>To those expressing concern that this proposal represents "reverse sexism" or is anti-meritocratic:
Nobody is arguing that this is "reverse sexism", merely sexism. If you don't think disadvantaging men in particular is sexism, then I don't think it's possible for us to have meaningful discourse on this if we can't even agree on what words mean.
>"Pushing women into positions of influence" can also be interpreted as identifying high-performers capable of filling senior roles and then helping them get there.
He specifically used the phrasing "It may take proactive behavior, like choosing a women over a man when growing your team". That is not consistent with your interpretation - yours is that he is advocating for identifying people who are fit for management roles, who happen to be women, and then using their resources to make it easier for them to get there. Instead, his phrasing quite unambiguously advocates selecting women over men when hiring. I would love to hear your argument for why this is both not sexist and also valuable to society at large.
>This does mean giving them an unfair advantage, but only in the sense that life is unfair in general. Ultimately they are the most capable individuals for the roles they assume, and lifting them to that level pays dividends for our entire industry.
So, unfairly discriminating against people makes them "the most capable individuals for the roles they assume"?
>If you believe in both bolstering the meritocracy and furthering gender equality (as I do), this should be your reaction. Positioning a meritocratic ideal as in opposition to equal representation is just veiled misogyny.
As I have said in innumerable other comments, that equal representation is even desirable, much less possible, rests on the assumption that all demographics have equal interest and potential. This has not been proven, and to advocate intentionally disadvantaging people based on their sex when you don't even know if the group to whose benefit this is all for even wants to be here I find naive at best and bigoted at worst.
I'll just cut to the only relevant question in your reply:
> So, unfairly discriminating against people makes them "the most capable individuals for the roles they assume"?
Yes, it does. If you find a woman with ambition and potential, then train and mentor her to succeed, you'll create in that nurturing the manager you need.
Choosing a high-potential candidate based on gender is no more "wrong" than choosing someone for their school affiliation, their shared hobbies or how they "remind one of themselves at that age"; all of which are common, and all of which privilege the status quo (men).
Nobody is arguing that this is "reverse sexism", merely sexism. If you don't think disadvantaging men in particular is sexism, then I don't think it's possible for us to have meaningful discourse on this if we can't even agree on what words mean.
>"Pushing women into positions of influence" can also be interpreted as identifying high-performers capable of filling senior roles and then helping them get there.
He specifically used the phrasing "It may take proactive behavior, like choosing a women over a man when growing your team". That is not consistent with your interpretation - yours is that he is advocating for identifying people who are fit for management roles, who happen to be women, and then using their resources to make it easier for them to get there. Instead, his phrasing quite unambiguously advocates selecting women over men when hiring. I would love to hear your argument for why this is both not sexist and also valuable to society at large.
>This does mean giving them an unfair advantage, but only in the sense that life is unfair in general. Ultimately they are the most capable individuals for the roles they assume, and lifting them to that level pays dividends for our entire industry.
So, unfairly discriminating against people makes them "the most capable individuals for the roles they assume"?
>If you believe in both bolstering the meritocracy and furthering gender equality (as I do), this should be your reaction. Positioning a meritocratic ideal as in opposition to equal representation is just veiled misogyny.
As I have said in innumerable other comments, that equal representation is even desirable, much less possible, rests on the assumption that all demographics have equal interest and potential. This has not been proven, and to advocate intentionally disadvantaging people based on their sex when you don't even know if the group to whose benefit this is all for even wants to be here I find naive at best and bigoted at worst.