I think what's he saying is that the field of candidates - before Yahoo even gets to make a pick of hires - is skewed in favor of men. So a 100% impartial selection process would just propagate the same gender imbalance.
So in a profession that is generally 80% male, and 20% female, you think that women are so amazing that they will make up 80% of the top leadership in an even playing field?
Oh, I don't know, let's math it. I keep hearing that women need to be twice as good to make it half as far. Sooo, 20% women in STEM x 2 x 2 (twice as good; and, multiply by two to make up for half as far) = ... 80%
But should she be ousted and a new (male) boss installed and it goes back to 80% men, then all would be well and normal? No laptop outrage then.
I'm not suggesting that the change was a statistical fluke. I'm suggesting that maybe in this case some women at Yahoo! were better management candidates than some of the men. In a ratio that's large but not unprecedented. Look at the rations found in other companies - so often its 80% men but that's not seen as unusual or wrong.
Those companies still exist and are profitable, are they not?
Sounds similar to the wage gap argument here: if it exists, where are all the companies hiring cheaper workers capable of doing the same work, exploiting the supposed market inefficiency?
