1) Women in America control a majority of our private wealth. There are also more women than men. So, women are neither an economic minority, nor a minority in numbers. The author also rightly points out that there is no statistical evidence that women really do make less for the same job, or if there are other factors that bring the *average* for women down -- which there obviously are.

2) It's odd that the author would point at a study which shows that a person with a "black sounding" name is less likely to be called in for an interview, when a previous Slate story cited studies that showed the contrary (A Roshanda by any other name).

3) I'd be interested to know what sorts of jobs they were applying these phony applicants to. I could almost buy that you will see discrimination for jobs that don't require any particular skill (if you don't like black people, you may as well hire someone you do like to flip hamburgers, because no one person is likely to perform that much better than another at that job -- employees for such jobs are a commodity). I don't buy that any executive that values his bonus is sacrificing cash in his pocket to ensure that he has a white Financial Analyst.

4) How do the authors of the study explain the propensity of these racist/sexist managers to send so many jobs to continents full of dark people? It would really make more sense if people with "black sounding" names were contacted as often as those with "white sounding" names, but were offered less money. That, at least, would be consistent with business's demonstrated desire to exploit people, regardless of race, to cut costs.

5) what was the race of those who received the applications? What was their sex? That seems like a fundamental question in a study like this -- I think that the author of this article assumes (or expects us to assume) that those receiving the applications were part of the white-patriarchal power structure -- likely wearing an extravagant suit and puffing a big cigar between rounds of evil laughter.

6) The study says that there was a common thread of class discrimination (applicants from certain neighborhoods were less likely to be called in for interviews) regardless of race. Why the Slate article didn't mention that, I don't know. If we have class warriors receiving resumes, could it be possible that blacks aren't being shunned because of their race, but because blacks and women are statistically more likely to be impoverished? Just a thought -- but that's why we accept the fact that correlation isn't causation.

Sending jobs to continents with dark people

Wow, just wow. Not even worth a detailed answer.

A rebuttal to the rebuttal:

1) Women are an economic minority because they are paid less by the hour - for whatever reason - for the same work. You cannot convince me that women own the majority of the wealth in America - just look at the Forbes 50 top weathiest: almost all men. As for there being more women than men... yeah, 51% W to 49% M - statistically insignificant compared to everything else going on out there.

2) The other study you cited looked at the potential success rate of people with black-sounding names. This article looks at the willingness of employers to hire people with black-sounding names. The first said "having a black-sounding name doesn't make you less likely to succeed in life". The second said "employers tend to dislike applicants with black-sounding names. These points are associated, but not correlated.

3) Something tells me that the study did not send out applications to only McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's. I think studies try to diversity just a little.

4) "full of dark people" Yeah... nothing to say there, either.

5) No, you might be assuming something, but the article does not have to be. Who says the employers have to be white to be racist? It could be that black women are conditioned to think that black women won't be good workers - that black women hear all the time about how bad their race or their sex is, and they tend to want to hire white men instead. It would be unfortunate if that is true, but it surely is possible. The study targeted employers. The race and sex of the employers is random, and not a targeted variable.

6) Good point.

1) It wasn't a rebuttal so much as a finding of fault. I could attempt to rebut a strong, well designed study. This wasn't one.

1) Whether there is 2% more women, or 20%, that makes them a majority.

On the issue of control over the majority of private wealth -- I'll have to concede. I read that fact somewhere -- it was attributed to the fact that women outlive men, so at the higher age ranges women are left in control of their entire family wealth. However, I can't remember where I read that statistic, so I'll let it go. I would assert, though, that you have no idea what the break down is on sex and wealth.

2) The only thing that the hiring managers had to look at in this study was the name of the applicant (and address). If this study says that the manager was able to determine race and make a racist hiring decision on that basis, I do think that is in direct conflict with the other study that showed no negative impact to having a black sounding name. I think it could have at least been citing in the story (the presence of the earlier study, that is), because the two issues are closely related and it would have given the reader a broader view of the issue.

3) Nothing tells you that. You assume that. The study didn't say -- so you have no basis whatever to make any assumption, except for your apparent propensity to believe that any study that finds sexism or racism to be demonstratively present is likely correct.

4) Why does the dark people comment bother people so much? It was meant as hyperbole, given the nature of the study as one on racism. Sorry it went over your (and the other poster's) head.

5) Again, you assume that the race of the hiring manager was random -- but you have no basis for that belief. We don't know what town, city or state these applications were sent to. Obviously, one can claim randomness, while having only sent the applications to cities where there was such a huge majority of whites that randomness on the race of the hiring manager was effectively squelched. Also -- you'd have to point to whatever study has established this "conditioned self-hate" phenomena that you're speaking of for me to buy it. I understand that there were such studies in the 1940s and 1950s, which were used to great effect in Brown vs. The Board of Education -- but assuming that the desegregationists were correct and that self-hate was perpetuated by forced segregation -- then the findings on conditioned self-hate should also have changed.

6) Of course it was a good point. They were all good points. You base whether or not someone makes a good point, apparently, on whether you agree with the point. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with anything I posted -- they were findings of fault, not opinion.

When I first watched "Idiocracy", I thought it was stupid. The more I come across people who seem almost hostile to facts and who evaluate the value of something like a scientific study on whether or not it appeals to their political beliefs, the more I see that film as a prelude to our not-so-distant future.

1) The author did not cliam that women were either an 'economic minority', whatever that may be, or a numerical one.

2) Here's what the Slate article referenced here said:

"The data show that, on average, a person with a distinctively black name—whether it is a woman named Imani or a man named DeShawn—does have a worse life outcome than a woman named Molly or a man named Jake. But it isn't the fault of his or her name. If two black boys, Jake Williams and DeShawn Williams, are born in the same neighborhood and into the same familial and economic circumstances, they would likely have similar life outcomes. But the kind of parents who name their son Jake don't tend to live in the same neighborhoods or share economic circumstances with the kind of parents who name their son DeShawn. And that's why, on average, a boy named Jake will tend to earn more money and get more education than a boy named DeShawn. DeShawn's name is an indicator—but not a cause—of his life path."

Odd that you would provide a link to a source that refutes your assertion.

3) I would 'buy' that the executive who discriminates on this basis truly believes, rightly or wrongly that any white financial analyst is better than any non-white one. That is the basis of prejudiced thinking, is it not?

4) I don't 'buy' that company hiring managers make those decisions. They likely are made by higher level executives to increase profits by 'exploiting' the workers in those 'dark-skinned continents' who are paid lower wages, receive fewer, if any, benefits and have fewer, if any, employee rights than U.S. workers.

5) Who do YOU think holds the majority of those positions? (Puff, puff, "Ha, ha! Darn, dropped some ashes on my seersucker!")

6) Do you really 'buy' that the hiring managers check the home zip codes to determine the economic status the the applicants' neighborhoods and rejected them on that basis w/o regard to their qualifications?