Men are less likely to get hired if their gender is known

I'm kind of late to the party here as this article at Brietbart came out over a week ago but it is very relevant in the discussion of how companies are looking to be even more discriminatory towards men. The article is entitled "Study: More Men Hired in Gender-Blind Job Application Process":

The trial, which was an effort to push more women in senior position jobs, revealed that removing the gender from a candidate’s application does not help boost gender equality in hiring. The trial also revealed that adding a male name to a candidate’s application made them 3.2 percent less likely to get the job while adding a female name made it 2.9 percent more likely that the candidate would be hired.

Researchers assumed that removing gender identifiers from an application would make it easier for women to obtain employment in senior positions that have traditionally been dominated by men.

“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,” said Professor Michael Hiscox, a Harvard academic. “We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist.”

So as anyone in the real world knows, it is less likely, not more likely these days that a man will get hired if his gender is known. So instead of wondering why a man is less likely to get hired if people know his gender, this article on the topic states that even more discrimination against men is necessary to keep stop sexism against women (!). Here are the key points from the Australian experiment:

Key points:

Public service leaders are being told to "hit pause" on blind recruitment trials

The measure was aimed at boosting female employment by removing indications of gender from job applications

Professor Michael Hiscox, the academic who oversaw the trial, says results have shown "the opposite" and is urging caution.

I love this assumption:

The assumption behind the trial is that management will hire more women when they can only consider the professional merits of candidates.

So it appears that if only professional merits are considered, men come out ahead but the answer to this on the part of the academics is for public leaders to hire those who are less qualified since the women are not competing as well with the men. Why not target why and how the women lack professional merit and try to address that?

Because that might actual fix the problem and be too hard. It's just easier and more PC to simultaneously discriminate against men and advance women who are not as qualified without asking them to do the work it takes to have an application with credentials and merit that rival men's. That is the real sexism here.