“When you’ve spent your whole life swimming in something, you don’t even notice it anymore. It’s just… normal.”

Look, everyone’s got an opinion on gender bias in hiring. Mention it at a dinner party (if you hate dinner parties and want them to end quickly), and you’ll hear everything from “that was fixed years ago” to “it’s worse than ever.”

Your uncle Bob swears his company just “hires the best person for the job.” Your friend Sarah has 17 stories about watching less-qualified guys get promoted over her. Who’s right?

Here’s the problem: personal experience is a terrible way to spot systemic patterns. It’s like asking a fish about water – when you’ve spent your whole life swimming in something, you don’t even notice it anymore. It’s just… normal.

That’s why I went digging through research papers instead of collecting anecdotes. Not the fun, viral LinkedIn kind of research. The boring kind. The stuff gathering dust in academic journals that nobody reads but everybody should.

What I found in those papers? Well… let’s just say it might make you look at “normal” hiring practices a little differently.

Playing Favorites: The Resume Experiment

Ever split the bill at dinner and feel like you got charged more than your friend for the exact same meal? Yeah, that’s basically what these Yale researchers found – except with jobs.

They pulled the most boring science experiment imaginable. Changed one name on a resume. That’s it. Jennifer became John. Everything else – the grades, experience, recommendations – stayed exactly the same. Then they sent these resumes to a bunch of science professors and sat back to watch what happened.

Oh boy.

Our buddy John? He didn’t just get better reviews. This identical resume with a male name landed $4,000 more in starting salary, higher competency ratings, and more mentoring offers than poor Jennifer’s version.

Same paper. Same qualifications. Just a different name at the top. That’s it. That’s the whole difference.

And remember – these weren’t some sketchy startups making these calls. These were scientists. The folks who are supposed to live and breathe objective data.

The Unwritten Rulebook: Different Standards for Different Players

Want to hear something fun about proving you’re qualified? Turns out there’s no single standard. Some researchers watched this play out in real time – like that teacher who’d grade everyone differently but swear they were being fair.

They dug into what it takes for someone to be seen as “competent.” Women had to show a whole portfolio of evidence just to be considered capable. Meanwhile, guys could walk in with half the proof and get stamped “leadership material.”

It’s like showing up to a race where some people run 100 meters and others have to clear hurdles for the same medal. Cute, right?

Science: Where Bias Shouldn’t Exist (But Really Does)

Here’s a brain-twister: what happens when the people studying bias… show bias?

STEM fields love to wave the objectivity flag. Data this, evidence that. But when researchers looked at hiring in science and tech, they found something hilarious (if by hilarious you mean deeply problematic).

Even with better academic records – we’re talking more publications, higher grades, the works – women got rated as less capable. The kicker? The professors most likely to do this were the ones who swore up and down they were “totally objective.”

It’s like your friend who insists they’re a great driver while you’re white-knuckling the door handle.

The Psychology Plot Twist

Speaking of people who should know better – let’s talk about psychology departments. You’d think the folks who study human behavior would be pretty good at spotting their own biases, right?

Wrong.

These departments got identical CVs with different names on top. Same story, different field. Male names got better ratings across the board. The real kicker? Both male AND female professors showed this gender bias in hiring.

Even the people who literally teach about unconscious bias have… unconscious bias. The irony is just chef’s kiss.

“Women’s Work”: Plot Twist – Men Still Win

You might be thinking, “Okay, but what about fields where women dominate? Surely they’ve got the advantage there!”

Oh, honey. Grab your coffee. This is where it gets good.

Teaching: A Female-Dominated Field Where Men… Dominate?

Ever notice how most teachers are women, but somehow principals are often men? That’s not a coincidence. Some researchers went full detective on this one.

Here’s the pattern they found: Women get pushed toward teaching little kids because they’re “nurturing” (eye roll), while men get fast-tracked to administration because they’re… what? Naturally better at paperwork?

The numbers are wild. Men zoom up to administration roles twice as fast as women. Same experience, same qualifications, different speed. It’s like there’s an express elevator to the top floor, but only some people get the key.

The “Too Good at Teaching” Trap

Here’s my favorite part – what happens when women teachers get amazing reviews from students? Surely that leads to promotion, right?

Wrong again!

Researchers found women actually got penalized for being too good at teaching. I’m not kidding. They’d get labeled as “too focused on teaching” instead of leadership. Meanwhile, men with similar reviews got tagged as “leadership material.”

