[refurb]

This guy gets it.

"Unconscious bias" is so embedded in corporate-speak today that nobody has stopped to actually challenge its existence or the proposed solutions. Plus the "evidence" for such bias is so shaky ("Bill said I'm raising my voice, but he only said that because I'm a woman") it can be "found" or "dismissed" very easily, depending on what political goals you have.

I find it odd that we attempt to somehow reshape the innate human psyche (which is constantly taking in information and making assumptions based on them), rather than just enforce workplace rules around how you treat people. Seems like a bit more direct, objective and actionable than diving into some deep conversation about "unconscious bias".

But regardless, the real answer why this is being discussed is: 1) HR is told it needs to be done [usually because some other company is doing it], 2) it provides cover again lawsuits if employees sue over workplace harassment and 3) it's a moneymaking business for the consultants that teach these class [a lot of money].

[xiphias2]

It’s also profitable for both companies and governments (income tax) to make women delay staying with a baby at home and focus on work instead in their most fertile and productive age (late 20s, early 30s). For men you don’t need extra motivation, as they are not making this choice anyways.

They can feed the lie of ,,having lots of time to have a baby later’’, and I’m seeing many women at age 40 realizing that no man wants to start making a baby with her at that age, because it’s just biologically not practical.