Phil Brooks wrote:A. Nony Mouse wrote:Phil Brooks wrote:All the lower-class candidates had lower success rates than the upper class male, though, and I don't think it's surprising that lower-class women might be perceived as better able to "fit" than lower-class men, without the concerns about flight the employers applied to upper-class women. Just because the researchers are highlighting (in this brief piece) that the upper-class benefit doesn't apply to women doesn't mean they're ignoring the lower-class stuff, they're just making a different point in this article (and one I think is a little more nuanced than "patriarchy exists").
Not talking about it = ignoring it. The results reveal two different types of gender-discrimination: one against women (upper class), and one against men (lower class). The authors choose to talk only about the one against women. Shocking. It is naïve to think that this deliberate omission was not motivated by the same idiotic ideology that says that in no context can there ever be racism against whites, or sexism against men.
You are reading this through the lens of your own bias against what you call an "idiotic ideology" (I will leave aside the problems with your definitions of racism and sexism here). This was a brief online discussion of some results of the study. It wasn't a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of all results. Here, they discussed whether being upper class helps, and they found it does, but it doesn't help women as much as men. That doesn't mean they ignored issues of gender in lower-class applicants; it just means that issues of gender in lower-class applicants don't tell you whether being upper class gives an applicant a boost, which was the question they set out to answer in this particular online piece. Just because you want them to talk about something else (and have already decided what you think that means) doesn't make the conclusion they did talk about, wrong.
Lol, using the word bias is not a trump card. It depends on the reason for the bias. Being biased against immutable characteristics is wrong. Being biased against inaccurate premises is not wrong.
So yes, to use your terms, I am "biased" against an ideology that has as its premise the inaccurate notion that the only type of bias that can exist is institutional bias, as if individual bias does not exist. According to this ideology, since there can be no institutional sexism against men, there is no sexism against men, period. Since there can be no institutional racism against whites, there is no racism against whites, period.
I am "biased" against this ideology because I believe that individual bias also exists. I don't like it when studies like this gloss over examples of individual bias against members of the majority group.
This is a strawman because no one holds this ideology. Everyone recognizes that individual bias can exist. But individual bias is different from institutional/systematic bias, is studied differently, and requires different solutions (e.g. segregated school systems v. how one specific teacher treats students). No one says that patriarchy doesn't also hurt men, or that individuals can't hold anti-white sentiment. Wrt the latter, though, it's different from racism in that racism requires institutional/systematic power structures that enforce the prejudice. White people haven't had that.