[arrrg]

Literally no one was arguing to not hire based on qualification. Why is it that, whenever this comes up, everyone starts babbling incomprehensibly about qualifications as if that’s relevant?

The link presents several non-qualifications-based ways of not hiring more women. Another one I think might work (that has already been very successful in increasing the number of women speakers at conferences) is to actively approach women and ask them to apply and talk to them about the job if they say they are not sure whether they are qualified.

The actual selection process between those applications can and probably should still be blind, but the pool of applications will be a better mix.

Yeah, it’s more work, but nobody says this is easy.

[epochwolf]

Because there are places that will loosen qualifications to attract people of a specific race or gender because they can't find enough qualified candidates of that race.

One of the universities I attended had a lower set of requirements and scholarships for those that identified as "black". (The region was 96% white at the time so not really a surprise. Diversity was lacking and the admissions department was desperate.)

[darthgoogle]

Some commentators like Thomas Sowell, who is himself black, believe that "affirmative action" is in fact bigoted because it basically says that a certain group of people are not capable of getting a job or an education unless they are given special help.

[omegaham]

More nastily, it leads to the actually competent people of that group being forced to "prove" themselves.

Additionally, it leads to increased failure rates of people who get into the program / position. Advocates like to think that it's just these racist old meanies in admissions and hiring positions who are dictating unfair requirements, and it's bullshit. Often, requirements, especially very selective ones, are well-founded. Saying, "If they get in, they'll succeed" is a bad idea.

[darthgoogle]

Looks like advocates of identity politics aren't going to stop until they bring back discrimination based on race and not merit:

March 2014

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230380210...

"In 1996, California voters approved Prop. 209 to block public institutions, notably state universities, from discriminating by race. Asian-American freshman enrollment at the University of California's 10-flagship universities has since climbed to 40.2% from 36.6% and to 47% from 39.7% at Berkeley."

Prop. 209's ban on racial preferences has helped Asian Americans by forcing admissions officers to focus on such academic qualifications as high-school grades and test scores.

Liberals argue that race-based admissions are necessary to increase black and Hispanic representation, but minority enrollment has increased since 1996 at the University of California. Hispanics now make up 28.1% of the UC system's freshman class, up from 13.8% in 1996, while black enrollment has ticked up to 4% from 3.8%."

...the U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on Michigan's Prop. 2, which is based on Prop. 209, and liberals hope this will provide grounds for a new lawsuit to overturn California's ban on racial preferences.

...Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris and Governor Jerry Brown have both argued for its repeal."

[arrrg]

The education situation is not symmetric and should not be treated as such.

[opendais]

> Literally no one was arguing to not hire based on qualification. Why is it that, whenever this comes up, everyone starts babbling incomprehensibly about qualifications as if that’s relevant?

Let us say someone does what you and the OP suggest.

We have a pool of 76 men and 24 women [using the original percentages here from the OP].

The end result is a 50/50 [20 men, 20 women] ratio in Company X.

Company Y & Z have a pool of 56 men and 4 women to choose from. Let us say they both put the "normal" level of effort into the process.

Company Y ends up with 28 men and 2 women. Company Z ends up with 28 men and 2 women.

How is pushing down the ratio of women in less progressive companies a good solution?

To me, that seems like a significantly worse situation for the women who end up in the less progressive companies.

The situation with women speakers in conferences is completely different. The ratio of speakers to audience allows you to do that. If you have 10 people in the audience [seems reasonable for a minimum] at a talk, you only need 10% of people in the field to be women to fulfill demand for conference speakers on a 50/50 basis.

[skybrian]

Your implicit assumption is that supply is inelastic. But why should that be the case? Better benefits and working conditions result in more women being attracted to tech. To assume otherwise means that you don't think women respond to incentives. (Admittedly, there will be a lag here since reputations take a while to change.)

Sure, the "less progressive" companies are going to have to compete with that, but I don't see the downside in companies competing to treat their employees better.

[opendais]

> Your implicit assumption is that supply is inelastic. But why should that be the case?

I don't think a large percentage of women completely 100% refuse to enter tech because it isn't using more gender neutral wording and companies don't aim for a 50/50 ratio of applicants and/or hires.

You even admit that it is mostly inelastic and unlikely to change except in a span of years.

Things like pay equality and directly encouraging women to enter Tech [rather than targeting employers hiring practices] makes more sense to me.

> Better benefits and working conditions result in more women being attracted to tech. (Admittedly, there will be a lag here since reputations take a while to change.)

Except, the OP seeks to create those at the expense of women who work in less progressive companies. This leads to a pool of women of whose lives are improved and a separate pool whose lives are negatively impacted. I'm not seeing that as an improvement.

Pay equality and more education would be more productive.

> Sure, the "less progressive" companies are going to have to compete with that, but I don't see the downside in companies competing to treat their employees better.

They actually wouldn't have to even try to compete. They'd simply hire more men because it requires 0 effort on their part. The supply of men isn't going to magically change just because you encourage women. If everything is equal [pay, benefits, etc], they'd be interchangeable regardless of gender.

[nedwin]

Exactly. And if you're actively seeking out more candidates who are women you're likely to get a better gender ratio than companies who aren't as proactive.