My doubts about gender quotas

I’ve heard a few good arguments lately for imposing gender quotas when selecting speakers for tech conferences. But since the phrase “imposing quotas” seems to bring many people out in a rash, let’s call it “adopting selection processes that lead to greater diversity” or “aiming for a more representative mixture of speakers”.

The ideal not-a-quota most commonly bandied about is 80/20 male/female, because that roughly reflects the gender balance in the industry. But I’ve heard some very plausible-sounding arguments against this not-a-quota system, and I’d like to add my own.

Yes, maybe 80% of the industry are men, so it seems fair to ensure that 80% of speakers are male. But how can we be sure of getting the very best speakers if we’re imposing this restrictive rule? How would a male panellist feel, knowing that he was only there because of his gender? What would we do if we could only find six decent male speakers for a ten-person panel? The risk is that some of the men selected would be sub-par, chosen over more qualified women purely because of their gender. Wouldn’t it actually damage a man’s confidence to be on a panel and know he’s only there to help make up a quota?

And what about people who don’t identify as male or female? How do they fit into this quota system? (I know I’ve never shown any sign of caring about non-binary gender in the past, but now I suddenly do, OK?)

OK, so now you’re telling me it’s not a quota. It’s just a guide, something to think about and help me improve my selection processes. But blindly imposing this not-a-quota is to ignore the realities of the tech industry. Do you have any idea how many men in tech are in junior roles? How many of them are really poor speakers? How many of them actually have nothing interesting to say? And you’re telling me that every time I organise a conference, men deserve 80% of the attention just because they’re male and overrepresented in the industry? Isn’t it time they started actually working to merit that attention, instead of expecting positive discrimination to ease their path through life?

The thing is, perhaps there just aren’t enough men who are good enough to merit being on my conference panel. Science says that men tend to use only the left half of their brains – or was it the right half? Anyway, this means that they’re poor at visuals, which means they can’t design eye-catching slides. Or maybe it means they’re poor at verbal stuff, which means they can’t give good talks. I can’t remember, to be honest, but I definitely remember the bit about how they only think with one half of their brain. You can literally remove half a man’s head and he won’t even notice until it’s time to buy a new hat. You might not like it, gents, but you can’t argue with hard science.

Anecdotal evidence backs up the science: if you ask a man for suggestions, he’ll start “brainstorming on the spot” instead of taking the time to come up with a coherent proposal.

Men and women are just wired differently. They make different choices in life. What happens if, in good faith, I ask a man to speak at my conference, and he can’t make it? Sure, he’ll give some plausible-sounding excuse like “childcare” or “working on the International Space Station” or “You’ve got the wrong Russell Davies, please don’t call again”. But I have a conference to run here. Do you really expect me to go and search for ANOTHER man to fill the speaker slot after the first one I ask lets me down?

An 80/20 quota system really is political correctness gone mad. The only reason I could see for giving men this kind of special treatment would be if we lived in some kind of topsy-turvy world where this special treatment was actually fairer than whatever system was already in place. Until that dreadful day arrives, let the status quo continue!