Our thanks to Ray for this. Written by a female journalist – that makes a change – the theme throughout is that white men ‘believe’ they’re being discriminated against, as reported in a Pew survey, but in reality they’re not. Excerpts (the emphases are ours):
An engineer who was fired by Google for circulating an anti-diversity memo sued the company this week, alleging that the tech giant discriminates against white, conservative men. He’s likely not alone in that belief.
There are other white men working in tech who believe their gender and race are making it difficult for them to get ahead, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center about diversity in the science and technology fields…
Of course, data, including much of the rest of the Pew report released Tuesday, indicates that women and minorities are under-represented in many STEM fields…
But in sectors like computer science, women account for a small share of workers…
Despite these trends, there are a variety of factors that may make white men in STEM perceive themselves as victims of discrimination. Men have a tendency to believe that decreasing bias against women is associated with increasing bias against men, said Clara Wilkins, a professor at Wesleyan University who studies the psychology behind reverse discrimination.
“There’s this perception of a zero sum relationship, men and women are in competition,” she said. “So if things are better for women, things are worse than men.” [J4MB: Well, duh! This is a constant and idiotic refrain from parasitic feminist ‘academics’. Her last sentence in plain English, “So if there is positive discrimination for women (and minorities), there is negative discrimination against white men.” It IS a zero sum game, how could it not be?] Other research indicates whites perceive [J4MB emphasis] a similar relationship to minority groups.
Though women and black and Hispanic workers may still face discrimination in STEM, there are reasons for white men to believe that bias against these groups is decreasing…
The Pew survey indicates that some white and some male STEM workers believe they’re being harmed by this move towards gender and racial parity…
In addition to a focus on diversity in STEM fields specifically, there are other broader forces that may be pushing white or male workers to perceive they’re losing ground…
And education and economic data — which suggest women are getting farther in school and having better luck in the job market — can also fuel men’s perception that bias against women is decreasing at their expense.
Despite these feelings, there’s little evidence that reverse discrimination actually exists. Even programs like affirmative action, which typically look to have schools and institutions mirror the population at large, benefit white men in some cases, Wilkins said. [J4MB: And those cases would be…?]
On average, women do better in school, but in order to have some semblance of gender parity, colleges will seek to admit less-qualified men in some cases.
“There is this perception that programs like affirmative action are biased against whites,” she said. “Even that is not a simple case.” [J4MB: News just in. It is not a simple case that the Pope is a Catholic.]
Needless to say, the article doesn’t link to the Pew survey.
Justice for Men & Boys 
In some sectors at least they undoubtedly are. If an organisation contracts with the public sector they can find themselves having to comply with public sector recruitment processes which are very often technical testing rather than what in the private sector would be called an interview.
In the event of a tie – number of points – the person with the protected characteristics will be appointed. I can remember once being told to my face that if a black person scored the same as me they would get the job regardless of the fact I’d done it on an interim basis for six months.
LikeLike
Having worked in both local Gov. and NHS this is indeed the case. It is “positive action” and can be challenged on the grounds of “proportionate”. So in the NHS men have challenged successfully on the grounds that in fact it should be “positive action” to recruit men in the many roles that are overwhelmingly women. This is the Law now and I urge men to be aware of their rights. For myself I believe the Law should simply stop allowing any discriminatory action. However if men did start using their rights (I NHS, most Public Services, Much of Retail Teaching) I suspect the “positive Action” clauses would be repealed eventually !
LikeLike
Let me see if I’ve understood the article correctly: recruiting women and ethnic minorities in preference to men, even when the men are better qualified and more experienced, is not bias against men.
And: women’s feelings equal fact, men’s equal fiction.
Does that sum up the authoress’s argument?
That aside, how do an overall decline in average intelligence in any field, reduced competitiveness and a failing economy help ‘white men’, or anyone?
What is a ‘white’ man?
LikeLike
Someone who has fallen in the No. 9 vat at Furely’s Rainbow Factory?
LikeLike
This kind of article is just a smoke screen in an attempt to hide the obvious truth.
LikeLike
Absolutely. In the 1980s there were a series of studies, kicked off by Reich and Reich . These looked at sex (gender to be more modern) bias in recruitment across different industries. The found, as in later studies, that the more female a workforce the more likely to exclude male candidtates, there was a similar but very much weaker effect for “male” industries. But interestingly the reverse was found in women’s favour in Legal Firms, Information Technology , building trades and some other “newer” industries. This evidence of bias was so widely understood that by the “noughties” the PCT (NHS) I worked in had adopted “blind” recruiting as it found it had a recruiting process that was biased against men. In other words anyone with any supposed knowledge of the topic will know full well that there are these effects as they are well researched.
Of course the other thing that happens is that industries that have particular “drives” to recruit women sometimes find they increase recruitment but lose out through poor “retention” this has been a pattern in building and outdoor trades and engineering and tech.
Of course its simple common sense too but the geek in me just wanted to point out its pretty well researched too.
LikeLike
Poor retention of women in the building trades and engineering? Now that’s a surprise haha!
LikeLike
Indeed its a general problem (as per recent issues about teachers and nurses, we train more and more, employ more than ever but are still “short” of all we need (100,000 nurse vacancies for instance)). In the mid seventies I was leaving school at a time the UK had a good apprenticeship system. Possibly connected to the Equal Pay act and other debates of the day, there was a considerable enthusiasm for getting girls in (older reader may recall “Rosy the Riveter” etc harking back to WW2). Years later following my “red Pill” in the late 1990s I remembered this and looked into proportions in the industries. The more I looked into why in fact the proportions had barely changed I found this fluctuation over time.
So on a purely pragmatic basis one can say such “positive action” is only temporarily effective. What is it Einstein’s supposed to have said about doing the same thing repeatedly in the hope of a different result ? Madness and it costs money.
LikeLike
The key telling point here is that the men are discussed by outside experts. No one bothers to ask one guy, let alone a bunch with different opinions. Also, we might believe discrimination is increasingly socially acceptable against us because we have eyes and can read patronising articles like this.
LikeLike