[splintercell]

You are implying that because I don't wanna be hired just because the company needed more Indians, that means I am completely against building a better company.

Sorry to break it to you, but you don't build a better company by hiring a minority just for the sake of hiring a minority.

From the article: > Fortune 500 companies with at least three female directors have seen their return on invested capital increase by at least 66%, return on sales increase by 42%, and return on equity increase by at least 53%.

You may not realize this, but this actually shits over the accomplishment of those women.

Imagine if my employer who hugely benefitted from my work for them goes out and says "Hire more Indians, we hired an Indian and our sales went up by 43%", I would walk out of it so fast. Mostly because they need me as an individual(and wouldn't just replace me with another Indian guy) but they don't treat me as an individual.

[aristus]

Using fake outrage at a hypothetical situation as an excuse to maintain the status quo is not a valid response.

A woman, asking companies to look at how they hire and giving specific examples of how their hiring is biased is not shitting over the accomplishments of women.