Blind recruitment trial to boost gender equality making things worse, study reveals

Blind recruitment trial to boost gender equality making things worse, study reveals, by Henry Belot.

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. …

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.

Hiring more females and ethnics is good (“positive”)? So whites and men are bad? Guess that makes it official. And it backfired:

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. …

The measure was aimed at boosting female employment by removing indications of gender from job applications. Professor Michael Hiscox…  says results have shown “the opposite” and is urging caution.

So when only merit was considered, men did better? The obvious conclusion is of course not drawn by the ABC or Professor Hiscox. At least they are still trying to involve merit, rather than overtly going down the sexist route of simply applying quotas.

Men continue to outnumber women at senior ranks of the public service, despite vastly outnumbering men at the rank-and-file level.

“There has been a lot of effort made to improving diversity in the public servants and the subjects of our trial were fairly senior,” Professor Hiscox said.

What victims of ideology they are over there at the ABC — perhaps the propagandists lost sight of the fact that PC is a set of false ideas that are adopted for political reasons. The idea that the populations of woman and men are equally able is PC, but not true, just as their heights are not the same.

Trigger warning: Here is some completely blasphemous data — some facts are just not allowed down at the ABC and in the Australian Public service, and don’t tell Professor Hiscox or you will be shouted at and harangued to within an inch of your life:

IQ intelligence male female

The distribution of g [raw intelligence] in male and female populations. The scale of the horizontal axis is in units of the male standard deviation.

The distributions look about the same, but if you inspect closely you find that only 37% of humans with IQs over 120 (the bottom of managerial level) are female. So when feminists claim that 50% of managerial jobs should be theirs, they are scientifically incorrect. And as the threshold IQ moves up (as it would for senior public service positions), the male-female numbers gap only grows larger.

The only solution in line with PC assumptions is is to dumb down the senior public service, just like they have the universities, schools, fire officers, armed forces, …. The standard solution throughout the PC West when white men dominate on merit has been to dilute the effect of merit down and down until ideological outcomes are achieved. Then they wonder why nobody seems to be as competent as they used to be.

hat-tip Alex

Saudi Delivers Un-meetable Demands to Qatar, with 10 Day Deadline. Uh oh.

Saudi Delivers Un-meetable Demands to Qatar, with 10 Day Deadline. Uh oh. By Darius Shahtahmasebi.

Late last week, Saudi Arabia and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that are involved in attempting to isolate Qatar sent the tiny Gulf nation a list of 13 demands. They are insisting that Qatar meet these demands within ten days or face unspecified further action.

The list of demands includes Qatar shutting down Al-Jazeera and its affiliate stations; shutting down other news outlets that Qatar funds, including Middle East Eye; curbing diplomatic ties with Iran and expelling members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard; terminating the Turkish military presence in Qatar; consenting to monthly audits for the first year following acceptance of the demands, and aligning itself entirely with the other Gulf and Arab countries militarily, politically, socially, and economically – to name but a few.

The most ludicrous of the demands is that Qatar must end its interference in sovereign countries’ internal affairs. Qatar does interfere in a number of countries, including Libya and Syria, but as the German Foreign Minister explained, this list of demands directly challenges Qatar’s sovereignty. Who is interfering with whose sovereignty, exactly?

Unsurprisingly, Qatar has dismissed the list of demands as neither reasonable nor actionable. Surely, the Saudi-led anti-Qatar alliance is aware of this. It would be tantamount to asking Great Britain to shut down the BBC and expel American troops – it just wouldn’t happen. All of the world’s major newspapers are complicit in running state-sanctioned propaganda, and singling Al-Jazeera out is hardly fair or practical.

In that context, Saudi Arabia and its friends have given Qatar a list of demands they cannot conceivably meet and imposed a ten-day deadline to concede or face unspecified further action. Qatar was essentially doomed from the start of this rift, and it’s only just beginning. As Newsweek lamented, “the demands are designed to be impossible to comply with.” …

The ultimate agenda of the Saudi-led alliance is to deter Qatar from continuing its relationship with Iran, Saudi Arabia’s regional arch rival. But even the Guardian notes that “cutting ties to Iran would prove incredibly difficult,” as Iran and Qatar share a massive offshore natural gas field that supplies Qatar with much of its wealth. …

The US has an interest in keeping trade in US dollars. But to go to war?

