[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.