[crispyambulance]

You're assuming that it is even possible to objectively determine one's suitability for any given job. It is not and never has been.

Many, many jobs are filled simply by virtue of the candidate's professional contacts, half-baked interview processes, and gut-instinct. Given this, it won't hurt to make an effort to hire more women and minorities in roles where they've been underrepresented.

[leereeves]

If it's impossible to determine a candidate's suitability for any given job, how can the employer claim to be choosing the best people for the job?

Under your interpretation, they're still lying.

[crispyambulance]

It is not objectively possible.

You can't _really_ tell, in advance, if one candidate or another is better suited. Sure, a "D" student who failed at the white-board is probably not a good choice compared to an "A" student who aced the whiteboard... usually.

But what we're talking about here, at worst, is relatively minor differences in a female vs male candidate, where the underrepresented gender gets a "boost." In other hiring scenarios, the candidate's professional contacts or school pedigree or family connections may give a similar (or even greater) boost.

[ameister14]

It is possible to objectively determine one's suitability for some jobs, though possibly not all jobs.

[raisinbread1234]

All play by the same same rules...fair or unfair....women should learn how to compete and not cry sexism.