Remember that Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails confirmed that the U.S. and France were so concerned with attacking Muammar Gaddafi in Libya not out of humanitarian concern, but rather, out of fear of his plan to unite Africa under a single gold-backed currency that would be used to buy and sell oil on the global markets.

Remember that in 2000, Saddam Hussein announced he would sell Iraqi oil in euros, and the Guardian reported in 2003 that Iraq had actually netted a handsome profit in doing so — at least until the U.S. invaded not long after and immediately switched the sale of oil back to U.S. dollars. …

Un-meetable demands are a prelude to some sort of war?

Further, the U.S. just recently implemented a policy to target Iran for regime change. President Trump met with Saudi Arabia and the GCC nations earlier this year and sword-danced and sabre-rattled his way down a warpath with Iran. …

Clearly, Qatar cannot meet Saudi Arabia’s demands, and Saudi Arabia must be completely aware of this. As we have seen in Yemen and Syria, Saudi Arabia almost always resorts to outright brutality in order to bully non-compliant states into submission. As we have also seen in America’s treatment of Iraq and Libya, countries that depart from the U.S. dollar are not met kindly by the American military, either.

Tread Carefully: How IEDs nullify much of the western technological advantage in Afghanistan

Tread Carefully: How IEDs nullify much of the western technological advantage in Afghanistan, by Major Danny Sjursen.

We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t—at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single file was our best bet.

The reason was simple enough: improvised bombs not just along roads but seemingly everywhere. Hundreds of them, maybe thousands. Who knew?

Our “news” never shows any of this

That’s right, the local “Taliban”—a term so nebulous it’s basically lost all meaning—had managed to drastically alter U.S. Army tactics with crude, homemade explosives stored in plastic jugs. And believe me, this was a huge problem. Cheap, ubiquitous, and easy to bury, those anti-personnel Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs, soon littered the “roads,” footpaths, and farmland surrounding our isolated outpost. To a greater extent than a number of commanders willingly admitted, the enemy had managed to nullify our many technological advantages for a few pennies on the dollar (or maybe, since we’re talking about the Pentagon, it was pennies on the millions of dollars).

Truth be told, it was never really about our high-tech gear. Instead, American units came to rely on superior training and discipline, as well as initiative and maneuverability, to best their opponents. And yet those deadly IEDs often seemed to even the score, being both difficult to detect and brutally effective.

So there we were, after too many bloody lessons, meandering along in carnival-like, Pied Piper-style columns. Bomb-sniffing dogs often led the way, followed by a couple of soldiers carrying mine detectors, followed by a few explosives experts. Only then came the first foot soldiers, rifles at the ready. Anything else was, if not suicide, then at least grotesquely ill-advised.

And mind you, our improvised approach didn’t always work either. To those of us out there, each patrol felt like an ad hoc round of Russian roulette. In that way, those IEDs completely changed how we operated, slowing movement, discouraging extra patrols, and distancing us from what was then considered the ultimate “prize”: the local villagers, or what was left of them anyway. In a counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign, which is what the U.S. military was running in Afghanistan in those years, that was the definition of defeat.

Western military power is good for killing people, not for suppressing an insurgency where insurgent fighters hide among a population who must not be harmed.

Countries and borders are great things. We can live in our countries, and others can live in theirs, without interfering with each other. The problems when incompatible cultures interfere with each other are immense…

The West should get out of Afghanistan immediately. The locals there are fighting the foreign invaders, and will of course do so indefinitely. The Vietnamese didn’t appreciate an arrogant bunch of armed foreigners lording it over them in their country either — ideology had almost nothing to do with it. The original point of invading Afghanistan was to teach them not to blow up buildings in New York, and I think that point was adequately made by 2002.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Paris Residents Unable to Sleep Through ‘Intense’ Overnight Mosque Loudspeaker Sessions

Paris Residents Unable to Sleep Through ‘Intense’ Overnight Mosque Loudspeaker Sessions, by Virginia Hale.

As well as operating year-round on Friday afternoons, the loudspeakers were in action from 11.30 pm each night until past 1 am during the Islamic holy month so as to allow Muslims praying on the streets outside, due to lack of space in the mosque, to hear.

“The loudspeaker is so intense,” a resident told Le Parisien. “We hear prayers, songs and readings delivered in a fashion that is completely disrespectful of people who follow other religions, and atheists.

“Some nights it is impossible to get more than four hours sleep because even after the prayers end, the faithful then engage in discussions which can last for another two hours.”

There’s more than one way to conquer a nation. Sleep-deprive them into submission!

hat-tip Stephen Neil