Re: "Nothing to stop them"
> There is usually something stopping them. Assumptions, biases, etc.
That is, in itself, a massive assumption. Biology skews various attributes, both physical and mental. That's why certain magazines at the supermarket checkout are rarely read by men and many magazines in newsagents are rarely read by women. Men and women have different preferences.
>That's why it's called equal opportunity.
"Equal opportunity" isn't what DIE programs promote. DIE programs promote equal outcomes.
If she was pushing "diversity" she wasn't pushing "excellence" because excellence doesn't care about diversity.
I doubt any of the problems SAP needs to solve are solved by particular genitals, skin colour or sexual preferences, so there is no reason include those attributes in any metrics. Good on SAP for squashing irrelevancy.
SAP is an intellectual property company. High IQ is how they solve problems and high IQ skews towards men at the top end of the spectrum. Engineering seems to attract more men than women lower down the spectrum too. The fact that women do dominate in some industries which used to be male-dominated (such as education) implies that where there is a preference, that shows up in the results, rather than the status quo being some dystopian misogynistic fantasy.
Do we need to point out that women typically take time off to manage a family and therefore tend to drop out of the "top corporate performers" contention? Do I need to explicitly say that children are far more important work than merely getting cash?
Calling out bias rather than preference or competence seems to demand some evidence before being accepted.
