "stirred up office" thing ?
Oh, bleep bloop, update incoming, it looks like a critical bug fix. See you later humans.