> Sidenote, I appreciate your viewpoints to this complex subject and that we're able to discuss it calmly. These things can boil out of control even if you try to be as gentle as possible.
Likewise.
> That's a fair example. Today? Likely not. The 1st generation however? I imagine plenty of women/etc felt resentment towards men for being unfairly chosen in the market.
I'd imagine that's true too - however I can't quite understand why we'd know this, and then hold onto the same resentment if the tables are turned more fair now (not even that I'm arguing for it to be anywhere near as explicit as that was, we're talking about tipping factors and increments, not outright discrimination against a group).
> I just mean that, the moment we stop choosing based on criteria that matter to the subject (skill/talent/etc), and instead choose on criteria that matter to a 3rd party subject (skin color/etc)
Again, the argument isn't that we're selecting them based on that 3rd party characteristic though, but using that as a lens to the demonstrated skill/talent. To choose another characteristic - someone who went to an inner city school in a deprived neighbourhood getting a B+ vs someone who went to a private school getting an A-. The former far outperformed their relative expectation, and being within the same ballpark as the latter, would arguably make a better hire. But if we reserved it strictly to looking at "who comes out on top", then the latter could be the only rational choice, even if (given their position) they should have gotten an A+.
> inherently be hiring less qualified individuals
We can argue around this point, but I think it's important to draw it out: hiring someone isn't an absolute. "Qualified" isn't a definitive bar, but a spectrum that can be interpreted in different ways (at least for the vast majority of roles).
> shoehorning more women into X field is really an effective approach
Again, can we move away from implying this is some kind of forcing? We're not dragging underrepresented groups into these roles, but giving them organic opportunities.
I honestly don't buy into the argument around "gender specific" roles - there are enough women who are interested in them already to show that isn't the case. We're literally trying to shift societal expectations - this can't be done in one generation, which is why I respectfully discount an anecdote on that timeframe for this.
We have several hundred years of society deeming that certain roles are for men, and some are for women, and then... men go into male roles and women into female roles. Doesn't mean anything other than we've configured a system and it's behaving as expected, and there's enough exceptions to prove that those societal expectations are worthless, and if they were no longer there, there's the potential for us to be in a much different place (with more, much needed, talent).
> So I think we'd need to be very sure that we're acknowledging the costs now and if they're worth a perceived gain in the future.
I would again like to draw out my point that this isn't about gifting an unsuitable applicant a job over someone who is suitable. There might be costs, but there are also costs to perpetuating the notion that there are some jobs some people aren't supposed to be doing (both explicitly, and implicitly through having no role models doing them).
My closing statement is therefore (based on my point above) - contextual recruitment that gives weight to the performance of underrepresented groups in technology (whilst still ensuring they're technically capable) is a net positive for the company, and the longer term recruitment pipeline.