I suggest you read the system described by the poster from feddit.nl just below, which just removes the kind of professionally irrelevant information (including gender, race and so on) from being in the candidate selection process.

Such systems are meant to removed descrimination (even subconscious one) rather than discriminating in the opposite direction. "Discriminating but the other way around" just preserves a mindset that people should be seen and treated differently depending on gender or sexual orientation and, as I've observed first hand, that kind of system yields environments which are even more sexist.

Having lived in both Britain (which apes a lot of things from the US) and The Netherlands, I can tell you that the latter country is way much more naturally equalitarian (gender-wise and even more so when it comes to sexual orientation) than the former.

(Not perfect, mind you, but way better than average)

The knee-jerk "this must be sexism" reaction to criticism of the "let's keep treating people differently depending on the genetics they were born with" of the "anti"-descrimination systems in the Anglo-Saxon countries, in my view partly explains why in the decade and a half since I've left The Netherlands I've seen no improvement towards the much more natural gender and sexual-orientation equality of The Netherlands in either Britain or the US, quite the contrary.

I'm sorry but compared with what I've seen working in other countries the system you defend is deeply flawed and preserves the very same ideological architecture of judging people on their gender, sexual-orientation or race rather than actual personal knowledge and track record, as the one that underpins Fascists ideologies. (Which is maybe why the Neoliberals just love it)