> Your assertion that hiring more women will lower standards is premised on a belief that men are inherently better. Isn't that embarrassingly obvious to deduce from what you say?
Not at all. Consider:
- You have a pool of 100 men to choose from
- You have a pool of 10 women to choose from.
- You need to hire 20 people.
So, you choose the top 10% of the men and 100% of the women in order to achieve gender parity.
There is no premise that men are inherently better, only that the talent pool is so much larger that you can more easily distill high quality candidates.
>There is no premise that men are inherently better...
Well, you explicitly contrived a premise that suggests women are excluded from hiring for some other reason. Why are you only choosing from 10 women? And did you not consider the point about the benefits of diversity not needing to manifest in every individual?
Not at all. Consider:
- You have a pool of 100 men to choose from
- You have a pool of 10 women to choose from.
- You need to hire 20 people.
So, you choose the top 10% of the men and 100% of the women in order to achieve gender parity.
There is no premise that men are inherently better, only that the talent pool is so much larger that you can more easily distill high quality candidates.