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: 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.