SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
A measure aimed at boosting female employment in the workforce may actually be making it worse, a major study has found.
Leaders of the Australian public service will today be told to "hit pause" on blind recruitment trials, which many believed would increase the number of women in senior positions. Blind recruitment means recruiters cannot tell the gender of candidates because those details are removed from applications. It is seen as an alternative to gender quotas and has also been embraced by Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Victoria Police and Westpac Bank.
In a bid to eliminate sexism, thousands of public servants have been told to pick recruits who have had all mention of their gender and ethnic background stripped from their CVs. The assumption behind the trial is that management will hire more women when they can only consider the professional merits of candidates. Their choices have been monitored by behavioural economists in the Prime Minister's department — colloquially known as "the nudge unit".
Professor Michael Hiscox, a Harvard academic who oversaw the trial, said he was shocked by the results and has urged caution. "We anticipated this would have a positive impact on diversity — making it more likely that female candidates and those from ethnic minorities are selected for the shortlist," he said. "We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:42PM (17 children)
The affirmative action needs to reach back into childhood choices - Cinderella needs to snag prince charming with a killer outfit she made on her 3D printer:
https://www.thingiverse.com/SexyCyborg/designs [thingiverse.com]
Then, all the societal norms that give women biased advantage in "marrying rich so they don't have to work" need to be erased. Only after that, and so many more, cultural gender biases that push more men into leadership and technical roles are removed from people's upbringing, we might be approach parity in the job market.
Of course, there are a few unerasable gender differences - most notable being the time-out from career building that child-bearing usually brings.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday August 10 2017, @10:06PM (11 children)
Unerasable? How come?
Look, force a time-out to men every time they father a child and I guarantee men will become as "expensive" as women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:19PM (5 children)
This already happens for men paying child support - many get cash-in-hand jobs, or stop work altogether, just to avoid paying for the child's upkeep (not that the payments go anywhere near covering the total costs)
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:05AM (1 child)
Now seriously, we need to talk about this. We need to find these men, and when we do, we will not extract money from them, instead we will cut off their balls, because, you see, they do not need them because they are not real men at all.
Real men take responsibility for their offspring, they "husband", which means they provide the conditions under which things can grow and prosper. Farmers do this with plants, herdsmen do it with animals, and Fathers do it with children. So any pathetic excuse for a man that seeks to evade his duty as a provider is no husband, is no father, and in fact is no human. He is some sort of libertarian whoremonger with a red pillar from pleasuring himself much too often because that is the only thing he can see, and the only thing he can see in another. Taxation is theft, eh? Tell me that when we find you and cut off your balls, you selfish masturbating red pillar "men's rights" bastard son of no mother!! Tell me, to my face, as the knife finds it's target!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @11:21AM
Well. Fucking. Said.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @10:33AM (2 children)
Nor should they. The goal is for the man to pay his fair share of the cost. Now you can ask whether that goal is reached, but in almost all cases, having the man cover the total cost of the child would definitely not be fair.
If both have the same income, then probably a fair share would be if each one covers half of the cost.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday August 11 2017, @10:46AM (1 child)
what about the value of the, you know, caring? Stay-at-home parents don't *earn*, so how do you value their input?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @11:43AM
Well, $bud_o_mine pulls in over $50K/yr while $evil_cunt_ex sits on her ass. His child support is less than $200/mo though (It'd be quite a bit more if they didn't have a 50/50 time with the kids split). Judge ruled that since she chose to quit her $40K/yr job to be a stay-at-home mom, child support would be calculated as if her income were $40K/yr.
That seemed a pretty logical and reasonable way to value her input to me but it's not going to be applicable to every situation.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @12:41AM (3 children)
How do you do that with people who are self employed exactly? The state should sanction that for some arbitrary period, fathers cannot earn money to support their wife and child? What about individuals with rental or another source of regular income, should the state confiscate that? What about wealthy females with paid help who are able to return to work sooner after maternity leave?
Equality of outcome is a stupid ideology. Consider a single child born retarded, surely every child must be retarded to make things "fair"? We could give every child a whack with the stupid stick and then they'd all be about equally smart enough to support equality of outcome over equality of opportunity? No, we should strive to enable opportunities for everyone to be the best can they can be. Life throws everyone curve balls, some people work hard and should be rewarded while some just get lucky and others suffer incredible misfortune. What kind of authoritarian dickhead thinks imposing a twisted, punishing ideology under the pretence of "fairness" could ever be a superior system to the real world? All this shit still happens but it's better than being deliberately disadvantaged in the name of "equality".
Nearly 100,000,000 dead in the 20th Century thanks to Marxist bullshit and some people think repeating these experiments is a good idea? Loonies... complete. fucking. loonies!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @03:39AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @10:44AM (1 child)
Self-employed people are obviously not discriminated against by their employer, so corrective measures are not required in that case.
This isn't affected for the mother, therefore there's no reason why it should be affected for the father.
If there's forced leave for a child, then it should affect everyone equally, of course. Including rich women who could return earlier. Why should rich women be treated better than rich men?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:13PM
Nobody is forced into having children, there is no forced leave.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11 2017, @05:45PM
Look, force a time-out to men every time they father a child and I guarantee men will become as "expensive" as women.
Most civilized nations already do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @01:36AM (3 children)
Or you could just leave them the fuck alone and let them live how they want to live their lives. By all means, tell everyone they can do whatever the hell they want. Try telling them they have to or even should (dis)like something they don't and we gonna have to throw down though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 11 2017, @02:50AM (2 children)
If you think I even slightly consider "erasing social norms" possible, practical or desirable, you missed the sarcasm.
I could do with a few less brainwashed princesses in the world, though.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @04:12AM (1 child)
Mea culpa then. My sarcasm detector starts getting flaky around bedtime (~20m after that post was made). Why am I still awake then? Neighbor came over at bedtime asking for a ride because her husband was on the side of the highway on account of his car catching on fire. Then I grabbed a coffee at a convenience store on the way home. Sometimes I am foolish.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday August 12 2017, @09:18AM
Probably more often than you think (as are we all), but not when you lose a bit of sleep over helping a neighbor out who's stranded on the side of the highway due to a car catching fire.
Going on the internet afterwards, however.... https://xkcd.com/386/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @03:54AM
The problem is in the fact that the Cinderella's most important goal in life is to snag the prince. For some Cinderellas, that's the only goal in life. The job plays no role in this process. The technical means to achieve prince-snagging are irrelevant; all things considered, the classical feminine lure works far better anyway. Man's interests are usually tied to his job, and they do not end suddenly, and they are expanding (fame, respect, experience, salary.) Woman's interests are primarily with her family.
True interest in the job is far more important. Many women do not find it exciting to work with machines, just like many men have only so much interest to play with children. This is the equation you need to change if you want to affect the results. And I will not lift a finger to help you :-)