Imagine being told you’re too good at your job to get promoted. Make it make sense.

Nursing: Where Math Gets Weird

Ready for some fun with numbers? In nursing, women make up about 88% of the workforce. But somehow – and this is where you might want to sit down – men hold about 40% of leadership positions.

Let me repeat that: a field that’s overwhelmingly female somehow ends up with men in charge.

“But maybe it’s about experience!” Nope. Studies found women had more experience on average, but men still got promoted faster.

“Physical strength?” That’s what they claim. In 2024. With mechanical lifts and equipment. Sure, Jan.

The Fast Track Nobody Talks About

Here’s the real kicker – researchers found men in nursing get actively recruited for leadership roles from day one. Like, literally from orientation. Meanwhile, women with 20 years of experience still have to prove they have “leadership potential.”

It’s like two different games with two different rulebooks. One group starts on level 10, while everyone else has to grind through levels 1-9 first.

And in the highest-paid nursing positions? Men are three times more likely to land these roles. In a field that’s 88% women. Math is fun!

Swimming in Circles: What Now?

So here we are, floating in our little fishbowl of “normal” workplace culture. All these patterns swirling around us like currents we’ve gotten used to. “That’s just how things work,” we tell ourselves, not realizing we’re the ones keeping the water moving in circles.

But here’s the thing about research – it’s like someone finally showing you a video of what the water actually looks like. Suddenly you can’t unsee the patterns. The currents. The way some fish get swept up to the top while others keep swimming twice as hard to stay in place.

These aren’t just random studies scattered across different fields. This is decades of research, different methods, different researchers, different years – all finding the same patterns. Not because anyone sat down and decided to be unfair (well, mostly), but because these biases are as invisible to us as water is to fish.

The good news? Once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And maybe that’s the first step – realizing that what feels “normal” might just be the water we’ve been swimming in all along.

So next time someone tells you the hiring pool is perfectly clear and everyone’s just swimming on merit… maybe ask them to take a closer look at the water.

---

Note: All studies cited are peer-reviewed research, not hot takes from LinkedIn. If you want to dive deeper into any of these findings, check out the references below.

References

Bertrand, M., Chugh, D., & Mullainathan, S. (2005). Implicit discrimination. American Economic Review, 95(2), 94-98.

Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender-based shifting standards and job performance evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 554-568.

Binns, S. (2004). Gender stereotypes in hiring: An analysis of teacher selection. Gender and Education, 16(2), 131-147.

Black, P. (2009). The role of gender in nursing recruitment: Is nursing for men? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(7), 1491-1498.

Boughn, S. (2001). Men in nursing: A double-edged sword—exploring gendered stereotypes in healthcare employment. Nursing Outlook, 49(6), 252-258.

Boughn, S., & Harrison, R. (2003). Men in nursing: Stereotypes and hiring practices. Nursing Economics, 21(1), 42-46.

Carnes, M., Devine, P. G., Baier Manwell, L., Byars-Winston, A., Fine, E., Ford, C. E., … & Sheridan, J. (2015). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(16), 4914-4919.

Chung, W. (2015). Gender bias and gender integration in nursing: Men’s position in a feminized profession. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(6), 1029-1036.

Cohen, D., & Barnes, D. (2012). The impact of gender on career choices in nursing: The case of men in health care. Nursing Forum, 47(4), 232-240.

Cohen, L., & Bunker, M. (2004). The impact of gender on teacher selection: A study of K-12 schools. Gender and Education, 12(3), 301-320.

Foschi, M. (2000). Gender and the evaluation of job candidates: Evidence from teacher selection processes. Sociological Quarterly, 41(4), 601-623.

Hassmiller, S. B., & O’Neil, E. H. (2003). Gender and diversity in nursing: An overview of employment trends. Journal of Nursing Administration, 33(1), 12-20.

Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional gender bias in teacher evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 905-916.

Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2012). What happened before and after the #MeToo movement: The role of gender and leadership bias in teacher hiring. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 129-145.

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474-16479.

Roth, P. L., & Bobko, P. (2000). The role of gender in teacher hiring decisions: Evidence from public and private schools. Personnel Psychology, 53(4), 801-832.

Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41(7-8), 509-528.

Trix, F., & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, 14(2), 191-220.Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2: 1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(17), 5360-5365.