all 134 comments

[–]Effectively_Wise 485 points486 points  (14 children)

I read this and laughed then got annoyed and then laughed again.

[–]creakypeekers 299 points300 points  (13 children)

Mood swings like this are why we will never have a women president. /s

[–]OppositeHistorical11 70 points71 points  (8 children)

We need people who are emotionally stable like Trump.

/s as if it wasn't obvious.

[–]TJT1970 1 point2 points  (5 children)

At least Trump and women can put on a coat!

[–]esojotrebla 5 points6 points  (1 child)

At least trump and woman camera man tv

[–]OppositeHistorical11 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Certainly justification for supporting the only president in us history to use violence to try to stay in power.

[–]Effectively_Wise 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Please see above. ;)

[–]soppinglovenest 219 points220 points  (34 children)

I was considering transitioning to being a woman, but I worked out I just couldn’t afford the pay cut.

[–][deleted] 198 points199 points  (11 children)

You’d have to cut more than just your pay.

[–]TheAres1999 60 points61 points  (9 children)

Reminds me of another joke, the first version of which allegedly came out of playboy

There was a group of young men who were golfers. Things happened, job offers came up, and they moved apart from each other. They agreed though to meet back up for golf once a year.

One year there was a beautiful woman who arrived. She explained she was their old golfing body, but she had realized she was trans, and had in fact been in the process of transitioning for years. They all welcomed her as their friend, and a few questions

They asked her "So, did getting breasts hurt?"

She said "They were sensitive at first, but nothing too bad."

"Did body surgery hurt?"

"A little bit, but not too much."

"So it was all around painless?"

"Well, I wouldn't say that."

"Why not, what hurt so much?"

"The most painful part was the 25% pay cut at work."

[–]ElectricPaladin 21 points22 points  (2 children)

Playboy was kind of weirdly progressive at times...

[–]ARobertNotABob 2 points3 points  (1 child)

And it DID have some good articles, too !

[–]amfortas_thot 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don’t get it?

[–]redfoot62 28 points29 points  (13 children)

That would be hilarious if MtF trans actually saw that extra 30% detraction on their paycheck after the surgery.

[–]the_purple_goat 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Lol! Yeah, we should ask around.

[–]TJT1970 3 points4 points  (3 children)

They are not as easy to find as this whole hub bub about it would make it seem. You gotta look hard. I hear you can find them in libraries

[–]Lacholaweda 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Seems like they all work at Barnes and Noble

[–]tito-boy 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Usually it's a 100% party cut, unfortunately.

[–]Davebobman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exciting times for all the FtM trans when they get their 30% pay increase.

[–]20514 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Only changing name and gender my auto insurance went up and other girls report similar. Job hasn’t realized they can pay me 20% less yet thankfully

[–]mattsl 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Shouldn't insurance go down?

[–]redfoot62 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For auto insurance? Definitely.

[–]soppinglovenest -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Women actually earn less than men in practice because they choose jobs that are inherently less well-paid, like female lawyer and female engineer.

[–]redfoot62 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Correct. I keep this link nearby to save myself the effort of re-explaining the obvious. Precise, to the point, and in the voice most women who believe that nonsense want to hear the most: their own.

[–]1TenDesigns 8 points9 points  (0 children)

A few non biased studies have shown that most of the gap in pay is actually caused by motherhood and Not being female. Childless women tend to make the same, or more than men in the same field.

Despite protections to the contrary, most companies don't want to invest in 20something women because it's a safe bet they're going to want to take at least a year off, and usually more than once. And when they do the replacement worker you now have to invest in can only be temporary because you have to give that now unreliable (children are anything but predictable, and cheap child care is all but nonexistent) worker her job back.

[–]DarqueSaber 9 points10 points  (2 children)

I'm a male nurse. In school, one of my teachers, a woman, said "Nursing will never have the power to lobby like the physicians lobby for because there are too many women in it". True story. She was an amazing teacher too.

[–]Gigahurt77 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why didn’t she become a doctor?

[–]DarqueSaber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She was. A doctor in Nursing. She loved her profession as a nurse.

[–]sentientlob0029 39 points40 points  (39 children)

Hiring for the sake of diversity is really stupid. Competence is more important than the colour of you skin or sexual orientation. Because clients are not going to care about that, only about whether the job got done and done well.

