Our thanks to HEqual for this, from Australia. Extracts:
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.
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.
The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview.
Adding a woman’s name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door.
“We should hit pause and be very cautious about introducing this as a way of improving diversity, as it can have the opposite effect,” Professor Hiscox said.
The bottom line? Interventions are only to be continued if they result in the advancement of women at the expense of men. Prof Hiscox must be so proud of being a parasite on Australian taxpayers, mostly men. Later in the same piece:
The landmark study throws doubt on several trials launched by state Government’s and individual departments.
Last year, the Australia Bureau of Statistics doubled its proportion of female bosses by using blind recruitment.
It doubled the proportion in one year, by using an intervention that’s been shown not to work? Hmm, manipulation of the system, anyone, maybe by the female geniuses in Human Remains? Did it achieve that ridiculous result by firing or demoting male bosses?
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
‘Interventions are only to be continued if they result in the advancement of women at the expense of men.‘
At the expense of us all when the consequences are considered. Everyone suffers by this sort of nonsense, which is why women with more than half a brain are waking up and speaking out against it.
LikeLike
In a sense one has to be grateful feminists appear not to read research. Certainly in this country there are now a long series of reports on this that demonstrate that overall a female candidate will be preferred. The proportions vary but the overall picture remains consistent. This also holds true in most studies of promotion into management.
So it would not be at all surprising for “blind” recruiting to actually slightly trim the wings of the general positive discrimination. Just as the research in education has found “blind marking” tends to correct for a general 5% mark premium given to girls.
If unions were doing their job they’d be supporting many more men in cases where they would be able to demonstrate direct discrimination of this sort in recruitment and promotions as it is illegal under the Equality Act.
In fact another case in which an assistance on strict adherence to the Equality act and “blind recruit” (in fact the report is mainly about promotions to management). Will actually prevent gynocentric behaviours!
As the Prof. points out the staus quo, where names and sex are on the applications favours women ! “This project shows the status quo at the moment is to be supportive of hiring more women in the public service.”
Oh and of course the referred to fact that in Australian Public services me are hugely outnumbered gets mentioned and passed over. Surely this gross deviation from being representative of diversity should be corrected?
Of course it also suggests that male managers in the services and industries have to be rather better than their female colleagues. I hope they read it as its quite affirming.
LikeLike