Women are really getting a raw deal in the workplace. Not only do they notoriously get paid less due to sexism, they are lucky to get a job in the first place due to sexist hiring practices in male-dominated corporate HR departments.
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.
Why do we need more women in senior positions? Because not to have them would be sexist, of course, not to mention causing an explosion in the White birthrate that in turn would cause an unprecedented overpopulation crisis that could endanger the very future of life on earth.
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.
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.
Ok, so maybe women aren't being discriminated against in hiring. scratch that one. But we've still got the gender pay gap, right?
Just ask picture of femininity Senator Jennie McAllister:
When I entered the workforce about 20 years ago, the gender pay gap was 17 per cent. Today, official data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows, it is 16 per cent. Those two decades brought some of the strongest economic growth in our history. Despite that, we have not found a way to fix what is an unfair economic outcome for women.
It is a common misconception that the gender pay gap results from simple discrimination – a firm hires two accountants and pays the man more than the woman. Although this is a part of the gender pay gap, it is not the whole story.
Today, the second-biggest driver of the gender pay gap is occupational and industrial segregation. In Australia, 60 per cent of industries are dominated by one gender or another. Social and structural factors direct women into ‘pink ghettos’ with lower pay and fewer opportunities for advancement.
So the issue, as I understand it, is that women are choosing jobs that women with dyke haircuts like Senator Jennie think they shouldn't, and are therefore not getting paid "enough." (Never mind that those who can be bothered popping out a kid or two also have access to their husband's or baby-daddy's wallet for life, in addition to taxpayer-funded gibs).
But hang on, if we've just found out that HR departments, far from oppressing women, have actually been discriminating against men in their hiring decisions, what are the odds that companies are not actually paying women less for doing the same work, either, but instead actively discriminating in their favour?
Can we get a Senate Inquiry or a publically funded study into that?