Sad! Not good!
CNBC reports that an experiment carried out by Business.com showed that employers are more prone to overlook resumes of people using woke pronouns.
Business.com sent resumes to "180 unique job postings that were explicitly open to entry-level candidates" to see "whether or not the inclusion of gender-neutral pronouns impacts how employers perceive resumes."
"Both featured a gender-ambiguous name, ‘Taylor Williams.' The only difference between the test and control resumes was the presence of gender pronouns on the test version," McGonagill said in the report. "The test resume included "they/them" pronouns under the name in the header." She/her and he/him pronouns were not tested.
The phantom resume including pronouns received 8% less interest than the one without, and fewer interview and phone screening invitations.
Oh no! Why could this be??
Why won't companies hire these brave s̶e̶x̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶f̶u̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶M̶a̶r̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ social justice warriors who want to make the world an a̶b̶n̶o̶r̶m̶a̶l̶ ̶s̶e̶x̶ ̶c̶u̶l̶t̶ inclusive and better place??
Of course, CNBC frames this as a bad thing.
Inclusivity shouldn't just be present in the workplace — it should be practiced during the hiring process as well. But unfortunately, nonbinary job seekers are facing clear biases during their job search.
"Unfortunately"?
CNBC, this is one of the best things I've heard out of the business world in years. It shows that some people still have common sense!!
Zelna McGee, senior director of learning and development at Centerfield Media, Business.com's holding company, says that inclusive hiring practices and workplaces have to be intentional about minimizing bias.
The wokies have made "discrimination" into such a bad word that they've made it bad to discriminate at all. Let me give them a quick lesson:
- Bad discrimination – Making judgements based on superficial traits that have zero effect on the job at hand, such as melanin level (skin color).
- Good discrimination – Making judgements based on someone's experience, competency, and behavior (perceived character).
60 years ago, we created a generally healthy outline for this with the Civil Rights Act.
But the wokies want to make sexual behavior and feelings into "identity." They then want to balloon this definition of unlawful discrimination out ad nauseum.
"Company leaders should also be proactive in preventing these situations through employee education and conversation. Help your team members understand what it means to truly be inclusive and consider different perspectives."
Translation: Be good little rainbow Marxists, comrades!
If your employees can't grasp basic facts like binary dichotomous sex (male and female), how the heck are they going to make sense of the rest of reality to earn you money?
Beyond that, if your employees are mentally and emotionally unstable to the point where they feel the need to play act like someone else – especially when it comes to sexual behaviors and fetishes – how in the world could you consider them anything other than a liability?
If you don't see it, ladies and gentlemen, imagine this scenario: A man comes in to interview with your company. He is obsessed with feet. He has feet pictures on his briefcase, a hat shaped like a foot, and says he needs a leg-lamp like the one from A Christmas Story.
In fact, this gentleman says he identifies as a foot. He will require special provisions, such as a shoe-shaped cubicle and permission to wear giant sock-like onesies to work.
Would you hire a person like that?
Then why would you hire a man who thinks he's a "they/them"???
