Using commentary such as “Obviously gay” does nothing to stem the myth that being camp and gay go hand in hand. A better terminology would have been “Stereotypicallly displayed traits of homosexual applicants” would have been much better.
The phrase they use is ‘openly gay’.
This is why we need to fight and demand our Equal and Civil Rights even if we have to do what Martin Luther King did by taking the Gay Civil Rights Movement, to the streets and do what the African Americans did to get their rights in America.
Not surprised shameful as it is. Such discrimination so unnecessary.
Thing is it’s employers like this that treat Gay men like this, separating us, then complain about how We are the ones to separate when we make it on our own for our own community.
Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.
If Jock S. Trap is back, can Huf Lung Dung be far behind…
Why must we have all these American horror stories – we know the US isn’t a uniformly civilised country – why not concentrate on our own little patch of gay-bashing glories…
Your obsession is noted but I’m already taken. Thanks.
The US Democratic party has been trying, at least once a year, to pass ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) since 1994. In many states it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay. Why would this news surprise anyone at all? Keep in mind that employment law, particularly in “right to work” states, often bears little resemblance to what we know in Europe.
I guess if you’re a gay employer, it’s only fair to be a bit nicer to prospective gay employees, just to even the balance. We face enough discrimination as it is. We need to look after each other, because there are people out there who hate us.
My friend recently didn’t get a job, and the employer said afterwards to someone else we knew that it was because my friend was gay.
Depressing but not surprising, and the geographical factor is also generally as it might be expected. It reminds me of a very similar study done in the UK some years ago. Made-up CVs with names suggesting Asian or African origins attracted markedly fewer interview offers than ones with more typically British names.
Actually, I think its the other way around. Everyone is so scared of turning down a black/Asian candidate!
In your parallel universe, perhaps.
In the UK, don’t even contemplate putting “Civil Partnership” on your CV unless you have studied the prospective employers equal rights policies well.
Even this is no guarantee, so I just leave it off.
The marital status of someone in a CP in the UK is married, so just put that.
There is no need for you to include your marital status on your CV in any case (it’s like your age). Neither is relevant to your capacity to work.
Just tell them that it is none of their business!
Opus Dei, that simplly isn’t true. Under the law, CPs are NOT recognised as marriages no matter how some people construe them to be. By ticking “married” could be seen by some employers as fraudulent.
This study has little relevance to civilsed countries.
The US South and Midwest are famed for their moronic christianity and bigotry.
Out of interestt – anyone who puts the fact that they were the treasurer of an LGBT university society on their CV is very foolish indeed.
IN an ideal world such a position would make no difference. But bigotry is alive and well and active in the interview process.
Stay discreet while going for the interview. Once you have the job then it’s much easier to be out (unless you live in one of those savagely backward US states which do not ban discriminationo based on sexual orientation.
why is it foolish to include information that demonstrate experience presumably relevant to the job you are applying to (the important point here being the treasurer position rather than the fact that it’s for an LGBT organisation)
Ok this sort of discrimination is plainly stupid but on the other hand… would you want to work in a homophobic environment? Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise after all.
(For info, my CV makes it clear that i have been involved with various LGBT organisations.)
Nothing new there then! We don’t tick Civil Partner box either, anyway why ask for marital status anyway. This is discriminatory because civil partnership and marriage are the same, if you believe the government, at this time.
Is this supposed to be a surprise? Who indicates they are gay on their CV anyway?
Well if one reads the article, someone who was Treasurer of their university gay society might well.
So don’t mention that the university society was a gay society.
Anyway, being anything at any university society means nothing on a CV. Not sure why it is even included. As an employer I am only interested in grades and work history. Couldn’t care less about who was Treasurer of what at university.
Gender, sexuality, age etc all have no place on a CV.
A resume in the US is not the same as a CV in the UK. It’s traditional and expected that extracurricular activities – especially ones that show civic involvement and competence – will be listed.
Prejudice is everywhere. Employers recruit in their own image, so if they’re white, heterosexual, competitive, work hard/play hard 30 somethings, (i.e. codespeak “aggressive” and “decisive”) that’s who they recruit. Hence women (unless young and nubile) and gay men won’t fare well especially in commerically competitive male dominated environments. Same goes for those with a disability. Or those over 40. Hetero men work hard to maintain the status quo as they benefit most and are mostly likely to reward eachother. They are inherently conservative, unimaginative and risk averse when it comes to recruiting staff. So no real surprises in this research….sadly.
You pander to much to stereotypes.
In my younger years I as a white, OUT HOMOSEXUAL, competitive, work hard/play hard 30 something.
And I fared very well thank you very much.
Bigotry and discrimination is only potent when left to fester. I always confronted it in the workplace. Its amazing how easy it is to shame people when you choose NOT to be a victim.
There is no need to take a tone. No, I am not “pandering” to anything. Its based in reality. That is why there is anti-discrimination legislation in the work place. You might have had a great time but that’s your experience. Not everyone can say the same.
Your last paragraph is in response to what exactly? We are talking specifically about a piece of research regarding recruitment not what happens when you are in the job. The whole point is that you can’t challenge discrimination if you can’t even get your foot in the door because of it.
it would be nice if the values for each demographic they looked at was shown in the article instead of the overall difference, Especially since the article mentions it better in some areas then others. Also we have no idea if there were instances where the gay c.v was chosen over the no gay one.
Also it would help to know the exact difference in wording s the article makes it seem like the c.v listed different type of work skills.
oh and for future articles a link to where you read the study so those interested could read further.
Surely an employer would prefer to have someone who is not going to take lots of maternity and paternity leave then keep dashing off home on a whim every time one of their kids comes out in spots, etc. Not only does the employer have to pay them to be at home they also have to pay a lacky to cover their absence. At least LGBT employees won’t be knocking out babies!
“At least LGBT employees won’t be knocking out babies!”
Speak for yourself
No discrimination there then.
given that the survey was conducted on a large scale, it is surprising that they did not test also CVs from openly lesbian applicants. It would be interesting to see whether a similar bias exists against lesbians.
Part of the problem is vetting by personnel agencies or HR departments rather than the manager for the position. Many personnel agencies are full of traditionalists who like conformity in their candidates, regardless of what the employer actually needs. I don’t hide who I am on a job, but I like to at least get to interview with the actual employer rather than strike out at the short-listing stage with a personnel clerk.