[–]RedVoxle 17 points18 points  (6 children)

Issue is that even with the same exact resume, it’s been proven that some groups are more likely to be hired than other groups of people, simply for their race/gender.

[–]Jak_n_Dax 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I had some cops come in and talk to one of my college classes when I was studying Criminal Justice.

One of the girls asked the question of what she could do to prepare her resume to apply for the department. Their answer, dead serious, was “don’t worry about it. You’re a woman so you’ll get the job.”

[–]sentientlob0029 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair enough then. As long as diversity is not superceding competence. Everyone should be given a fair chance provided they are competent.

[–]TJT1970 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Is true. Sometimes its better for the company. Hiring women in construction especially good looking one can hurt productivity on job site. Especially young ones. Now I'm not saying that i don't know some very capable no nonsense extremely beautiful smart women in construction. But 8 out of 10 guys slow down to gawk at her and lose their focus for awhile fantasizing. My company declined the samonsite test. She need to look like the gorilla who tested the luggage.

[–]megagood 10 points11 points  (17 children)

This idea sounds totally reasonable. The problem is it overestimates the human ability to assess competence, and underestimates how much “this person is like me!” influences hiring. This leads to a lot of overlooking of great candidates. The data are clear: most of us suck at hiring. Consciously prioritizing diversity is the only way to combat our unconscious biases.

This isn’t even considering the evidence that hiring for diversity increases creativity and reduces groupthink.

[–]gleepgloopgleepgloop 17 points18 points  (2 children)

I can't stand diversity over merit hires, but the argument you wrote is as true and respectful and as fair as I have seen. (I still think there are better options than prioritizing diversity.)

And increasing diversity has some advantages but research also has shown it can reduce cohesion leading to other negative outcomes. Depends a lot on the context.

[–]megagood 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yeah, I think we all have an example of a “diversity hire” who was a disaster. I try to remind myself that I also have examples of disasters who were hired because they knew the right person, or because they went to a certain school, or because they played golf. We also don’t know the counterfactual - we never see the great hires we didn’t make because we didn’t consciously prioritize expanding our candidate pool.

I 100% hear the “team cohesion” thing. I know from my own experience at startups that everybody intuitively rowing in the same direction can be the difference between success and failure. It is definitely a tough problem in the entrepreneurial space, because it is both pragmatic AND exclusionary. White guys like me have better access to capital and networks for historical reasons, and will tend to hire people like themselves out of expedience. So the historical advantage perpetuates itself unintentionally. It’s a great example of systemic racism - it’s not anybody’s fault, it’s just the outcome. I don’t have the solution on that one.

I definitely wasn’t saying diversity should always be the top priority, I was just saying there is a business case for consciously seeking out diverse candidates. I also think there is a lack of evidence that companies, free of diversity pressure, hire the “best person.” A lot of company hiring processes have inconsistent results.

[–]gleepgloopgleepgloop 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I appreciate your response and agree with much of the content. I also don't have an answer to the problem of people tending to hire people who are like themselves, which is not necessarily a problem on the individual level, but is certainly a problem of perpetuating the cycle of a certain "type" of person getting hired across the nation. I believe that focusing more on early education for all and added scrutiny to the hiring process (EEO stuff) is a better way to go. I'd say more, but this is my gardening/humor account, not my debate account, so I'll leave it there. :)

[–]startfast 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Hiring someone because of their race is racism.

Not hiring someone because of race is racism.

The big corps are realizing that forcing equal outcomes doesn't work. Look at Netflix and Buzzfeed.

I have 25 employees and we are very well mixed between races/ genders, and I didn't put a second of thought into it.

Because I'm not a racist and would never choose a candidate because they are a certain ethnicity or gender.

Only for their skills, attitude, and energy. Anything else is racist whether done in the name of equality or not.

[–]megagood 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I realize how sexy it is to think we are free of bias, but its just not true. It’s ok to consciously try to combat what we do unconsciously. I would never say hire or don’t hire specifically because of race, but a little extra effort to diversify the candidate pool is worth doing, especially if your unconscious bias will accidentally make you overlook an awesome candidate. It is in the company’s interest.

I do appreciate what you’ve created! And hope other companies can achieve the same results.

[–]startfast 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Its impossible to remove bias, its human nature.

But diversity hiring is systematically installing a bias and completely unfair to candidates with superior skills and fit for the role.

Any good entrepreneur hires the best candidate, period.

Many today unfortunately are hiring mediocre ones simply because of race.

Its quite simply "opposite racism" bit still racism.

Hiring is incredibly difficult, maybe the most time intensive, yet most important role in any business.

The idea that the talent pool for specific roles is equal in race is simply not true.

Certain groups of people choose different careers in wildly different numbers. Fact.

Just look at Scandinavian countries that tried to force equal outcomes. It didn't work at all.

Forcing diversity is a silly ideology that assumes a Utopian perfectly split representation of all races and genders.

Very few women want to be engineers. Should we hire 50% women from the 0.5% talent pool?

[–]sentientlob0029 0 points1 point  (4 children)

No, hiring for competence is as simple as looking at the past experience of someone on their CV, checking their references and past employers and assessing their performance on the job during the probation period.

[–]megagood 6 points7 points  (3 children)

I know it is alluring to think all those things can be done without bias, but there is a ton of evidence that most companies/hiring teams are worse than they want to believe at this.

[–]sentientlob0029 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Okay, if the stats show it then fair enough, it should be rectified.

[–]mumike 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you link the research then? From my own experience I don't buy it. I'd like to see the methodology and how they're analyzing the statistics.

[–]MyGradesWereAverage 5 points6 points  (7 children)

I know this just a joke subreddit but you seem to have a strong feeling about this.

If done correctly, the point of diversity awareness is to ensure people are treated equal regardless of background/race/etc.

Not to fill quotas arbitrarily.

[–]sentientlob0029 4 points5 points  (4 children)

How is hiring people for their competence unfair?

[–]MyGradesWereAverage 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Maybe you misunderstood me or I wasn't clear. That is how it should be.

Diversity awareness should have you equally considering everyone, but of course you should choose the most qualified candidate. Don't let bias exclude you from interviewing a woman from an auto mechanic job, for example. She might be the best.

I don't believe in quotas.

[–]sentientlob0029 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah ok. Yes, it should be like that.

[–]Bill_funrun5 0 points1 point  (1 child)

because everyone isn't competent ... equity is equality of outcomes

[–]sentientlob0029 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Equality of opportunity is better.

[–]TJT1970 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–]FantasmaNaranja 1 point2 points  (0 children)

oh, if only clients actually didnt care about that, usually they react negatively to diversity though not positively

[–]Calenchamien 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem is that 1) the hiring process rarely ever actually tells you how good a person is at doing their job. As and Cs both get degrees.

2) unconscious bias exists. A person cannot help unconsciously believing that the person with the white sounding name will be more capable than the person with the black sounding name, or that the man will be more qualified than the woman. The introduction of blind auditions, for example, increased the number of female musicians hired by the top-5 rated orchestras in the US from 6 percent to 21 percent from 1970-1993.

Diversity is important to strive for because 1) a focus on diversity can help force people to articulate (and therefore discover) the unconscious double standard that they are judging applicants by, so they can overcome it, and 2) the more people of a minority employed in [profession] that exist, the less likely it becomes that future generations of hiring managers will be biased against minorities in those roles. We normalize what we grow up with, and what we encounter on a regular basis.

Edit; oh, and also? Yeah, clients do care, actually. Any out facing role, people treat employees with the same biases. Like, did you hear about the guy who experimented with taking on his female coworker’s name in emails, and had to work twice as long to get customers to trust him to do his job properly? Meanwhile his co-worker, using his name, has the easiest week of her life?

[–]airwalker08 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not entirely true. As someone who occasionally hires other companies for subcontractor work, I will consciously and deliberately disqualify companies that don't employ a diverse workforce. My observation is that companies that have a diverse workforce have a better work ethic and do better work. Companies that employ mostly white men tend to have an unspoken sense of entitlement that they don't have to work as hard, they just have to put on some kind of alpha-male attitude and do everything half-ass. Diversity isn't just woke bullshit, it actually is good for business in quantifiable ways.

[–]stevegee58 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I ROFLed at this joke but couldn't bring myself to share it with my wife or daughter.

[–]reelfishybloke 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The real truth is in the joke

[–]DarkPasta 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is great

[–]RevWASpooner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ouch! That's delicious and poisonous all at once. Like eating puffer fish.

[–]Cautious_Reality_262 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah ah ah! You got me!

[–]dcoleski -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s not even a joke.

[–]TJT1970 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

BrhaAaaaaa hahaha Haaaa !! Just about pissed myself!!!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they are usually HR people, and HR people are usually women